2
$\begingroup$
  1. Did time begin from big bang?

  2. If not then what existed before big bang?

  3. If time had a beginning, then does it have a end, or pause because if time had a pause then we would not have known about it, nor there would be any proof for it so does it happen?

$\endgroup$

marked as duplicate by Qmechanic Sep 18 '17 at 5:17

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No one knows the answer to any of those questions. Although a 'pause' would involve all particles (including light) staying exactly where they are for some period of time which would mean a cessation of the physical laws, so we can pretty much rule that out. $\endgroup$ – lemon Apr 15 '16 at 8:11
  • $\begingroup$ Do you want to hear the logical answer? What existed "before" the big bang is the same that exists today, it has merely changed its shape, or physically speaking, its phase. Sounds kind of boring, right? It does coincide with the second part of your statement though... there may not be any proof (better use the word "evidence" instead) for what "the same" looked like. That's what happens when things change phase... the puddle on the ground can't tell us anything about the snowman that it was just two days ago. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Apr 15 '16 at 9:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Effectively a duplicate of: How can something happen when time does not exist? $\endgroup$ – John Rennie Apr 15 '16 at 9:17
  • $\begingroup$ Other possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/2355/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/5150/2451 and links therein. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Apr 15 '16 at 10:40
1
$\begingroup$

This paper explains the importance of physical mechanisms existing which can function as clocks at various eras. Your question is not simple

Abstract We provide a discussion of some main ideas in our project about the physical foundation of the time concept in cosmology. It is standard to point to the Planck scale (located at ∼ 10−43 seconds after a fictitious “Big Bang” point) as a limit for how far back we may extrapolate the standard cosmological model. In our work we have suggested that there are several other (physically motivated) interesting limits – located at least thirty orders of magnitude before the Planck time – where the physical basis of the cosmological model and its time concept is progressively weakened.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Apart from serious conceptual weaknesses of that paper (the authors seem to be having a hard time deciding if they want to be philosophers or physicists :-)), the paper motivates a number of interesting hierarchy problems to identify suitable clocks... that physical clocks still have to exist is undoubtedly the case, since there is still a dynamic going on and that is, all by itself, automatically a clock. The big takeaway is almost trivial, though: what's long and what's short depends on the heartbeat of your (only) clock. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Apr 15 '16 at 8:42
  • $\begingroup$ @CuriousOne This also touches on Penrose' work where he claims that time cannot exist in a universe containing only photons $\endgroup$ – user56903 Apr 15 '16 at 9:20
  • $\begingroup$ At the very least it would be flowing extremely slowly by human standards... :-) The problem with all of this is that it's all so model dependent. If we give a tiny rest mass to photons and conjure up some strong effective long range interaction, then we can probably transform the universe of the future into the equivalent of the quark gluon plasma of the early universe... eternal inflation, here we come. Are we living on a fractal? Maybe... the problem with those things is that we can't zoom in and out at will... $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Apr 15 '16 at 9:25
1
$\begingroup$

As a completely speculative answer, I would say:

1) According to our current theories OUR time did start with the bigbang. I say our time, because it is plausible to think of other parallel universes with their own laws and times. Not even so, but no law forbids that other universes have more than one time dimension.

2) You have two possible answers, either the nothingness, no time no space no nothing. Or a pre bigbang universe with its own concept of time. One way to imagine this is to think that you create a very advanced simulation in a computer in which intelligent beings populate the virtual world. Time for them is not the same as time for us. For them their time (that for us can run a different rates if we want, or even stop the simulation and resume it later) is not our time. Their time will start at some point and our time will be equivalent (not the same, as the analogy is loose) to the pre bigbang universe.

3) Time can or cannot have an end, having a beginning does not logically imply it will have an end. However, as with the computer simulation, time can pause or have different rates as measured by an "external" observer outside our universe, but there is no way we could detect that, much less find a proof, as for us time runs always at the same pace.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Actually , time is not absolute ... Newton first had stated that time is aboslute (i.e. it was there forever , even before big bang) . But by his theory of relativity , state that it was relative . But he didn't mean to say that it started before bigbang , instead he tried to say that time could be interfered or altered by some ways which can include too much of speed or gravity . You can find more info on this topic at my website :- https://www.allabout4d.wordpress.com Have a nice day and thank you !!!

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your link doesn't work. This comes when I click on it. $\endgroup$ – lucas Jul 9 '16 at 17:30

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.