Get this, the universe has always existed.

[Mattimeo]

No, I don't have some fancy science journal article to back me up but here goes nothing.

The universe has always existed.

How do I know you ask? Well if we want to figure out how long the universe has existed and what came before the universe we need to understand the nature of time, for without time there is no before and no existence.

Now the nature of time has been discussed in a different thread but I felt this topic deserved its own thread (merge if you don't think so). Einstein hypothesised that time was relative, that is, the rate at which time moves can change from one object to another. This theory is based on the fact that the speed of light is constant. Now a little physics here, if you are going down a highway at 70 miles per hour, and you pass a car going 50 miles per hour it appears to you that the car is going 20 miles per hour backwards, and it appears to them that you are going 20 miles per hour forwards. This is based on your relative speeds. Now say you have a pitching machine that shoots a baseball at a target at 90 miles per hour. If the target is moving away from the machine at 10 miles per hour the ball seems to hit it at 80 miles per hour. The speed of light is about 186,000 miles per second. Now if you measure the speed of light with two measuring instruments that aren't moving relative to eachother then the speed of light comes out to 186,000 miles per second (we'll assume that the number is exact for this measurement. Now this converts to 669,600,000 miles per hour. Now if you had a measuring instrument that was moving away from a light producing object at 1000 miles per hour it would stand to reason that the speed of light when measured by that instrument would be 669,599,000 miles per hour. But infact experimentation has shown that the speed still comes out to 669,600,000 MPH!

Now how can this be explained? Well einstein theorized that if the speed of light is constant, then the rate at which time moves must be relative. That meant that for objects that are moving faster, time moves slower so light speed stays the same. This is interesting because it means that time does not exist without light and a constant speed of light. Without that time cannot be measured, just as speed cannot be measured without a point that you are comparing the object whose speed you are mesauring to.

Because the concept of time breaks down with no light and space, that means that time cannot exist without light and space. What does this mean? You guessed it, because there is no time without light and space the universe has always existed! There can be no time before the universe exists because the concept of time does not exist without space and light to define it. Therefore, there is no existence without space and time meaning the universe has always existed.

Fun, eh?

~Don't Panic

[spastic-ninJa]

Very clever, and it seems that your argument is very logical. I wonder if the universe was ever in a different state, though (Big Bang theory comes in about now). I don't know much about this subject, though, so I can't really say much defending my ideas.

[Demosthene5]

Now say you have a pitching machine that shoots a baseball at a target at 90 miles per hour. If the target is moving away from the machine at 10 miles per hour the ball seems to hit it at 80 miles per hour. The speed of light is about 186,000 miles per second. Now if you measure the speed of light with two measuring instruments that aren't moving relative to eachother then the speed of light comes out to 186,000 miles per second (we'll assume that the number is exact for this measurement. Now this converts to 669,600,000 miles per hour. Now if you had a measuring instrument that was moving away from a light producing object at 1000 miles per hour it would stand to reason that the speed of light when measured by that instrument would be 669,599,000 miles per hour. But infact experimentation has shown that the speed still comes out to 669,600,000 MPH!When I was little I saw this exact demonstration on Bill Nye the Science Guy, but he used a flashlight and it was kind of a spoof. Good times.


Im too tired to discuss this right now, maybe tomorrow?

[Uuugggg]

Well I'm willing to argue it always has been simply because it couldn't suddenly appear from nothingness =P

And that's a scary thought, nothingness... If there never were anything, we wouldn't have come about to think about it. How is it that things just exist everywhere? And, say, way outside our universe is nothingness. There couldn't just be one universe, one big chunk of mass out there, so who's to say there isn't a universe forming way out there, trillions of lightyears away, which means we have practically NO chance of ever finding it, but if there's another one place, there must be another, and even another almost infinitely FURTHER away and AAHHH the supra-verse is BIG! AAAAAH!!!

See, this is why these sort of arguments or statements are rather frivolous in the end =P


Oh, and might I mention the Doppler Effect, which after thinking about it has nothing to do with what you said, or maybe it does entirely and is a further explanation of what you said - I'm gonna stop rambling here. Thank me for cutting out another paragraph I just wrote. =P

[Mr.Ric]

Omg someone who finnaly understands that wat i was thinking about last week i no it has always existed your very freaking smart i totaly agree with u. Nothing more to say that thats the way of the universe thank u. it has been years trying to figure out the cause for this.

[wraizyr]

Okey dokey, but here's a little thought.
If the universe has always existed,then there is an infinite amount of time in the past.Which means that to get to the present, we have completed an infinite amount of time.Which is impossible by definition.

