Mange, there might well be other “regions” of the universe which are timeless or have only “timelike” properties. However, nobody seriously contends that there is or was a time or state in which nonexistence described the universe. I define the word “creation” as causing a nonexistent thing to exist (or something similar, not having looked at a dictionary). The universe is. I cannot see how the word “creation” can meaningfully be applied to it.
Some definitions for clarification:
Eternal – existing without beginning and without end.
God – a supernatural entity that would transcend space-time.
Universe – the sum of spacetime/energy/etc…
Dear SentientMeat,
Surely, a requisite of something being called a black hole is having, theoretically, an “infinite density”. For something to have infinite density it must, (i) have zero volume, or (ii) have an infinite mass, because density = mass/volume. Dividing by zero is typically undefined in mathematics, but there is no contradiction, per se, with something undefined being infinite. Do not most scientific theories suggest that black holes have zero volume, and consequently, an infinite density?
Dear Shodan,
The Big Bang “is used both in a narrow sense to refer to the interval of time roughly 13.7 billion years ago when the photons observed in the microwave cosmic background radiation acquired their blackbody form, and in a more general sense to refer to a hypothesized point in time when the observed expansion of the universe (Hubble’s law) began.” (Wikipedia). We might say it had a “beginning”, but by this we only mean that there was a point where t=0.
Dear Aldebaran,
Eratosthenes, as was mentioned, was one who proposed that the earth was not flat, but evidence for a spherical earth was made for before that. Aristotle himself drew upon empirical evidence to falsify the presupposition that the Earth was flat. However, I believe that the theory of a flat earth did indeed seep back, contrite some thinkers like Jeffrey Russell – interesting guy, he proposes that the flat earth theory is but a myth.
Actually, the belief that the earth was flat held in popular circles in Europe until about 500AD so so, I think. The early Christians discounted the ancient Greeks knowledge as pagan for a time until more people came to accept it.
The age of the universe being 13 million years old applies only to the part of the universe we can observe. Who knows how far it really goes.
No, I believe you’re thinking of a singularity. Black holes are not necessarily singularities, I believe (although they might all happen to be).
Sheesh, I don’t know what came over me. Typing so quickly to the quick responses :D. A singularity, of course. My original point question, should have been along the lines of how a singularity can be said to exist, and the problems it might pose, philosophically, from time and volume being meaningless there. Do you think it would suffice to say that a singularity is “timeless”? It makes little sense to speak of it in any temporal or spatial fashion. Don’t know, but my original pseudoscience thoughts make it hard to comprehend; “where’s the singularity?” “Over there”, “where”? If something does not have spacetime coordinates, can it be said to exist at all? Although, I guess it could have a time coordinate. i.e. it existed from T1 till’ T2.
Well, a singularity still exists “somwhere”. And, if we are to believe Stephen Hawking’s conjecture that there are no naked singularities, ie. that they all have a Schwarzchild radius (ie. that all singularities are black holes, but all black holes are not necessarily singularities - still with me?) then within a Schwarzchild radius, time has no meaning. That is not to say that black holes don’t change - they lose mass over time from (as-yet-unobserved) Hawking radiation.
Where? 
I think I understand. So, any object smaller than the Schwarzchild radius is termed a “black hole”. I see in what sense it can be said to exist, now. Still finding it a little hard to comprehend something with a zero volume having mass and a gravitational radius, but I’ll put that down to my ignorance in Physics. You wouldn’t happen to have any particular book recommendations on the subject, would you?
Two points:
– Just because there was no time before time, does not mean that the universe has always existed. To me, always means an infinite amount of time, which is not necessarily the case, unless
– Furthermore, despite the fact that we cannot currently concieve of a time in our universe before the Big Bang, does not mean that time does not exist in a meta-universe. Perhaps God hung around for awhile (depending on the definition of awhile in that location of course) before creating the Universe. This of course raises the question of who or what created God and the meta-universe.
Yes, and sorry for the confusion - all bodies have a Schwarzchild radius. Only objects smaller than their Schwarzchild Radius are Black holes.
Stephen Hawking’s your man for the books. “The Universe in a Nutshell” is a masterpiece of science-writing, with pretty pictures galore!
Does “all over the world” mean that there is an infinite amount of world?
Ludovic,
Presuming that points like that would arise, I thought to clarify the terms. I doubt that many theists argue that God is a spatial-temporal entity, nor would they argue that God did not create space-time. “Always” means having existed for “all time”, I don’t so much see the relevance to the “infinite”. The dear American Heritage:
al·ways ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ôlwz, -wz, -wz)
adv.
- At all times; invariably: always late.
