Infinite time?

[charris]

It seems to me possible that there is an infinite time, specifically that of the past. All that would be required is for a previous event or cause (depending on you interpretation of QM).

I mentioned this, and was met with the objection, "If the past was infinite, then it would have taken an infinite amount of time to get here." I personally think this objection is pointless, so maybe if you think this is the case you could expound upon it. If you disagree, then if you could post your reasons as well I would appreciate it.

Also, if you disagree because of other reasons, I would like to hear them.

[RevSpecter]

What you're referring to is called zero-point energy. Without getting into the complex mathematical details, which I can if you'd like me to, this energy is canceled out due to symmetries, be it gravitational or simply taking into account antimatter. Because of this, the total energy of any vacuum is still indeed 0, and it has been measured as such. We've observed and measured that we live in a geometrically flat universe, and because of this the total vacuum energy is 0. Even taking into account the zero-point energy, the vacuum has no total energy. But also, it must be noted that the fluctuations which you say virtual particles come from, actually is the result from virtual particles. Virtual particles don't come from fluctuations, they are one in the same. And another thing, the 'creation' and destruction of virtual particles are completely random and spontaneous.

I don‘t want to go over the math again, one time was enough! Allow me to clarify my terms that I used and expand a bit maybe we are on the same page making my explanation accurate. First I said a virtual particle has a cause for its existence. I define a virtual particle as a particle that exists for a limited time and space, imparting uncertainty in the particles energy and momentum via the uncertainty principle. As for the quantum vacuum I meant as in quantum field theory where the vacuum state, or the vacuum is the lowest energy (possible) of the quantum state. Normally there are no particles in the vacuum. ZPF or zero-point field* is the same word/term ie synonym as the vacuum state of an individual quantized field.

Quantum trivia; "The Zero-Point Field (ZPF) is said to exist in a vacuum -- what is commonly thought of as empty space -- at a temperature of absolute zero (where all thermal radiation is absent; a condition obtained when reaching a temperature of absolute zero on the Kelvin scale). "

BTW, it does not matter if the particles are random and spontaneous. You may be confusing that (coming into 'existence' in a random and spontaneous manner) with having a cause of their existence. Its not the same. Again I was using a pair of virtual particles as an example because Charris did not give an example of what he meant. So I stand by my words. A virtual particle does have a cause, as all quantum events do. Virtual Particles are not created nor destroyed either. Not in a traditional sense anyway.

It's weird that no one knows for sure how the quantum fluctuations occur nor their where they come from, but we do know they have a cause. They are not actual particles btw, but more like measurable interactions between static fields. So I may even have reason to question if they could be used as an example of something that exists! I may claim they (virtual Q particles) are not real at all and may be caused by the ‘distribution’ of quantum matter and or energy between dimensions. Their quantum state isn't constant and is given to destructive interference just by being or exist.

Notes; Information from my school notes library research and the web. A

I would still appreciate it if you would clarify the specifics of what you mean by the 'traditional' big bang. If you mean inflation, most scientists won't argue against it. If you mean the singularity, that isn't a part of the standard model, which is used over what I think you mean when you say the 'traditional' model. If this is the case, then your appeal to the traditional model is irrelevant, as it has been overthrown by modern cosmology.
But this may just be a miscommunication between us.

The traditional model included inflation of course! The traditional big bang theory suggested a beginning, not a singularity per se. Neither did the traditional theory say many universes could not exist, but in the same way that a lay person would say water is wet. Why state the obvious? So the BB did not go out of its way and say that only one universe was created (the present one) it was thought that was a given.

In addition please show me where the traditional theory has been overthrown? Hawking and other secular scientists tried to overthrow the TBBT by describing a cyclic universe and via other methods such as infinite universes etc. Still the overwhelming majority of scientists agree with the traditional model of the Big Bang. I do not usually use wiki but you will find hundreds of similar sites.

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The temperature was still high enough for electrons and nuclei to remain unbound ... The measured abundances all agree at least roughly with those predicted from a ... While scientists now prefer the Big Bang model over other cosmological ... With the overwhelming consensus in the community today supporting the Big …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

I think you're referring to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). While it is theoretically possible, it is extremely unlikely, and, despite the valuable information that we would receive, there isn't really anything to support that idea.

No not at all! Ha ha Please give me some credit here! Ha ha really! No here is a couple of sources, I believe I read the original story in scientific american. Please excuse my Google orgy!

Get more discussion results
Mini Universe To Be Created In Japanese Lab - Alien UFOs
Apr 14, 2010 ... Reload this Page Mini Universe To Be Created In Japanese Lab .... A uiverse may exhist in our very own hang nail, as we may exhist in a ...
www.alien-ufos.com/.../12365-mini-unive ... e-lab.html

I left the descriptive paragraphs in case you got the idea without visiting the site.

Even if it were to happen, you should take note that the 'cause' was completely natural (colliding hardons), and not one of divine intervention. This would actually support my side more than yours. I'm sure you may ask, "Well what collided the hadrons for our universe?" But then you're left in the same position, faith, while I have a completely natural explanation of our universe.

