If we agree time is a property of this universe, how can scientist talk about 'the beginning of the universe'?

Question

I am assuming (wrongly perhaps?), that time is a property of the universe, like entropy, inertia and a bunch of others. I also assume time is bent, distorted and turned into a giraffe balloon by other phenomena (such as approaching the speed of light, or being caught in an immense gravity field).

If these are true, how can we talk about the beginning of the universe? As we go back in time the universe approaches a state of infinite energy, or at the very least - a state when an insane amount of energy exists in a very limited space. Wouldn't such a state warp time up so badly that we can no longer talk in terms of it? I.e. if time is erratic then how can we say "5 mins before time was screwed up". I much less understand how scientists can talk about 'before the big bang' (like the theory that one universe implodes, creating the big bang of another). No universe, no time, so no before?

Answer 1

As long as we talk about physics, 'the beginning of the universe' does not make any sense. Any theory about the beginning of the universe is outside science

According to the Big Bang theory (which is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe), physics just can't make any statement refering to any time 'before' the Big Bang. That doesn't mean that the Big Bang is the beginning or the universe; that instead means that the Big Bang would be the beginning (or a limit) of physics

The same happens with the theory of the expansion of the universe and some people talking about 'the boundaries' of the universe: such boundaries not only have not (of course) been reported by they also wouldn't make any sense (as they would imply talking about a 'no-universe' that would be, by definition, outside physics' Universe of Discourse)

I've heard the claim that those terms are used to help people learn complicated theories, but that's a fallacy: what sense does it make saying something that you know is either meaningless or wrong? So it looks like it's just that some scientists talk about theories that are outside science

If you hear someone talking about 'time before the Big Bang' or saying that a universe implodes and creates the Big Bang of another --- well, that may be science fiction, religion, metaphysics, etc. ... but not science

Answer 2

Well, I think you are confusing the measurement of time in intervals and the concept of time as measuring something relatively (before and after). "5 minutes before the Big Bang" is a conceptual metaphor attempting to relate everyday life to a difficult concept. Right now there are two limits to observation of the universe - one is what it is like beyond the expanding outer limits which scientists believe is like everything was at the Big Bang but the limits of the speed of light prevent us from observing and before the beginning when, as you say, everything was compressed into an almost unimaginable ball of something. All information about the time/space before then was destroyed, so it may be that it spontaneously appeared, that it started expanding from the extreme collapse of another universe or that God created it at that moment. Religion requires/offers an explanation for everything while science tries for explanations but admits there is not enough information to explain some things. There is, of course, the possibility that God created the Universe in 4004BC and put all the evidence that it occurred earlier in as a joke on scientists (or created it on November 13, 1942 at 2am and put all the memories of history before then in people's minds for the same reason), but that is not observable either.

Answer 3

At the moment as far as I know scientists cannot talk about the beginning of the universe, also know as the big bang, that is currently unknown and yes at the point of singularity there would cease to be time, additionally nothing is known about before the big bang
scientists have worked back in time up to less then a second after the big bang occurred (the wiki big bang page has info on how)

I cannot adequately explain to you time, yes it is distorted by mass, I recommend ignoring the singular term time and researching space time

The answers for this question may help you, or may confuse you:
http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AoMEHq0loQypMDZC5eblarnq4gt.?qid=20061029235316AAmEvZq

Answer 4

Well you pretty much are correct. Time ... more specifically I should say Space-time was indeed created from the big bang. Before the big bang (and I say that loosely) there may have been no time as we know it. Space and time were created from this singularity and that's about all we really know. If there indeed was somthing "before" the big bang then we may never know what it is. Any speculation of expanding and contracting universes and multiple big bang is jsut that speculation.
We have to say "before the big bang" just so that people can get an idea of what we are trying to communicate. Our exixtence and language is built around time, and trying to speak in terms of no time just hasn't been needed yet. So what would you like us to say...... at the point t=0 ?

Answer 5

According to both big bang and 'expanding universe' theory you are correct. There is no time before the moment the universe comes into being. The event is described as T=0 (Zero time)
When scientists try to describe what was happening 'before' the big bang they're not really talking timescales. We simply lack the language to describe it any other way.
As for the distortion factor, both theories agree that the universe came into being- pretty much full size in a very short time (an instant- or a few seconds) after which time is fairly stable. But actually you could consider time as a function of existence- any existence in any universe in any place or dimension. In that case you could apply time-scales in some sense to events 'before' our universe existed, but how you'd measure it is anybody's guess.

Answer 6

Because the constant microwaves proves an explosion of some sort and that the universe is expanding. You never hear a scientist taliking about before the big bang unless they are religious, it's taboo to talk about things that may not be proven in their field. It's more like no space, or nothing which would be the opposite of something or anti-matter. The universe would be the expansion of space itself.

Answer 7

before everything, i do no longer have confidence which you're agnostic. you're spouting arguments from the creationist playbook. Argument from incredulity: "i do no longer comprehend this, as a result a magic guy interior the sky did it." Sorry, that may no longer information of something different than a loss of know-how on the part of the guy making that declare. maximum of your arguments could be refuted by using means of noting that if something did no longer artwork, it does no longer final long sufficient for us to observe it. The universe isn't perfect, the earth isn't perfect, the human physique isn't perfect, and so on. all of them artwork nicely sufficient. No, the assumption of woman and male does not blow my ideas. it somewhat is a superbly sensible evolutionary version. Your "ultimate argument" is predicated on the thought nothingness is the default state and it takes some variety of mind-blowing stress to offer something. there is truthfully no reason to have confidence that. Animals do no longer desire huge brains to proceed to exist. even however, as quickly as a definite inhabitants develops better intelligence, those with greater intelligence have an benefit over those with out it. you're using the wide-unfold theistic mistake of assuming that people signify the top of life and that each and every person different species attempt to grow to be human. this is an entire fake effect of evolution. Why do canines play? they do no longer desire it for survival. Morality isn't according to neurochemistry. it somewhat is according to social getting to understand.

Answer 8

Well, I think you've pretty much answered your own question - and you're absolutely right.

But we can talk about the beginning of time - the nanoseconds after the big bang, because by then time existed so we can plot and chart it, just as we can now.

The difficulties come when we try to talk about the moments before it - time did not exist then, so there was no "before".

Very good question, though.

Answer 9

first we have to agree, but we dont,
time is a seperate entity from universal concepts as it must neccicarily exist outside of universl physics.
that which exists must exist in time weather it be a state of infinate energy or a singularity in motion

Answer 10

You are confusing time with watches. It's a bit like saying beautiful sunsets didn't exist before we invented cameras to record them.