Nanoseconds after the Big Bang

[RandomElement]

In the Bible it says that God created the heavens and earth in seven days. As a day is the time it takes for the earth to revolve once in reference to the sun, then this seems to be mere metaphor as the earth wasn't created first.

Seems the same way when physicists talk about something happening in the first few nanoseconds after the Big Bang. As a second is a portion of an earth rotation or so many vibrations of a Cesium atom; neither of which existed; nor was time even remotely as it is today, does it REALLY make any sense to talk of such cosmic events using modern day measuring tools?

Me thinks not.

 

[~enigma~]

In the Bible it says that God created the heavens and earth in seven days. As a day is the time it takes for the earth to revolve once in reference to the sun, then this seems to be mere metaphor as the earth wasn't created first.

Seems the same way when physicists talk about something happening in the first few nanoseconds after the Big Bang. As a second is a portion of an earth rotation or so many vibrations of a Cesium atom; neither of which existed; nor was time even remotley as it is today, does it REALLY make any sense to talk of such cosmic events using modern day measuring tools?

Me thinks not.

If you want to talk bible there is a religion and philosophy forum here and they would correct you and let you know god created everything in 6 days and there is a definition as to what a day was. Now as to cosmic events, time started at the big bang and didn't exist before.Time has not changed, not time as the fourth dimension. The way it is measured changes as technology advances but that in no way means time itself changes. Now can you answer one question for me please. It seems to me your posts are better suited for the religion and philosophy forum. Why exactly are you in this forum? Are you here to learn or to spin a philosophy?

 

[RandomElement]

Talking religion? Where do you get that? I am talking about measurements.

How do you define a second?

 

[~enigma~]

Talking religion? Where do you get that?

You wrote...

In the Bible it says that God created the heavens and earth in seven days.

Tell me how that has anything to do with science and how the 7 should be 6.

I am talking about measurements.

Not after that opening statement.

How do you define a second?

Quite presumptuous of you to ask a question of me without answering the question I asked you.

 

[Mashuna]

Seems the same way when physicists talk about something happening in the first few nanoseconds after the Big Bang. As a second is a portion of an earth rotation or so many vibrations of a Cesium atom; neither of which existed; nor was time even remotely as it is today, does it REALLY make any sense to talk of such cosmic events using modern day measuring tools?

Me thinks not.

I'm by no means a scientist (end disclaimer).

The vibrations of a cesium atom, or the portion of an earth rotation are just methods of dividing up and calibrating time. You don't need those things to have been in existance to be able to extrapolate back and use the same calibrations, do you?

The only problem, as I see it, would arise if the second part of your statement were true, that time was not even remotely as it is today. I've no idea what your reasoning is behind this is. Is it a circular argument, time was different as there was no cesium to describe it, or did you have something else in mind?

 

[AgingYoung]

The idea of questioning how 'science' arrives at conclusions is no doubt a philosophical question. There are similarities between the biblical account and cosmological explanation of the big bang...

I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

When one considers the universe being a singularity with a beginning you have to wonder what the effects mass would have on time when all matter was so close together. One popular theory states the speed of light is a constant and time and distance are what change. Well speed is the ratio of distance to time. How could you consider speed to be constant in terms of the two variables of distance and time? How is that not self referential?

It is a fascinating thing to consider how 'science' develops the character of concepts and terms to propose hypotheses leading to arguments and conclusions but it's probably a philosophical question. It can draw the ire of people when their faith is questioned.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

...The vibrations of a cesium atom, or the portion of an earth rotation are just methods of dividing up and calibrating time. You don't need those things to have been in existance to be able to extrapolate back and use the same calibrations, do you?...

When you look at the extremes of a range the rate of change is greater than it is away from the extreme. One question that might be very hard to answer is how would the intense gravity at the beginning of the big bang effect the standard we now use to mark time (cesium).

