Explanation to the question, "Why is the existence of time before the Big Bang event meaningless?"

Mr. DAniel Comstock Hixson .

Regarding your comment: "Because time doesn't exist, if it does, explain what came before the Big Bang. I'm new on this page, fellow group members seem pretty smart, but I would love to hear answers."

In my view, 'time' does not exist as a physical entity but rather as a mathematical and abstract concept. Time is the progression of existence and events through the past, present, and future, regarded as a whole. This means that both existence and events are necessary for time to emerge.

As for the notion that 'time explains what came before the Big Bang,' this reflects a misunderstanding. The Big Bang theory predicts a primordial, uneventful existence before the Big Bang event, which then unfolded through the first Big Bang event. This implies that time began with the emergence of both existence and events, not just the existence of events alone. The Big Bang theory does not hint at the occurrence of events before the Big Bang, so any pre-Big Bang existence without events would not give rise to the concept of time. Therefore, without empirical evidence of events before the Big Bang, it is meaningless to conceptualize time in that context, so time cannot explain what came before the Big Bang when there were no events except uneventful existence.

Best regards,

Soumendra Nath Thakur

#time