On 20-7-2010 23:41, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I am talking about both time and space. You know, that 4 dimensional 
>> thing.
> 
> I think the point that Warp is making (and I agree with) is that space 
> and time is only a four-dimensional thing in our current universe with 
> our current physical laws. If those laws didn't hold before the big 
> bang, there's no reason to believe there couldn't be space without time 
> or time without space or that the speed of light has anything to do with 
> anything in whatever universe was around before the big bang.

yikes, my mind boggles again as it does everytime when someone uses the 
phrase "before the big bang". I know it is counter intuitive* for many 
people that time does not run infinitely backwards**, (and if I didn't 
know it, this thread would have been proof) but that phrase does not 
make sense. Really, it doesn't. I can not remember if I had the same 
problem when I first encountered it, that is quite possible, in which 
case it is a classical example of "trivial" ;)

>> below 0K and time before the Big Bang are both completely nonsensical 
>> and for exactly the same reason. 
> 
> So you know about the physics of the universe before the big bang, 
> enough to know that there couldn't be time of any sort before the big 
> bang? How about light? How about gravity? Are those incompatible with 
> "before the big bang"?

There is no before, because there was neither space nor time for 
anything to happen.

>> Sigh, again: Big Bang theory says that the universe started with the 
>> big Bang, so time did. End of story.
> 
> The theory says *this* universe started with the big bang. But that 
> doesn't mean there was neither time nor space before the big bang, 
> right?  

no it does.

> Or has science actually changed "we can't tell what happened 
> before the big bang" to "we have actual scientific evidence that there 
> was no existence of anything before the big bang"?

see above. I am sorry, but I can not explain it any other way. Perhaps 
somebody else may help.


*) in modern physics things being counter intuitive seems to be quite 
common.

**) my own model to cope with this concept is assuming that time is not 
linear but slows down if you come closer to the origin. That way there 
would be an infinite time going backwards, yet that would asymptotically 
approach t=0 in the now fashionable linear time. But that is just for me 
to cope with it, not an accepted theory. BTW There is also a problem 
that you don't have anything to measure time with if you get too close 
to the BB. If that is only a practical problem or something more 
fundamental I don't know either.

Post a reply to this message