Time and space can never end. It is infinite.

@astrotheological,

It seems plausible that maybe time is infinite, and also plausible that it isn't. Perhaps there is a deity who waits for the right time to collapse the universe then reform it again. Perhaps existence is nothing but the passge of matter through two wormholes, one at the beginning of time and one at the end, with no answer as to how and why it is there. We will never know.

@Kolbe,

Although I am no expert, I will say:

It seems that, according to relativity theory, space and time are inextricably enmeshed. If you have space, then there is time. It also seems that space can exist without motion: space is a structural necessity for motion, so it seems that it wouldn't be the other way around: You don't have to move for there to be the ability to move.

However, this isn't to say that motion and time do not have a correlation. It seems that motion and change is necessary to our quantifying of time.

validity;30414 wrote:

If, for example, at 09:00 one day everything that is in motion stopped. Then after an unknown period, started again. How would you determine how long everything was not in motion? Does it even hold meaning to ask, how long does nothing happen?

I would think of it like this:

Make this an analogy to something like freefalling.If you are an observer freefalling in a box you won't detect gravity. Does this make gravity's existence dependent on it's ability to be quantified by us through relation? I feel the same can be said for time: though it is no longer relative to anything (motion), and as result nothing we can quantify it by, it still is existent.

Time can be manipulated, don't misconstrue my words. It isn't a force we can't manipulate that has a forward motion like we generalize it to be. Time is thought of as a dimension (the fourth dimension) and on that I'll say nothing more than refer to some handy recourses:

YouTube - Explanation of the tenth dimension - part 1

It's not something that is fact but it is a somewhat easy way to understand it. This leads me to say, again, if there is space, then there is time. You may ask if there are no objects occupying something is there really a space there, or is the occupation what really makes space? I would say probably not. Objects are ontologically dependent on a space to exist, they have space as a necessary structure. However, the only way space is useful is by introducing objects that can assume the space. Everything else sounds very "idealistic".

@astrotheological,

Hi.I'm not entirely sure the OP was a physical cosmology question since it seemed more concerned with the creation of life which necessarily occurred a looooong time after the creation of the universe. I'm not sure exactly what the OP is asking since the reasons for questioning the finiteness of space and time don't seem to have any requirement of that finiteness.

The usual question following an explanation of the big bang is 'What happened before the big bang?' I've seen similar comments here, people talking about durations of singularities. It's probably useful to point out two quite distinct ideas of time, though in fact they are one idea: the general case and a special case thereof.

The spacetime of the big bang is essentially the same as a black hole but in reverse and are an extreme example of relativistic effects. In a reference frame containing the black hole at rest, a body falling into it would do what we all think black holes should do: pull it in, rip it apart and then finally crush it. However, in the proper time of that body, this 'finally' never happens. From the point of view of the falling body, it continues to fall for an eternity.

Similarly for the big bang. In non-relativistic or objective frames, the big bang happened T seconds ago, and that's that. However if you could travel back in time to the big bang, you would never reach it, exactly like falling into a black hole.

It helps me to think of big bangs and black holes less as the start and ends of time and space than as limits of the geometry of the entire universe in 4D. In any body's proper time, time and space are infinite, but in fixed frames they set a very real limit.

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

Hi.I'm not entirely sure the OP was a physical cosmology question since it seemed more concerned with the creation of life which necessarily occurred a looooong time after the creation of the universe. I'm not sure exactly what the OP is asking since the reasons for questioning the finiteness of space and time don't seem to have any requirement of that finiteness.

The usual question following an explanation of the big bang is 'What happened before the big bang?' I've seen similar comments here, people talking about durations of singularities. It's probably useful to point out two quite distinct ideas of time, though in fact they are one idea: the general case and a special case thereof.

The spacetime of the big bang is essentially the same as a black hole but in reverse and are an extreme example of relativistic effects. In a reference frame containing the black hole at rest, a body falling into it would do what we all think black holes should do: pull it in, rip it apart and then finally crush it. However, in the proper time of that body, this 'finally' never happens. From the point of view of the falling body, it continues to fall for an eternity.

Similarly for the big bang. In non-relativistic or objective frames, the big bang happened T seconds ago, and that's that. However if you could travel back in time to the big bang, you would never reach it, exactly like falling into a black hole.

It helps me to think of big bangs and black holes less as the start and ends of time and space than as limits of the geometry of the entire universe in 4D. In any body's proper time, time and space are infinite, but in fixed frames they set a very real limit.

Is that speculation by known physics or is it just a fact..I can understand the theory of the bigger the mass the slower time moves so if we had the mass as we did at the BB why did it move so rapidly at that singularity or is the time frame an illusion? I thought most theories of energy and mass break down at these singularities.If time slowed down at this juncture to infinity when does time stop and when is it infinite.Is it x amount of mass = no time or an infinite amount of mass= no time..

@xris,

xris wrote:

Is that speculation by known physics or is it just a fact..I can understand the theory of the bigger the mass the slower time moves so if we had the mass as we did at the BB why did it move so rapidly at that singularity or is the time frame an illusion? I thought most theories of energy and mass break down at these singularities.If time slowed down at this juncture to infinity when does time stop and when is it infinite.Is it x amount of mass = no time or an infinite amount of mass= no time..

But you never reach the singularity, that's the point. You never stop, but you never arrive either, like Achilles in Zeno's paradox. Is it a fact? No, it's the theory of relativity.

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

But you never reach the singularity, that's the point. You never stop, but you never arrive either, like Achilles in Zeno's paradox. Is it a fact? No, it's the theory of relativity.

Yes i am aware of the theory but the practice is not assured at these singularities.If you look at the surrounding nothing how far does space extend with this infinite mass or is it energy.Is there such a thing as mass at this moment before the singularity appears. Black holes have a begining are you denying the same for a bb.You are making the assumption that the non theist like me assume that it was not created.Even if you say the BB was infinitly older and older and you go back further and further , it appears to me very cosmologicaly fortunate for us to be in a place with the best view.

@xris,

xris wrote:

Yes i am aware of the theory but the practice is not assured at these singularities.If you look at the surrounding nothing how far does space extend with this infinite mass or is it energy.Is there such a thing as mass at this moment before the singularity appears. Black holes have a begining are you denying the same for a bb.You are making the assumption that the non theist like me assume that it was not created.Even if you say the BB was infinitly older and older and you go back further and further , it appears to me very cosmologicaly fortunate for us to be in a place with the best view.

Hi xris - see attachment.

This is difficult to show in 1D (with hindsight, I needn't have done so black holes... :brickwall:) but this shows the effect that black holes have on space (1D here) and time. Note their similarity to the big bang. Obviously I've shown a finite space here just to show how the big bang and the black hole act as kinds of limits of spacetime (everything within the black line). So while the black hole 'has a beginning', i.e. it was created (on the way from the big bang), it also has a limit (it destroys spacetime) in the same way that the big bang has a limit going backwards in time (it creates spacetime). However the proper time on a path toward either would be infinite because the time dilation at the singularity would be infinite. Thus a proper worldline is eternal in that sense. However, we don't usually judge the universe by a reference frame inside a black hole (or the big bang).

I don't think I can explain it any clearer. Sorry if that's no help.

@ariciunervos,

ariciunervos;30212 wrote:

If an intelligent being observes a bridge, it will measure its length.
If an intelligent being observes a collapsing bridge, it will measure the time it took the bridge to modify itself from being a bridge to not being a bridge.

If there is no intelligent being, will the bridge stop having a length ? Or will it collapse instantly ?

This is a very interesting way of looking at this.
I certainly agree with the first half of what you say in the quote,
however if there is no intelligent being to perceive it, i would say no to both questions. The bridge would continue to exist until an event, intelligent or not, occurred in order to make the bridge fall. In fact, it would not need to be an "intelligent" being, so to speak. For example, moss could grow upon the bridge, and thus prove the progression of time by expanding across the bridge, yet the bridge would not collapse.

helio;29882 wrote:

I think you hit the nail on the head. Time is a measurement. Without matter how do you tell yesterday from today? We need to make constant comparisons on matter to measure time.

Think about why we have 24 hours in a day. Why do we have 365 days in a year. Why is "time" different depending where you are in the universe?