The one other possibility(which is not self-contradictory) is that light, space, and time were all created at once.

(Guess which scenario I'm thinking of.:D)

[GiaDragoness]

Actually, according to what i learned at college in physics class, Light does not always move at a constant speed. It goes slower through water for example, and through space it actually travels faster than through our atmosphere.

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:

[Mattimeo]

Actually, according to what i learned at college in physics class, Light does not always move at a constant speed. It goes slower through water for example, and through space it actually travels faster than through our atmosphere.

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:

That could be true, but the point I am making is that the speed of light through a material is not affected by the relative speed of the devices being used to measure the speed. Light can slow down in certain materials but in a given materal its relative speed is constant no matter how fast you go.

~Don't Panic

Sorry about the double post:

Okey dokey, but here's a little thought.
If the universe has always existed,then there is an infinite amount of time in the past.Which means that to get to the present, we have completed an infinite amount of time.Which is impossible by definition.

The one other possibility(which is not self-contradictory) is that light, space, and time were all created at once.

(Guess which scenario I'm thinking of.:D)

Actually, this theory does not require that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time. This theory just removes the concept of time without the universe. I'm using the term "always" to mean during all of time, which only exists when the universe exists. Therefore there is no time without the universe. This doesn't mean that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time because there isn't an infinite amount of time. The total amount of time since the beginning of time (i.e. since the universe began) is not infinite. My theory actually means that the universe was not created because the universe being created would require a time when the universe did not exist for it to be created. The complete history of time is about 13-15 billion years long and the universe has existed for all of it.

~Don't Panic

EDIT:

the hell? when I double post it just tacks it onto the end of my last post. gj AJ! :)

[wraizyr]

Actually, this theory does not require that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time. This theory just removes the concept of time without the universe. I'm using the term "always" to mean during all of time, which only exists when the universe exists. Therefore there is no time without the universe. This doesn't mean that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time because there isn't an infinite amount of time. The total amount of time since the beginning of time (i.e. since the universe began) is not infinite. My theory actually means that the universe was not created because the universe being created would require a time when the universe did not exist for it to be created. The complete history of time is about 13-15 billion years long and the universe has existed for all of it.
Ok.(maybe, maybe not, I'm too tired to think about it right now.)
But then you have something coming out of nothing, with no cause whatsoever.Kind of, you know, impossible?
Don't Panic
I won't.
the hell? when I double post it just tacks it onto the end of my last post. gj AJ! :)
Indeed.Go you.

[Mattimeo]

Ok.(maybe, maybe not, I'm too tired to think about it right now.)
But then you have something coming out of nothing, with no cause whatsoever.Kind of, you know, impossible?

But my point is there is no nothing. There never was any nothing. The universe has alwasy existed.

~Don't Panic

[Fenguin]

Hehe, in reality, the universe has existed since before the beginning of time. xD The universe is approximately 10^-43 seconds older than time.

[Mattimeo]

Hehe, plz explain this. :P

~Don't Panic

[Battlecruiser]

Hehe, plz explain this. :P

~Don't Panic
He explained it in the existence of time thread. Here is the post - http://www.warboards.org/showpost.php?p=104673&postcount=25

Though, if Fenguin has anymore information on this, I would like to see it.

[Keith]

Well, maybe acording to time as we precieve it that is true, but according to the current multi-dimensional theory, our universe was created when 2 planes (read:flat surface) bumped into each other, seting off the big bang on our plane. Also according to theory, it is posible that there is another universe is litteraly millimeters away, but we can't see it because particals of gravity are the only things not tied down to a plane.

[hammocksleeper]

You make sense explaining the theory of relativity until you get to the last paragraph. All of a sudden you throw in the word "space." Where the hell did that come from? It's a non sequitur. The only thing you can say is, "time cannot exist without a constant speed of light." But space is not necessary for light to exist.



No, I don't have some fancy science journal article to back me up but here goes nothing.

The universe has always existed.

How do I know you ask? Well if we want to figure out how long the universe has existed and what came before the universe we need to understand the nature of time, for without time there is no before and no existence.

