Time has a beginning?

[Tubbythin]

If ego was an issue, I would have tried to take credit for these ideas. Sorry, but this has everything to do with pure observations (both of the sun and of you industry on the internet) over a multi-year time frame. You guys refuse to open you minds to other possibilities and anyone who disagrees with the party dogma is belittled and ignored.

Nope. We refuse to open our minds to stuff that is ruled out by experiment and observation. That is all.

The mainstream handed Alfven and Nobel Prize and then improperly (according to Alfven) applied his theories to space. The fact you *still* believe in "negative pressure" in a "vacuum" only demonstrates how out to lunch your whole industry has become. No vacuum on Earth ever reaches "zero" pressure, let alone "negative" pressure. That however is a completely different topic.

Erm, thats the Casimir effect. The same Casimir effect that has been shown to exist multiple controlled lab experiments. The fact that you refuse to believe it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I did, however, find it very funny seeing you try to defend your position by repeatedly posting the same image time and time gain, despite the fact that:
1) The image was a cartoon frow wikipedia.
2) The image was from a page who's content very very very clearly disagreed entirely with what you were trying to say.
3) The picture was wrong.
But by all means post it again.

The thing about BB mythology PS is that they all *assume* that every little speck of matter and energy was all collected to a *SINGLE* point. That idea itself is pure dogma and complete speculation.

No.

Alfven proposed a cyclical sort of "bang' process that was the result of a mixed matter/antimatter coming into "proximity" via contraction. His model however never ends with all matter and energy in one point, therefore it's ignored, just like every other theory that doesn't jive with party dogma and include liberal amounts of "dark" gap filler.

Its also completely ruled out by experiment and observation. Which makes it utterly irrelevant.

 

[Tubbythin]

Sure.

It doesn't seem like it.

In this case it would relate specifically to those that claim that there was no "time" before the bang. Are you even one of them?

In that sense I dunno. There's not any scientific consensus on this issue. Many people say its impossible to know. Others than what happened before is irrelevant since it can have no effect on us now. Many people understand this better than me. I know my limits (usually) when it comes to physics. I won't pretend I have a definitive answer when I don't. We can trace the history of the Universe back to t = some tiny fraction of a second. We can probably go back a bit further with better understanding of quark-gluon plamas. Before that... who knows. Its open questions that make science interesting.

 

[Perpetual Student]

... We can trace the history of the Universe back to t = some tiny fraction of a second. We can probably go back a bit further with better understanding of quark-gluon plamas. Before that... who knows. Its open questions that make science interesting.

I remain quite skeptical of that claim. Our models can be extrapolated to a hypothetical "t = some tiny fraction of a second." That does not mean that we can necessarily "trace" the Universe back to "t = some tiny fraction of a second."

 

[theprestige]

I remain quite skeptical of that claim. Our models can be extrapolated to a hypothetical "t = some tiny fraction of a second." That does not mean that we can necessarily "trace" the Universe back to "t = some tiny fraction of a second."

Fair enough.

Here's what we can do: Based on the laws of physics as we currently understand them, and based on the assumption that these laws behave the same in all times and in all places, we can describe a self-consistent sequence of events, that ends with the current state of the universe as best we can describe it, and that begins about as far back in time as "t=some tiny fraction of a second".

What we can't do, based on our current understanding of the laws of physics, and our current observations of the current state of the universe, is describe any kind of sequence of events at all, before "t=some tiny fraction of a second".

You're absolutely right that what we speculate about what went on before that time seems crazy, or impossible, or meaningless, or contradictory. That's the whole point. And that's one of the reasons we're still trying to improve our understanding of the laws of physics, and improve our observations of the current state of the universe: Because we hope that by doing so, we will get closer to a coherent narrative for the entire time period between t=0 and t=now. Indeed, we hope to some day figure out a coherent narrative for universe-states where t doesn't even exist (i.e., "prior" to t=0).

