ALMA sees old galaxies before they merged. two ways to look back into the past?

Note that all the noted time frames are related to the spacetime fabric, i.e. the universe itself and all that is within its boundaries. The one dynamic reality we are sure of having emerged from a timeless nothingness.
If there are other universes is unknown, but theoretically not impossible and if so, they each may carry a uniquely different time frame dimension.

Obviously time is connected to our dynamical universe, but does not in any sense suggest that time exists as an independent dimenson. How do you measure time with time?

On the contrary, I would argue that time is a dimension which is wholly dependent on the physical existence of space. No physical (geometric) space, no measurable companion time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I misunderstood the idea of the hotel, it is not the Hilton, but the Hilbert, with which even Trump will never measure up. so, in your model, the infinite nature of time and even space is derived from an growth into infinity, whereas in the preamble to the expanding sphere membrane concept, the infinity of time is an a priori condition.
time is not only "unendlich" (hilbert's term) without end, but also without beginning. Infinite in all directions. In other words, infinity in time is not earned, but a grant, fundamental. Even a potential, what might be permitted (by some law) has to have time to exist in.
just because our spacetime universe has a beginning, does not go further back in time than the 13,8 billion years we measure, does not mean that pre-conditions, balances, did not exist for which a time dimension was essential.
Hilbert would have been please though, with the idea of an accelerating universe, fueled by a kind of energy that it acquires from the space that is added, opened up as (in the ESM model it advances through time) . Hilbert hotel rooms build with stuff that is already out there.
Here our ideas converge, because, if the future has the conditions, potentials, (time) that the universe moves (grows) into, so should have the past, out of which the whole universe emerged from prior conditions.
The universe was just an event waiting to happen at a point in infinite time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A probabilistic Potential derived from abstract mathematical permissions and restrictions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The idea that time does not exist outside of our universe is the kind of thought that was prevalent in pre-Galilean, pre-Copernican times., when it was inconceivable that nothing could happen without being centered on the our Earth.
How do you measure in space dimensions? X cubits long, y inches deep, z meters high. in space related units. --How would you measure a stretch of time? in duration related units,
Perhaps we could reconstruct, a replay model, of the countdown one day, for the conditions to become just right to trigger the bb at that zero point in time, with time duration coordinates.

 

Which conditions? A permittive condition is not necessarily causally dynamic.
IMO. the conversion from nothingness to the BB could have been instanteneous. Without the maths indicating specific values of pre-BB conditions, no conclusion can ever be drawn. The only thing we can say with any conviction comes after the BB which was the creation of our physical universe. How could you even measure a geometry outside our universe? Without geometry there are no tensors or vectors.
If per change "nothingness itself" creates a tensor, then an instantaneous reaction would be a quantum moment in duration creating a mega-quantum event, followed by the inflationary epoch which is equally unmeasurable as apparently it did not need to obey the law of SOL, suggesting that those laws did not yet exist in the permittive condition which existed prior to the BB.

Thus from perspective, inflation into this permittive nothingness was purely chaotic and not yet ruled by our laws of physics, which came later with the emerging physical particles within the newly created universe, after the inflationary epoch. However inflation may have been responsible for creating the "string field", which in turn was causal to the creation of "massive particles" and mathematical physically permittive and restrictive laws were created in this process.

These are measurable processes and reveal the mathematics of our spacetime. It also does not forbid a multiverse, where multiple universes were formed at the same time, with different properties and time lines.

I just don't see how we can look back to a point before the BB, which was apparently created from a singularity.

 

W4Y you cited the Hilbert motel , model really, as one fitting your view of reality. but in that concept there an infinite "rooms" possible in the future, or infinite units of time to build them in. but
You can not have half of an infinity. Infinite time has no beginning. Our universe did not start on the halfway mark to infinity.
In the ESM model the universe started at one point in time, but infinity time is all around, always was, always will, and every point in it (on the membrane) moves into the infinite future Whether it will make it or not, is another question.
The fact that time stretches to infinity does not mean there are not discrete intervals on it. 1000 seconds describes the diameter of the earth's orbit traversed by light, that distance in time, would be the same, whether our planet traverses opposite points on it's orbit or not.
That we can not escape the 3D universe that moves through time, which precludes us from measuring time independently, is part of the privilege being alive. sustained by stored energy.
Wee are on the move in infinite time, , never stopping for a moment.

 

All the events you described, predicted by the very intelligent creators of these concepts, are too complex for me, and some readers to fathom, but all have in common, that they require time. time to develop in, time to play out. instant-aneous is quick, a short distance in time .or?

 

Not countable before the BB event.
It could have been an instaneous quantum event, then is nothing, then there is something, i.e. BB

 

W4Y, while I do not take multiverse ideas as being relevant to us, the highlighted phrase above is in accord with the infinite time ESM model. Uvs. were formed at the same time, but obviously at different points in time, indicating that time is a dimension, in the model, stretching whichever way, these Uvs. now expanding through time, in their own way, dictated by their local conditions.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

just found this image striking, as an event that would happen instantaneously, giving rise to an independant sphere, whatever conditions, triggered it. However you describe it, how long it took, the beginning of our universe was spectacular, couching it in the language of the latest state of the art of science would do it no justice.