My paradigm has God working though natural means in 99% of the cases! God designed all the variables into the big bang and the universe unfolds according to that grand design. Not a deistic paradigm but if you know what deism is you may get the big picture.

"Just give me a God that can create a universe..." So the KCA is begging the question then? Joking, but I would like to know how it must be God instead of anything else (otherwise, it would]/i] be begging the question.)

I have never said its God or nothing. Only that its more probable due to the evidences that God exists than he does not.

Life did not start, from what we know, until 3.5 billion years ago. That means it took 10.2 billion years from the moment of inflation to the first presence of life. I would hardly call that impressive, being that there was plenty of time for life to arise by chance. (Taking into consideration the time that the universe wouldn't be suitable for life, you are still left with millions if not billions of years, which would allow for life to arise somewhere spontaneously.)

I would call it exceedingly impressive. Do you know what Penrose was speaking of when he gave those odds against a life supporting universe?

The universe not being "ionized white hot smooth plasma" is because of the expansion of the universe. It causes the universe to cool down, and that allows atoms to bond together.

Yes, you might have read the same lecture I use to describe the early timeline of the universe. Its great for reference. Here is the link;

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~po ... early.html

However still the atoms should not clump into stars and galaxies. What we have found is that there are other weak forces at work that gave the universe its clumpiniess. I first read the book wrinkle in time where astrophysicist George Smoot announced that they had found the primordial "seeds" from which the universe has grown. These seeds gave the universe structure and allowed stars and galaxies etc to form. But Oh the odds against such a thing occurring! Anyway, the research in the book eventually resulted in Smoot winning the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics; and the book was reprinted in 2007 as a result of the new interest generated by the award. On the cover of the reprint, theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking calls Smoot's observations in the book "the scientific discovery of the century, if not all time". This last paragraph was semi plagiarized from wiki to save time!

I appreciate you taking the time to address the objections that I myself made, but I am also interested in your response to the objections made by Dan Barker in my posts. While I understand you may not have the time for this, I would much rather us discuss those points than the ones made by myself. (But both would be ideal.)

No you may miss the point my friend. The odds given were if there were any variation of the physical forces when the universe began would result in life as we know it would being impossible. BTW, I will have another look at Barkers objections and If I have enough time I will comment. I find your comments and debate interesting too, so please do not take some of my abrasiveness as personal its my personality. And as a Christian I am working on smoothing down the rough edges!

rs

[charris]

I don‘t want to go over the math again, one time was enough! Allow me to clarify my terms that I used and expand a bit maybe we are on the same page making my explanation accurate. First I said a virtual particle has a cause for its existence. I define a virtual particle as a particle that exists for a limited time and space, imparting uncertainty in the particles energy and momentum via the uncertainty principle. As for the quantum vacuum I meant as in quantum field theory where the vacuum state, or the vacuum is the lowest energy (possible) of the quantum state. Normally there are no particles in the vacuum. ZPF or zero-point field* is the same word/term ie synonym as the vacuum state of an individual quantized field.

I am certainly aware of virtual particles. I also know what you mean about the absence of particles in field theory, in which there is still energy present even absent of all particles (using the annihilator function), which is what I was referring to when I talked about zero-point energy. But that's the thing: the zero-point energy left over, in both QFT and in the observed universe, is canceled by symmetries of particles. The equations for a pure radiation field allow for negative-energy solutions as well as those of positive energy. If we include the negative-energy solutions, then that zero-point energy cancels, leaving the vacuum with no energy. This is both theoretically (mathematically) proven, as well as what we observed in experimental cosmology. The vacuum, no matter what point of view you look at it (as long as you include the relevant math and observations) shows that the total energy of a vacuum, and the universe, is zero. (Even taking into account the energy from the uncertainty principle.) The vacuum is literally 'nothing' (no matter, no mass, no energy) because of symmetries and gravity.

BTW, it does not matter if the particles are random and spontaneous. You may be confusing that (coming into 'existence' in a random and spontaneous manner) with having a cause of their existence. Its not the same. Again I was using a pair of virtual particles as an example because Charris did not give an example of what he meant. So I stand by my words. A virtual particle does have a cause, as all quantum events do. Virtual Particles are not created nor destroyed either. Not in a traditional sense anyway.

No, I wouldn't confuse 'random' with 'causeless' (although, even if I ignored the latter, it would then be that the universe could be created at random naturally). Here's what particle physicist Victor Stenger said about it:

Quantum time reversibility does not mean that humans can travel back in time or that time-travel paradoxes do not exist for macroscopic systems. But what it does mean is that one should not assume a direction of time when one is talking about the fundamental processes of nature. The common notion that cause always precedes effect must be modified, so that cause and effect are interchangeable. What we call the effect can just as well be the cause, and the beginning can just as well be the end.

Quantum symmetries are what I get the idea of 'causeless,' not from randomness. But I'm curious as to what you mean when you say that virtual particles are not created or destroyed in the traditional sense. So if you could explain that a bit more I would appreciate it.

