Did time begin with the beginning of space?

If you accept that the Big Bang was the first thing that ever happened, then yes. Otherwise, no.

If you accept that the universe will continue to expand forever (a more debatable point than the previous one), then time is also not infinite. Otherwise, time may or may not end when the universe collapses in on itself, depending whether or not anything else happens after that.

Orthodox Einsteinian physics would seem to suggest so, as in that model the two are linked in a continuum. No time without space, no space without time.

Yes, time and space need each other. @barumonkey – with the recent discovery of dark energy, there’s little debate about the universe expanding forever- it will, more and more rapidly at that.

Time began when God got spaced, fell asleep and began to dream.
However, God does not eat when asleep and, therefore, does not expand.
But there may be the occasional ’ Big Bang ’ throughout the night as gasses are released into space.

Conservation of energy. THe universe starts with x amount of energy and from there it expands until energy depletes and it returns to its origin. time and space depends on the energy contained in the system. Energy is finite therefore time and space are finite as well.

@itsjustmatt; I doubt there is “little debate” about it, given that the existence of dark energy itself is still uncertain.

@Jayne We have observed the effects of dark energy, that is fact. The debate about dark energy doesn’t really lie with whether or not it exsists, but rather “What is it that causing these affects?”. More importantly though, why did we give it such a crappy name that makes no sense, and evokes total misthinkings in people when they hear the term?
@mea05key You said “Conservation of energy” and “until the energy depletes”. Conservation means, it doesn’t deplete, it just gets less dense as time goes on. The density will never go to zero though. Either way, your arguement sounds unfounded at best.

@itsjustmatt

I guess what i m pointing out is that the universe starts with a big bang and ends up being sucked altogether into that single point again. That high amount of energy of forms from big bagn is being sucked into a single point with a very high density similar to large sun dying out into a black hole. Energy is esentially equivalent to mass from einstein’s law. There fore space forms from that single point and that’s when time starts and dies forming back to its original single pint and thats when time ends.

Einstein propses the 4th dimension which is time. Every entitiy in this universe can be describe by the four dimensions,

No; there are legitimate theories that explain these effects without resorting to anything so exotic as dark energy.

@Jayne What theories are you referring to? There’s nothing exotic about dark energy (except the name), its just a repulsive force that we know little about at the moment.
@mea05key Gravity is what makes stars, black holes, super nova’s, GRB’s, etc. I agree, but on a scale of billions of light years some unknown “repulsive” force overpowers gravity’s “attractive” force. Therefore the universe is not only expanding, its expanding at an accelerating rate as opposed to a decelerating rate as gravity would have it.

So, I’m new on here, but I do know something about this, having studied it recently and read a lot. Correct me if I’m wrong, but most of these points are proven:

First of all, @Jayne, regardless of why this is being caused, it is a proven fact that galaxies and other faraway objects are accelerating away from us. This has been proven spectroscopically. So the universe is expanding, in that sense, and expanding ever faster.
Secondly, @mea05key, there is little evidence to support this model, especially with the evidence my first point. It was a favorite of astrophysics not too long ago, before ‘dark energy’ (@itsjustmatt: i agree, it’s a horrible term) was discovered, but given that we know that it seems increasingly improbable that the universe will collapse back.

As to the original question, it’s still in hot debate, and outside of the knowledge of most people here. As for time in this universe, it seems likely to have started with the big bang and, if constant expansion is a given, seems likely to continue infinitely into the future. But, if you consider the possibility of other universes, it may be infinite in that sense. But that’s getting rather too close to the unprovable.

is time real?