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Direct experiments have been done with extremely accurate atomic clocks. Clocks that are sent up in aeroplanes to fly around count time more slowly than clocks that remain stationary on the ground.

Clocks may be affected by things like altitude, speed, etc. but time is not.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Fair enough.

Here's what we can do: Based on the laws of physics as we currently understand them, and based on the assumption that these laws behave the same in all times and in all places, we can describe a self-consistent sequence of events, that ends with the current state of the universe as best we can describe it, and that begins about as far back in time as "t=some tiny fraction of a second".
What we can't do, based on our current understanding of the laws of physics, and our current observations of the current state of the universe, is describe any kind of sequence of events at all, before "t=some tiny fraction of a second".

You're absolutely right that what we speculate about what went on before that time seems crazy, or impossible, or meaningless, or contradictory. That's the whole point. And that's one of the reasons we're still trying to improve our understanding of the laws of physics, and improve our observations of the current state of the universe: Because we hope that by doing so, we will get closer to a coherent narrative for the entire time period between t=0 and t=now. Indeed, we hope to some day figure out a coherent narrative for universe-states where t doesn't even exist (i.e., "prior" to t=0).

There is one more important (critical) assumption inherent in accepting the part in bold above. As we extrapolate backwards in time, we assume that we are interpreting all of our current observations correctly. It has happened all too often in cosmology that new observations or new interpretations of old observations turn cosmological theories upside down. I believe that one should apply a small grain of salt to all "t=some tiny fraction of a second" extrapolations.

 

[ynot]

If T = 0 then E = 0, M = 0, C = 0 and the whole alphabet = 0. In other words the Universe = 0. Something from nothing = creation. Modern science = pseudo religion?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I don't think there is anything current theory to suggest that M (for mass) goes to zero as we go backward in time.

 

[theprestige]

I believe that one should apply a small grain of salt to all "t=some tiny fraction of a second" extrapolations.

And we do. We apply such grains of salt liberally all the time.

One of the main things we do--in fact it's the backbone of our entire system of extrapolation--is we try to think of all the ways our extrapolation could be mistaken, and what we could observe to confirm those mistakes. Then we try as hard as we can to observe those things. If we don't observe them, we stick with the existing extrapolation at least until we finally do observe something that indicates a mistake.

Another thing we do is we study the extrapolation (well, the theory on which it is based), to find predictions it makes. Then we try to observe the results of that prediction. If we observe the predicted results, we stick with the extrapolation. If not, we begin to get suspicious, and start looking for alternate possibilities.

Between these two things, scientists are already doing exactly what you want them to do.

As we extrapolate backwards in time, we assume that we are interpreting all of our current observations correctly. It has happened all too often in cosmology that new observations or new interpretations of old observations turn cosmological theories upside down.

How often, exactly, is "all too often"? And you say this like it's a bad thing, or that scientists aren't well aware of it. Indeed, it's widely consdered to be a feature of the scientific method, rather than a bug.

The current narrative for the history of the universe is the best one we have so far. It's self-consistent. Its predictions are consistent with what we observe. And all of the current scientific work in the relevant fields is dedicated to finding new observations and interpretations, that will force its modification.

If your concern is that the current theory isn't 100% certain about the history of the universe, then you're in the excellent company of every other theoretical physicist in the history of theoretical physics.

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.

 

[ynot]

I don't think there is anything current theory to suggest that M (for mass) goes to zero as we go backward in time.

Funny that isn’t it. T was = 0 but M was merely = “infinitely small” (perhaps T was merely = “infinitely slow“). In my opinion “infinitely small” is a meaningless, cop-out term used to avoid saying “nothing” which would result in then having to say “creation“.

 

[theprestige]

Funny that isn’t it. T was = 0 but M was merely = “infinitely small” (perhaps T was merely = “infinitely slow“). In my opinion “infinitely small” is a meaningless, cop-out term used to avoid saying “nothing” which would result in then having to say “creation“.