It's weird that no one knows for sure how the quantum fluctuations occur nor their where they come from, but we do know they have a cause. They are not actual particles btw, but more like measurable interactions between static fields. So I may even have reason to question if they could be used as an example of something that exists! I may claim they (virtual Q particles) are not real at all and may be caused by the ‘distribution’ of quantum matter and or energy between dimensions. Their quantum state isn't constant and is given to destructive interference just by being or exist.

What would you say the cause is, exactly?
They are actual particles, in a sense, as evident from Hawking radiation. (When the particles are too close the the event horizon, one falls in and the other floats away as radiation. I don't know how you could say that it isn't a real particle...) But we certainly know they exist, because we've measured their interaction with other objects.

Notes; Information from my school notes library research and the web. A[/qote]
Duly noted.

The traditional model included inflation of course! The traditional big bang theory suggested a beginning, not a singularity per se. Neither did the traditional theory say many universes could not exist, but in the same way that a lay person would say water is wet. Why state the obvious? So the BB did not go out of its way and say that only one universe was created (the present one) it was thought that was a given.

Thank you for clarifying. I was under the impression that you were referring to the model back in Einstein's day (and shortly thereafter).

In addition please show me where the traditional theory has been overthrown? Hawking and other secular scientists tried to overthrow the TBBT by describing a cyclic universe and via other methods such as infinite universes etc. Still the overwhelming majority of scientists agree with the traditional model of the Big Bang. I do not usually use wiki but you will find hundreds of similar sites.

Due to the miscommunication between us, I retract the statement. I thought you were referring to the singularity model, which had been overthrown. No objections from me, other than that the TBB model will most likely be overthrown depending on how the quantum theory of gravity works out (or string theory, but let's not go there ).

I think you're referring to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). While it is theoretically possible, it is extremely unlikely, and, despite the valuable information that we would receive, there isn't really anything to support that idea.

No not at all! Ha ha Please give me some credit here! Ha ha really! No here is a couple of sources, I believe I read the original story in scientific american. Please excuse my Google orgy!

Get more discussion results
Mini Universe To Be Created In Japanese Lab - Alien UFOs
Apr 14, 2010 ... Reload this Page Mini Universe To Be Created In Japanese Lab .... A uiverse may exhist in our very own hang nail, as we may exhist in a ...
www.alien-ufos.com/.../12365-mini-unive ... e-lab.html

I left the descriptive paragraphs in case you got the idea without visiting the site.

Thanks for the link, I'll look into it.

Even if it were to happen, you should take note that the 'cause' was completely natural (colliding hardons), and not one of divine intervention. This would actually support my side more than yours. I'm sure you may ask, "Well what collided the hadrons for our universe?" But then you're left in the same position, faith, while I have a completely natural explanation of our universe.

My paradigm has God working though natural means in 99% of the cases! God designed all the variables into the big bang and the universe unfolds according to that grand design. Not a deistic paradigm but if you know what deism is you may get the big picture.

Grand Design, good book, have you read it? (Hawking humor, sorry, couldn't help myself.)
If God is nothing but natural processes, why not just call it nature? And if you're deist, why worship it?

"Just give me a God that can create a universe..." So the KCA is begging the question then? Joking, but I would like to know how it must be God instead of anything else (otherwise, it would be begging the question.)

I have never said its God or nothing. Only that its more probable due to the evidences that God exists than he does not.

That's what I'm asking, why is God the most probable instead of something else? To rephrase Dan Barker's first question, What else is there to choose from as the first cause, and how have they been ruled out?

Life did not start, from what we know, until 3.5 billion years ago. That means it took 10.2 billion years from the moment of inflation to the first presence of life. I would hardly call that impressive, being that there was plenty of time for life to arise by chance. (Taking into consideration the time that the universe wouldn't be suitable for life, you are still left with millions if not billions of years, which would allow for life to arise somewhere spontaneously.)

I would call it exceedingly impressive. Do you know what Penrose was speaking of when he gave those odds against a life supporting universe?

If you're referring to his lecture about the cyclic universe, then it's been too long for me to remember. If you're talking about his book The Road to Reality, I haven't gotten there.
My questions to you, however, are, How do we know that the laws that govern our universe are equally probable (instead of more probable) than any other set of laws, How do we know that they can actually change, and What about the possibility of other universes (making the objection moot due to the fact that the laws we have would eventually show up somewhere).

The universe not being "ionized white hot smooth plasma" is because of the expansion of the universe. It causes the universe to cool down, and that allows atoms to bond together.

Yes, you might have read the same lecture I use to describe the early timeline of the universe. Its great for reference. Here is the link;

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~po ... early.html

Thanks for the link. I actually read it in a few books. ("The Black Hole War" by Leonard Susskind, "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking, "From Eternity to Here" by Sean Carroll, "The Comprehensible Cosmos" and "God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger, mostly.)

