Infinite time?

[charris]

It seems to me possible that there is an infinite time, specifically that of the past. All that would be required is for a previous event or cause (depending on you interpretation of QM).

I mentioned this, and was met with the objection, "If the past was infinite, then it would have taken an infinite amount of time to get here." I personally think this objection is pointless, so maybe if you think this is the case you could expound upon it. If you disagree, then if you could post your reasons as well I would appreciate it.

Also, if you disagree because of other reasons, I would like to hear them.

[Coldfire]

Coldfire, how is it that you have come to the conclusion that time is infinite?

Time is infinite as are numbers able to apply to the measurement.

Without events or objects that could change, there could be no time. Time would be meaningless.

Time IS meaningless. Save for the meaning individuals give it, “time� has no meaning in itself.

If there were proof that there was a period when we were “without events or objects that could change� I would still maintain that time is infinite. It doesn’t matter. Time is not dependent on events or objects; it is the measurement of them and also the measurement of before and after their existence into eternity both directions.

Let’s say hypothetically speaking that there was a period when we were without events or objects that could change, and that this period was before the Big Bang. The Big Bang occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago. So the real argument is: is there a 15 billion years ago? A 100 billion years ago? I say of course there is, just because there were no objects or events, doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a line of measurement that goes that far. This line of measurement is time. Time could be used to measure the length at which the universe were to be, and it would go back infinitely. Use negative numbers if it helps you sleep at night, but numbers can always be applied to the measurement that is time.

Einstein wrote in his book, Relativity, that simultaneity is also relative, i.e., two events that appear simultaneous to an observer in a particular inertial reference frame need not be judged as simultaneous by a second observer in a different inertial frame of reference.

This is because the faster you travel, the slower everything around you appears. You might be able to apply a more precise calculation to events happening and find that they are not simultaneous, but this is a perception issue. A person traveling fast does not change the events and the points at which they appear in time, they perceive them differently and are possibly able to give a better calculation in the measurement of time.

The concept of time depends on the spatial reference frame of the observer. Thus, if relativity is true, if time is infinite then space must also be.

Time is not dependant on being observed. The observer may be the witness to it, and may give it a system of digits to mark lengths of time, but time will go on regardless of there being one to observe or witness it.

[McCulloch]

Whatever else he might say, I must disagree with Coldfire's assessment of time. It is not meaningless. However, time, like space is dependent on a point of reference. Coldfire speaks hypothetically of a period of time when there were no events and misses the whole point. If there were no events, then there was no time. If spacetime came into existence with the big-bang then there was no before the big-bang. Numbers are merely an abstraction we use to model reality. For example, numbers are infinitely divisible. For any two numbers, no matter how close together they are, we can find an infinite set of numbers between them. However, quantum theory posits that reality is not like that. There is a minimum distance, a minimum length of time and a minimum amount of energy (the so-called Planck scale). The abstraction of the number line does indeed go to infinity, but it would be a fallacy to conclude from that that everything that can be modeled on a number line must also be infinite.

My point about relativity and simultaneity is that even the fundamental concept of time, that is events happening at the same time, is relative to one's inertial frame of reference. Thus space and one's movement through space affects whether some other event is in one's future or in one's past. It is not merely a perception issue. Time and space are entangled in a way similar to matter and energy. Physicists call this single single manifold, spacetime. The only conclusion that I draw from this is the one that says that if time if infinite then so must space be infinite. If space is finite, then so is time.

[100%atheist]

Yes, time absolutely is a dimension. But we don't know if spacetime began at the BB or not. Our current laws of physics break down before we get 'there'. What I'm asking is if something like a quantum field could have existed for eternity, thus allowing (at least our) universe(s) to begin. The universe wouldn't be infinite, the quantum field would be.

Hi,

Our space-time indeed began at the Big Bang. You seem to be missing the point that there is no absolute time.

Anyway, since you asked to speculate, if there is another universe, I am not sure how is it possible to synchronize time in both universes so you could say that one universe existed before another one. If the universes are connected (one caused another for example), than of course we can say that one existed before another. But still this would not imply the infinite number of universes and thus infinite time.

Also, I am not sure what you mean by "quantum field would be" infinite. Are you saying the electric field, for instance, exists outside our universe? Good luck with that.

Best,

100%

[charris]

Hi,

Our space-time indeed began at the Big Bang. You seem to be missing the point that there is no absolute time.