I'm pretty sure that "nothing" and "infinitesimal" (your "infnitely small") are mathematically distinct concepts, and when the math calls for one, it's completely inappropriate (not to mention mathematically illogical) to put the other in its place.

 

[orange31]

...You're absolutely right that what we speculate about what went on before that time seems crazy, or impossible, or meaningless, or contradictory. That's the whole point. And that's one of the reasons we're still trying to improve our understanding of the laws of physics, and improve our observations of the current state of the universe: Because we hope that by doing so, we will get closer to a coherent narrative for the entire time period between t=0 and t=now. Indeed, we hope to some day figure out a coherent narrative for universe-states where t doesn't even exist (i.e., "prior" to t=0).

Nicely explained. As I tried to describe earlier, when we 'visualize' the singularity right before the big bang, we have this mental image of a very dense dot in space - ie, something already existing in a four dimensional universe which by definition doesn't exist yet. So it's not just 'time' that has a beginning, it's also length, width and depth.
It's certainly over my head .

 

[ynot]

Fair enough.

Here's what we can do: Based on the laws of physics as we currently understand them, and based on the assumption that these laws behave the same in all times and in all places, we can describe a self-consistent sequence of events, that ends with the current state of the universe as best we can describe it, and that begins about as far back in time as "t=some tiny fraction of a second".

What we can't do, based on our current understanding of the laws of physics, and our current observations of the current state of the universe, is describe any kind of sequence of events at all, before "t=some tiny fraction of a second".

You're absolutely right that what we speculate about what went on before that time seems crazy, or impossible, or meaningless, or contradictory. That's the whole point. And that's one of the reasons we're still trying to improve our understanding of the laws of physics, and improve our observations of the current state of the universe: Because we hope that by doing so, we will get closer to a coherent narrative for the entire time period between t=0 and t=now. Indeed, we hope to some day figure out a coherent narrative for universe-states where t doesn't even exist (i.e., "prior" to t=0).

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).

 

[ynot]

I'm pretty sure that "nothing" and "infinitesimal" (your "infnitely small") are mathematically distinct concepts, and when the math calls for one, it's completely inappropriate (not to mention mathematically illogical) to put the other in its place.

“Infinitely small’ is not “mine“. It’s the most common term I observe other people using to describe the Universe as a singularity.

How is “infinitesimal” or “infinitely small’ represented in the real Universe (non-math)?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Funny that isn’t it. T was = 0 but M was merely = “infinitely small” (perhaps T was merely = “infinitely slow“). In my opinion “infinitely small” is a meaningless, cop-out term used to avoid saying “nothing” which would result in then having to say “creation“.

No. No reason to think mass was infinitely small either.

 

[Perpetual Student]

And we do. We apply such grains of salt liberally all the time.

For the most part, I believe that is true. However, I have encountered what I believe to be a bit of hubris from time to time in this area.

One of the main things we do--in fact it's the backbone of our entire system of extrapolation--is we try to think of all the ways our extrapolation could be mistaken, and what we could observe to confirm those mistakes. Then we try as hard as we can to observe those things. If we don't observe them, we stick with the existing extrapolation at least until we finally do observe something that indicates a mistake.

OK

Another thing we do is we study the extrapolation (well, the theory on which it is based), to find predictions it makes. Then we try to observe the results of that prediction. If we observe the predicted results, we stick with the extrapolation. If not, we begin to get suspicious, and start looking for alternate possibilities.

Yes.

Between these two things, scientists are already doing exactly what you want them to do.

Yes, however, I have sensed that some lose track of the tenuous nature of the long chain of dependent observations and logic in going back to "t = a tiny number."

How often, exactly, is "all too often"? And you say this like it's a bad thing, or that scientists aren't well aware of it. Indeed, it's widely considered to be a feature of the scientific method, rather than a bug.

The current narrative for the history of the universe is the best one we have so far. It's self-consistent. Its predictions are consistent with what we observe. And all of the current scientific work in the relevant fields is dedicated to finding new observations and interpretations, that will force its modification.