Consider this example. We are measuring an absolute hour of time but we are using a clock with a synchronous motor. Our clock operates at 50 Hertz. During the first half hour (of absolute time) the line frequency is actually 100 Hertz so the clock should be running at twice the speed it presently is running.

The first half hour would be 1/2 as long as the second 1/2 hour. If we tried to extrapolate back in time using the present standard we would be at a place in time before time began.

What do you think?

Gene

 

[Lothian]

In the Bible it says that God created the heavens and earth in seven days. As a day is the time it takes for the earth to revolve once in reference to the sun, then this seems to be mere metaphor as the earth wasn't created first.

Seems the same way when physicists talk about something happening in the first few nanoseconds after the Big Bang. As a second is a portion of an earth rotation or so many vibrations of a Cesium atom; neither of which existed; nor was time even remotely as it is today, does it REALLY make any sense to talk of such cosmic events using modern day measuring tools?

Me thinks not.

What was the largest island before Australia was discovered ?

 

[Bob Klase]

does it REALLY make any sense to talk of such cosmic events using modern day measuring tools?

Me thinks not.

So what measure of time would you use to talk about such cosmic events?

How about "IPBBS" (Immediate Post Big Bang Second)? Other than the fact that nobody would know what you're talking about I think that would work.

 

[Fnord]

In my physics book it says the entire universe was created in the first few nanoseconds after the Big Bang. As this allegedly occurred “billyuns and billyuns” of years ago, is it really relevant to even mention it in a culture that is more concerned with where Anna Nicole Smith will be buried, why Brittney Spears shaved her head, and whether or not they still have retirement funds after the “adjustment” of 07.02.27?

Verily, I thinketh not.

 

[~enigma~]

When you look at the extremes of a range the rate of change is greater than it is away from the extreme. One question that might be very hard to answer is how would the intense gravity at the beginning of the big bang effect the standard we now use to mark time (cesium).

Consider this example. We are measuring an absolute hour of time but we are using a clock with a synchronous motor. Our clock operates at 50 Hertz. During the first half hour (of absolute time) the line frequency is actually 100 Hertz so the clock should be running at twice the speed it presently is running.

The first half hour would be 1/2 as long as the second 1/2 hour. If we tried to extrapolate back in time using the present standard we would be at a place in time before time began.

What do you think?

Gene

It seems that your thoughts are backwards. Intense gravity SLOWS time and that has been proven time and again by experiment. Then again, that is relative to the observer.

 

[Dancing David]

I think that the question might be reframed as this (minus the bible stuff), how can you determine time during the phase transitions of the early universe post the BBE when conventional methods normaly used to define time are absent? Such as one can not use c and the distance travelled by a photon because the phot0ns have not decoupled.

 

[Fnord]

... how can you determine time during the phase transitions of the early universe post the BBE when conventional methods normaly used to define time are absent? Such as one can not use c and the distance travelled by a photon because the photons have not decoupled.

I see a bright light ... an hourglass ... and a naked dwarf in a bowler hat ... the is-ness that was will never be ... do wakka do ... ugga-booga and nani-nani-noo...

That'll be $750, cash!

 

[baron]

Talking religion? Where do you get that? I am talking about measurements.

How do you define a second?

Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.[1] This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K (absolute zero). The ground state is defined at zero magnetic field.[1] The second thus defined is equivalent to the ephemeris second.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

 

[Dancing David]

I see a bright light ... an hourglass ... and a naked dwarf in a bowler hat ... the is-ness that was will never be ... do wakka do ... ugga-booga and nani-nani-noo...

That'll be $750, cash!

All hail Eris!
All hail Discordia!

Does the person's name start with an "L", I'd like to buy a vowel Pat....

 

[RandomElement]

I think that the question might be reframed as this (minus the bible stuff), how can you determine time during the phase transitions of the early universe post the BBE when conventional methods normaly used to define time are absent? Such as one can not use c and the distance travelled by a photon because the phot0ns have not decoupled.