All we know is that the observable part of the universe is expanding, and expanding at an increasing rate. The observable universe represents a very small percent of the accepted size of the actual universe. The theory that the entire universe is also expanding at an increasing rate is based entirely on the assumption that what is true for our part of the universe is true for all of it. If the distribution of matter in the observable part of the universe were of a lower average density than the immediately surrounding areas, then the observable universe would expand at an increasing rate due solely to gravitational attraction. Assuming that our solar system occupies such a ‘special’ place might seem presumptuous. However, there are many possible explanations. For instance, during the time that the universe was extremely small, random fluctuations in density predicted by quantum theory may have created minuscule pockets of high and low density; as the universe expanded, these pockets would have expanded as well. Whatever the cause of these pockets, if they do exist, then it is perhaps probable that the Earth, or any life-staining planet, should occupy one, since the relative emptiness of space would allow the planet to maintain a stable orbit long enough to evolve life.

This is explained much better, and probably with fewer errors, in Scientific American, April 2009

@Jayne Yes, alright, it is possible that you can apply the anthropomorphic argument to say that that may be true, but Einstein proved the existence of dark energy before the spectroscopic data. He thought it was a mistake, but seeing as he was later proved right this gives it an interesting ring of truth to it. Secondly, it’s really bad form to say “well, maybe somewhere else it’s different”. We have no evidence of this. It makes much more logical sense to assume that we are not special, and that our segment of the universe is not improbably rich in matter, since all observable data points in this direction.

@ABoyNamedBoobs03: Possibly not. There are several schools of thought that say that time is just a sequential order that our linear brains give to actually random and simultaneous events, or many other rationales. But like the idea that the universe outside out observable sphere is different, it is unprovable.

@Jayne I must agree, that is a strong argument. Thanks for the detailed explanation!
@BhacSsylan A few years back I would have agreed with your ‘we are not in a special place’ argument. There is now some evidence that we maybe even be in a ‘special time’. I was in awe while reading the book “Just Six Numbers” to think about how fine tuned the natural constants are, only to find out a couple of years later, they may not be constant. They may change over time. Take “alpha” for instance,I wish I could remember the reference but research into an ancient natural uranium reactor found in Africa showed that it couldn’t have existed with the current value of alpha. Sorry for the lack of details, I will try to remember where I read that.
Sometimes I really wish I could just enjoy my beer and quit this crazy way of thinking about life!!

um to keep it simple, why does time have to begin and end? why can’t it just be ever-existing?
no beginning no end.

@itsjustmatt It;s alright, i remember reading about the fact that the constants shift. The thing is, the anthropomorphic argument is perfectly valid for many arguments. Like the fact that we’re quite possibly on a special planet, the only one in a very large are capable of starting carbon-based life that lead to us, since it’s only possible for us to exist in such a place, it stands to reason that if we’re here it must be such a special place.

And for the shifting constants, it also works, because if we need the constants in a certain ‘phase’, for lack of a better word, then we could only have evolved in such a phase.

I just don’t think that it is decently probable that in every direction outside of our bubble of observation, the universe is denser. It would have to be uniform, because we’ve noticed general acceleration away, and just pockets of higher density would cause uneven acceleration.

@Jayne Just wanted to say, after reading over my first posts in this, that I may have seemed a little.. hostile, maybe? just wanted to say sorry, I didn’t mean to. You’ve got good arguments, just can’t say I find them as convincing.

@drpoop Well, technically speaking it doesn’t have to. But as was pointed out early on, time and space are linked, and it’s a decent logical jump that no space means no time. So, if we can postulate a beginning of space, there must be a beginning of time.

Of course, this isn’t necessarily true. Just thought of this. So, space warps time. For example, theoretically, when falling into a black hole, it would seem to you that time outside the black whole started going faster and faster, as you accelerated into it, and the mass of the black hole started seriously messing with space-time. So, wouldn’t the body of matter before (if there is a before), or more likely, just after, have a similar warping effect, causing a possible time dialation into the past? Or am i just spewing random nonsense?

@BhacSsylan I don’t think anyone is trying to use anthropomorphic argument at all. When the word “special” comes up, read it as “different”. I’m glad to be alive but, life or no life and why isn’t the argument here. The explanation of dark energy is the debate.

We have found some parts of the universe accelerating faster than others, it doesn’t appear to be uniform.

