Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

Why do you think that existence needs a source? Or that it is even possible for existence to have a source?

Because there is a source to all existence, no one created themselves, the universe is our source.

 

[Polymath257]

No, time is not the equivalence of distance,

Yes, absolutely, it is. It is another dimension; another direction to travel.

it is in its absolute form the continuity of the existence of space, ie., universal spacetime.

And that is a view that we KNOW is incorrect. It was shown wrong a bit over 100 years ago.

Universal time is no longer tenable.

Human conceive of time as a period of duration, and is measured by some proxy method such as a pendulum, sun dial, planetary revolution, orbital period, electronic oscillator, atomic clock, etc.. It is used t measure the

I never asked about the distance between universes, I asked what was between them, for example, nothing, space?

Why would you expect there to be a 'between'?

You seem to have difficulties with anything outside of a simple Euclidean perspective: flat space, universal time, etc. That viewpoint is no longer even tenable (after general relativity).

No, time is the continuity of existence, ie., spacetime, it would be the same for any spacetime universe. But understand, in this specific hypothetical case, there is no suggestion of time being synchronized over multiple universes.

Or even existing in multiple universes. You seem to think that time would 'flow' the same in all universes. That the concept of a second would have to be the same for all of them. And that is simply not the case even within our universe.

 

[Polymath257]

I get it, but you know what I mean. T=0.

Strictly speaking, in the BB model there is no T=0, only T>0.

 

[Polymath257]

Because there is a source to all existence, no one created themselves, the universe is our source.

Perhaps everything in the universe has a cause (a source), but that does not imply that the universe itself does.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So, you have extended the model. You are hypothesizing something outside of the universe (another universe). And that is a possibility. But it isn't the one we have been discussing (the BB model).


No, the time in another universe need not correspond to time in ours in any way. They are just different. And, it is quite possible some other universe doesn't have time at all, so its 'age' may literally be a meaningless concept.

Understood.

Ok, please explain how a 4D universe (3 space, 1 time) has no time?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Strictly speaking, in the BB model there is no T=0, only T>0.

How convenient!

 

[shunyadragon]

Look, either you can supply some reference for your views or you can't. It's entirely up to you, of course, but I'm not just going to accept something you can't back up.


Resorting to insults doesn't help your case. Really.

Dialogue with you has been very insulting. You are an ignorant bore, and repeat yourself continually meaninglessly.

Hint: Continuous time, ie the arrow of time in three dimensional space. The Quantum smallest scale does not have continuous time.

Chronon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A chronon is a proposed quantum of time, that is, a discrete and indivisible "unit" of time as part of a hypothesis that proposes that time is not continuous. In simple language, a chronon is the smallest, discrete, non-decomposable unit of time in a temporal data model.

 

[Polymath257]

I beg your pardon SZ, are you trying to distract from your claim that some universes have no time?

You were the one that introduced other universes. We do not know *if* such exist or *if* such universes have time. And *if* they have time, it isn't clear that it has any relation to *our* time (which is within our universe).

Think of it like this (and I am going along and assuming there are other universes for now). Imagine we have two planets. But are rotating. Does 'south' for one of them have to be related to 'south' for the other one?

And, the answer is, of course not. They can be pointed in different directions and so the latitude and longitude of one may not relate to those of the other at all.

Furthermore, both can have a south pole at 90 degrees south.

You are still thinking of time as something the universe is embedded within. Instead, it is something within the universe. *If* there are other universes, there is no reason to think their notion of time has anything to do with ours.

 

[Polymath257]

How convenient!

Just follow the math. That is why it is a singularity.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It may be the other universe doens't have time at all. It may be that its version of time has nothing to do with ours. You are thinking of time as something in which the universe is embedded. And that is almost certainly wrong. Time is part of the universe, not the other way around.

Huh?

Elementary, what is your point?

You would have to read SZ's respective post, converging lines representing universes and 0's representing BB beginnings, etc..

 

[Polymath257]

If spacetime did not start, how did the universal space begin, and continue to exist?

Again, time is within spacetime. So spacetime simply exists.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't mean how it started, but since it exists now as it does, then it must have started at some point, yes?

No.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Good so far.


And that is where you go wrong. There was no point at which there is no spacetime. Why do you think there would have to be such?

How do you know that in empirical terms as with observation?

 

[Polymath257]

I don't mean how it started, but since it exists now as it does, then it must have started at some point, yes?

No.

Nonsense, BBT says it started 13.8 billion years ago!

More accurately, there was no 'before 13.8 billion years ago'. In that sense, it had a start. But in that sense, south has a start at the south pole.

 

[shunyadragon]

Understood.

Ok, please explain how a 4D universe (3 space, 1 time) has no time?

Ay the smallest scale of our 4D universe there is no continuous time/space.

Chronon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A chronon is a proposed quantum of time, that is, a discrete and indivisible "unit" of time as part of a hypothesis that proposes that time is not continuous.

In simple language, a chronon is the smallest, discrete, non-decomposable unit of time in a temporal data model.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, absolutely, it is. It is another dimension; another direction to travel.

And that is a view that we KNOW is incorrect. It was shown wrong a bit over 100 years ago.

Universal time is no longer tenable.

Why would you expect there to be a 'between'?

You seem to have difficulties with anything outside of a simple Euclidean perspective: flat space, universal time, etc. That viewpoint is no longer even tenable (after general relativity).


Or even existing in multiple universes. You seem to think that time would 'flow' the same in all universes. That the concept of a second would have to be the same for all of them. And that is simply not the case even within our universe.

Context is everything.

I do not agree.

I was probing for his understanding, nothing more.

I understand, but my intuition calls B/S.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You were the one that introduced other universes. We do not know *if* such exist or *if* such universes have time. And *if* they have time, it isn't clear that it has any relation to *our* time (which is within our universe).

Think of it like this (and I am going along and assuming there are other universes for now). Imagine we have two planets. But are rotating. Does 'south' for one of them have to be related to 'south' for the other one?

And, the answer is, of course not. They can be pointed in different directions and so the latitude and longitude of one may not relate to those of the other at all.

Furthermore, both can have a south pole at 90 degrees south.

You are still thinking of time as something the universe is embedded within. Instead, it is something within the universe. *If* there are other universes, there is no reason to think their notion of time has anything to do with ours.

That was to SZ, context is everything.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, the single 4D spacetime universe I understand, and agree with. But I can not relate to the concept of the time aspect of spacetime as being observer dependent in the context of understanding the bigger picture of reality, except only as a subjective personal observation.

But that is something that has been verified. There is no universal time.

Time *is* observer dependent. If you are moving past me at half the speed of light, your time and my time are simply not the same direction in spacetime. This has been verified experimentally.

And no, it is NOT a 'subjective, personal observation'. It happens exactly the same way if you have an atomic clock.

Time is relative, not absolute.

 

[Polymath257]

Context is everything.

I do not agree.

I was probing for his understanding, nothing more.

I understand, but my intuition calls B/S.

Well, then your intuition has been shown to be wrong by direct observation.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Just follow the math. That is why it is a singularity.

No!