Einstein said so. Or rather proved so.
And experiments (some of which killed many) showed so.
And there is a Law Of Conservation Of Mass-Energy.
Then again Space and Time are equivalent.
Einstein said so. Or rather proved so.
Infact he said so before he said the thing above.
And infact derived the thing above from this thing.
And experiments have shown so. (Though confirmatory ones are in the works I understand)
And perhaps there is a some Law of conservation of Space-Time too then?
Maybe we can get to it mathematically starting from Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy?
This is what my (perhaps baseless, or maybe not) intuition says the Law of Conservation of Space-Time may be like...
Total of Space and Time in the Universe remains constant.
So when there is more Space in the Universe, there will be less Time (or less Time Flow?) in the universe. So as the Universe goes on expanding (as it is currently known to be doing), the Overall Time Flow* in it is perhaps getting slower and slower, although we cannot notice it ?Scientists perhaps have not noticed it bcause just like there is lot of energy equivalent to a little mass, there is very tiny time slowing for lots of space expansion? And anyways, if all the clock (atomic too! especially atomic ones actually!) are slowing down at that small rate, how will we know unless we have one clock outside the universe? OK coming back to the original matter Expanding space perhaps means slowing time flow. And when space expands a lot (say infinite, or say something finite, just like the finite speed of light is for physics infinite!), time will stop. Effectively, Universe will be dead, or at least in coma, until (if at all) by some reason it starts contracting and time starts flowing!
OK so we killed the Universe. What about birth? Say there really was something called the Big Bang. Before the Universe 'unfurled' at the Big Bang, it was contained, compressed in some sort of an infinitecimal egg, so to speak. According to one prevelant school of thought, both Space and Time came into existence only at the Big Bang. Before that, there was Nothing. So then we reach the wall of what is this Nothing? What was 'really there' before the Big Bang? Here scientists find themselves internally fumbling and externally blabbering like Religion folks.
But if Law of Conservation of Space-Time can really be derived from Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy, then we get a different perspective. (Eistein reached mass-energy domain from space-time domain. I am talking of trying a reverse idea. Applying reverse kinda mathematical transforms and physics equations, starting from mass energy conservation equation), then it would mean this:
When universe was packed into an infinitecimal space ( or maybe a 'finitecimal' space, like finite speed of light ;) ), time effectively flowed at an infinite rate. So basically, any given 'moment' was actually infinite time. So the state of the Universe 'just before' the Big Bang or 'at' Big Bang could have existed over infinite time, over 'reverse eternity'! There does not have to be anything before the Big Bang. A scientific perspective on the Nothing before the Big Bang!
There are lots of Conclusions, Corollaries, Criticisms, Ifs and Buts about this idea running in my mind right now. Many of them are hazy. But those clearly visible and audible in my head right now are these:
1) If this principle is true, then is the Universe we see is nothing but a process of conversion of all Time Flow into all Space?
2) One prevelant view is that all the known and yet unknown laws of physics came into existence a few moments after the big bang (Some of them also give exact picoseconds (or some even greater negative power of ten) or something after big bang when this supposedly happened!). They say that at the big bang, all known laws of physics break down. Which basically means any weird thing can happen? And everthing happens just so? Just so means 'divinely'? Ah folks isn't that the domain of Religion? If the law I described is true and can be proved, and we backtrack things without making (perhaps unscientific) assumptions of laws (including this law) breaking down, then we get a scientific, consistent perspective at the origin of the universe? All other laws could also be extended back within the framework of this conservation principle?
3) Universe need not be space+time only as is currently assumed. That Space+Time need not have come to existence all of a sudden at big bang. There can be an all space and all time universe. They are two boundaries of universe existence, beyond which it does not exist.
4) There are also existing notions of Universe cooling down as it is expanding, owing to thermodynamics. So there is this notion of Universe totally cooling down - Heat Death of the Universe. Wonder how the proposed Time Death (all time flow converted to space, only space left but no time) of the universe relateds to the Heat death. Are they two different things? Like Cancer, Heart Attack, Gradual Tissue Degeneration are all different causes of Death?
Damn how I am itching to try the 'reverse derivation' right now! How I wish I had more exposure to the mathematics of such physics. All I did was study Engineering and make myself into a Stupid IT guy, and presently provide my services to increase the Stupid savings of an Insurance company through computer solutions :P!
* I am saying Overall Time Flow because under relativistic phenomenon, time flows different in different frames of motion, but may be there is some way of its Overall mathematical treatment across the Universe? Hey I know thats sounding Classical Newtonish absolute kind of thing rather than Relativistic, but if it is such an absurd idea, then scientist talking about 'age of universe' and stuff are basically giving bullshit. If they are not bullshitting, then there is some weight to my idea, though I don't know the technicalities :P)