However still the atoms should not clump into stars and galaxies. What we have found is that there are other weak forces at work that gave the universe its clumpiniess. I first read the book wrinkle in time where astrophysicist George Smoot announced that they had found the primordial "seeds" from which the universe has grown. These seeds gave the universe structure and allowed stars and galaxies etc to form. But Oh the odds against such a thing occurring! Anyway, the research in the book eventually resulted in Smoot winning the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics; and the book was reprinted in 2007 as a result of the new interest generated by the award. On the cover of the reprint, theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking calls Smoot's observations in the book "the scientific discovery of the century, if not all time". This last paragraph was semi plagiarized from wiki to save time!

I'll have to check that book out. But atoms coming together is independent of whether stars form, as my current understanding is that gravity caused hydrogen gas to compress forming stars. I'll have to look into it.

I appreciate you taking the time to address the objections that I myself made, but I am also interested in your response to the objections made by Dan Barker in my posts. While I understand you may not have the time for this, I would much rather us discuss those points than the ones made by myself. (But both would be ideal.)[/i]

No you may miss the point my friend. The odds given were if there were any variation of the physical forces when the universe began would result in life as we know it would being impossible. BTW, I will have another look at Barkers objections and If I have enough time I will comment. I find your comments and debate interesting too, so please do not take some of my abrasiveness as personal its my personality. And as a Christian I am working on smoothing down the rough edges!

Yes, but how do we know that the fundamental forces could actually have been anything else? Sure it works out mathematically, but do we know whether that can happen in reality? But I highly recommend Victor Stenger's work. He does a good job, imo, explaining why the anthropic coincidences aren't really that coincidental. Just something you may want to look into.

It's the internet, I don't take anything personal

[fredonly]

Because we experience things on the macroscopic scale, we experience a definitely real arrow of time. I would argue that on the fundamental levels, the microscopic states, however, do not have the same arrow of time we do, or it is simply different than our own. So it's sort of a mixture between the two.

“mixture� sounds vague. Let me propose a way to look at it: the macro arrow of time is like the flow of the river. The micro anomalies are like the flow of individual water molecules, moving in all directions. The sum of all the micro movements of individual molecules adds up to the macro flow of the river. Would you agree with this?

Assuming you agree, this suggests that one can ignore the micro movements of time when analyzing the macro flow of time, including an analysis of whether or not time has an infinite past. Do you agree? If not, then please explain how we should deal with the micro anomalies of time.

I think quantum fields are what came before our universe, and those fields don't have an arrow of time. (Not necessarily that there is no time, however.)

How CAN there have been time, unless entropy was changing? Was time & entropy behaving completely randomly, summing to an overall flow of zero time? Or was everything static – no entropy change at all; no flow of time at either the micro or macro level?

[charris]

Because we experience things on the macroscopic scale, we experience a definitely real arrow of time. I would argue that on the fundamental levels, the microscopic states, however, do not have the same arrow of time we do, or it is simply different than our own. So it's sort of a mixture between the two.

“mixture� sounds vague. Let me propose a way to look at it: the macro arrow of time is like the flow of the river. The micro anomalies are like the flow of individual water molecules, moving in all directions. The sum of all the micro movements of individual molecules adds up to the macro flow of the river. Would you agree with this?

I disagree with the analogy, for the basic reason that it makes the macroscopic arrow of time some sort of a 'goal' or requirement, when, from what I've understood physicists to say, the micro view is the requirement, or the foundation. Our arrow of time would be apparent, not necessary.

Assuming you agree, this suggests that one can ignore the micro movements of time when analyzing the macro flow of time, including an analysis of whether or not time has an infinite past. Do you agree? If not, then please explain how we should deal with the micro anomalies of time.

The micro 'anomalies' are fundamental, the arrow of time is not. However, the micro theory of time doesn't include quantum gravity, so it may be subject to change. However, at this present time, it appears that the micro time is what we should be concerned about with regards to the existence of time, not the macro time.
A better analogy would be the difference between Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics. On a large scale, things work like clockwork (pun intended) and Newtonian mechanics is in charge. On the micro scale, quantum mechanics is in charge; it appears that the quantum world is the one that defines our universe.

I think quantum fields are what came before our universe, and those fields don't have an arrow of time. (Not necessarily that there is no time, however.)

How CAN there have been time, unless entropy was changing? Was time & entropy behaving completely randomly, summing to an overall flow of zero time? Or was everything static – no entropy change at all; no flow of time at either the micro or macro level?

Things can still change without entropy increasing (it would stay the same). Even then, on the quantum scale, entropy can randomly decrease, because entropy is probabilistic. There would be changes, just not the type we observe on our macro scale.

[S-word]

It seems to me possible that there is an infinite time, specifically that of the past. All that would be required is for a previous event or cause (depending on you interpretation of QM).

I mentioned this, and was met with the objection, "If the past was infinite, then it would have taken an infinite amount of time to get here." I personally think this objection is pointless, so maybe if you think this is the case you could expound upon it. If you disagree, then if you could post your reasons as well I would appreciate it.

Also, if you disagree because of other reasons, I would like to hear them.

