When did time begin?

Okay I can see some of you have a very valid point here. Time is simply a product that began with the universe. Stephen has actually addressed this same point in his book and I will display it here.

Quote:

---

Quoted directly from The Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking

Time and space are defined by measurements within the universe, such as the number of vibrations of a quartz crystal in a clock or the length of a ruler.

---

detector, SarinMage, Hot_ice, lord_darkside_x, and Dr Toker have a valid point. What if time IS simply somthing human thought has made up to define the distance between two objects.

Okay the question is this.

Flibberdy brought up the two planes experiment that was conducted. Two different times were recorded.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Flibberdy on 03-30-2002 at 04:27 PM

Now a few theorists predicted that time and space intermingled at some points, which led Einstein to show how time slows down with speed (the experiments with the Atomic Clocks in the aeroplanes).

---

So now... How do we decide which time frame to use? (let that sink in really quick)

Quote:

---

Quote continued from The Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking

It is quite conceivable that time defined in this way, within the universe, should have a minimum or maximum value--in other words, a beginning or an end. It would make no sense to ask what happened before the beginning or after the end, because such times would not be defined.

It was clearly important to decide whether the mathematical model of general relativity predicted that the universe, and time itself, should have a beginning or end.

---

So... What do you guys think. This brings me back to the beggining.. Did time exist before the big bang? :)

xmaddness

P.S. MsMittens.... I'm still looking for that mag.. lol

I'll vote that time did not exist before the beginning.

I'll vote that time existed before and after the now defunct "Big Bang"(see the March issue of Scientific American...can't remember the title). But it still remains irrelevant, due to the lack of observers...'time' at least how mortal beings see it, is framed and counted...but in essence, I think, is that the question of 'the beginning' and the 'beginning of time' are codependant, since mortal beings are pondering it. Their only relevance resides in our own perception, and is thusly fitted to our own frame...

Ouroboros

edit...it's the march issue of SciAm, page 60...called "the Cosmic Reality Check"...also an article in there about an ISOS(Internet-scale Operating System) that doesn't fit into this conversation, but is interesting nonetheless...

O

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ouroboros
I'll vote that time existed before and after the now defunct "Big Bang"(see the March issue of Scientific American...can't remember the title). But it still remains irrelevant, due to the lack of observers...'time' at least how mortal beings see it, is framed and counted...but in essence, I think, is that the question of 'the beginning' and the 'beginning of time' are codependant, since mortal beings are pondering it. Their only relevance resides in our own perception, and is thusly fitted to our own frame...

---

Afaik, time is the fourth dimension... You can't have the first three dimensions without the fourth, you can't have the fourth without the first three. The lack of observers is irrelevant (it's like saying "that three around the corner doesn't exist because no-one's looking at it at the moment").

Time is not fitted to our own frame... the way we experience time is, but that doesn't say a thing about the concept of time itself....

I'll vote that their is no beginning...

lack of observers is essential. If somthing cannot conseve time, then things are jsut happening. Time isent an object, its a refrence. Time is just something we use for ourselves as a refrence, to help us understand whats going on around us. it doesent have any type of energy. it just is. Conceptually it does exist, but, it in all actuality, its jsut a concept, not an actual "thing" that exists.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SarinMage
Time isent an object, its a refrence.

---

The way we experience time is a reference, time itself is not just a reference. By saying otherwise, you say that time didn't start untill humans came to this world ( time would start with Adam and Eve - or time would start with the first conscious humans then - kinda weird if you ask me...). You can't have space (the first three dimensions) without time (the fourth dimension).
'If something cannot conceive time, things are just happening'? Things don't happen if there's no time, whether there's an observer or not... Time happens all the time, whether there's an observer or not...

time is our way of measuring length of existence. maybe im going about this in the wrong way.... perhaps Time has too broad of a meaning

i wouldent call time the 4th dimension, 4 deminsion is something a bit more complex i believe

I'll go with Neg on this one. Logical.

If a tree in the forest falls... and nobody is there to see it fall... did it actually fall? Of course it did. Just because no one was there to observe it doesn't mean it doesn't exsist.

gah....... im saying that the word TIME as i use it, means a refrence of points in existence. i dont think that the 4th dimension is time, theres more to it then that, jsut saying its time seems too simple to me.