The Big Bang and Time

I was just wondering to myself about the big bang. The big bang theory states that the universe started from an infinitely small do that expanded. This dot expanded faster than the speed of light. (Correct me if I'm wrong please)

If this dot did expand faster than the speed of light, then according to relativistic effects the do would have expanded back in time.

1. If it did expand faster than the speed of light, then how did it expand back in time?
2. Was it the dot itself that caused it's own expansion?

Just some questions of mine. I would appreciate it if someone could help me answer it.

Time itself is a dimension. As are all dimensions, it is affected by the other dimensional effects.

Immediately after the Big Bang, space itself was expanding faster than the speed of light, but time was bound by its own limitations. Time remained time just as we understand it now. However, space itself did not fit our current concepts of space-time. So many other dimensional effects were occurring that we could not conceive the universe of that moment.

After all, we barely understand the universe of our time!

reply to post by Truth1000


Space expanding faster than time. Okay but as time is also a dimension could space expand back in time, thus already creating space before it was created?

The theory goes like this: nothing can go faster than the speed of light within the confines of the universe. IF the motion (expansion) of the dot is the universe in itself, then it can go as fast as it wants. Secondly time is the 4th dimension, and all things below the 4th dimension are bound by it. However, higher dimensions can alter their own, and others timelines.

I have a question.

Can something be infinite small and not be infinite large at the same time? You know, can you have the one without the other?

the whole travelling faster than light and time travel is not what people think it is. I see people get this confused. if the universe were a sentient being at the time, its PERCEPTION of time would of been different.

However, traveling faster than lights isnt really time travelling like we think it is.
It just means technically, that since your travelling faster than your "light cone" you will be able to see/perceive events "in the past". but really, youve just travelled so far, it takes TIME for the light to catch up

Large and small are again dimensional descriptions. As such, they are bound by the dimensions they themselves contain. If they contain the proper dimensional aspects, they could be infinitely large in one dimension and infinitely small in another, both occurring simultaneiously.

GA, you are trying to place a larger scale on a smaller one. It simply won't fit. Since space itself has so many dimensions, it will not bend to the will of a single dimension. Instead, the single dimension, time, follows its own path within the larger aspect of space itself.

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla

I was just wondering to myself about the big bang. The big bang theory states that the universe started from an infinitely small do that expanded. This dot expanded faster than the speed of light. (Correct me if I'm wrong please)

If this dot did expand faster than the speed of light, then according to relativistic effects the do would have expanded back in time.

1. If it did expand faster than the speed of light, then how did it expand back in time?
2. Was it the dot itself that caused it's own expansion?

Just some questions of mine. I would appreciate it if someone could help me answer it.

The confussion about the big bang is nothing expanded with in "a" space faster then light. Before the bang, space it self did not exist. It was SPACE and not something in a space that expanded faster then light. The same rules that apply to space time it self, do not apply to what happens with in space. So there is no violation of relativity as we know it because different rules apply in each case.

As a interesting side note a few years ago a physisist, whose name I can't recall, but it sounds like "Abercombri" came up with an idea to get a starship to another star system that would by pass the (serious) problem of getting close to the speed of light in normal space. For one thing the faster you go, the greater the mass of your ship in normal space. So in theory there is not enough energy in the universe to get you close to, let alone at the speed of light.

But his idea was quite neat and was soon dubded the "warp drive", for reaspons that will be clear. The best way to go great distances was not to go fast in normal space. In fact you would not move at all (or very much). What you would do is manipulate space so that it moves around you. In effect you would warp space. You would increase the density and thus shorten the distance of space ahead of you, and decrease the density and expand the distance of space behind you. Needless to say we don't nearly have the capacity to come close to doing this now (that I know of). The energy required unless we have some greater understanding of gravity, would be fantastic. But to me this is one of the sexyist ideas I've heard in decades. (Yeh, I know I need to get out more).

Ok I can understand that. Alright, this is my final question on this thread, what would happen if an object traveled back in time before the big bang?

There is really no way to even address anything of what happened before the Big Bang. What would happen to time, before time existed? The circumstances of all evidence we can detect limits us to the events after the Big Bang. The Big Bang itself destroyed any evidence of what was happening before its occurrance. While anyone can create any speculation as to what existed beforehand, NO EVIDENCE exists to allow us even the slightest inkling into the reality of that age.

Sorry, but science cannot answer that question.

reply to post by Truth1000


While this dosen't address the specific question about what was there before the big bang, the current theory about the structure of the universe thats popular in some circles is we exist in one of an infinate number of universe's called a multi-verse. At the edge of any one universe, (what ever that means), there is a field or barrier called a brane. As in membrane. From time to time one brane will come into contact with another. At the point of contact, you have a big bang and another universe "bubble" is created, then some how pinched off and forever isolated from the others (at least at our level of technology).

You could ask if isolated how could two or more branes bump each other? I don't know. Maybe something breaks down, or erodes, whatever, over time. It's kind of interesting that up to the 1960's the prevailing view on the universe was known as the steady state theory. The universe had always been there and always would. The big bang theory I think is correct for our universe. But it dosen't take into account the concept of the multiverse. That may be eternal. Who knows. In theory if you could go back in time before our big bang? Perhaps you would end up in another universe.

The multi-verse theory still depends on the dimensions created within the context of dimensions we can postulate. Even a different universe, with significantly differing parameters of existing dimensions, would have begun after an initiating event.

To speculate what would happen before any existing dimensions were present is to hypothesize that which would be impossible to scientifically explore, since no data as to that condition is even conceivable. That would be less provable than to identify the length of eyelashes for Helen of Troy, because we could at least base our guesses on the known length of human eyelashes of today. Although no one could prove right or wrong, we would have SOME basis for declaring our theories.

This is beyond the realm of science, and falls into the category of unsubstantiated beliefs. That is okay, though, because we all have some sort of beliefs we cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt. That is part of what makes us human.

The Big Bang and Time

The idea of the Big Bang and then Time being a consequence of the event is an assumption, and a misleading one. The assumption is partially based on a misinterpretation of meanings of certain space observations.

Said Truth1000
This is beyond the realm of science, and falls into the category of unsubstantiated beliefs. That is okay, though, because we all have some sort of beliefs we cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt. That is part of what makes us human.


Aronolac: Science itself has postulated a big-bang (as an original one-way expansion of the universe) coming out of a fundamental misunderstanding of universe cosmology. The big bang insofar as universe origins goes, is a myth. Space can flow without explosive forces putting it into motion. Space expands predictably on its own, and not because space is being propelled like a heated gas out of a gun barrel. Space also constricts; that is, it flows backwards within itself in grand space-cycles; not in arbitrary changes of direction. Space today is in its normal expansionary cycle.

Time has nothing to do with space itself either. Space does not inherently contain time. Space can exist without time. It does not need time to be space.

Time is determined, not by an absolute alarm clock, but by a mind analysis of the motions “in” and “of” space. Space is real and immaterial. Time is also real and works like a legend on a geography map which shows us the scale of distances between objects or continents. Unlike space, time is a measuring tool of the mind whereas space indicates existence.

To boil the above statements down, we could say that space tells us something exists; time tells us where. At the same time when we learn “where”, we learn our relationship to it in space. Mind is necessary to intervene between both endowments (space and time) to provide the experiential relationship between what and where.

Very good point, Aronolac.

However, our science can only be supported by evidence we can observe. Time is a dimension, and might not be a required element in another universe. The problem is that it is an element of our universe. We can speculate about a universe without time, but since time is present in our observable existence, we cannot dismiss it from our scientific methods.

reply to post by Truth1000


I agree, it is now beyond the realm of science. But not beyound the realm of imagination.

Truth 100 wrote:

Very good point, Aronolac.

However, our science can only be supported by evidence we can observe. Time is a dimension, and might not be a required element in another universe. The problem is that it is an element of our universe. We can speculate about a universe without time, but since time is present in our observable existence, we cannot dismiss it from our scientific methods.

Aronolac: I think anyone who ponders the universe should understand that time, like blood, is something we transport with us. However the universe itself is without time. Time is a perception, not a dimension or force in space.

The question about time is more about an inquiry into how we as a species are forced to filter what we know through a unique condition of our own development. We have to view space through a time lens; however, that is a bias that unless we know how it works, will cause errors even in scientific evaluation of what the universe really is like.

Should there be beings who are thinkers who do NOT require a linear time line to conclude meaning, their science will have removed the need to calculate distances through the mathematics of time. Space does not require time to be itself, nor does an observer have to use time to understand space. We bring it with us and that requires us to acknowledge we interpret using a time bias. Not all of the universe will be built upon such a limitation, and even the big bang uses time as part of the arguments to support such a theory (i.e. age of remnant heat radiation, etc).

Thank you.

I did a study on this theme last year. When i delivered a paper on how existence could have been created from everything.

I used time as a measurement of changes in a element(s).

I used everying as a definition, that existence can't consist of anything that don't already exist. A finite can't consist of something that does not exist within the infinite.

I used light as emitted energy crated by a change. Light is emitted energy from a cause. By a reaction or a interaction between different or alike energies.

I used the infinite as one dimension. Because there can be no other infinite dimension like it.

I used finite as the dimensions of existence. Finite is the amount of energy relative to the infinite. This can also be pictured as trying to measure the distance from 1 to Zero. Between 1 and Zero you have a infinite amount of finite. But finite can not be greater than the infinite. A finite can only exist within the infinite.

Light is the energy that is most plausible to be the energy closest to the infinite?

Since we have a dimension that is infinite big. All finite dimensions must have been created by a compression (Because a finite can only exist within the infinite dimension). A compression of energy will emit light. A compression of energies will form/shape finite sources.

When the compression is initiated something very important events take place. All the emitted energies create a differential to the infinite. You can also call this the distance between the finite and the infinite. The emitted energy creates a distance between the finite and the infinite dimension. The closer the energies are to the infinite dimension, the greater its speed and changes will become. The further away a finite is from the infinite the slower its speed and changes become.





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]