Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking

[Political Junky]

There will be much discussion of this.

Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking

"The boundary condition of the universe ... is that it has no boundary," Hawking tells the National Geographic's Star Talk show this weekend.

In other words, there is no time before time began as time was always there.

 

[gtopa1]

There will be much discussion of this.

Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking

"The boundary condition of the universe ... is that it has no boundary," Hawking tells the National Geographic's Star Talk show this weekend.

In other words, there is no time before time began as time was always there.

Who cares???

Greg

 

[K9Buck]

Absurd. The universe had a beginning and that's when the clock started ticking. Time is, after all, a characteristic of the physical realm.

 

[Mousterian]

Absurd. The universe had a beginning and that's when the clock started ticking. Time is, after all, a characteristic of the physical realm.

Are you sure? Can you touch it?

 

[Political Junky]

There will be much discussion of this.

Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking

"The boundary condition of the universe ... is that it has no boundary," Hawking tells the National Geographic's Star Talk show this weekend.

In other words, there is no time before time began as time was always there.

Who cares???

Greg

Surprise, you don't. LOL

 

[Windparadox]

`
It's pretty much nonsensical to refer to "before" the Big Bang as time/space didn't exist until "after" the Big Bang.
`

 

[K9Buck]

There is a plethora of evidence that the universe had a beginning and ZERO evidence that it is eternal. Yes, time began with the Big Bang. The universe is a realm, a realm that was caused into existence by a creator. End of story.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is a plethora of evidence that the universe had a beginning and ZERO evidence that it is eternal.

But here's whereyou are missing the point:

It seems to have had a beginning to us observers, confined inside this instance of a universe. But , just because it appears so to us does not make it so. Hawking is referring to an asymptotic approach to the beginning of time, if one travels backwards in time. This is something that is generally agreed upon by all physicists. The new info here (for the layman) is that the issue of no true beginning/ppearance of beginning has been mathematically solved, with the solution relying on the boundlessness of time.

 

[Wuwei]

Who cares???

Greg

This is the Science and Technology board. If you don't care about developments in science why do you come here to troll.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

`
It's pretty much nonsensical to refer to "before" the Big Bang as time/space didn't exist until "after" the Big Bang.
`

Half true, according to Hawking.

 

[Windparadox]

Half true, according to Hawking.

`
Hawking is big into "string theory." From what I understand, the most remarkable thing about string theory is that such a simple idea works--- it is possible to derive the Standard Model from a theory of strings. But it should also be said that, there is at this time, no direct experimental evidence that string theory itself is the correct description of the natural order of things. This is mostly due to the fact that string theory is still under development. We know bits and pieces of it, but we do not yet see the whole picture, and we are therefore unable to make definite predictions.
`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Half true, according to Hawking.

`
Hawking is big into "string theory." From what I understand, the most remarkable thing about string theory is that such a simple idea works--- it is possible to derive the Standard Model from a theory of strings. But it should also be said that, there is at this time, no direct experimental evidence that string theory itself is the correct description of the natural order of things. This is mostly due to the fact that string theory is still under development. We know bits and pieces of it, but we do not yet see the whole picture, and we are therefore unable to make definite predictions.
`

Yep...no empirical evidence, and some of the things we would expect to find (according to some predictions of string theory) have not appeared.

 

[IsaacNewton]

There will be much discussion of this.

Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking

"The boundary condition of the universe ... is that it has no boundary," Hawking tells the National Geographic's Star Talk show this weekend.

In other words, there is no time before time began as time was always there.

Non sequitur by Hawking. If the Big Bang created the Universe from nothing, there was NOTHING. No space, no time. Nothing.

I saw this on a feed and wondered what Hawking was talking about, it makes no sense. Many people think the Big Bang happened in empty space. The theory is that the universe came into existence from nothing. This is a very hard concept for humans to imagine as they always picture empty space or some 'space' where things had to happen. No, there was not even empty space, nothing means the absolute value of nothing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If the Big Bang created the Universe from nothing, there was NOTHING.

Hawking is very explicitly statinng that the big bang did not create the universe "from nothing".

 

[Political Junky]

If the Big Bang created the Universe from nothing, there was NOTHING.

Hawking is very explicitly statinng that the big bang did not create the universe "from nothing".

Many of us have a problem with infinity, too. The universe is infinite.

 

[Toro]

There will be much discussion of this.

Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking

"The boundary condition of the universe ... is that it has no boundary," Hawking tells the National Geographic's Star Talk show this weekend.

In other words, there is no time before time began as time was always there.

It’s about time he figured that out.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The universe is infinite

Maybe, but that is not part and parcel of what Hawkng is saying. "Boundless" is not the equivalent of "infinite".

 

[Windparadox]

`
I don't believe in "infinity." It's just another way of saying it's a number so vast, it is beyond human comprehension.
`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

`
I don't believe in "infinity." It's just another way of saying it's a number so vast, it is beyond human comprehension.
`

Ha...no...it is a mathematical concept, and it is quite real. The summation of infinite series was a breakthrough in human thought and got us over the most fundamental of philosophical paradoxes.

 

[Windparadox]

Ha...no...it is a mathematical concept, and it is quite real. The summation of infinite series was a breakthrough in human thought and got us over the most fundamental of philosophical paradoxes.

`
We differ then. You are laboring under the handicap that us humans already have a firm grasp on that which is "knowable." We humans have already postulated that the closer one gets to a "black hole", the more all our laws of physics break down. That is to say, there are realms of reality and science we are totally ignorant of, because in essence, us humans are not hard wired (so to speak) to conceptualize such things. The math breaks down. Infinite means; "I don't understand."
`