How did the ‘original’ time start?

We are dealing here with the beginning of Time, the singularity of time and space. (It is not the so-called beginning of the time with the Big Bangs of Black Holes.) But in the context of the singularity of time and space, which one of the pulses of Time are we talking here? We are living in “our” time and if we go backward in this our time, we would reach its starting point or the singularity of the space-time of “our this” universe. But if this our time has a commencing point, was there “another” run of time earlier? And, if there was another run earlier also, then in this cyclic run when was the commencement of the cyclic process? What would be the nature of laws ruling the cyclic-runs of Time? These are the questions of the highest order of the human intellect. Unfortunately we are living in “our this” time only and can talk meaningfully about this time alone.

At the initial point – the singularity point – of space-time, we are told by these scientists, there must be the infinite density and curvature (of this universe’s space-time continuum). What do we understand by the infinite density of this continuum? Our universe is existing in the four-dimensional space-time continuum and if we are able somehow to squeeze and confine this universe’s mass into a narrower space, it would be denser. If we go on with this process of squeezing, how much dense would it become? We put this universal mass (which is only relative!) onto a single point of space (again, space is only relative!) and get its most dense state. But still it is not infinite.

What about the infinite curvature of our universe’s space-time continuum? Corresponding to the increased density of mass, the curvature of space too increases. An infinite curvature of the space created by the infinite density of mass of our universe would be a closed point on all its sides if the curvature is positive and an open point on all its sides if the curvature is negative. Can we visualize such a state of our universe as existing without time and without space? Existence without time and space would seem a contradiction in terms but contradictory things do exist in Nature. Our universe is material. What is matter?

All that exists is essentially ‘matter’ and we do not know anything existing that is not material. What is it that we call ‘matter’? We all live in and deal with ‘space’ and seem to know what it is. Do we really know what ‘space’ is? And, our ‘developed’ civilization is almost wholly dependent on our dealing with ‘time’. Does ‘time’ really exist? Matter, space and time are eternal in existence and man’s presence has no impact on the mystery of this ‘existence’.

The universe is really vast. It is not vast only in the way that there exists countless number of galaxies comprising solar formations with their planetary systems. It is vast in another manner also. The secret of this vastness lies in the great numbers of dimensions, which we do not know and cannot know. In fact we in our science are only dealing mostly with space dimension. Though there are three sub dimensions of the space, really it is only one dimension. The second dimension – time – is still little understood. What we have learnt here is really very little.

How much do we know about time’s dimension? And, how much do we know about space’s dimension? We know that things exist in space and that when they are placed in space they have the properties of length, width and height. These properties enable things to acquire the sine qua non essentials of mass and take the shape of (our well-known) elements, their combination into molecules and then countless other formations of varied things, including life’s building blocks DNAs etc.

What about the time’s dimension? We know that things exist in time and that when they are so placed in this dimension they exhibit the property of floating in a flowing current that has a direction – from past to future. Things flow because they exist in past, present and future (which constantly turn into present). It is not the time that flows but the things that flow; because the things constantly change in time we have an illusion of time’s flow. You are seated in a running train and have an illusion of seeing things outside the train running backward. In fact, there is no illusion here because the phenomenon is governed by relativity; we can very well say that from the relative point of train the things outside train are running backward and conversely, from the point of things outside train the train is running forward. Likewise, from the point of the time things are flowing in a direction from future to past and conversely, from the point of the things the time is running in a direction from past to future. In space it is possible for us to sit in a running train and watch things outside train (to get the verification of our statement) and also to sit alongside the outside (stationary!) things and watch the running train on the track. While it is so possible for us in space, can we carry out this experiment in the time’s dimension? We are associated with the things (placed in time) and get the illusion (!) that the time is running backward; can we change our relative station to observe the contrary fact of the things running in relativistic manner in a direction from future to past? No. But, then, there must be such a station; it cannot be otherwise. It is our limitation. This is one limitation. There are other limitations also.

