Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking

[K9Buck]

The universe is infinite.

In the physical realm.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

There will be much discussion of this.

Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking

"The boundary condition of the universe ... is that it has no boundary," Hawking tells the National Geographic's Star Talk show this weekend.

In other words, there is no time before time began as time was always there.

Time is a condition of a current event. Without man time is constant list of events, on just this third rack from the Sun. In space it is the same. Example: Earth tilts and seasons change. Moon moves tides change. So the reversing time can not be done. The same goes for gravity that M=G >..>. This is why Stonehenge was created.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are laboring under the handicap that us humans already have a firm grasp on that which is "knowable.

Not at all, and I have no idea where you get this from. Maybe you can connect those dots for me. Of course we cannot fathom "infinity". We cannot even fathom "one billion". So your definition of infinity as "a number too large for us too grasp, but not actually infinite" really misses the mark.

Infinity does not mean, "I do not understand". Infinity is a well-defined mathematical concept, and we understand it well.

Yes, our physical laws break down at a singularity. No, we dont understand what happens within a singularity...heck, we dont even understand what that question means, as our math tells us it has no meaning!

 

[IsaacNewton]

If the Big Bang created the Universe from nothing, there was NOTHING.

Hawking is very explicitly statinng that the big bang did not create the universe "from nothing".

I admit I didn't read the article yet. Hawking though would now have to explain if there is something outside of our universe. It is expanding from an infinitesimal point and it is not infinite. What does he propose at the outer boundary, something on the other side that the universe is expanding into? Up until now it has been 'nothing is outside the boundary, there is no outside the boundary'.

It seems like a simple thing he is saying but it isn't, he's nearly throwing out all previous cosmological theory in one go. I think Hawking on the level of Einstein and have immense respect for him but this one will have to have plenty of math to back it up. Let's see what other prominent physicists have to say. At this point I do not agree with his assertion. Let's see what shakes out.

 

[Windparadox]

Not at all, and I have no idea where you get this from. Maybe you can connect those dots for me. Of course we cannot fathom "infinity". We cannot even fathom "one billion". So your definition of infinity as "a number too large for us too grasp, but not actually infinite" really misses the mark.Infinity does not mean, "I do not understand". Infinity is a well-defined mathematical concept, and we understand it well.Yes, our physical laws break down at a singularity. No, we dont understand what happens within a singularity...heck, we dont even understand what that question means, as our math tells us it has no meaning!

`
Fair enough. Nonetheless, you admit it yourself, "infinity" is a "concept." It's a way for us to understand something, or to dismiss that which we can't. Numbers and symbols are human inventions to aid us in understanding. We quantify our beliefs based on these numbers and symbols. That's perfectly acceptable if one is thinking inside the box. The beauty and symmetry of numbers cannot be denied, especially when they "balance the equation", so to speak.

Our reality is strangely enough, a struggle of opposites. Chaos and order, for example. String theory gives cosmologists the opportunity to go outside the box but it is limited by our own imagination. Since we can't image a number so great it is impossible for humans to comprehend, we invented "infinity" to explain it. We exist by a cosmic fluke then. We are merely one particle more than anti-matter, at least according to the Big Bang. I suppose I ultimately believe in an Alpha and Omega....a beginning and an end.
`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If the Big Bang created the Universe from nothing, there was NOTHING.

Hawking is very explicitly statinng that the big bang did not create the universe "from nothing".

I admit I didn't read the article yet. Hawking though would now have to explain if there is something outside of our universe. It is expanding from an infinitesimal point and it is not infinite. What does he propose at the outer boundary, something on the other side that the universe is expanding into? Up until now it has been 'nothing is outside the boundary, there is no outside the boundary'.

It seems like a simple thing he is saying but it isn't, he's nearly throwing out all previous cosmological theory in one go. I think Hawking on the level of Einstein and have immense respect for him but this one will have to have plenty of math to back it up. Let's see what other prominent physicists have to say. At this point I do not agree with his assertion. Let's see what shakes out.

I thin you overestimate the profundity of what he is saying. He is saying that there is no beginning, in that you could never travel back in time and reach a "boundary". Scientists have long accepted this as the case, if it is assumed that a singularity (or an equivalent state) existed at the "beginning".

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Absurd. The universe had a beginning and that's when the clock started ticking. Time is, after all, a characteristic of the physical realm.

What was before the Universe and time was there.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"infinity" is a "concept." It's a way for us to understand something, or to dismiss that which we can't.