Now the nature of time has been discussed in a different thread but I felt this topic deserved its own thread (merge if you don't think so). Einstein hypothesised that time was relative, that is, the rate at which time moves can change from one object to another. This theory is based on the fact that the speed of light is constant. Now a little physics here, if you are going down a highway at 70 miles per hour, and you pass a car going 50 miles per hour it appears to you that the car is going 20 miles per hour backwards, and it appears to them that you are going 20 miles per hour forwards. This is based on your relative speeds. Now say you have a pitching machine that shoots a baseball at a target at 90 miles per hour. If the target is moving away from the machine at 10 miles per hour the ball seems to hit it at 80 miles per hour. The speed of light is about 186,000 miles per second. Now if you measure the speed of light with two measuring instruments that aren't moving relative to eachother then the speed of light comes out to 186,000 miles per second (we'll assume that the number is exact for this measurement. Now this converts to 669,600,000 miles per hour. Now if you had a measuring instrument that was moving away from a light producing object at 1000 miles per hour it would stand to reason that the speed of light when measured by that instrument would be 669,599,000 miles per hour. But infact experimentation has shown that the speed still comes out to 669,600,000 MPH!

Now how can this be explained? Well einstein theorized that if the speed of light is constant, then the rate at which time moves must be relative. That meant that for objects that are moving faster, time moves slower so light speed stays the same. This is interesting because it means that time does not exist without light and a constant speed of light. Without that time cannot be measured, just as speed cannot be measured without a point that you are comparing the object whose speed you are mesauring to.

Because the concept of time breaks down with no light and space, that means that time cannot exist without light and space. What does this mean? You guessed it, because there is no time without light and space the universe has always existed! There can be no time before the universe exists because the concept of time does not exist without space and light to define it. Therefore, there is no existence without space and time meaning the universe has always existed.

Fun, eh?

~Don't Panic

[Demosthene5]

But space is not necessary for light to exist.
He speaks the truth.

Photons react to gravity, but I dont think they have mass.

Light bends around large gravitational masses, like dark matter: the only way we can see it is not by detecting its radiation, as with other objects in space, but by studying the light that bends due to their immense gravitation.

Does this mean light has mass? I dont think so. The other, less famous parts of relativity say that along with not experiencing time at the speed of light, matter would undergo infinite length and infinite mass. This means no matter with mass will ever reach the speed of light, because no force is large enough to accelerate this infinitly massive mass into the speed of light. Yet, light itself, composed of both photons and electomagetic waves, travels at this speed of light. So, it would seem that photons exist without mass, therefore being able to exist without space.

[Ragnarox]

Ok let me get this straight, if "time" moves slower for objects moving at the speed of light, then what happens to Takions (Phenomena forms of energy thats lowest recorded speed is the speed of light) how slow does "time" move for them at their top speed which has not yet been recorded.

[Demosthene5]

Takions (Phenomena forms of energy thats lowest recorded speed is the speed of light) Do the laws of matter apply to energy forms? I doubt they would. Remember that energy is not matter, and does not take up space or have mass or even have substantial physical existance, so relativity would not effect it.

[siuloongbao]

i dunno if this is relevant...but energy can be converted to matter and vice versa...and photons are both particles and energy...

[Killphill]

Mmmmhmmm? Thats all fine and good... but what if I threw a Planck into a black hole? Hmmmm?


Anywayyyy. Wait what would the Planck be made of? Light, energy, metel, Oreo?

[Fenguin]

You make sense explaining the theory of relativity until you get to the last paragraph. All of a sudden you throw in the word "space." Where the hell did that come from? It's a non sequitur. The only thing you can say is, "time cannot exist without a constant speed of light." But space is not necessary for light to exist.
Since time is defined as a continuum with sequential occurences of events, and events cannot exist without some medium for them to occur in, the existence of time implies the existence of space.

Mmmmhmmm? Thats all fine and good... but what if I threw a Planck into a black hole? Hmmmm?

Anywayyyy. Wait what would the Planck be made of? Light, energy, metel, Oreo?
Uhh, let's keep it serious in here.

[Mattimeo]

Since time is defined as a continuum with sequential occurences of events, and events cannot exist without some medium for them to occur in, the existence of time implies the existence of space.

Thank you.

~Don't Panic

[Whiteknight]

He speaks the truth.

Photons react to gravity, but I dont think they have mass.

Light bends around large gravitational masses, like dark matter: the only way we can see it is not by detecting its radiation, as with other objects in space, but by studying the light that bends due to their immense gravitation.

Does this mean light has mass? I dont think so. The other, less famous parts of relativity say that along with not experiencing time at the speed of light, matter would undergo infinite length and infinite mass. This means no matter with mass will ever reach the speed of light, because no force is large enough to accelerate this infinitly massive mass into the speed of light. Yet, light itself, composed of both photons and electomagetic waves, travels at this speed of light. So, it would seem that photons exist without mass, therefore being able to exist without space.
Light both does and doesn't have mass. It has relativistic mass, but not mass. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

[Demosthene5]

Does light have mass?
The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes".
well then, is it safe to say that light is very wierd?

