Nanoseconds after the Big Bang

[Dancing David]

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.

That is not a question i could answer, I would think there would be analogous actions that could be used to determine a concept of time. Even though cesium atoms may not have occured, I would think there are measurable interactions to compare to.

 

[Soapy Sam]

The largest island I'm aware of, would be Pangaea, which included much of what is now Australia. That said, prior to being discovered, Australia was much the size it is now. When discovered by the ancestors of the Aborigines, it may even have been accessible on foot from Africa, though probably not quite.

Isn't the whole "n gazillionths of a potrzebie after the BANG" thing just a figure of speech? There comes a point in spacetime where/when it becomes possible to use the present laws of physics. Before/under/inside that , the terms make less and less sense. Refining the "position" of that point is what all the navel gazing is about, surely?

 

[Ben Tilly]

The largest island I'm aware of, would be Pangaea, which included much of what is now Australia. That said, prior to being discovered, Australia was much the size it is now. When discovered by the ancestors of the Aborigines, it may even have been accessible on foot from Africa, though probably not quite.

Sorry, no.

If Australia was ever accessible on foot, then the native marsupial population would have been overrun by placentals very quickly. And with a small number of exceptions (several species of bat in prehistory, humans and dogs relatively recently), that did not happen until Europeans introduced placentals in historical times. Furthermore the marine geography combined with historical sealevel records confirms that Australia could not have been connected with any other continent in recent geological time. Geological evidence says that Australia has not been connected to any other continents in tens of millions of years. (It was last connected to Antarctica about 40 million years ago.)

According to research quoted in Guns, Germs and Steel, Australia was probably colonized intentionally by boat. And furthermore when Australia was discovered by the ancestors of the Aborigines about 40,000 years ago, it was significantly larger than it is today. In particular lowered sea levels connected Australia and New Guinea.

Isn't the whole "n gazillionths of a potrzebie after the BANG" thing just a figure of speech? There comes a point in spacetime where/when it becomes possible to use the present laws of physics. Before/under/inside that , the terms make less and less sense. Refining the "position" of that point is what all the navel gazing is about, surely?

Yes and no. At some point it becomes a figure of speech. But the time periods after the Big Bang that scientists seriously discuss are amazingly short. For instance it is believed that matter came to dominate antimatter within the first nanosecond, so the processes that may have happened in that nanosecond are of tremendous interest. (For anyone who is curious a nanosecond is a billionth of a second. In which time light will travel a bit less than a foot.)

Cheers,
Ben

 

[~enigma~]

Here are some values...

10^-43 seconds - Planck era begins
10^-35 seconds - Inflation begins
10^-32 seconds - Inflation ends
10^-6 seconds - Plasma (Quark - Gluon) condenses
5 seconds - Nucleosynthesis begins
3 minutes - Nucleosynthesis ends
4 x 10 ⁶ years - Recombination (closest we can see to the big bang)
10⁹ years - Reionization

 

[AgingYoung]

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

Ben,

I would say that you don't understand the inherent problems of taking the inflated values of time and space from the present moment then extrapolating back in time to arrive any meaningful point. Not only are the present values inflated yet they are accelerating in their inflation.

An understanding of the history of the universe using today's standards for time and distance is meaningless. No one suggested looking at time and space before they existed; the point was that if you use today's inflated values you will overshoot the beginning putting yourself at a point before the beginning.

Now if you would like to recalibrate your standard moment by moment as you regress in time your model will suffer inaccuracies due to an inability to deal with significant places and rounding errors to the point of meaninglessness. Reality isn't an approximation. Either way relativity be damned.

Gene

 

[Dancing David]

The largest island I'm aware of, would be Pangaea, which included much of what is now Australia. That said, prior to being discovered, Australia was much the size it is now. When discovered by the ancestors of the Aborigines, it may even have been accessible on foot from Africa, though probably not quite.

I hope you mean accesabile across a number of forty miles straights from indonesia?

 

[AgingYoung]

Sometimes I wish that as God is stretching out time and space creating our physical universe as He does moment by moment that He wouldn't stretch it so rapidly. Time really flies as the universe expands. Or maybe He could remake me to move a little more quickly....

The Randi clock is ticking...

Gene

 

[Ben Tilly]

Ben,

I would say that you don't understand the inherent problems of taking the inflated values of time and space from the present moment then extrapolating back in time to arrive any meaningful point. Not only are the present values inflated yet they are accelerating in their inflation.

An understanding of the history of the universe using today's standards for time and distance is meaningless. No one suggested looking at time and space before they existed; the point was that if you use today's inflated values you will overshoot the beginning putting yourself at a point before the beginning.

Now if you would like to recalibrate your standard moment by moment as you regress in time your model will suffer inaccuracies due to an inability to deal with significant places and rounding errors to the point of meaninglessness. Reality isn't an approximation. Either way relativity be damned.

Gene

What you're saying makes no sense. Furthermore the way that you're saying it indicates that you have no desire to learn enough to understand why your statement is nonsense. I therefore won't waste my time or yours attempting to explain anything about this topic to you.

Regards,
Ben

 

[AgingYoung]

What you're saying makes no sense. Furthermore the way that you're saying it indicates that you have no desire to learn enough to understand why your statement is nonsense. I therefore won't waste my time or yours attempting to explain anything about this topic to you.

Regards,
Ben

What I've said makes perfect sense. Additionally if you had an ounce of sincerity you wouldn't have wasted your time to tell me you won't waste your time.

Cheers,
Gene

 

[Crazycowbob]

What was the largest island before Australia was discovered ?