It is neither of those things, really. It is really just a label. One would be incorrect to say it merely represents something "very large".

Since we can't image a number so great it is impossible for humans to comprehend, we invented "infinity" to explain it.

Trust me, this is really not correct. We don't have to "imagine" a number to write it down.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Absurd. The universe had a beginning and that's when the clock started ticking. Time is, after all, a characteristic of the physical realm.

What was before the Universe and time was there.

According to Hawking, that is a nonsensical thing for us to ask.

 

[MPS777]

If the Big Bang created the Universe from nothing, there was NOTHING.

Hawking is very explicitly statinng that the big bang did not create the universe "from nothing".

I admit I didn't read the article yet. Hawking though would now have to explain if there is something outside of our universe. It is expanding from an infinitesimal point and it is not infinite. What does he propose at the outer boundary, something on the other side that the universe is expanding into? Up until now it has been 'nothing is outside the boundary, there is no outside the boundary'.

It seems like a simple thing he is saying but it isn't, he's nearly throwing out all previous cosmological theory in one go. I think Hawking on the level of Einstein and have immense respect for him but this one will have to have plenty of math to back it up. Let's see what other prominent physicists have to say. At this point I do not agree with his assertion. Let's see what shakes out.

One theory is that beyond our known universe is a larger multiverse, with other universes. Between universes is a theoretical “inflation field”; and it is all mathematically consistent with modern “big bang” inflationary cosmology. The following article has a lot of good info on it, though the title is a bit too absolutist for me (since there are indeed detractors to the theory):
The Multiverse Is Inevitable, And We're Living In It
but the gist of it is that a huge amount of energy would be bound up in that “inflation field”, and a quantum fluctuation can cause it to collapse in any given location. This collapse would convert the potential energy in the field into the space/matter/energy that we know. Our big bang then was an energy conversion event. The crazy part to me is that they predict a kind of “loophole” in the laws of gravity that allow the inflation field to eternally grow between the “pocket universes” so that new universes would emerge in the regions between.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If the Big Bang created the Universe from nothing, there was NOTHING.

Hawking is very explicitly statinng that the big bang did not create the universe "from nothing".

I admit I didn't read the article yet. Hawking though would now have to explain if there is something outside of our universe. It is expanding from an infinitesimal point and it is not infinite. What does he propose at the outer boundary, something on the other side that the universe is expanding into? Up until now it has been 'nothing is outside the boundary, there is no outside the boundary'.

It seems like a simple thing he is saying but it isn't, he's nearly throwing out all previous cosmological theory in one go. I think Hawking on the level of Einstein and have immense respect for him but this one will have to have plenty of math to back it up. Let's see what other prominent physicists have to say. At this point I do not agree with his assertion. Let's see what shakes out.

One theory is that beyond our known universe is a larger multiverse, with other universes. Between universes is a theoretical “inflation field”; and it is all mathematically consistent with modern “big bang” inflationary cosmology. The following article has a lot of good info on it, though the title is a bit too absolutist for me (since there are indeed detractors to the theory):
The Multiverse Is Inevitable, And We're Living In It
but the gist of it is that a huge amount of energy would be bound up in that “inflation field”, and a quantum fluctuation can cause it to collapse in any given location. This collapse would convert the potential energy in the field into the space/matter/energy that we know. Our big bang then was an energy conversion event. The crazy part to me is that they predict a kind of “loophole” in the laws of gravity that allow the inflation field to eternally grow between the “pocket universes” so that new universes would emerge in the regions between.

Yes, love it. True or not true, such a model resolves all manner of problems, like the one addressed by Hawking.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Hawking though would now have to explain if there is something outside of our universe.

Hawking would not have to explain this. While the answer to this question may ultimately be important to understanding our own universe more fully, the things he is saying do not rule out a multiverse; they do not necessitate it, either.

 

[sealybobo]

There will be much discussion of this.

Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking

"The boundary condition of the universe ... is that it has no boundary," Hawking tells the National Geographic's Star Talk show this weekend.

In other words, there is no time before time began as time was always there.

I’ve always know that just like BC and AD we have before the Big Bang and after. Easy

 

[IsaacNewton]

I am aware of the multiverse theory. I personally think super or ultra massive black holes may be involved but we don't know.

And as I said we'll have to see what other top physicists say about this.

 

[sealybobo]

I am aware of the multiverse theory. I personally think super or ultra massive black holes may be involved but we don't know.

And as I said we'll have to see what other top physicists say about this.

If you understand the Big Bang happened around 14 billion years ago how hard is it to understand there was a time 29 billion years ago. That time did exist. This universe may not have existed but time as we know it is eternal.

 

[IsaacNewton]

I am aware of the multiverse theory. I personally think super or ultra massive black holes may be involved but we don't know.

And as I said we'll have to see what other top physicists say about this.

If you understand the Big Bang happened around 14 billion years ago how hard is it to understand there was a time 29 billion years ago. That time did exist. This universe may not have existed but time as we know it is eternal.

The Big Bang theory is that everything including time came into existence at that moment. Before that there was nothing.

 

[sealybobo]

I am aware of the multiverse theory. I personally think super or ultra massive black holes may be involved but we don't know.

And as I said we'll have to see what other top physicists say about this.

If you understand the Big Bang happened around 14 billion years ago how hard is it to understand there was a time 29 billion years ago. That time did exist. This universe may not have existed but time as we know it is eternal.

The Big Bang theory is that everything including time came into existence at that moment. Before that there was nothing.

And I’ve seen shows where they have evidence or reasons that may challenge that.

As far as we are concerned sure, time started at the Big Bang. Before that is unknowable.

But common sense says there was a time 100 billion years ago.

And who knows what will happen when the last star and last black hole dies in our universe. Maybe a collapse will happen and the process will happen all over again. Again this is another unknowable. But still time will exist even if this universe doesn’t.

Time is eternal. Say it. Believe it. Never born and never dies. If it makes it easier for you call it god

 

[IsaacNewton]

I am aware of the multiverse theory. I personally think super or ultra massive black holes may be involved but we don't know.

And as I said we'll have to see what other top physicists say about this.

If you understand the Big Bang happened around 14 billion years ago how hard is it to understand there was a time 29 billion years ago. That time did exist. This universe may not have existed but time as we know it is eternal.

The Big Bang theory is that everything including time came into existence at that moment. Before that there was nothing.

And I’ve seen shows where they have evidence or reasons that may challenge that.

As far as we are concerned sure, time started at the Big Bang. Before that is unknowable.

But common sense says there was a time 100 billion years ago.

And who knows what will happen when the last star and last black hole dies in our universe. Maybe a collapse will happen and the process will happen all over again. Again this is another unknowable. But still time will exist even if this universe doesn’t.

Time is eternal. Say it. Believe it. Never born and never dies. If it makes it easier for you call it god

It doesn't hold with theory. I'm not sure why you'd be on 'time's' side or not. I think the problem lies with a misunderstanding of what 'nothing' is in this setting. Nothing doesn't mean empty space, it doesn't mean some void where things are waiting to happen. It means the absolute value of nothing. You don't have to try to imagine it because there is nothing to imagine.

 

[sealybobo]

I am aware of the multiverse theory. I personally think super or ultra massive black holes may be involved but we don't know.

And as I said we'll have to see what other top physicists say about this.

If you understand the Big Bang happened around 14 billion years ago how hard is it to understand there was a time 29 billion years ago. That time did exist. This universe may not have existed but time as we know it is eternal.

The Big Bang theory is that everything including time came into existence at that moment. Before that there was nothing.

And I’ve seen shows where they have evidence or reasons that may challenge that.

As far as we are concerned sure, time started at the Big Bang. Before that is unknowable.

But common sense says there was a time 100 billion years ago.

And who knows what will happen when the last star and last black hole dies in our universe. Maybe a collapse will happen and the process will happen all over again. Again this is another unknowable. But still time will exist even if this universe doesn’t.

Time is eternal. Say it. Believe it. Never born and never dies. If it makes it easier for you call it god

It doesn't hold with theory. I'm not sure why you'd be on 'time's' side or not. I think the problem lies with a misunderstanding of what 'nothing' is in this setting. Nothing doesn't mean empty space, it doesn't mean some void where things are waiting to happen. It means the absolute value of nothing. You don't have to try to imagine it because there is nothing to imagine.

Well I don’t have faith in the theory. Or I don’t have to accept it entirely for example if multiverses exist and I tend to be open to the idea our universe Is just one of many.

So when our universe dies it’s not the first or last

 

[ScienceRocks]

We have so much to learn. I don't think killing off all science funding and accepting a 2,000 year old religion is going to help us find the answers to these questions either.