What if I am the beginning of eternity? If from 1 year After S-word, there is an eternal future that is being created from day to day, 1 AS, 2 AS, 3 AS, Add infinity, and behind me there is an eternal past which I myself determine, I year Before S-word who has inherited eternal life, 2 BS, 3 BS, add infinity, etc. And BS, is not the usual abreviation of that other term which is well used, but B-efore S-word. Why must time flow only in one continues direction?

[charris]

It seems to me possible that there is an infinite time, specifically that of the past. All that would be required is for a previous event or cause (depending on you interpretation of QM).

I mentioned this, and was met with the objection, "If the past was infinite, then it would have taken an infinite amount of time to get here." I personally think this objection is pointless, so maybe if you think this is the case you could expound upon it. If you disagree, then if you could post your reasons as well I would appreciate it.

Also, if you disagree because of other reasons, I would like to hear them.

What if I am the beginning of eternity? If from 1 year After S-word, there is an eternal future that is being created from day to day, 1 AS, 2 AS, 3 AS, Add infinity, and behind me there is an eternal past which I myself determine, I year Before S-word who has inherited eternal life, 2 BS, 3 BS, add infinity, etc. And BS, is not the usual abreviation of that other term which is well used, but B-efore S-word. Why must time flow only in one continues direction?

What if you are the beginning of eternity? I'm not getting trolled am I?
If not, then you completely lost me.

[fredonly]

Because we experience things on the macroscopic scale, we experience a definitely real arrow of time. I would argue that on the fundamental levels, the microscopic states, however, do not have the same arrow of time we do, or it is simply different than our own. So it's sort of a mixture between the two.

“mixture� sounds vague. Let me propose a way to look at it: the macro arrow of time is like the flow of the river. The micro anomalies are like the flow of individual water molecules, moving in all directions. The sum of all the micro movements of individual molecules adds up to the macro flow of the river. Would you agree with this?

I disagree with the analogy, for the basic reason that it makes the macroscopic arrow of time some sort of a 'goal' or requirement, when, from what I've understood physicists to say, the micro view is the requirement, or the foundation. Our arrow of time would be apparent, not necessary.

Assuming you agree, this suggests that one can ignore the micro movements of time when analyzing the macro flow of time, including an analysis of whether or not time has an infinite past. Do you agree? If not, then please explain how we should deal with the micro anomalies of time.

The micro 'anomalies' are fundamental, the arrow of time is not. However, the micro theory of time doesn't include quantum gravity, so it may be subject to change. However, at this present time, it appears that the micro time is what we should be concerned about with regards to the existence of time, not the macro time.
A better analogy would be the difference between Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics. On a large scale, things work like clockwork (pun intended) and Newtonian mechanics is in charge. On the micro scale, quantum mechanics is in charge; it appears that the quantum world is the one that defines our universe.

I think quantum fields are what came before our universe, and those fields don't have an arrow of time. (Not necessarily that there is no time, however.)

How CAN there have been time, unless entropy was changing? Was time & entropy behaving completely randomly, summing to an overall flow of zero time? Or was everything static – no entropy change at all; no flow of time at either the micro or macro level?

Things can still change without entropy increasing (it would stay the same). Even then, on the quantum scale, entropy can randomly decrease, because entropy is probabilistic. There would be changes, just not the type we observe on our macro scale.

charris - I've been trying to understand your conception of time, but honestly I'm just seeing some disjointed observations and ideas. This may be my fault because of the specific questions I've asked. Let me lay out the big question: can you describe the nature of time in such a way that an infinite past is meaningful and feasible?

Here are the problems I see with your view (or at least with my understanding of your view):

The history of our universe stretches back to the big bang (i.e we can trace the arrow of time back to this point). At the big bang, we started up the slope of increasing entropy, which you said is the cause of time. I believe you consider the big bang to have been the result of a quantum fluctuation, and not tied to increasing entropy. But this implies the "pre-big bang" state does not exist on the (entropy induced) timeline of our universe's history. If it's not in our history, then our history is not infinitely old.

You did agree a while back that time is a local phenomenon. By all appearances, our local spacetime is only finitely old. If there was another type of time, either non-entropic, or tied to a fluctuating entropy, this is not on our timeline. If not on our timeline, it doesn't make sense to say that it occurred "before" our timeline started, because "before" is a designation that only has a meaning on a specific timeline.

You said the "micro anomolies" of time are fundamental, but the arrow of time is not. If there is no arrow of time, then what IS there that that is infinitely old?

If the fundamental of time is that it behaves peculiarly - not on a linear timeline, then explain what an "infinite past" means in this context. Even more basic, what does "past" mean when we're not on an arrow of time.

[charris]

charris - I've been trying to understand your conception of time, but honestly I'm just seeing some disjointed observations and ideas. This may be my fault because of the specific questions I've asked. Let me lay out the big question: can you describe the nature of time in such a way that an infinite past is meaningful and feasible?

