Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Grant-Silver]

Science tells us at the moment of the Big Bang gravity was infinite.

Now it has been proven scientifically that the greater the gravity field the slower time flows slower relative to that on an object under a lesser gravity field.

Thus my question is how could time flow out of an infinite gravity field of the big bang singularity?

[Alec Smart]

Thus my question is how could time flow out of an infinite gravity field of the big bang singularity?

Maybe as the gravity spread out so did time. Time seems to be flowing quite well now so it must have got away from the gravity somehow. Sorry I can't provide any equations or anything like that.

[Steve3007]

Grant-Silver:

Science tells us at the moment of the Big Bang gravity was infinite.

But doesn't it also say that known laws of physics break down in a singularity? So all bets are off? Hardly surprising, I guess, seeing as infinities are, by their nature, not physically realizable.

Thus my question is how could time flow out of an infinite gravity field of the big bang singularity?

One point to note: The idea of the rate at which time passes varying only makes sense in the context of the measurements of an actual observer. It only makes sense to talk about time passing more slowly in the presence of a strong gravitational field if we talk in terms of a clock inside that strong field being observed by someone outside, or some such thing. So if this strong gravitational field applies to the whole universe, is it meaningful to talk about the slowing of time?

[YIOSTHEOY]

Thus my question is how could time flow out of an infinite gravity field of the big bang singularity?

Maybe as the gravity spread out so did time. Time seems to be flowing quite well now so it must have got away from the gravity somehow. Sorry I can't provide any equations or anything like that.

My personal view is that time does not actually exist.

Time is like math. It was invented by humans and it only exists in their heads.

If there were no Sun in the sky and every day was simply a continuation of the last, we would not be so afflicted with a notion of "time".

But because of the rotation of the Earth on its axis it seems like life is divided into yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

People take this astronomical phenomenon too seriously.

We all simply live in the present. There is really no such thing as the past or the future -- just more and more of the present.

[Blake 789]

From what I heard gravity operates across a number of different dimensions which is why it's a particularly weak force in the universe compared to all the other natural forces. So it will have something to do with that.

[Rainman]

Maybe you are confusing a model of the Universe with the reality of an observable Universe. Time does not exist in an observable Universe. Time is merely a concept used in modelling. It is like a yard, a metre, a pound...they are concepts and don't exist in reality. They are useful only in modelling. But don't confuse the concept of time with a "river of time". "Rivers of Time don't exist in the Observable Universe...only in models. Time, as a concept, can do anything you want it to in a model. But Time, as a concept, cannot interact with gravity (which is not a concept but is real and exists in and of itself). We only use time and gravity together in models... not in reality. Models can lead you to madness. I say, stick with the observables in this Universe and you will be happier.

-- Updated August 1st, 2016, 12:14 pm to add the following --

When you say, "Hardly surprising, I guess, seeing as infinities are, by their nature, not physically realizable. " What if you are wrong? An infinite universe makes more sense to me than a "bounded" universe. Because with a "bounded" universe, you always have the question of "what is beyond the boundary?" Only in modelling can you have a "bounded" universe. In reality...having a physical end to the Universe makes no sense. I'm more comfortable with an infinite Universe...and thus, a infinite amount of physical objects.

-- Updated August 1st, 2016, 1:07 pm to add the following --

Science tells us at the moment of the Big Bang gravity was infinite.

Now it has been proven scientifically that the greater the gravity field the slower time flows slower relative to that on an object under a lesser gravity field.

Thus my question is how could time flow out of an infinite gravity field of the big bang singularity?

It has not been proven that time is effected in any way by gravity. Any "Two Clock" experiment, no matter how accurate the two clocks are, only shows how gravity effects the physical clock itself. It is only natural than any physical clock will be effected by gravity and also, that any two clocks will be effected differently even at the atomic level. Gravity has absolutely no effect on time because time is a concept, like a mile or a pound, and gravity is real. To make it simpler....real stuff can't be effected by imaginary stuff. I always thought that "two clock" experiments were a "waste of time".

[Sy Borg]

Science tells us at the moment of the Big Bang gravity was infinite.

Now it has been proven scientifically that the greater the gravity field the slower time flows slower relative to that on an object under a lesser gravity field.

Thus my question is how could time flow out of an infinite gravity field of the big bang singularity?

A singularity with an infinite gravitational field is a theoretical construct, like perfection. It's generally considered that singularities can have such a powerful grav field that it's almost infinite, but they are not infinite. Close but no cigar.

Physicists are coming to the idea that the arrow of time is a result of dark energy (the technical justifications are easy to Google). Some researchers are starting to more seriously consider that dark energy is the flow on "the other side" of a singularity, that our universe is the white hole on the other side of a black hole in another universe. My own view is that it certainly looks that way.

[Rainman]

Singularities do not exist in the Observable Universe. Gravity does. I'd love to understand how a one dimensional concept like a singularity can have a real, observable gravitational field of any size let alone one of almost infinite size. Singularities and Time Arrows are interesting models of the Universe but are just that...models and concepts. They don't seem to have the "chops" to exist in our Observable Universe. Dark energy exists in the Observable Universe...but the arrow of time? and singularities containing observable gravity?...I can't understand how that model can conjoin existing phenomena (gravity) with mere concepts like time and singularities. They don't mix.

[Sy Borg]

The direction of time is not a model; it's simply what has been observed. Call it entropy or whatever, but reality only moves into the future. It would seem to be impossible to return to the past because it's gone. All theoretical attempts to model backwards time travel posit explosions or extreme heat.