 

[QUOTE="Write4U, post: 3497403, member: 261885"
It could have been an instaneous quantum event[1], then[2] is nothing, then[3] there is something, i.e. BB[/QUOTE]

just probing: there is three time segments mentioned in that phrase, which would require movement through the time dimension in three increments, however short. making for the possibility that it happened in a dimension that stretched all the way back to infinity.

 

W4Y, reflecting on that picture you paint, you are obviously going beyond the universe bound time into the realm of a distinct, separate time dimension.
How can different other universes form at the same time? only if there are multiple points in time distant and separate from our point in time.

The difficult question is, if these are different points in time, but obviously separated on the "fabric" of time: how can they be distant from each other, but at the same time? well, only if you want to visit between them would you have to move through time . time tourism is not recommended. It is too time consuming.

 

I guess what is happening with our view is , that the stream of photons arriving from the past is a mixture of many that have joined at different points on the path. Some are older, and from far away, others younger and from closer. by extending the focus, we get to see the furthest away, Have to keep looking and focus in the right direction to see the interesting events, when they merge. good thing that we have learned to sort out how long ago a particular image we now get,-- was created.
In the meantime, the thread has morphed into a discussion whether time is infinite, or started at the BB.
The title should be changed to reflect that.

 

Astronomical viewing is not done when it is daytime or even with a full moon nearby, because the ~ 1 second old radiation reflected off the moon, or the ~500 second old sunlight would swamp out the 4 year, or 12 billion year old. I understand now that photons of different ages all come into one image, sorting out, or focussing at the appropriate singular source, spot, distance yields the clear images . Different images of the same object will arrive later, and some others would have arrived earlier, are now already gone by us, perhaps on their second circuit around the Membrane.

 

just probing: there is three time segments mentioned in that phrase, which would require movement through the time dimension in three increments, however short. making for the possibility that it happened in a dimension that stretched all the way back to infinity.[/QUOTE]
You don't "need" time, you need a permittive condition, time is created (a result) with change.
An infinite nothingness has no time, nothing exists, so it has no time-line, there is no time dimension associated with nothing . There is nothing to move through, nothing to measure. Time is a measurement of duration.

This is why I see time as a simultaneous result, a by-product of change or geometric patterns.

For our universe the BB was the first known change which was causal to all that came after. That is why the universe has a past (a time-line) as an object in and of itself. What came before has no time-line, at least not as a measurable duration of existence.

 

Unless you are observing the Sun or the full Moon.
Nevertheless thank you for trying to explain things clearer.
Alex

 

Of course, I was referring to the run of the mill deep space observations. Some of the more interesting observations were done with both the Sun and a new Moon together, , aligning on August 21 last year, and May 21 1919 for example
perfect timing, but not helping in the current debate about time as a dimension versus time as a result of sequences of events .

 

I can see your strong case for time being an invention that assures, that everything does not happen at once. That time will emerge if one takes the time to do things. ( a favoured ploy of non competitive government employees). but
In the emergent realisation by the likes of Krauss, Penrose, Carroll, that there is no such thing as "nothing" as philosophy defines it. The infinite nothingness (sic) out of which the universe emerged, already contained the [zero sum] energy that makes up the universe, and then some. That condition could not have existed without also having infinite time to exist in. so
while you are absolutely right in saying that time is evident by the observation, measuring, of the interval, duration between two events, internal to the universe, that does not preclude the strong possibility, advanced by the above and others, that the beginning of our universe is not the beginning, if any, of all, and of course:-- time.
W4Y your right, about duration, from the restricted point of view taken in an universe that has moved through time since that point in time ~13.8 billion years ago.

 

can you skip through time is what i want to know. time seems to be understood as a sequence of events. i propose that is not what 'time' is at all. we just 'measure' it that way.

take a ruler, for instance, you can see the entire length of it at once or focus on the beginning, middle or the end at any "time."

i propose that the past, present and future exists simultaneously. we already know abstractly that the future exists, even though we are blind consciously (for most part) to what that future entails, but that unknowing is not an indication that it does not exist already, anymore than being blind means there is nothing in front of you.

this also does not violate free will as that free will is what will shape that future but that future still exists, we just can't see it consciously, but the subconscious can know.

 

Interesting that you would compare time to a ruler, sometimes made from birch, a reasonably durable substance, but
Have you thought of the implications of that model? Does the past really still exist?
The Expanding Sphere Membrane proposed here, is one where time is seen as durable too, an infinite realm, and we are moving through it. Like in your idea, where we would be on the reading slide of an old fashioned sliding caliper .
You are correct! time (the ruler) is stationary, the measurer, (us) is sliding. However, what is happening in the 3 D space and us that is moving, is not recorded on the ruler. The past and future are blanc. History is only recorded in memory extant artifacts and messages fossilized in radiation. as far as we can tell.
predicting the future by reading the past has been proven to be very difficult. The future is not predictable numbers, except in astronomy. witness last August in Madras OR. thank you.