@itsjustmatt Any time that you bring up the idea that our segment of the universe is different then any other because we’re in it, such as the fact that a less dense section of the universe would be better for life to grow, is an anthropomorphic argument. It’s to say that here is different because we’re here. I’m saying that it’s a legitimate argument for several things, like your comment about the constants, but i think that since we have little evidence that anywhere else is different, it doesn’t hold much water. In general, it works if the alternative is less probable.

On the other side, though, if it isn’t constant acceleration (i thought it was, but i admit my memory may be rusty), then that may give some evidence.

@BhacSsylan; All observable data points in this direction only because all theories have been formed under the tacit assumption that our position is representative of the whole universe; if physics had been more open to the idea that our position might not be representative, then all data might point to this theory instead. It has not had enough time to be developed fully. And by saying that our position is not representative, I am not saying that it is special; rather, I am saying that the if the universe is not uniform, then no one position is representative of all position, just like a mixture of equal parts black and white marbles, no one marble is representative of all marbles. In a universe with regions of high and low density, no position is representative of all regions. We would have to situated in the rough center of a void, as you properly note, making our position improbably, but not inconceivable. I am not, after all, trying to say that this theory is necessarily true, just that there are reasonable alternatives to dark energy. There are other theories, this is just the one with which I am most familiar.

Also, a note on the anthropic principle (You say it is sometimes legitimate, so I am not sure we actually disagree on this or not). It is not causative, as many think; it is not saying “so-and-so is true because we are here”. It is inferential, saying that “it is very unlikely for us to be here if so-and-so is not true, therefore, given that we are here, it is probable that so-and-so is true”. This is no different than saying that “it is highly improbably to find a seagul far from water, therefore, given that there is a seagull here, it is probable that there is water nearby”. This argument only works, of course, if you can demonstrate that human life is not likely to exist if so-and-so is not true, so I hesitate to use it support the presence of a void surrounding the Earth, as I don’t know the probabilities involved. But it can be used to provide tentative support for the idea that we exist at a through in a density distribution.

@Jayne As to your first point, not even going to try and argue that, mostly because I can’t find any problems with it. Point to you :-)

As far as the anthropic principal (oh thank god you knew the right term, writing anthropomorphic is bad enough if I’m using it right. Sorry for that error), no, we don’t really disagree, it’s really the same, just different ways of looking it at. I’m not saying it proves anything, just lends weight, as you said. I’m just looking at it as ‘We’re here, and X is necessary, so it’s probable that Y’. It’s the same argument, just presented differently.

I guess my main argument is I don’t think there’s enough evidence to say that we are not indicative of the larger universe. Again, Einstein deduced the existence of the acceleration before the spectroscopic data, he thought it was one of his greatest mistakes at the time, since it didn’t seem to make sense. Considering that, I think it’s more probable it’s real, and simply caused by something we don’t currently understand.

@BhacSsylan Darn you, you had me using the wrong term too. I knew anthropomorphic just was not rolling off the tongue like anthropic used to. Either way, I do think we are all arguing the same thing.

@BhacSsylan; Einstein did not deduce accelerated expansion of the universe. In fact, he assumed that the universe was static, and he introduced a ‘cosmological constant’ to counteract the effects of gravity and allow the universe to remain the same size. It did not arise naturally out of the theory or mathematics, it was tacked on to the equations to force them to fit with an erroneous assumption, and was indeed unsuccessful at doing so. It has been revived, ironically, to explain the expansion of the universe, as a mathematical expression value which can be explained by dark energy, but it was by no means “deduced” or a ‘proof of the existence of dark energy’; it was at the time a weak postulate to explain an assumption, and continues to be relevant because it explains empirical data. It was never, under Einstein or now, the result of a theoretical prediction, so its earlier use cannot be used as evidence for its validity.

Also, I am mildly amused that this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with the original question. Since it grew out of my comment that there is still debate about the existence of dark energy, I will recap my argument as: “the existence of dark matter is an explanation for empirical data, not a theoretical prediction, and there are viable, although certainly not proven, alternative explanations for the data”.