4D spacetime that allows backwards time travel would seem more of an abstraction than time's directionality.

[Rainman]

You say that the direction of time has been observed. I don't understand how you can say that when time, itself, can not be observed. In my opinion, not only does the past not 'exist' but neither does the future. There is only the never ending 'now'. I would be happy if you were to show me just how time, as a concept like feet, inches and pounds could be observed. Show me an hour. Show me a year...not the sun/earth circling....but just the year.

[Surreptitious57]

It is generally considered that singularities can have such a powerful grav field that it is almost infinite but they are not infinite

No they are not infinite because this would be both logically and physically impossible. Since this type of singularity is defined as a state of absolute density compressed into a dimension of zero volume. But it is possible for a state of very high density to be compressed into a dimension of very low volume. And indeed that is what happens to dying stars when they have exhausted their supply of hydrogen for converting into helium. The mass of these stars is compressed to the smallest possible dimension which is that which can no longer over come gravity and they are white dwarves or neutron stars

[Rainman]

Re. singularities and quantum fluctuations: Ever since Physics has studied red-shifting and came up with the impossible notion of the Big Bang or Big Expansion to explain away a "something from nothing" and shied away from an infinite universe theory...it has given religious people "proof" for the existence of a God.
In the Observable Universe, you can’t have “absolutely nothing” fluctuate. There isn’t anything existing to fluctuate! If you understand the word fluctuate, then there must be something real to fluctuate, a wave, a particle…something real. Perhaps in a Physics model, you can have a “quantum mechanical fluctuation” of nothing, but then again, I suppose there is a model somewhere that has a Unicorn fluctuating also. To me, it is possible that the term “quantum mechanical fluctuation” was created because such a thing is necessary for the theory to show “something from nothing” is scientifically possible. So, a ‘non-observable, quantum mechanical fluctuation’ magically comes into being through the power of mathematics and imagination. And lo, and behold, the magical, “something from nothing” become possible through the fluctuation of nothing. Huh? Isn’t that similar to saying: Quantum Fluctuations of Nothing = a God? It sounds to me like science is trying to define God.

We need to find another reason for red-shifting and get back to an infinite universe.

-- Updated August 12th, 2016, 6:04 pm to add the following --

Maybe we need to explore how red-shifting can occur without a star moving away from us. If a star is gaining mass then it's atoms are gaining mass and the photons become more energetic and this can change emission and absorption frequencies. This can produce red-shifting. Are the stars out there fluctuating in mass? It might not be the answer but, IMHO we need to come up with some theories beyond the bizarre Big Bang theory, expansion of nothing, we have now. Oh, and to me, background radiation points towards an infinite universe...not away from it.

[Sy Borg]

You say that the direction of time has been observed. I don't understand how you can say that when time, itself, can not be observed. In my opinion, not only does the past not 'exist' but neither does the future. There is only the never ending 'now'. I would be happy if you were to show me just how time, as a concept like feet, inches and pounds could be observed. Show me an hour. Show me a year...not the sun/earth circling....but just the year.

Increasingly dark energy, for which there is solid evidence, is being seen as the driver of entropy and the arrow of time.

The idea that there is a never-ending now moment is only a perspective and very incomplete, perhaps missing that which is most important philosophically, if not hedonically. This now moment is far from being entirely new, almost entirely composed of the state in the preceding Plank time. To say that there is only "now" is to consider physical and to ignore information - structure, shape, patterning. The present carries the weight of the past and constantly narrows future potentials, ad time always only moves in one direction, hence the arrow.

I will consider the 4D block spacetime manifold to be a theoretical construct only until backwards time travel is theoretically achieved. At this stage all theoretical attempts to move backwards in time are reportedly thwarted by a literal firewall - it always ends in an explosion or the kind of heat that may have been present at the time of big bang / flow.

[Wilson]

Rainman, I believe that a bounded universe is what you get from Einstein's theory of space-time. In other words, there is literally nothing we can know about what's outside our universe. If you sent out a beam of light at twice the speed of light (impossible but bear with me), it could eventually return to where it started, from the other direction. In other words, it's analogous to a theoretical two dimensional universe represented as the surface of a sphere, where if you send out a beam of light it will circle the sphere and return to sender from the opposite direction. If the universe weren't expanding so fast, a beam at the speed of light would eventually return similarly - but it's believed that the universe is expanding so rapidly that a beam at the speed of light would never return. By that logic, the universe isn't infinite, and the concept of "outside our universe" doesn't make sense.

That's assuming that the universe is expanding as fast as the experts say. Like you I wonder if the red shift means what they think. They're probably right, but I wonder if something other than retreating speed - some physical law - is affecting the red shift, which would mean that the rate of expansion isn't what they think.

I also agree with you that something from nothing makes no sense. We do know that quantum fluctuations occur (at least they seem to be observed) and it's theoretically possible that a massive quantum fluctuation could have spawned the universe - but in order for that to happen, there had to exist at least a framework of physical laws that make quantum fluctuations possible. Couldn't have occurred if those physical laws weren't in existence.

It's interesting to think of a multiverse, where each universe spawns daughter universes - perhaps from black holes - and each daughter universe is entirely separate from communication both from its parent and from its children. But we'll never know. And that still doesn't come any closer to explaining how the universe (or multiverse) originated.

[Surreptitious57]

The Big Bang is currently as far back as physics can go. So what happened before that is mere speculation. But if this universe
did come from so called nothing it would have to possess some dimension or volume no matter how infinitesimal that might be