Certainly: while our universe has an arrow of time on the macro scale, on the micro scale, which is in out universe and possibly outside of it, there is no set direction of time, allowing time to move in any direction 'it pleases' for as long (infinitely long) as 'it wants.'

Here are the problems I see with your view (or at least with my understanding of your view):

The history of our universe stretches back to the big bang (i.e we can trace the arrow of time back to this point). At the big bang, we started up the slope of increasing entropy, which you said is the cause of time. I believe you consider the big bang to have been the result of a quantum fluctuation, and not tied to increasing entropy. But this implies the "pre-big bang" state does not exist on the (entropy induced) timeline of our universe's history. If it's not in our history, then our history is not infinitely old.

The quantum fields that produced our universe would certainly exist everywhere, inside our universe and outside of it (assuming that there is an 'outside'). On the quantum scale, that is very real in our universe, entropy and the Second Law are only probabilistic and do not act how we would imagine it to be (or observe it to be) on the macro scale.

You did agree a while back that time is a local phenomenon. By all appearances, our local spacetime is only finitely old. If there was another type of time, either non-entropic, or tied to a fluctuating entropy, this is not on our timeline. If not on our timeline, it doesn't make sense to say that it occurred "before" our timeline started, because "before" is a designation that only has a meaning on a specific timeline.

Well, when we say that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, we measure it, essentially, by time from the point of view of the universe. ('Comoving patch' as people like Einstein put it.) If the universe in which we live is finite, which I think it is, we could still reasonably say that there is something before it by using time relative to whatever it came from. (We would need a quantum theory of gravity, though.)

You said the "micro anomolies" of time are fundamental, but the arrow of time is not. If there is no arrow of time, then what IS there that that is infinitely old?

I would say that quantum fields are infinitely old, from the point of view from our universe on the micro scale.

If the fundamental of time is that it behaves peculiarly - not on a linear timeline, then explain what an "infinite past" means in this context. Even more basic, what does "past" mean when we're not on an arrow of time.

That's what I've been trying to say, every moment in time would already exist. As Victor Stenger puts it, the beginning can be the end, and the cause can be the effect. From whatever comoving patch that you measure time from, you would always say that time is 'moving forward' even though, from the point of view of our universe, you may not be. Given that quantum fields wouldn't be subject to the same type of entropy (i.e. the arrow of time) as our universe has, time can move any which way, never beginning and never ending.

I hope this clears things up a bit.

[fredonly]

charris - I've been trying to understand your conception of time, but honestly I'm just seeing some disjointed observations and ideas. This may be my fault because of the specific questions I've asked. Let me lay out the big question: can you describe the nature of time in such a way that an infinite past is meaningful and feasible?

Certainly: while our universe has an arrow of time on the macro scale, on the micro scale, which is in out universe and possibly outside of it, there is no set direction of time, allowing time to move in any direction 'it pleases' for as long (infinitely long) as 'it wants.'

You suggest that the micro (but not the macro) aspect of time could hypothetically be infinite, but you have not related that to the macro arrow of time. How are micro and macro time related? How can macro time be finite, but micro time be infinite?
==================================================

Here are the problems I see with your view (or at least with my understanding of your view):

The history of our universe stretches back to the big bang (i.e we can trace the arrow of time back to this point). At the big bang, we started up the slope of increasing entropy, which you said is the cause of time. I believe you consider the big bang to have been the result of a quantum fluctuation, and not tied to increasing entropy. But this implies the "pre-big bang" state does not exist on the (entropy induced) timeline of our universe's history. If it's not in our history, then our history is not infinitely old.

The quantum fields that produced our universe would certainly exist everywhere, inside our universe and outside of it (assuming that there is an 'outside'). On the quantum scale, that is very real in our universe, entropy and the Second Law are only probabilistic and do not act how we would imagine it to be (or observe it to be) on the macro scale.'

But what is TIME in the reference frame of the quantum fields? How does this time relate to the macro time of our universe? It strikes me that this quantum-field- time (to coin a phrase) is not connected to our macro entropic time. If not directly connected, it’s not in our history.

“imagine it to be (or observe it to be)� – which is it? Is (entropy based) macro time real and observed, or is it imaginary? If it’s imaginary, it’s meaningless to say it is infinite.


==================================================

You did agree a while back that time is a local phenomenon. By all appearances, our local spacetime is only finitely old. If there was another type of time, either non-entropic, or tied to a fluctuating entropy, this is not on our timeline. If not on our timeline, it doesn't make sense to say that it occurred "before" our timeline started, because "before" is a designation that only has a meaning on a specific timeline.

Well, when we say that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, we measure it, essentially, by time from the point of view of the universe. ('Comoving patch' as people like Einstein put it.) If the universe in which we live is finite, which I think it is, we could still reasonably say that there is something before it by using time relative to whatever it came from. (We would need a quantum theory of gravity, though.)'

You seem to be appealing to a superior reference frame, but according to special relativity, there is no special or absolute reference frame; any reference frame is as good as another. Consider the material of the universe – from its point of view, there was no time prior to the big bang. It’s not just it didn’t experience this hypothetical prior time, but that it absolutely didn’t exist in the history of the universe (in no "before" time) if time literally began at the big bang.
==================================================

You said the "micro anomolies" of time are fundamental, but the arrow of time is not. If there is no arrow of time, then what IS there that that is infinitely old?

I would say that quantum fields are infinitely old, from the point of view from our universe on the micro scale.

This sounds like a contradiction- above, you said time (macro scale) is finite relative to the universe’s point of view. Now you’re saying time (micro scale) is infinite from the universe’s point of view. It is as if you see the universe on two different timelines: 1) the macro timeline that we know and love and live in; 2) a nebulous microtime that doesn’t map to or sum to macro time- it seems complete disjoint and disconnected.
==================================================

If the fundamental of time is that it behaves peculiarly - not on a linear timeline, then explain what an "infinite past" means in this context. Even more basic, what does "past" mean when we're not on an arrow of time.

That's what I've been trying to say, every moment in time would already exist. As Victor Stenger puts it, the beginning can be the end, and the cause can be the effect. From whatever comoving patch that you measure time from, you would always say that time is 'moving forward' even though, from the point of view of our universe, you may not be. Given that quantum fields wouldn't be subject to the same type of entropy (i.e. the arrow of time) as our universe has, time can move any which way, never beginning and never ending.

I hope this clears things up a bit.

No, I just see contradictions. I think the problem is that the micro view of time is not well defined, and you haven’t related micro time to macro time – so they remain disjoint concepts.

What does “past, present, and future� mean in terms of quantum time? On the macro level, the past = the direction of lower entropy; the future is the direction of higher entropy. Is quantum time still related to entropy, so that entropy increases and decreases unpredictably?

Do you agree that time is experienced linearly, and that this would be true from any specific reference point, irrespective of the direction of time?

In a bouncing universe model, the big bang period is the point in time of minimum entropy, but time proceeds infinitely in both directions. Each side mirrors the other. Participants on each side of the big bang experience the progression of time in the direction of increasing entropy. Time is proceeding in opposite directions relative to each other, but the two sides are connected only in that their histories go back to a common point: the big bang period. In both cases, past time is finite. The negative timeline is not truly in the history of the positive timeline, because history proceeds from low to high entropy.

Getting back to quantum time, consider the point of view of a quantum entity. If the timeline of this entity is going back and forth directly with increasing and decreasing entropy, what is this entity experiencing? Isn’t each time reversal similar to the time reversal I described of a bouncing universe, and history begins anew with each reversal in direction? If not, how is it different?

[charris]

Certainly: while our universe has an arrow of time on the macro scale, on the micro scale, which is in out universe and possibly outside of it, there is no set direction of time, allowing time to move in any direction 'it pleases' for as long (infinitely long) as 'it wants.'

You suggest that the micro (but not the macro) aspect of time could hypothetically be infinite, but you have not related that to the macro arrow of time. How are micro and macro time related? How can macro time be finite, but micro time be infinite?

The macro arrow of time isn't fundamental, but emerges from physics going from small objects to larger ones. The macro arrow of time is just something we evolved to understand, but that doesn't mean it is the basis of how the universe works.
==================================================

The quantum fields that produced our universe would certainly exist everywhere, inside our universe and outside of it (assuming that there is an 'outside'). On the quantum scale, that is very real in our universe, entropy and the Second Law are only probabilistic and do not act how we would imagine it to be (or observe it to be) on the macro scale.'

But what is TIME in the reference frame of the quantum fields? How does this time relate to the macro time of our universe? It strikes me that this quantum-field- time (to coin a phrase) is not connected to our macro entropic time. If not directly connected, it’s not in our history.

“imagine it to be (or observe it to be)� – which is it? Is (entropy based) macro time real and observed, or is it imaginary? If it’s imaginary, it’s meaningless to say it is infinite.

Time is, by definition, the same thing that we would use to describe time on any scale: it's a measurement of trusted repeating oscillations (e.g. a pendulum) that measures the distance between two events. The only difference is that time works differently on the micro level.
You're basically asking, how does entropy on the micro scale affect the entropy on the macro scale. To use an analogy, how do chemical compounds make up objects we can see? It's simple. The micro scale is fundamental to how things behave on the macro scale. (How, though, we aren't 100% certain. But work with me on this.) If something is made up of tiny individual parts, then the object as a whole will be restricted to behaving a certain way based on how the actions of the tiny individual parts behave. Hydrogen and Oxygen alone don't make anything other than themselves, but when you put two parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen, you get water. Water is restricted by the way Hydrogen and Oxygen behave when mixed. It would be the same with entropy. On the micro scale, entropy is purely probabilistic, it's random, and it's different than what we would normally think it should be. Be the entropy on the macro scale is restricted to behave a certain way based on the interactions of all of the micro states.

To answer you last question, the Second Law on the macro scale is different than we would imagine it to be, and observed it to be. The arrow of time would be an emergent property of entropy, but you miss my point. I'm not saying that our arrow of time is infinite. I never have. I'm saying that time on the quantum scale is.
==================================================

Well, when we say that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, we measure it, essentially, by time from the point of view of the universe. ('Comoving patch' as people like Einstein put it.) If the universe in which we live is finite, which I think it is, we could still reasonably say that there is something before it by using time relative to whatever it came from. (We would need a quantum theory of gravity, though.)'

You seem to be appealing to a superior reference frame, but according to special relativity, there is no special or absolute reference frame; any reference frame is as good as another. Consider the material of the universe – from its point of view, there was no time prior to the big bang. It’s not just it didn’t experience this hypothetical prior time, but that it absolutely didn’t exist in the history of the universe (in no "before" time) if time literally began at the big bang.

I never said there was a special or absolute reference frame, and if you remember, I explicitly stated this numerous times previously. I said that the age of the universe is based on the relative time of the universe, otherwise known as a comoving patch. You have to remember, overall the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, meaning that time from the point of view from the universe is going to be the same everywhere.
I asked a physicist friend of mine this question: If time is relative, how can we meaningfully say how old the universe is? I quote:

When we say the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, this is referring to the cosmological time.

The cosmological time for an observer at a fixed spatial point in comoving coordinates is identical to his local measurement of time. That is we consider an observer at rest with respect to a galaxy (probably better is a cluster of gravitational bound galaxies) and their proper time. Remember that on large enough scales the Universe is isotropic and homogeneous, so the clocks will all "tick at the same rate".

Using this notion of time you find that all parts of the Universe are the same age, about 13.7 billion years old.


There are other ways of defining the time which will give different ages of the Universe.

I agree, from the point of view of material in the universe, there wouldn't be time before the big bang. But that doesn't mean there wasn't time before our universe. Anything that came before our universe, possibly excluding gravity, have no affect on things within the universe. You may say it's irrelevant, but that wouldn't change the fact that it's still there. You have to remember, I'm not arguing that our universe or our arrow of time is infinite, I'm arguing that time from the point of view of quantum fields is.
==================================================

I would say that quantum fields are infinitely old, from the point of view from our universe on the micro scale.

This sounds like a contradiction- above, you said time (macro scale) is finite relative to the universe’s point of view. Now you’re saying time (micro scale) is infinite from the universe’s point of view. It is as if you see the universe on two different timelines: 1) the macro timeline that we know and love and live in; 2) a nebulous microtime that doesn’t map to or sum to macro time- it seems complete disjoint and disconnected.

If it's a contradiction, it's only because we don't have a full understanding of it yet. When I say, From the point of view from our universe on the micro scale, I'm not referring to the same view of time that gives us 13.7 billion years, I'm referring to time on the micro scale. I say from the point of view from our universe because that's what we can measure.
==================================================

No, I just see contradictions. I think the problem is that the micro view of time is not well defined, and you haven’t related micro time to macro time – so they remain disjoint concepts.

Then I'm sorry you think that.

What does “past, present, and future� mean in terms of quantum time? On the macro level, the past = the direction of lower entropy; the future is the direction of higher entropy. Is quantum time still related to entropy, so that entropy increases and decreases unpredictably?

Past, present, and future mean nothing in quantum time, because those are arrows of direction, by definition. The quantum world doesn't work like that. The quantum time is still related to entropy, yes, but you have to remember that on the quantum level, entropy and the Second Law don't work the same way as on the macro scale. Entropy is just the number of microstates indistinguishable in macrostates. On the quantum scale, there can be numerous different states produced by entropy that haven't actually changed anything.

Do you agree that time is experienced linearly, and that this would be true from any specific reference point, irrespective of the direction of time?

On the macro scale? Sure, of course. On the quantum scale, no, that isn't how it works.

In a bouncing universe model, the big bang period is the point in time of minimum entropy, but time proceeds infinitely in both directions. Each side mirrors the other. Participants on each side of the big bang experience the progression of time in the direction of increasing entropy. Time is proceeding in opposite directions relative to each other, but the two sides are connected only in that their histories go back to a common point: the big bang period. In both cases, past time is finite. The negative timeline is not truly in the history of the positive timeline, because history proceeds from low to high entropy.

Again, I'm not saying our universe or it's arrow of time is infinite, or that other universes are taken into account. They still have an arrow of time, which I'm not talking about when I say time is infinite. I'm talking about the quantum level, where there is no arrow of time. That only comes from macro levels of entropy.

Getting back to quantum time, consider the point of view of a quantum entity. If the timeline of this entity is going back and forth directly with increasing and decreasing entropy, what is this entity experiencing? Isn’t each time reversal similar to the time reversal I described of a bouncing universe, and history begins anew with each reversal in direction? If not, how is it different?

The way you describe it, he is moving forward in time then backwards in time. If entropy were to suddenly switch the direction of time, we wouldn't say that we don't remember the past, because what we would remember would actually have been the future.
But again, this isn't how quantum time would work. Entropy on the quantum scale doesn't increase or decrease systematically like it does on the macro scale, it is random and fluctuates and doesn't progress systematically.