Well done!
I was thinking this exactly while reading the comments.
Time is only a concept by which humans use to describe change and progression of our lives. It changes our lives from being of chaos to that of order. Other wise, imagine doing your daily routines WITHOUT the concept of time. You would constantly be in THE MOMENT. Which would seem pleasant, except for the repercussions. Our memories, and especially when we reflect upon them, is the most obvious and direct example of our strange concept of time, to experience something in the "past", and then think about it and visualize it to the point in the "now" "future" that one is almost re-living it.
I'm sure we're all familiar with the concept of amnesia. Now, this may seem off topic at first, but i just have to explain a few terms first. But trust me, this is really really relevant. Through either a traumatic event, or in the case of this example, through some physical injury to the head that causes intense brain damage to the hippocampus, the part of the brain the is in charge of storing and making your memories.
So, when a person suffers an extreme blow to the head, he or she may experience one of two forms of amnesia. There is retrograde amnesia, which is when a person is unable to remember memories prior to the incident (anywhere from a few min. prior to the incident to every memory the person had. Then there is antergrade amnesia. This is when a person has difficulties creating new memories since the incident. There are varying levels of difficulty, from being unable to remember details, to the amnesia wearing off or becoming weaker over time (the brain recovering/healing), or, in some sever cases, being unable to remember at all. That is, the person would be conscious for a few short moments, then go into a convulsion of sorts, and then consciousness would restart. There are a few cases of people who have one or the other form of amnesia, but it is so extreme that it effectively is as if that person suffer from both, and this is where my post gets back on topic.
These people are conscious, experience life for usually a few short min. and then as the conscious experience begins to be moved into the hippocampus, it just fades away. The person then goes into convulsions, and then claims that he or she has just awoken for the very first time, and feels as if he or she has just been born. There are very few cases of this so there isn't a sizable database on studies on them. However, despite this strange condition of perception of existence, consciousness, and time, a person suffering from both retrograde amnesia and antergrade amnesia sometimes can still remember important parts of his or her life. For example, one Clive Wearing, an accomplished musician, especially pianist, suffered extreme head trauma, leaving him in the mental state I described above. Although when asked if he could play some music on a piano, he claimed that he had no idea how to. However, when brought to a piano and told to just try, he was able to play, by memory no less, and when he finished he would go into convulsions, and then "wake up", confused to why he was sitting at the piano, totally unaware that he just played.

In addition, although he WAS able to remember the name of his wife and recognize her when she entered the room, he still said that he had never seen nor met her before. It is important to note that he was still aware of her social status to him being his wife, and that he "loved her". Yet this man is unable to carry out of conversation of ten min. long. It's a truly sad story, and what a bizarre way of expereincing "time".

People in this forum have been saying that if humans weren't around to perceive time then it would cease to exist. What of Clive Wearing, who does perceive time, if only for a few moments before he begins again?
I think that this is a very interesting case and turns the ENTIRE CONCEPT of time on it's head.

I'm interested to hear all of your responses, thoughts, and comments to Clive Wearing in relation to our discussion of Time.

Clive Wearing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@Rev Anarchist,

Rev. Anarchist wrote:

This is a very interesting way of looking at this.
I certainly agree with the first half of what you say in the quote,
however if there is no intelligent being to perceive it, i would say no to both questions. The bridge would continue to exist until an event, intelligent or not, occurred in order to make the bridge fall. In fact, it would not need to be an "intelligent" being, so to speak. For example, moss could grow upon the bridge, and thus prove the progression of time by expanding across the bridge, yet the bridge would not collapse.