Anyway, since you asked to speculate, if there is another universe, I am not sure how is it possible to synchronize time in both universes so you could say that one universe existed before another one. If the universes are connected (one caused another for example), than of course we can say that one existed before another. But still this would not imply the infinite number of universes and thus infinite time.

Also, I am not sure what you mean by "quantum field would be" infinite. Are you saying the electric field, for instance, exists outside our universe? Good luck with that.

Best,

100%

Thank you for your response.
Modern cosmology currently doesn't say when the universe began. We can get to 13.7 billion years ago, but then our current understanding breaks down. If our universe did indeed start with a singularity, then yes that is when time would start. However, most working cosmologists say that isn't what happened, because a singularity ignores quantum mechanics. Hawking and Penrose, when working to create this theory, made this clear. But yes, time is relative. That doesn't mean there hasn't always been time. All that would be required are objects, fields, events, etc.

As for synchronizing the time for two universes, the simple answer is you wouldn't, because you'd be looking at time from inside of one of the universes. Like you said, you wouldn't be able to tell which came first. You would be able to tell which came first, however, if you were using the time from whatever they both came from. (I think it would be quantum fields, but who knows?)

Quantum fields are kind of like electromagnetic fields. Kind of. This is the best and easiest explanation I can give you about what quantum fields are. ('I' being used loosely, of course.)

[realthinker]

It seems to me possible that there is an infinite time, specifically that of the past. All that would be required is for a previous event or cause (depending on you interpretation of QM).

I mentioned this, and was met with the objection, "If the past was infinite, then it would have taken an infinite amount of time to get here." I personally think this objection is pointless, so maybe if you think this is the case you could expound upon it. If you disagree, then if you could post your reasons as well I would appreciate it.

Also, if you disagree because of other reasons, I would like to hear them.

I didn't really answer because I find the question irrelevant. Until we learn to manipulate it meaningfully time is a fact. Once we learn to manipulate it then we have to worry about it's distribution. Is it infinite, an arbitrary parameter of our existence? Or is it finite and as such a resource to be managed or squandered?

[Grumpy]

charris

Modern cosmology currently doesn't say when the universe began.

Yes, it does. Whatever you call the initial moment/place where our Universe began(Big Bang is a pretty good one), there was a first moment in time for our Universe ~13.7 billion years ago. Time, as experienced in this Universe, began at that moment. [url=http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/timeline/]THIS[url] is what modern cosmology tells us.

Coldfire

Coldfire, how is it that you have come to the conclusion that time is infinite?

Time is infinite as are numbers able to apply to the measurement.

There is a difference between answering a question and simply restating the conclusion that the question was asking you to explain. If "infinite" means to you that time had no beginning, then you are wrong. Space time had a beginning.

And time is a dimension just like width, length and depth with one major difference. Other dimensions can be travelled in either direction, there is no fundamental difference, but we can only travel one direction in time(even though the math may say it is not fundamentally different between the directions), toward greater entropy...

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time)]"Entropy is the only quantity in the physical sciences (apart from certain rare interactions in particle physics; see below) that requires a particular direction for time, sometimes called an arrow of time. As one goes "forward" in time, the second law of thermodynamics says, the entropy of an isolated system will increase. Hence, from one perspective, entropy measurement is a way of distinguishing the past from the future. However in thermodynamic systems that are not closed, entropy can decrease with time: many systems, including living systems, reduce local entropy at the expense of an environmental increase, resulting in a net increase in entropy. Examples of such systems and phenomena include the formation of certain crystals, the workings of a refrigerator and living organisms."[url]

Time IS meaningless. Save for the meaning individuals give it, “time� has no meaning in itself.

Even the inanimate rocks of our Earth are different now than they once were, so I see no sense in calling time meaningless or a figment of our imaginations. It is the height of hubris to think time depends on man to conceive and experience it to be a real dimension. Much like Ontological arguments some Creationists use, or "fine tuning" claims that the Universe was created the way it was for the sole purpose of containing themselves, by their own, personal god. There is absolutely no reason to think man has a thing to do with and is of no significance to the Universe.

Grumpy

[100%atheist]

Hi,

Our space-time indeed began at the Big Bang. You seem to be missing the point that there is no absolute time.

Anyway, since you asked to speculate, if there is another universe, I am not sure how is it possible to synchronize time in both universes so you could say that one universe existed before another one. If the universes are connected (one caused another for example), than of course we can say that one existed before another. But still this would not imply the infinite number of universes and thus infinite time.

Also, I am not sure what you mean by "quantum field would be" infinite. Are you saying the electric field, for instance, exists outside our universe? Good luck with that.