Yes, but I have sensed a knee jerk reaction against some alternative theories, one of which was discussed in this thread.

If your concern is that the current theory isn't 100% certain about the history of the universe, then you're in the excellent company of every other theoretical physicist in the history of theoretical physics.

OK

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!

 

[theprestige]

For the most part, I believe that is true. However, I have encountered what I believe to be a bit of hubris from time to time in this area.

Yes, however, I have sensed that some lose track of the tenuous nature of the long chain of dependent observations and logic in going back to "t = a tiny number."

Yes, but I have sensed a knee jerk reaction against some alternative theories, one of which was discussed in this thread.

In fact your beliefs and sensations have little value, when they are applied to subjects which you know little about. As a layman, what you perceive to be true about the behavior of those skilled in the art is inconclusive and unconvincing.

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!

It certainly is justifiable, and we certainly do have evidence: The internally-consistent mathematical model that we have developed to explain and predict the current state of the universe permits it. It's not absolute proof--and nobody is claiming otherwise--but it is evidence consistent with that hypothesis.

But that's not really the point. The point is, our mathematical model, when we use very small values for t, results in a mathematical singularity. There is a point past which our model cannot describe anything. And whether the universe actually behaves in one particular way or another, we'd like to develop a better mathematics, that will eliminate the singularity, and allow us to describe the kinds of states that would exist if t=0, and if it were removed from the equation altogether.

We'd also like it if this new, improved model could make predictions about what we would observe, if such a state had ever existed, so that we could carry out tests to discover whether or not the evidence you desire actually exists.

Our current problem is that our model only makes sense up to a certain point back in time. Beyond that point, it's gibberish, and we get nothing more from it.

Your position seems to be "it's stupid to assume that time has a beginning, so we should just assume that it goes back and back forever, regardless of how far short the model stops."

And the actual position of actual scientists is "it's unscientific to assume anything for which we don't have a coherent model and/or repeatable observations, so we'll push our current model as far as it can go, and keep looking for something better, without assuming anything at all about what happens beyond the limits of our model and our observations."

Of course this doesn't stop scientists from proposing all kinds of hypotheses about what might be going on outside the model and the observations, but these are not assumptions. They are, for the most part, attempts to brainstorm something better.

I'm sorry you want time to not have a beginning. What I want is for us to have a better explanation of what time actually does have. If it turns out to have a beginning, I'm fine with that. Well, as fine as I can be--it's all a bit awkward to wrap one's head about, really.

 

[arthwollipot]

Clocks may be affected by things like altitude, speed, etc. but time is not.

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

 

[Perpetual Student]

In fact your beliefs and sensations have little value, when they are applied to subjects which you know little about. As a layman, what you perceive to be true about the behavior of those skilled in the art is inconclusive and unconvincing.

As a lowly layman, my "beliefs and sensations" are based on a great deal of investigation over many years. 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.

It certainly is justifiable, and we certainly do have evidence: The internally-consistent mathematical model that we have developed to explain and predict the current state of the universe permits it. It's not absolute proof--and nobody is claiming otherwise--but it is evidence consistent with that hypothesis.

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.

...

Our current problem is that our model only makes sense up to a certain point back in time. Beyond that point, it's gibberish, and we get nothing more from it.

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

Your position seems to be "it's stupid to assume that time has a beginning, so we should just assume that it goes back and back forever, regardless of how far short the model stops."

I do not have a position. Time having a beginning seems to be contradictory. Time not having a beginning seems to be contradictory. I come to this forum for opinions and insights and, at times, make provocative comments in order to stimulate discussion. The mainstream seems to favor time having a beginning, which is why I have probed in order to understand the reasons for that preference. However, I must say that I have found that arrogance does not lead to understanding and has even less "value" than my "beliefs and sensations."

 

[Uncayimmy]

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.

He said the models explain and predict. Do your nonsensical models explain and predict?