[Semi]

I'm too lazy to read all the text above, but i didnt see entropy mentioned. So ill throw this out there.

Since 2nd law of thermo says entropy keeps increasing and we arent yet at the completely entropy-ridden state, the universe could not have existed forever since that would imply that an infinite amount of time has passed and thus entropy has reached its cap, a contradiction.

[Mattimeo]

If you had read above you would have realized that the universe has always existed but that doesn't mean it's existed for an infinite amount of time. The fact is that all of time is not an infinite amout of time. Time has a beginning and will have an end.

~Don't Panic

[Semi]

But if time starts somewhere how can the universe exist before that? (otherwise it hasnt existed forever, as you claim)

It kinda depends on how you define universe tho. With the ekpryotic theory thingy i dont know what you would call the outer world that the universe was born in but im assuming we are talking the usual universe.

[WeedMan]

Yeah but if there is no univese to start time how can there not be a universe?

[Mattimeo]

But if time starts somewhere how can the universe exist before that? (otherwise it hasnt existed forever, as you claim)

I am defining forever as "for all of time" and I have shown you that there is no time with no universe.

It kinda depends on how you define universe tho. With the ekpryotic theory thingy i dont know what you would call the outer world that the universe was born in but im assuming we are talking the usual universe.

Sounds interesting, can you elaborate on this theory?

~Don't Panic

[TheBB]

My personal theory is that you fail to entirely grasp the idea of more than 4 dimensions.

[Semi]

Essentially in the Ekpyrotic theory big membranes in a higher dimension slam together and the energy in the slamming creates the big bang inside the membranes.

These big membranes live in some weird outer world, so I guess our universe is a little part of a membrane that lives in a bigger world. I guess time doesnt really apply in the same way outside our universe, at least not our normal concept of time.

[Valjean]

Essentially in the Ekpyrotic theory big membranes in a higher dimension slam together and the energy in the slamming creates the big bang inside the membranes.

These big membranes live in some weird outer world, so I guess our universe is a little part of a membrane that lives in a bigger world. I guess time doesnt really apply in the same way outside our universe, at least not our normal concept of time.
I thought that was called "M Theory"? O_o

Damn you Nova!! :P

[Semi]

M theory is just the theory revolving around membranes. Ekpyrotic takes it a step further by saying the smashing of membranes together makes the energy that starts the big bang

[Valjean]

Oh. I need to watch that nova segment on sting theory again...XD

Also, "energy=/=matter"??? O_o;;;

[Jedi_Templar]

Then again, you have to add in whether or not the speed of light is constant.

If photons have mass, then they are affected by wavelength, such as what happens in sound waves. However, from what scientists have seen, light acts as both particles and waves. Weird.

But, if the univeres has existed forever (forever defined as having no beginning or end), then entropy would have long ago (if long ago has any relevance to "forever") ended all matter and energy.

The funny thing is, a few months ago, people could have retorted that with string theory. Now, they're not so lucky.

The Bananas are pleased:banana::bananaroc

[Kahuzal]

You're all crazy.

1) The "Big Bang" was not a 'ball of mass that exploeded' and if you think it is, don't even come back to this thread until you look into it.

2) Time may have been created before the big bang, as the string theory is recently suggesting



3) Just because you can't measure somthing, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

This is based on your relative speeds. Now say you have a pitching machine that shoots a baseball at a target at 90 miles per hour. If the target is moving away from the machine at 10 miles per hour the ball seems to hit it at 80 miles per hour.No, the target is still moving, the speed of the ball has not yet changed, and there is no evidence of degration of speed. The ball would hit at 90mph, the target moves. All that changes is the distance that must be traveled for impact.

Now if you had a measuring instrument that was moving away from a light producing object at 1000 miles per hour it would stand to reason that the speed of light when measured by that instrument would be 669,599,000 miles per hour. But infact experimentation has shown that the speed still comes out to 669,600,000 MPH!Okay, so the ball is thrown at 1000 mph, why does the equiptment measure it wrongly? You're mixing concepts here. Light is constant, just like the example above.

Now how can this be explained? Well einstein theorized that if the speed of light is constant, then the rate at which time moves must be relative. That meant that for objects that are moving faster, time moves slower so light speed stays the same.http://science.howstuffworks.com/time-travel3.htm
Read that, you don't understand the concept of space time.


