5 min read

Final

Time  has a beginning and an end?

 

I read an article about beginning and an end and it said, “In a universe that was essentially static, there would not have been any dynamical reason, why the stars should have suddenly turned on, at some time. Any such “lighting up time” would have to be imposed by an intervention from outside the universe. The situation was different, however, when it was realised that the universe is not static, but expanding. Galaxies are moving steadily apart from each other. This means that they were closer together in the past. One can plot the separation of two galaxies, as a function of time. If there were no acceleration due to gravity, the graph would be a straight line. It would go down to zero separation, about twenty billion years ago. One would expect gravity, to cause the galaxies to accelerate towards each other. This will mean that the graph of the separation of two galaxies will bend downwards, below the straight line. So the time of zero separation would have been less than twenty billion years ago.”

In my view point, there is no definitive answer yet, as we simply have no way of knowing, but we can make educated guesses. Time is probably not linear, and it possibly not one-dimensional. In fact, it may not even be possible to generalize it to a given dimension, as it may be a function of several parameters that we are not even aware of. For all we know, time could split off into an infinite amount of dimensions based on the possible actions of any given moment.
My guess is that the most recent Big Bang was not the first, and quite possibly, there was never a “first” just as there is no real beginning or end on a circle. One way of looking at it is that time itself never TRULY existed, but that it is a mere abstract, an imputation of humans trying to understand how things work. The idea of time “works” but the existence of such a thing as time cannot be proved.

Feed back

Mint ( my friend) said I need to put more my view point

Second

I read an article about beginning and an end and it said, “In a universe that was essentially static, there would not have been any dynamical reason, why the stars should have suddenly turned on, at some time. Any such “lighting up time” would have to be imposed by an intervention from outside the universe. The situation was different, however, when it was realised that the universe is not static, but expanding. Galaxies are moving steadily apart from each other. This means that they were closer together in the past. One can plot the separation of two galaxies, as a function of time. If there were no acceleration due to gravity, the graph would be a straight line. It would go down to zero separation, about twenty billion years ago. One would expect gravity, to cause the galaxies to accelerate towards each other. This will mean that the graph of the separation of two galaxies will bend downwards, below the straight line. So the time of zero separation would have been less than twenty billion years ago.”

My guess is that the most recent Big Bang was not the first, and quite possibly, there was never a “first” just as there is no real beginning or end on a circle. One way of looking at it is that time itself never TRULY existed, but that it is a mere abstract, an imputation of humans trying to understand how things work. The idea of time “works” but the existence of such a thing as time cannot be proved.

 

First

Time has a beginning and an end?

I read an article about beginning and an end and it said, “In a universe that was essentially static, there would not have been any dynamical reason, why the stars should have suddenly turned on, at some time. Any such “lighting up time” would have to be imposed by an intervention from outside the universe. The situation was different, however, when it was realised that the universe is not static, but expanding. Galaxies are moving steadily apart from each other. This means that they were closer together in the past. One can plot the separation of two galaxies, as a function of time. If there were no acceleration due to gravity, the graph would be a straight line. It would go down to zero separation, about twenty billion years ago. One would expect gravity, to cause the galaxies to accelerate towards each other. This will mean that the graph of the separation of two galaxies will bend downwards, below the straight line. So the time of zero separation would have been less than twenty billion years ago.”

In my view point, there is no definitive answer yet, as we simply have no way of knowing, but we can make educated guesses. Time is probably not linear, and it possibly not one-dimensional. In fact, it may not even be possible to generalize it to a given dimension, as it may be a function of several parameters that we are not even aware of. For all we know, time could split off into an infinite amount of dimensions based on the possible actions of any given moment.
My guess is that the most recent Big Bang was not the first, and quite possibly, there was never a “first” just as there is no real beginning or end on a circle. One way of looking at it is that time itself never TRULY existed, but that it is a mere abstract, an imputation of humans trying to understand how things work. The idea of time “works” but the existence of such a thing as time cannot be proved.