As long as you are counting Australia as an island and not a continent, then the largest island prior to it's discovery would be Australia. Just because it hadn't been discovered doesn't mean it didn't exist...

 

[Schneibster]

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.

Four things worthy of note:

1. Why should the rate of the passage of time vary from now to the beginning of the universe?

2. Why should the speed with which an electron in orbit around a cesium atom makes the transition between the hyperfine levels of its ground state vary from now to the beginning of the universe?

3. Even supposing there were no cesium atoms, what makes you think there were no events of similar time stability, which could be calibrated to the cesium atom, and serve in its place if it were absent?

4. Finally, if the rate of the passage of time varies, why would this measure not vary right along with it, rendering such variation undetectable?

I think you forgot to consider the full implications of what you were asking.

It's also worth noting that the use of the cesium atom's hyperfine transitions in the ground state is not because this is a particularly accurate method; similar transitions happen with identical accuracies in many atoms, and many other regular physical events take place with identical or even greater accuracies. It's just that it happens to be particularly easy to measure this characteristic of this particular element. Don't get hung up on it; you'll turn into a woo.

 

[ChristineR]

Time and space depend on the reference frame of the observer. The fundamental constant is the speed of light. Before the big bang, there was no moving light, so space and time were not defined.

You can talk about time as the amount of space covered by the light from the big bang as measured by an imaginary observer with a measuring stick. Never mind that there were no observers, or measuring sticks, and that the light may not have been traveling through a vacuum...

 

[Lothian]

As long as you are counting Australia as an island and not a continent, then the largest island prior to it's discovery would be Australia. Just because it hadn't been discovered doesn't mean it didn't exist...

.....and before Mr Fahrenheit was born water still boiled at 212 degrees. The same applies to a nanosecond. There is nothing wrong with us using modern day measurement to describe old events.

 

[Alan Heap]

i found the bible a dull read with predictable endings. this work of fiction by an unknown author featuring several stories which quickly reached number one on the best sellers chart, lacks believability in the characters, events and much of the philosophical morality is very questionable.

the main characters are portrayed as 'good guys' essentially, through the use of this unseen character, "god". noah, a semi-main character in the book, makes no attempt in warning or saving others about the disaster which will strike the entire earth, horrifying. romans were also portrayed in a bad light even after many being killed by moses with his supernatural powers.

through out all this, one character is kept shrouded in mystery; god, i was left frustrated by the amount revealed about god, the lack of development from this character and how this character was used as a gimmick to drag the story along. what did god look like? why did he favour certain people over others? if god made life and the universe, who made god? through out all the stories, god makes these outrageous claims, the lack of expansion on these claims in particular is very disappointing, not to mention the lack of depth and imagery of this character.

this book is certainly not for children, with it's extreme depiction of violence, is not for the faint hearted -in more ways than one. if you want a good popular fun read, stick to harry potter.
1 out 5 stars.

 

[AgingYoung]

...
this book is certainly not for children, with it's extreme depiction of violence, is not for the faint hearted, in more ways than one. 1 out 5 stars.

Alan,

Tell Uriah I said hello. You could say the same for reality. A little while ago I watched Hotel Rwanda. The way life can be is not for children or adults at times. I guess there's nothing we can do. It's been like that for some time.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

4. Finally, if the rate of the passage of time varies, why would this measure not vary right along with it, rendering such variation undetectable?

Schneibster,

If the universe were moving backward toward the big bang with of course you in it your measuring method would vary with the regression. The variation would be undetectable. That isn't something that could happen though. What we do is take a standard that we either don't calibrate and superimpose it on the past or we attempt to recalibrate it periodically as we regress and there are the inherent inaccuracies in that.

It might not be a good analogy but inflation of currency is something that comes to mind. If you measure the economy of 1900 with today's unadjusted dollars you won't get a good picture of the economy of 1900.

What do you think?

Gene

 

[Alan Heap]

Alan,

Tell Uriah I said hello. You could say the same for reality. A little while ago I watched Hotel Rwanda. The way life can be is not for children or adults at times. I guess there's nothing we can do. It's been like that for some time.

Gene

uh oh

don't know a uriah, only a eugene.

no idea what your on about. it's a badly written/translated and boring fictional book.

edit-
god wouldn't save his followers, IF they WERE saved it would be by people, that is real yet that doesn't matter apparently, paradox.

this argument is stupid.

'oh but hotel rwanda had violence and was super duper good, and bible does too so bible must be super duper good too and just as real as rwanda'

oh please

 

[AgingYoung]

... romans were also portrayed in a bad light even after many being killed by moses with his supernatural powers.
...

Did you read the bible or did someone tell you about it? lol.

Gene

eta: I think you meant the Egyptians.

 

[Alan Heap]

Did you read the bible or did someone tell you about it? lol.

Gene

please elaborate.

edit-
ok egyptians, i don't care. its a fictional book and nothing more. don't even try making more out of it than it is.

 

[AgingYoung]

Uriah Heep is a band.

I've listened to a lot of discussion about the bible. The two major disagreements I have with people that have done in depth study are the trinity and the tithe. I think when a pastor teaches on the tithe there is a conflict of interest. I don't care to debate it but I've considered it enough that I could.

The second disagreement is with the trinity. If someone has spent 8 years in seminary and has come to the conclusion the trinity isn't true and they also want a job they have to keep their views to themselves. Not many churches would hire their heretical butt if they deny the divinity of Jesus. Newton did and I think Einstein thought it was bogus. I agree.

But when it comes to biblical opinion I'd expect that someone would at least know that Moses didn't encounter too many Romans. Nothing personal but I don't think you have a qualified opinion.

Gene