Because the concept of time breaks down with no light and space, that means that time cannot exist without light and space. What does this mean? You guessed it, because there is no time without light and space the universe has always existed!Appels and oranges. It's like saying that if no ruler was invented, there is no such thing as distance.

Time is not part of the first 3 spacial dimensions, it is it's own, and it has a relation to space through somthing we call space-time. There can be time without light, light is just a ruler we use, we could use a different one if we wanted.

There can be no time before the universe exists because the concept of time does not exist without space and light to define it. Therefore, there is no existence without space and time meaning the universe has always existed.You're thinking time within time, that's wrong. Non-existing time, is time that doesn't exist. There can't be a "before" time, if that's the start of time. Count 1 to 10, now what number did you say before 1? You didn't.

[Fenguin]

You're all crazy.
Tell us something we don't know. :D

1) The "Big Bang" was not a 'ball of mass that exploeded' and if you think it is, don't even come back to this thread until you look into it.
Uhh, who said that? Read a few posts above, the Ekpryotic theory is mentioned.

2) Time may have been created before the big bang, as the string theory is recently suggesting
Please give a source for this conjecture, as a lot of other evidence seems to suggest otherwise. According to this evidence, the universe has existed since before the beginning of time. xD The universe is approximately 10^-43 seconds older than time.
Why? Because it has been proven that an object smaller than a Planck length does not experience time.
Because the concept of time is inseparable from the concept of space (since time is defined as a continuum in which events occur, and without space, there can be no events), the time in our space (i.e. our universe) actually did have a beginning, approximately 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. Before the 10^-43 second mark, there was no time. Why 10^-43 seconds, you ask? Because it is proven that the concept of time does not exist for objects smaller than one Planck length (i.e. singularities), and it took the Universe approximately 10^-43 seconds to reach a Planck length in size after the Big Bang. This phenomenon is known as Planck time.
The Planck length is somewhat linked to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The reason that an object smaller than a Planck length would undoubtedly cause a humongous mess in terms of time is because the sheer uncertainty in momentum causes a black hole in general relativity. However, scientists are not able to explain this phenomenon precisely because to do so, they would have to link quantum mechanics and general relativity - in other words, they'd need a GUT.
Thus, time did have a beginning: 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. And thus it begun after the Big Bang.

3) Just because you can't measure somthing, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I agree completely.

No, the target is still moving, the speed of the ball has not yet changed, and there is no evidence of degration of speed. The ball would hit at 90mph, the target moves. All that changes is the distance that must be traveled for impact.
Nope, the distance traveled for impact is negligible. The ball still only hits you at one point in time; it doesn't keep on hitting you for a longer time. The actual experience of getting hit is relative to the person getting hit; he experiences the ball hitting him at 80 mph.

Okay, so the ball is thrown at 1000 mph, why does the equiptment measure it wrongly? You're mixing concepts here. Light is constant, just like the example above.
Nope.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/time-travel3.htm
Read that, you don't understand the concept of space time.
Still, the general idea of what he is saying is true. Time (relative to the observer) does slow near relativistic speeds. I hypothesize that it is due to the increase of relativistic mass, which increases gravity, which has been proven to have an effect on relative time.

Appels and oranges. It's like saying that if no ruler was invented, there is no such thing as distance.

Time is not part of the first 3 spacial dimensions, it is it's own, and it has a relation to space through somthing we call space-time. There can be time without light, light is just a ruler we use, we could use a different one if we wanted.
Guess why we call it space-time - without space, time cannot exist, and vice versa. The two are inseparable due to the definition of time and space. Time is defined as a continuum in which events occur; space is that continuum.
Of course, I agree with your statement that time and light are not interdependent.

You're thinking time within time, that's wrong. Non-existing time, is time that doesn't exist. There can't be a "before" time, if that's the start of time. Count 1 to 10, now what number did you say before 1? You didn't.
It still doesn't disprove the hypothesis that there was no time before the Universe begun.

[Kahuzal]

The myth of the begining of time (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00042F0D-1A0E-1085-94F483414B7F0000)

[SSA_Ultimasheep]

will someone please explain what a planck is? otherwise i've more or less followed all of this.

[Semi]

A Planck Length is about 1.6 x 10^-35, the smallest measurement of length where quantum stuff takes over, and a Planck time is something like 10^-43, which is the smallest time that really matters (techincally the amt of time it takes for a photon to travel a planck length).

[SSA_Ultimasheep]

is that 1.6x10^-35 inches, centemeters, or milimeteres

[Semi]

Srry thats in meters i believe