Chapter 3:
origin of time
----------------------------
Not be able to measure time beyond this limit
mean that it is not possible to go back up(raise) beyond the whom followed Big Bang.
The serious things begin. " Why is there anything
rather than anything? " As asked for it Leibniz.
What is another way of asking question: " where
from can come time, reality? ". At once, we are confronted with paradoxes
and plunged into the perplexity. Indeed, logically, three solutions propose to
us:
1) Space: time would result from the absolute vacuum.
Literally, it is incredible. Time would have appeared from the nothingness in Big Bang. Time would have in a sense a beginning, but a beginning
determined with regard to which? With regard to "anything"!
2) Eternity: time exists for a long time, at least
under an elementary shape, for example a peculiarity which would be convenient
for the theory of Big Bang.
Contrary to the first hypothesis, Big Bang is only the development of something which exists for a long time
and which did not appear from the nothingness. Hypothesis seemingly as absurd
as the first.
3) Infinity: one could not find a first moment in
time, but time is not there for a long time. We fall in the abyss of the
infinite regression, as incredible as the absolute vacuum. It joins a way of
seeing things of the English physicist Stephen Hawking for whom time has a
beginning, but a beginning which moves back in the infinity.
At the bottom(really), it is a combination(overall) of
the two other hypotheses.
However stunning they are, these hypotheses concern
quite our universe, and if one can not distinguish among them the one that is
just, it seems that he can there have of the other solution. Said otherwise,
solution can not be any of these three hypotheses, but there is no fourth
hypothesis; solution can not so be other than one of these three hypotheses.
Can one again doubt that world is mad?
The German philosopher Kant developed these hypotheses
under the name of contradictions of the pure reason.
The first contradiction of kant
-----------------------------
A contradiction, it is the expression of a
contradiction, a paradox. In sound decorate: " Critic(criticism) of the
pure reason ", one of the most important books but also the most difficult
to read which(who) were ever written, Kant studies the problem of the origin of the world. It(he) sets the
following two propositions:
1) World has a beginning in the time, and it is also
limited in the space.
2) World has neither beginning in the time nor limits
in the space, but it is infinite in the time as in the space.
How to grant(tune) so much weight to these two points
of view?
Because they are as absurd the one as the other one. Cà, it is I who say it, not Kant. Kant contents with concluding
that it is not possible to decide between these two points of view on the
origin and the area of the world, that one can not make anything of other than
to emit(utter) these two contradictory hypotheses.
Let us note that Kant envisages only two possibilities for the origin of the world, he does
not envisage the possibility of recession(drop) in the infinity of the
beginning of the world.
Let us deepen(fathom) the study of these hypotheses.
The first envisages a beginning in time, in the
universe. In such a case, it was necessary that an entity appears from the
absolute vacuum
-What implies that it can absolutely disappear. This
event establishes(constitutes) the moment of origin of time and of the
universal calendar, even though we have no means to determine him(it) and as
far as it has a sense(direction).
But if time had a beginning, what was there before? By
definition, nothing, absolutely anything. Because if it(he) had time there
before time, time exists since an infinite time. Retroactively, it was
necessary so to wait for an infinite time before world appears (what calls
back(reminds) us infinite recession(drop) in the time of the birth of the
universe according to Hawking).
But does one manage to imagine that it was not
necessary to wait for any time before the universe appears? In a way, it means
that time exists for a long time.
If time has the beginning, it has, according to the
observations of the astronomers, more or less 15 billion years, according to
our scale(ladder) of time cosmologique, is the age of Big Bang.
On one side, one says himself that if a first entity
had to appear, it is that was needed a time empty before, of the other one, it seems
so absurd to speak about time without reference in only one says himself that
the being already appeared for a long time , that he always appears already all
the time. Time has no sense(direction) that in the present, not in the past or
in the future. It is that seems to suggest us the image of time as an infinite
train, as we shall see him(it) in the following chapter.
Question to settle(arise) is: " Has the question
of the origin of time a sense(direction)? ". Apparently not, because time
is its own origin. The question of the origin of time has sense(direction) only
in the time. If one assimilates time to be him(her), the being being movement
in the same way as time, question of the origin of the being has no more
sense(direction) than that of the origin of time. And so one realizes that
question " Why there is something rather than anything " is a false
question because there is "nothing", one can not put
"anything" on the same foot as "being". Actually, it is
about the same question. But it is a new way of envisaging him(it). The most
disturbing, it is that we succeed in formulating questions which have no
sense(direction) and that we are profoundly convinced that they have a
sense(direction), that they are even the only questions who have a sense(direction).
Appearance and disappearance absolved
----------------------------------
To ask us the question of the origin of time
leads(drives) us to wonder about the notions of appearance and disappearance
absolved. One anticipates so the chapter reserved for the " journey in the
time ", for which these questions are central.
A thing(matter) which disappears absolutely, that is
of which(whom) there is strictly anything, not even the tiniest particle in the
universe, can it absolutely reappear in an absolute vacuum left with the
universe which aged and who is "somewhere else" in the time? Either
does she(it) reappear in the future of the universe?
In the first case, it(he) can there have a new
universe all the 10-³³ in past and future, because the universe contains as if
it travelled in the space, and if space is an ocean of virtual particles. But
it contradicts the law of conservation of the energy, the modern expression of
" nothing gets lost, nothing builds up itself " of Lavoisier.
In the second case, it is about a persevering present;
in a way, the universe is there without being there, but always there. It(he)
does not move in a sort of space or in the time. And it confirms the law of
conservation of the energy.
If an individual extracts absolutely of the hanging
universe 10 " with regard to the calendar which was his reference, the
universe is 10 " farther than him in the time. But is it in the same
space?
Otherwise, how do the individual can rattrapper the universe? He is self-sufficient to accelerate his
appropriate(clean) time of 10 "? But how? According to the Relativity, it
is only possible to slow down the appropriate(clean) time of an entity provided
that she(it) moves in a speed close to that of the light. One sees bad how
slowing down the appropriate(clean) time of all the universe.
And an individual who would take 10 " of delay
with regard to the universe which follows him(it), could it appear suddenly in
this universe which is not its universe of departure?
Of the answer to these questions depends the
eventuality of a disaster which we shall evoke in the end of this first part.
1999ãAll rights reserved, CHRONOSCOPEâ