- For all time; forever: They will always be friends.
- At any time; in any event: You can always resign if you’re unhappy.
Always Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
Agreed, but when God is defined as that which transcends spacetime, then he cannot. Also, when the Universe is defined as the sum of spacetime, there can be no other “meta-verse”.
Thanks! I’ll try to order it today.
It is quite correct to say, relativistically, that the Universe has existed for all time. That does not, however, prevent the Universe from having been created. It merely prevents the precipitating event from taking place inside of time, where time is bound inextricably to our material Universe. Of course, in the very moment that any hypothetical precipitating event actually “occured” in th material Universe, it became part of the creation rather than a cause thereof.
Leaving aside question of theology, some of the more “audacious” multiple worlds scenarios could account for a causative event not constrained by the time of our Universe. You rarely hear about pilot waves anymore, but among the quantum explanations it presents some interesting “possiblities” when discussing a Universal creative event. After all, once you allow information to travel in reverse of time’s arrow, ideas like the lock-step march of cause and effect fall quickly by the wayside.
This “precipitating event” is surely just “time” in disguise surely, Spiritus? One may hypothesis domains or dimensions outside of our 3-brane of three spatial and one temporal dimensions which somehow “connect to” our region, but is it in any way meaningful to say that these cause or create our region or any other?
As I said to Mange, I define the word “creation” as causing a nonexistent thing to exist. Even “outside of time” or in these “multiple worlds”, nonexistence is not the case. I cannot see how the word “creation” can meaningfully be applied to the universe or indeed any part of it, temproal, 3-dimensional, or what.
So does everyone get that the universe has a beginning, that time is not defined except at and after that beginning, and that it looks now like time is infinite in the positive direction, but not in the negative direction? (It’s like one of those number lines you did in junior high, with a black dot at 0 and an arrow pointing to the right.) Whether time exists in a metauniverse is an interesting question, I would doubt it since there is no matter or energy there.
Creation is a different matter entirely. Since the sum of energy in our universe is 0, it is possible that our universe began without a cause, and is thus uncreated. However I don’t see how we can rule out creation from somewhere else - if our universe is a black hole in another one, one with matter and energy, one can imagine child universes. (See the fictional treatment of this in Baxter’s Manifold: Time.) Who or what the creator would be is unknown, be it god, grad student or cosmic muffin.
As for god, I would be a lot more convinced by a creation story in any religion if they got it even remotely right. Who knows, the god of some other planet entirely might have been responsible, and we’re just living in the side effects from the creation of the race who really mattered.
Aldebaran, if you want a first hand account of middle age theo-cosmology. pick up The Divine Comedy. Dante’s Earth is a sphere. It is quite likely that ignorant peasants thought the world was flat, but ignorant peasants think a lot of things.
Dante was born in 1265AD and he situates the journey in La Divina Commedia in the year 1300 AD.
That is not the period I was talking about, maybe I should have specified “Early Middle Ages” instead of using the short-hand general term.
Salaam. A
I’m with Spiritus Mundi on this - you can’t rule out the possibility of the universe haveing been spawned from another realm. The only thing that we can say about what exists outside of our universe is “we don’t know”. The fact that time is undefined outside our universe doesn’t mean that it’s impossible for another universe to have it’s own time, or similar property.
That’s a good point, but if the scenario were to work forward rather than backward, I sure as heck would expect an infinite amount of time forward, rather than simply to the “end of the universe”, if that exists. So I allow myself to expect the same working backward.
True, but I’m not aware of any scientific discoveries between the early middle ages and Dante’s time that would have changed this. There is an article by Gould about this, that demonstrated that though there were a few monks who believed in a flat earth, they were discounted. I believe he even traced the myth to a book about Columbus that was an exercise in hero worship. I assume you are aware that the opposition to Columbus’ plan was from those who said that he underestimated the circumference of the earth - and who were absolutely right.
Do you have a cite about belief in the flat earth among those who were educated, which would primarily be churchmen back then?
Here is a link about this. The book that started the myth was called * The Warfare of Science with Theology* which tried (and failed) to proved that Christians were ignorant in the Middle Ages because they believed in the Flat Earth. This is one time where theology won.
Then it’s also a swift refutation of the creation of the Universe by the Big Bang.
There’s a flaw in the ointment somewhere here, but my PB&J is waiting…
S¬
Surely not. The Big Bang doesn’t really tell us all that much about the Creation of the Universe; there is a lot we don’t know, particularly when we approach Planck Time. The Big Bang doesn’t presuppose that the Universe was caused. This argument just shows that time can’t have had a beginning - something cannot be created if it does not have a beginning.