Exactly! Measuring early time using a second seems as wrong-headed as using a yardstick to measure the width of the universe shortly after the BBE. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Ben Tilly]

In the Bible it says that God created the heavens and earth in seven days. As a day is the time it takes for the earth to revolve once in reference to the sun, then this seems to be mere metaphor as the earth wasn't created first.

Seems the same way when physicists talk about something happening in the first few nanoseconds after the Big Bang. As a second is a portion of an earth rotation or so many vibrations of a Cesium atom; neither of which existed; nor was time even remotely as it is today, does it REALLY make any sense to talk of such cosmic events using modern day measuring tools?

Me thinks not.

Our theories of physics include a factor called time. In our current environment we can identify how to measure time. But within our theories this concept makes sense (when defined very precisely) up until the Big Bang. (It does not make sense "at" the Big Bang, and it is highly uncertain whether there was any meaningful "before" either.)

It is true that directly measuring time using our current techniques would have been impossible in the very early universe. A point which is rendered moot by the fact that we weren't there to try to measure it. But as far back as our physical theories hold, the concept of time remains meaningful.

Which raises the question of how back our physical theories hold. This we do not directly know. Our method of testing it is to try to fit our theories to the observable universe and address any anomolies that turn up.

The result is that while we do not absolutely know that it is meaningful to talk about time in the early Universe, our only useful research path is to try to do so and see whether the results we get make sense. As our results and theories fit ever better, we gain more and more confidence that it is meaningful, even though absolute proof will forever escape us.

Cheers,
Ben

 

[Tricky]

What was the largest island before Australia was discovered ?

Greenland. It still is. (At least, it's the largest on Earth.)
Australia is a continent.

 

[Ben Tilly]

When you look at the extremes of a range the rate of change is greater than it is away from the extreme. One question that might be very hard to answer is how would the intense gravity at the beginning of the big bang effect the standard we now use to mark time (cesium).

Consider this example. We are measuring an absolute hour of time but we are using a clock with a synchronous motor. Our clock operates at 50 Hertz. During the first half hour (of absolute time) the line frequency is actually 100 Hertz so the clock should be running at twice the speed it presently is running.

The first half hour would be 1/2 as long as the second 1/2 hour. If we tried to extrapolate back in time using the present standard we would be at a place in time before time began.

What do you think?

I think that you do not understand general relativity very well.

When we talk about time in the early universe, we mean time as measured in a local reference frame that is still with respect to most of the local matter. It makes no sense to ask how this time correlates with "real" time outside of the extreme conditions then prevailing in the universe since there is no "outside of the universe" that we're aware of to compare it to.

The measurement of time that I describe makes perfect sense within the universe to within whatever limits the theory of general relativity proves to have. (We do not, of course, currently know what the limits of that theory are.)

Cheers,
Ben

 

[RandomElement]

Our theories of physics include a factor called time. In our current environment we can identify how to measure time. But within our theories this concept makes sense (when defined very precisely) up until the Big Bang. (It does not make sense "at" the Big Bang, and it is highly uncertain whether there was any meaningful "before" either.)

It is true that directly measuring time using our current techniques would have been impossible in the very early universe. A point which is rendered moot by the fact that we weren't there to try to measure it. But as far back as our physical theories hold, the concept of time remains meaningful.

Which raises the question of how back our physical theories hold. This we do not directly know. Our method of testing it is to try to fit our theories to the observable universe and address any anomolies that turn up.

The result is that while we do not absolutely know that it is meaningful to talk about time in the early Universe, our only useful research path is to try to do so and see whether the results we get make sense. As our results and theories fit ever better, we gain more and more confidence that it is meaningful, even though absolute proof will forever escape us.

Cheers,
Ben

Best response yet!

Tangent: As a researcher in AI, interpolation based on known data usually gives a reasonable approximation while extrapolation yields highly uncertain results - and that is what it seems we are dealing with when going so far outside our current state.