Time has a beginning?

[sol invictus]

It has been my experience that whenever an area of science has highly trained, accomplished and respected professionals (like Steinhardt) who do not agree with mainstream opinions, all is not as conclusive as the mainstream would like lowly laymen to believe.

And yet what you've been told over and over and over and over is that "mainstream" physics doesn't answer the question in the title of this thread. No one knows the answer. Steinhardt has a pet theory, but there are many other possibilities, some of which are far better supported and most of which are more likely to be self-consistent.

Do you understand the meaning of "evidence?" Internally consistent mathematical models can be developed to demonstrate a great many physically incorrect theories. They are not evidence! As an old retired mathematician, I think I could come up with a few nonsensical ones myself.

You plainly don't know 'the meaning of "evidence"'. One hypothesizes a model, extracts its predictions mathematically, and checks them against experiment. Every successful prediction is evidence for the model. With many successful predictions in hand and none that conflict with data, one has some degree of confidence that the remaining, as yet untested predictions may be correct as well - certainly more than those of some theory that's never been tested.

So then it is obvious that the model is either incomplete or flawed.

Yes, as is acknowledged by everyone (and as you've been told over and over and over and over).

I do not have a position. Time having a beginning seems to be contradictory. Time not having a beginning seems to be contradictory.

And yet you've utterly failed to tell us what those contradictions are, despite being asked many, many times.

 

[sol invictus]

To say T = 0 = something is saying nothing = somethiing! This is complete and utter nonsense. T = 0 is "where T doesn't even exist". Just because math can abstractly define 0 as an abstract something doesn't mean 0 = something in the real Universe.

Prior to T = 0 would be T = <0 (less than nothing).

Total gibberish. Prior to T=0 is T<0, which is completely unproblematic. You might have heard of a system of dates with a year 0? Are dates before that one "less than nothing" and "complete and utter nonsense"?

What's being discussed in this thread is what happened at a special moment about 13.7 billion years ago, when the universe was very hot and very dense and expanding very rapidly. For convenience we sometimes label the moment where the standard big bang theory predicts a singularity "t=0", but that label obviously implies none of the bizarre things you asserted ("the whole alphabet = 0"), nor do the laws of physics.

 

[Perpetual Student]

The question of evidence came up in the following context:

Quote:
And if your concern is that the current theory is incapable of producing a coherent narrative for states where t=0 or where t just doesn't exist at all, you're in that very same excellent company.

I'm not so sure... For example, I believe your phrase "where t just doesn't exist at all" is not justifiable. We have absolutely ZERO evidence that there ever was such a state!

So, whatever validity there is in the last two posters comments is totally irrelevant in that those comments have nothing to do with the above statement. There is absolutely NO evidence that time did not exist. A consistent mathematical model that makes predictions about other things is not "evidence" of this question.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I do not have a position. Time having a beginning seems to be contradictory. Time not having a beginning seems to be contradictory.

And yet you've utterly failed to tell us what those contradictions are, despite being asked many, many times.

I have told you many, many times what those contradictions are. You have failed to understand them. You seem to be mentally paralyzed by your model much like the way a creationist is paralyzed by his model.

 

[sol invictus]

. A consistent mathematical model that makes predictions about other things is not "evidence" of this question.

Wrong, obviously. If that were true science would be useless. Science - particularly physics - works only because nature follows predictable, regular, logical, mathematical rules. As a result we can find mathematical models which allow us to make predictions about situations we cannot (or have not yet) tested directly, and a prediction from a consistent, tested model certainly constitutes evidence for that outcome as more likely than some other.

I have told you many, many times what those contradictions are. You have failed to understand them. You seem to be mentally paralyzed by your model much like the way a creationist is paralyzed by his model.

Paralyzed by what model? As I keep trying to get through your head, there is no one model for what happened at the big bang. There are many models. In some time "begins" there, in others it does not. None of those models are self-contradictory.

It is you that cannot comprehend those facts, and it is you that has failed completely to convince anyone there is necessarily a contradiction. Your method of argument is "proof by lack of imagination", or argument from incredulity and ignorance - since you cannot understand how something is possible, it is therefore impossible.