Let us proceed by analogy. We are dealing here with things; but it is the wrong term to employ in this context. The correct term is reality; we are dealing with realities. Realities when placed in space are things; and when they are placed in time, they are events. Therefore, the term ‘things’ used here should be understood in the meaning of ‘realities’ of things when placed in space and events when placed in time. Let us proceed in the domain of time with the analogy of things in space; because we know many properties of things, that is, realities when placed in the domain of space.

Does the time have only one property, that is, flowing in a direction – from past to future?  Could there be some other properties also? It is instinctively correct to state that the time is full-fledged dimension; there must be many other properties also. Which are those properties, we do not know; we have no means to know them. However, we can proceed a bit by applying the analogy of space. Space has three sub-dimensions and we may try to apply them in the time’s domain. When things are placed in time’s dimension, they acquire the property of flowing in a direction – from past to future, which in relativistic manner is conversely a flow if time from future to past. This direction of flow from past to future or from future to past may be taken as an equivalent to one sub-dimension of space (say, length); through this property of time, it would be possible to go to past or future of things.

Then, let us apply this property of time to an equivalent of space’s 90 degree change; with this change the time would flow at an angle of 90 degree deviation from its straight direction of past to future or vice versa. What is the meaning of this 90 degree deviated flow of time? It means that the time would cover not merely one thing in the universe but all the things that are there in the universe. This is by an analogy of space. If we, likewise by analogy, make one more deviation of 90 degree in time’s these two flows, what would be its result on things? What would be the additional property of things placed in this third sub-dimension? One thing that is certain is that in this new sub-dimension things would have the properties that are not the part of the other two sub-dimensions, namely, things when placed in this third sub-direction of time would not have firstly the flow of time from past to future or future to past and secondly things would be out of cover of time. What does it mean? Precisely, it means that things placed in this third sub-direction would not undergo the change associated with the flow of time and therefore they would be without any beginning and without any end. Also, things would not be covered by time, that is, they would be in the eternal state.

And, what about another property of things placed in time that may qualify the equivalent of mass of things when placed in space? We do not know. But when the things are placed in the time’s dimension, those properties (of time) must enable them to acquire various formations (like things placed in space acquire formations of elements, molecules, compounds etc.). How do you rate the probability of the idea of capability of things when placed in time to acquire with the aid of time’s peculiar properties formations equivalent to spatial elements, molecules, compounds, including living DNAs?  Certainly, it is not an idea born out of fancy. We need to have means to travel in the domain of time. Once we acquire this means, we would travel in the past and in the future. We would also travel in time to see all the things in the universe happening at a given moment. This world of time, like the world of space, would be a vast one; exploration of the time’s domain would be much more interesting that the exploration of space. Let us not think that travel to some distant planet in some far away galaxy, when accomplished by our science, would be the end of our search for the ultimate. Universe is vaster in its kinds than in its space.

We hear, so to say, the sound of approaching things beyond these two dimensions in the concept of probability. We all live in space and know it quite well. We are going to Mars and other places in outer space. We are exploring in space dimension; and it is really vast. Here in this world of space dimension the concept of relativity gives us an understanding of the nature of things. Here we deal with a little bit with the time dimension also. But the world of probability is totally different. It is only a speculative attempt on our part to say that the matter behave in a probable manner in assuming one of the two contradictory states – wave or particle – because our observation of this matter with the aid of our material scientific instruments affects it. It is not so. Things can really exist in two contradictory states at a single given moment.

The concept of probability is the first chink in the amour of our traditional view of things. The concept of probability is far more revolutionary than that of the relativity in depicting the real nature of things. There is a dimension (of existence) where things are capable of exhibiting properties that look contradictory while they are studied from the standpoint of space. What is that dimension, we do not know. But it is as real as our well-known dimension of space. However, the fundamental law is that all things, whatever and where ever they are, have their exhibition in all the dimensions, whatever their number might be. This law is the secret of all mysteries, which humans are trying to unravel out. Our universe is packed with a large number of dimensions. How many of them are there, we (humans) can never know; it is so because to know them all is to know the secret of creation, which is not destined for a lower life, like we are. This destiny is not in some mystic spiritual sense, but because this life is really lower and incapable of comprehending everything that are there in this universe really vast in kinds.

%d bloggers like this: