BIG BANG: 1second again?

Question

I know that at the "start"of the BIG BANG no cesiumatom existed.So "time"could not be expressed,certainly not by an atomoscillation.The reason of my question was that often I read:"one second (or one minute,hour,etc)after the beginning of the BIG BANG..." What is the meaning of such a statement?And when the first cesiumatom was born I suppose that "matter"was still extreme dense.I presume that 1 oscillation of that atom "then"would have been many oscillations of an cesiumatom in "ANOTHER WORLD"where there also have been a"BIG BANG" but very very earlier". RESUMED:"1 second,minute,etc"When I read such a statement in a "scientific"article I become puzzled.Please answer only seriously.(Jokes I know enough)

Answer 1

I think you are rightly confused by scientists' references to "1 second, 1 minute, etc." after the Big Bang. However, I will agree with others here that time does not depend on the Cesium atom. That is just how we "currently" measure time, since before we knew about cesium atoms, we used other means (like an hourglass, a sun-dial, or a mechnical spring-wound clock, remember those?) So when the Big Bang happened, we don't need to have cesium atoms around to get time flowing.

What is confusing about these scientists' references to the flowing of time after the Big Bang is "to which referencial frame is the flow of time being discussed"? Since we know from Einstein's Special Relativity that time is not absolute, but relative according to the referencial frames (these are reference frame with different velocities).

Also, given that the Universe was just born from the Big Bang, and that it is superhot and superdense, then it is suffice to say that spacetime at this point is superwarped very much like a singularity of a blackhole. Then I am not sure that time is even a meaningful quantity to discuss in terms of our understanding of "1 second or 1 minute, etc".

Answer 2

There are other, equivalent ways of measuring time. You don't need Cesium to measure it, that is simply our current standard of calibration.

"Time is defined so that motion looks simple"-Archibald Wheeler

In other words, we use whatever time that is needed to make our equations simpler to use. In the case of the Big Bang, the dominant theory is General Relativity so we use the concepts from that area. When looking at the various particles that existed then, we use Quentum Mechanical expressions for time. The good thing is that the two seem to be consistent.

As for those Cesium atoms: no, they would not have been oscillating at a different rate after they were first made.

Answer 3

You are quite right that there wouldn't be time as we define it within a second of the big bang.

However there was no big bang. It is a creationist myth that has been disproved repeatedly. But those that believe in it keep adding on extra weird stuff to try and make it work - like inflation, dark energy, dark matter, etc. See link below for some of them.

Answer 4

Certainly a question of deep inquiry seeking which preceeded what or to put it in another form ' what is at stake and what is in the make'. To begin with we have to accept the existence of something that is capable of 'creating ', 'perceiving' and 'reckoning'. What is it? As far as we human beings as created in /by nature are concerned we always stake our minds first either confidently or expectantly to perform the above actions in a required manner. To create something we need a plan and programme,to perceive something we need an instrument to receive external stimuli and present it undistorted for perception and for reckoning or measuring we require a stable firmament or a fixed reference that never changes but making use of it allows all activities to be performed in a self defined manner. Obviously all the above activities are referred to mind before being implemented into or received back as phenomenal worldly events. Proceeding in this manner we try to ascend the ladder step by step in the same way we have descended into this world.The asker's innate urge may also point to the transition between material physics and meta-physics. The clarification starts with 'I know', the "start of Big Bang", the creation of element Cesium and the reckoning of Time relating to cesium atomic activity. What is definitively acknowledged is the start of the big bang but what defies logical consequence is the creation of cesium and measurement of time in an ambiguous manner. Comparing this to the above explanation we infer that wheather we know something definitively or surmise ambiguously we always take and stake our minds for granted.Without delving deep into origins of creation of our minds we implicitly make use of them, accept many things and comfortably define in a relativistic and logical manner all phenomenal observations relating to our rational sensory organs and perceptions.It appears as though that the descent from subtle origins to the gross world of matter is done on algebraic steps of time related evolution while the ascent is mostly transcendental. Therefore unless we resolve the dichotomy of our mind's workings which accepts many matters naturally and at the same time tries explore causes questioningly the discrepancy between the two always pesists and keeps the universe spinning around it.

Answer 5

Time doesn't rely on the oscillation of caesium atom, it is just the way we define a second or whatever, under present conditions. Time is independent of matter, the way we define it is not.

Answer 6

The reference is to time and not the method of defining it.
Therefore whilst the modern method of defining time accurately uses caesium(cesium) it has nothing to do with the use of the definition of 'second' in the context in which the word is used.

Answer 7

Time and space are the 4th dimension, with or without atom oscillation.

Answer 8

Like someone here said, time doesnt come from the cesium atom. The rate of flow of time is not fixed...

Answer 9

I've never been able to get my head around the idea of everything being in one place and then expanding, but energy in a black hole can't get out hadn't they invented gravity then?