 

[theprestige]

The model predicts many things correctly. Each of these correct predictions is evidence that the model is correct. The model predicts a state where T=0. The correctness of its other predictions is evidence in favor of the hypothesis that this prediction is also correct. We absolutely do have the evidence you complained about, PS.

On the other hand, the evidence you have is apparently "time having or not having a beginning, either way, seems contradictory". This isn't much evidence. As a model, it doesn't even have any explanatory value or make any testable predictions.

Not only that, but your model pretty much obsolete. Scientists have been aware of the contradictory seeming of time beginning (or not) for quite a while. The current model was developed in part to resolve this contradiction. It's not there yet, but it's getting closer. And along the way, it's demonstrated better explanatory and predictive power than any other model ever developed in the history of humanity to date.

 

[photon]

And yet you've utterly failed to tell us what those contradictions are, despite being asked many, many times.

The assertion that time has a beginning actually is self-contradictory, since there is no meaningful, non-circular definition of "beginning" that does not lead to a logical contradiction in that assertion.

Scientists and philosophers have tried to circumvent this problem by arguing that by "time has a beginning" they mean to say, for example, "Prior to any interval of a given length, there is at most a finite number of intervals of the same length", but this is not helpful for two reasons. First, circumventing the problem is just that; it doesn't solve the problem. Second, with this rephrasing of "time has a beginning", you end up introducing a duality in the nature of time, where one aspect of time does have a "beginning", but only when seen in perspective of the other aspect of time. But this second aspect of time is then forced logically to be beginningless.

My point here is that in order to demonstrate the contradiction in the assertion, "time has a beginning", you would have to start off with defining unambiguously what you understand "beginning" to mean. Since different definitions lead to the emergence of different types of contradictions.

 

[ynot]

Total gibberish. Prior to T=0 is T<0, which is completely unproblematic. You might have heard of a system of dates with a year 0? Are dates before that one "less than nothing" and "complete and utter nonsense"?

What's being discussed in this thread is what happened at a special moment about 13.7 billion years ago, when the universe was very hot and very dense and expanding very rapidly. For convenience we sometimes label the moment where the standard big bang theory predicts a singularity "t=0", but that label obviously implies none of the bizarre things you asserted ("the whole alphabet = 0"), nor do the laws of physics.

I was responding to what I believe was a total gibberish comment (IMO) from theprestige -“where t doesn't even exist (i.e., "prior" to t=0)” that essentially claims that T = 0 represents T as being both nothing and something. 0/nothing is a purely abstract concept that can have no actual existence. If it could it would be something.

What does a purely abstract system arbitrarily defining a particular date as being 0 have to do with actual reality? An abstract system that defines that tomorrow will be 0 doesn’t mean that tomorrow will mysteriously disappear. Abstract systems (including math) don’t change or create anything.

What is being discussed in this thread is whether time had a beginning or even if such a thing is actually possible. In other words, is creation (something from nothing) possible.

 

[ynot]

Actually, according to Einstein's Special and General Relativity, it is time itself that it is affected, and not merely devices.

What evidence can you provide that time is an actual and independent thing that is capable of being effected?

 

[sol invictus]

The assertion that time has a beginning actually is self-contradictory, since there is no meaningful, non-circular definition of "beginning" that does not lead to a logical contradiction in that assertion.

That simply isn't true. There is absolutely no logical or mathematical reason why there cannot be an earliest moment, just as it's perfectly consistent to have a boundary of space. Neither situation is contradictory - or even particularly confusing or hard to understand. Similarly, it's possible for time to have a beginning but no earliest moment (just as the reals x>0 have a boundary but no smallest member).

First, circumventing the problem is just that; it doesn't solve the problem.

What problem?

Second, with this rephrasing of "time has a beginning", you end up introducing a duality in the nature of time, where one aspect of time does have a "beginning", but only when seen in perspective of the other aspect of time. But this second aspect of time is then forced logically to be beginningless.

Huh?