Well done!
I was thinking this exactly while reading the comments.
Time is only a concept by which humans use to describe change and progression of our lives. It changes our lives from being of chaos to that of order. Other wise, imagine doing your daily routines WITHOUT the concept of time. You would constantly be in THE MOMENT. Which would seem pleasant, except for the repercussions. Our memories, and especially when we reflect upon them, is the most obvious and direct example of our strange concept of time, to experience something in the "past", and then think about it and visualize it to the point in the "now" "future" that one is almost re-living it.
I'm sure we're all familiar with the concept of amnesia. Now, this may seem off topic at first, but i just have to explain a few terms first. But trust me, this is really really relevant. Through either a traumatic event, or in the case of this example, through some physical injury to the head that causes intense brain damage to the hippocampus, the part of the brain the is in charge of storing and making your memories.
So, when a person suffers an extreme blow to the head, he or she may experience one of two forms of amnesia. There is retrograde amnesia, which is when a person is unable to remember memories prior to the incident (anywhere from a few min. prior to the incident to every memory the person had. Then there is antergrade amnesia. This is when a person has difficulties creating new memories since the incident. There are varying levels of difficulty, from being unable to remember details, to the amnesia wearing off or becoming weaker over time (the brain recovering/healing), or, in some sever cases, being unable to remember at all. That is, the person would be conscious for a few short moments, then go into a convulsion of sorts, and then consciousness would restart. There are a few cases of people who have one or the other form of amnesia, but it is so extreme that it effectively is as if that person suffer from both, and this is where my post gets back on topic.
These people are conscious, experience life for usually a few short min. and then as the conscious experience begins to be moved into the hippocampus, it just fades away. The person then goes into convulsions, and then claims that he or she has just awoken for the very first time, and feels as if he or she has just been born. There are very few cases of this so there isn't a sizable database on studies on them. However, despite this strange condition of perception of existence, consciousness, and time, a person suffering from both retrograde amnesia and antergrade amnesia sometimes can still remember important parts of his or her life. For example, one Clive Wearing, an accomplished musician, especially pianist, suffered extreme head trauma, leaving him in the mental state I described above. Although when asked if he could play some music on a piano, he claimed that he had no idea how to. However, when brought to a piano and told to just try, he was able to play, by memory no less, and when he finished he would go into convulsions, and then "wake up", confused to why he was sitting at the piano, totally unaware that he just played.

In addition, although he WAS able to remember the name of his wife and recognize her when she entered the room, he still said that he had never seen nor met her before. It is important to note that he was still aware of her social status to him being his wife, and that he "loved her". Yet this man is unable to carry out of conversation of ten min. long. It's a truly sad story, and what a bizarre way of expereincing "time".

People in this forum have been saying that if humans weren't around to perceive time then it would cease to exist. What of Clive Wearing, who does perceive time, if only for a few moments before he begins again?
I think that this is a very interesting case and turns the ENTIRE CONCEPT of time on it's head.

I'm interested to hear all of your responses, thoughts, and comments to Clive Wearing in relation to our discussion of Time.

Clive Wearing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The workings of the brain are but electrochemical circuits that enable us to exist and relate to this existance, damage any electrical circuit and it either works in strange ways or not at all.How this changes my concept of time ?in my opinion none at all. Would you expect me change my opinion on light because i have blurred vision?

@xris,

It changes HIS perception of time, meaning that time can be perceived in different ways. How would he know, unless others told him, about his being conscious prior to that of his latest "awakening". Its applicable to this thread in that just as people have been talking about "time" prior to the big bang, the presence of time without any any space, etc, neither can Wearing perceive time in the future nor past. He can attempt to learn about the recent past, but he has a limited amount of time to grasp a concept, just as we may attempt to understand the passing of time during prehistoric times, despite us actually being there and being able to measure such passing of time. I was just going through the thread and seeing everything that people were saying and this concept of being "stuck" in time, so to speak, seemed very relevant.

@Rev Anarchist,

We are all stuck in the moment, his memory stick has been damaged and mine is selective...It frightens the hell out of me it wont stop ticking..

@astrotheological,

astrotheological wrote:

....They are right in the sence that since they are dead they are no longer able to perceive time and space. You need to exist in order to do so.

Is there no possibility of existence,(in any form?), after life then?
(Im an oldie so I hope you dont mind me coming in on this one and im not sure if im allowed to so forgive me)

@astrotheological,

astrotheological wrote:

I would have to research on Einstein theory of relativity to understand what your saying. Why do you always try to disagree with my opinions and go to your best efforts to find excuses to say that I'm wrong.

I guess I'm not aware of an on-going debate between you, but he does have a point. In my opinion, time-space is infinite, and has no beginning and no end. And just like you said, my idea of "God" is in a metaphorical sense. I believe "God" is a combination of all forces in the universe and how we came into existence. It's just that 2,000 years ago, people didn't have science as we know it to accurately examine and experiment with the universe. So, what will any normal human being do when they can't figure out why and how? Make something up. Or try to describe it the best they can with something appealing.

I also believe that time is a mere illusion. Time is infused with space, and they are one. There is no past or future. Only the present, here and now. Space-time is like a grid, and we can travel through it as we please, and events are placed on this grid in more than just a 3-dimensional model. It's just that we have not learned how to travel in the "time" dimension. The human mind cannot physically describe or imagine the other dimensions, because they simply do not have any physical characteristics, or that we are oblivious to them.

@astrotheological,

Before the time of the big bang, space was concentrated at one point with infinite mass and infinite density. Space (what we refer to it as) is the area that something occupies in three dimensions. A point (or singularity) has 0 dimensions. As shown by general relativity, there is space-time. Space and time are both linked. As there was no space before the big bang, time would not have existed.

Time is relative. We all experience time differently depending on our position in space. Every nuance of space has a corresponding time, as the two are intertwined. Holiday is correct about space-time. It takes extensive knowledge of physics to explain them, though; I am not enough of an expert yet to explain my beliefs.

As for time and space ending, It is an unlikely possiblity but cannot be disproven until we accomplish large milestones in physics. My take on the dilemma: The universe will suffer a frigid death. As we have observed, nearby galaxies are showing redshift which suggests they are moving farther apart. Dark matter which is concentrated within a galaxy holds that galaxy together but does not hold separate galaxies together. Instead, dark energy is propelling galaxies in opposite directions. Consider this: the Universe has been getting less dense as it expands. Before then, dark energy didn't affect much. As the universe became less dense, dark energy fueled the expansion of the universe, causing it to expand exponentially. Unfortuanately, we are in for a gradual cooling and eventual death. However, if dark energy isn't doing what we expect it to be doing, the universe may eventually collapse back to a singularity.. But i'm not an expert or a professor. I'm an amateur and may be completely wrong.

@astrotheological,

If one dies, it is simply ones consciousness (as far as we know) that no longer exists. However, air cannot think. Brick cannot reason. Even if we cannot think about it, the infinitely expanding space-time continuum will keep going without us. It is my belief that there are things in the universe greater then us, that we have no power over, and I believe that the concept of infinite as in an infinitely expanding continuum, is one of them. I don't think anyone has as of yet been able to truly grasp the concept of a universe without time, I know that I can't, it's simply too vast. That does not, however, mean that we cannot be a part of the space-time continuum. It is, however, something that is infinitely greater then any of us. It is the basis of philosophy trying to understand these great things, and why we act the way we do, how they influence us. I find it fascinating to ponder these concepts. Although I am nowhere near understanding them, as I don't think anyone is, it is a goal to strive for: to fully understand all of that which happens around them. When that happens, we will have reached enlightenment.

@captpicard12,

Yes, but nothing is effected by time, it just sits there and has no force whatsoever, its only what we perceive it to be. It is not a dimension at all. Time cant be a dimension because it needs to be space or an object that has a magnitude or extent. But it doesn't end or start. So if it doesn't end or start then how did it come into existence at all in the first place, which rules out the possibility of it to be reality. It is a concept we humans our species needs to make a measurement of that we manifested in our minds to make sense of day and night. There will be day and night on this planet if we dont exist or not. Our earth will rotate around the sun and spin on a axis without time being their no matter what, it has its own force to do that(energy, matter). Time doesn't make our body age, doesn't make this planet age, its just the chemicals and elements that make up that certain object. Infinity doesn't exist because if it had no beginning or end then what put it there in there first place? Maybe our mind cant wrap around that concept because our mind and soul is trapped in this object called "human being", which can only do certain things to an extent, hence dimensions.

@astrotheological,

yes I am the Question, are minds cannot wrap are heads around these concepts and questions but we must try to push it through the barriers, we must try yes?

@Caroline,

Think about this: This physical universe was created on a plane of nothingness. And it expands out to nothingness making everything something in replace. Well if you would stand on the outside of the universe and watch it expand you wouldn't be able to. This is the thing, If your an observer on this plane of nothingness you wouldn't exist because it is nothing, so how does this universe exist on this nothing? What if this is just a simulation for our souls, to prepare us for the actual existence when our soul passes through this body? The only thing that is infinite is our soul.

@astrotheological,

I am incorrect, time is unapplicable before the big bang.

@astrotheological,

If existence stopped would there be time?

Even if there was time after everything ended who would be there to measure it, doesn't that make time end if no one is there to experience it?

In my opinion time is only what we percieve it as.

Philosophy Forum

Time and space can never end. It is infinite.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know