Best,

100%

Thank you for your response.
Modern cosmology currently doesn't say when the universe began. We can get to 13.7 billion years ago, but then our current understanding breaks down. If our universe did indeed start with a singularity, then yes that is when time would start. However, most working cosmologists say that isn't what happened, because a singularity ignores quantum mechanics. Hawking and Penrose, when working to create this theory, made this clear. But yes, time is relative. That doesn't mean there hasn't always been time. All that would be required are objects, fields, events, etc.

As for synchronizing the time for two universes, the simple answer is you wouldn't, because you'd be looking at time from inside of one of the universes. Like you said, you wouldn't be able to tell which came first. You would be able to tell which came first, however, if you were using the time from whatever they both came from. (I think it would be quantum fields, but who knows?)

Quantum fields are kind of like electromagnetic fields. Kind of. This is the best and easiest explanation I can give you about what quantum fields are. ('I' being used loosely, of course.)

I agree with what you wrote in this post. I am not an expert in quantum electrodynamics, but whatever mathematical description you use for electromagnetic fields, the propagation speed of the field is finite. So I still don't see the case for eternal fields here.

In any case, invoking some god to fix the lack of knowledge is the dead end.

[charris]

Yes, it does. Whatever you call the initial moment/place where our Universe began(Big Bang is a pretty good one), there was a first moment in time for our Universe ~13.7 billion years ago. Time, as experienced in this Universe, began at that moment. THIS is what modern cosmology tells us.

What you're talking about is the singularity, which ignores quantum effects. "Most cosmologists would be very surprised if it turned out that our universe really did have an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitely curved beginning."

There is a difference between answering a question and simply restating the conclusion that the question was asking you to explain. If "infinite" means to you that time had no beginning, then you are wrong. Space time had a beginning.

Ours might have, yes. But that doesn't mean there was nothing in existence before our universe.

And time is a dimension just like width, length and depth with one major difference. Other dimensions can be travelled in either direction, there is no fundamental difference, but we can only travel one direction in time(even though the math may say it is not fundamentally different between the directions), toward greater entropy...

"Entropy is the only quantity in the physical sciences (apart from certain rare interactions in particle physics; see below) that requires a particular direction for time, sometimes called an arrow of time. As one goes "forward" in time, the second law of thermodynamics says, the entropy of an isolated system will increase. Hence, from one perspective, entropy measurement is a way of distinguishing the past from the future. However in thermodynamic systems that are not closed, entropy can decrease with time: many systems, including living systems, reduce local entropy at the expense of an environmental increase, resulting in a net increase in entropy. Examples of such systems and phenomena include the formation of certain crystals, the workings of a refrigerator and living organisms."

Yes, that is the case. Sean Carroll wrote an excellent book about this called "From Eternity to Here." That's why he is the one I asked whether quantum fields could have existed for eternity or not; he knows what he's talking about.

Even the inanimate rocks of our Earth are different now than they once were, so I see no sense in calling time meaningless or a figment of our imaginations. It is the height of hubris to think time depends on man to conceive and experience it to be a real dimension. Much like Ontological arguments some Creationists use, or "fine tuning" claims that the Universe was created the way it was for the sole purpose of containing themselves, by their own, personal god. There is absolutely no reason to think man has a thing to do with and is of no significance to the Universe.

I agree with you here. 'Meaning' is a pointless term when referring to time, since time is simply a measurement. All that is needed for time to take place, for lack of a better description, is something.

[Grumpy]

charris

But that doesn't mean there was nothing in existence before our universe.

Define "before" in a place with no time.

'Meaning' is a pointless term when referring to time, since time is simply a measurement.

If I have a board three feet long is there anything I can do with that measurement that would create a board three feet long? Time is, just like length is, neither need to be measured to be what they are, and the measurement is not the thing being measured. So when you say "time is simply a measurement" I have to say that's silly. Man invented the measurement for his own use and benefit, he did not create time.

Grumpy

[charris]

Define "before" in a place with no time.

Why would I do that? I don't hold the position that there is a place with no time.

If I have a board three feet long is there anything I can do with that measurement that would create a board three feet long? Time is, just like length is, neither need to be measured to be what they are, and the measurement is not the thing being measured. So when you say "time is simply a measurement" I have to say that's silly. Man invented the measurement for his own use and benefit, he did not create time.

I'm not sure I follow. Like you've said, time is a dimension. You move through it. If you can move through something, you can measure it. We use rulers to measure distance, we use clocks to measure time. You're correct, we didn't create time. We also didn't create distance. We made the clock, though...