My point here is that in order to demonstrate the contradiction in the assertion, "time has a beginning", you would have to start off with defining unambiguously what you understand "beginning" to mean. Since different definitions lead to the emergence of different types of contradictions.

Sure, that's absolutely true. But the fact remains that many completely unproblematic definitions exist.

I think the difficulty here is that it's very easy for you to become convinced that something is paradoxical because you, personally, have difficulty comprehending it. A good example is the one I gave above - a bounded set of real numbers with no smallest element. It sounds contradictory to anyone without the requisite mathematical background, but it's perfectly consistent.

 

[photon]

That simply isn't true. There is absolutely no logical or mathematical reason why there cannot be an earliest moment

Alright, so define "beginning" (as in, time has a "beginning").

What problem?


Huh?

We'll get to these issues during the process of discussion.

 

[Perpetual Student]

There are no convincing answers to questions about time having a beginning and, indeed, the universe (all of space, time, matter and energy) having a beginning. Furthermore, the excellent models (GR and QM) discussed by many here that take us to t = a tiny number (epsilon), may or may not have any validity at those extremes. We know the models work quite well in areas where experiments and observations can confirm the models. However we do not know what the limits of the utility of the models are. Just as Boyle's gas law, for example, breaks down at extreme temperatures and pressures, our best cosmological models may break down well before we get to t = epsilon. I am not talking about the mathematical breakdown of these models that have been mentioned here. I am talking about the possible physical breakdown of these models in the real world of t = epsilon.

 

[ynot]

There is absolutely no logical or mathematical reason why there cannot be an earliest moment.

it's possible for time to have a beginning but no earliest moment.

So “logically” there can be an “earliest moment” but there can’t be an “earliest moment” of time? . . . Why not (logically)?

 

[ynot]

I think the difficulty here is that it's very easy for you to become convinced that something is paradoxical because you, personally, have difficulty comprehending it. A good example is the one I gave above - a bounded set of real numbers with no smallest element. It sounds contradictory to anyone without the requisite mathematical background, but it's perfectly consistent.

The math says it is so . . . therefore it is . . . All hail the math!

 

[theprestige]

The math says it is so . . . therefore it is . . . All hail the math!

Hear, hear!

The math does a much better job than English at describing, explaining, and predicting the universe. It goes into greater detail, greater precision, greater accuracy, and greater clarity. The moment you come up with a better model, and a better language in which to present it, then all will hail you as the greatest genius of three millenia--greater than Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and Hawking combined.

Until then, absolutely yes, all hail the math.

 

[theprestige]

So “logically” there can be an “earliest moment” but there can’t be an “earliest moment” of time? . . . Why not (logically)?

Please re-read what sol wrote. He didn't actually say there "can't be an earliest moment in time. He said that it's possible.

 

[Thunder]

I don't believe that time had a beginning. Sorry. I think the universe has been Big Banging, expanding, contracting, and Big Banging again, over and over....forever.

 

[Thunder]

So “logically” there can be an “earliest moment” but there can’t be an “earliest moment” of time? . . . Why not (logically)?

"earliest moment" usually is in reference to the Big Bang..right.

 

[OneShotKi11]

I truely love you guys! Anytime there is a debate about "time" or Einstein/relativity or the creation of the Universe i cant stop reading. These forums have introduced me to my greatest interest in life. I am absolutely obsessed with knowing as much as i can about the topic and only wish i didnt screw around in High School with sports and such. I wish i would have buckled down and concentrated solely on mathamatics and physics!

Now im just a bitter 24 year old who has fallen behind the leanring curve when it comes to this topic. Man oh, man do i wish i could persue a career in Physics and be at the head of the newest debates, theories, and discoveries.
How i truely ENVY you people......

 

[ynot]

Please re-read what sol wrote. He didn't actually say there "can't be an earliest moment in time. He said that it's possible.

DOH! - Curse that damn inferior detail, precision, accuracy, and clarity of the English language.

I don’t accept that anything can have a beginning without an earliest moment and I don’t accept that just because math can express that it can actually means that it can in the real universe.