Time has a beginning?

[Perpetual Student]

Indeed. What is it with arrogant idiots thinking they can fool anyone into believing they know so much more than actual professionals? There seems to be something about both quantum physics and relativity that draws them out the woodwork.

So anyone disagreeing with "a professional" is an arrogant idiot? Is this your official statement as a moderator?

The "professionals" readily admit that the models have no answer about t = 0. However, even if the models did yield an answer, they are merely models; not reality. As I have already pointed out, models have a way of deviating from reality at extreme ranges. Even if the models did say something about t = 0, we would have no real way of knowing if the result were accurate.
In the meantime, it is a very interesting area of discussion for many of us "arrogant idiots."

 

[Perpetual Student]

sol invictus 1, photon 0

Marcus = 0.

 

[orange31]

Two possible answers, that answer both 'yes' and 'no' to the question of 'does time have a beginning?'

1) as mentioned earlier, cyclic Big bang > big crunch > big bang etc.

2) expanding multiverse/possible multiverse model - you know, the one diagrammed by universes budding off of each other, and some eventually 'dying' off. I don't know if transactional QM model fits into this as well. Seems unverifiable with current technology..?

I'm a layman, please correct if erroneous.

 

[ynot]

So anyone disagreeing with "a professional" is an arrogant idiot? Is this your official statement as a moderator?

The "professionals" readily admit that the models have no answer about t = 0. However, even if the models did yield an answer, they are merely models; not reality. As I have already pointed out, models have a way of deviating from reality at extreme ranges. Even if the models did say something about t = 0, we would have no real way of knowing if the result were accurate.
In the meantime, it is a very interesting area of discussion for many of us "arrogant idiots."

Perpetual Student = 10/10

 

[Uncayimmy]

So anyone disagreeing with "a professional" is an arrogant idiot? Is this your official statement as a moderator?

That's quite a leap you made. The phrase was "arrogant idiots thinking they can fool anyone into believing they know so much more than actual professionals." Since you can't see why your leap is a problem change "arrogant idiots" to "Hungarian synchronized swimmers" and see if your twisting of words makes sense. Nobody said that the act of disagreeing makes them arrogant idiots.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you want to argue with an expert in a field, become an expert in that field. Physics is not my area of expertise, but I consider myself an expert in other fields. The people who are the most convinced that I and others are wrong about something are almost always the least knowledgeable. They use colloquial definitions rather than the accepted technical definitions. And because they can effectively argue that their definitions are "right" in some sense, they look at this as evidence that the experts are wrong. It's very frustrating.

It's like somebody arguing that a steering wheel in a car isn't actually a steering wheel. After all, wheels roll on the ground. A car has four wheels, not five. Therefore, it's not a wheel. We know it's the tires touching the ground that determine where the vehicle goes. That's what steering is. How does a circular rod in a car "steer" anything? You could use a joystick to control a car, so obviously it's not the so-called "steering wheel" doing anything.

When you explain what is meant by a steering wheel, you get accused of reciting dogma. When you show the math that explains how turning the steering wheel results in movement of the tires, you're accused of showing a model, not reality. And besides, it's not really a wheel anyway. And it's the tires doing the steering, not this thing that you turn. Hell, maybe it's the person turning that thing that is really steering the car. It's certainly not this "steering wheel" that isn't even a wheel.

What people should be doing is asking intelligent questions in an attempt to understand what the experts are saying rather than trying to refute something they don't grasp in the first place. I'm not saying people shouldn't point out seeming contradictions. They should but with the goal of greater understanding rather proving somebody wrong.

Once you understand something, you have a common language to debate it with others who also understand it. Until then you end up with what we see here every single day: experts trying to explain something to people who don't understand it but think they have evidence that it's wrong.

 

[Perpetual Student]

That's quite a leap you made. The phrase was "arrogant idiots thinking they can fool anyone into believing they know so much more than actual professionals." Since you can't see why your leap is a problem change "arrogant idiots" to "Hungarian synchronized swimmers" and see if your twisting of words makes sense. Nobody said that the act of disagreeing makes them arrogant idiots.

Obviously, you have no clue about context.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you want to argue with an expert in a field, become an expert in that field. Physics is not my area of expertise, but I consider myself an expert in other fields. The people who are the most convinced that I and others are wrong about something are almost always the least knowledgeable. They use colloquial definitions rather than the accepted technical definitions. And because they can effectively argue that their definitions are "right" in some sense, they look at this as evidence that the experts are wrong. It's very frustrating.

It's like somebody arguing that a steering wheel in a car isn't actually a steering wheel. After all, wheels roll on the ground. A car has four wheels, not five. Therefore, it's not a wheel. We know it's the tires touching the ground that determine where the vehicle goes. That's what steering is. How does a circular rod in a car "steer" anything? You could use a joystick to control a car, so obviously it's not the so-called "steering wheel" doing anything.

When you explain what is meant by a steering wheel, you get accused of reciting dogma. When you show the math that explains how turning the steering wheel results in movement of the tires, you're accused of showing a model, not reality. And besides, it's not really a wheel anyway. And it's the tires doing the steering, not this thing that you turn. Hell, maybe it's the person turning that thing that is really steering the car. It's certainly not this "steering wheel" that isn't even a wheel.

What people should be doing is asking intelligent questions in an attempt to understand what the experts are saying rather than trying to refute something they don't grasp in the first place. I'm not saying people shouldn't point out seeming contradictions. They should but with the goal of greater understanding rather proving somebody wrong.

Once you understand something, you have a common language to debate it with others who also understand it. Until then you end up with what we see here every single day: experts trying to explain something to people who don't understand it but think they have evidence that it's wrong.

What nonsense! When it comes to questions like, "does time have a beginning?" it should be clear by now that there are no "experts!" There are, however, people who have spent a great deal of time pondering the question with varying degrees of knowledge, and whose views have more interest than others. Many professionals have varying opinions in this area (Steinhardt, Tegmark). All such views have value and interest.
In contrast, your views have little interest and little value.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Obviously, you have no clue about context.

Sure, I do. There are lots of arrogant idiots out there. Some of them try to fool experts. Some of them believe everthing the experts say and form a peanut gallery of sorts. Some of them, like myself, ask intelligent questions. Yes, I'm arrogant. When it comes to physics, I'm an idiot compared to those who study it.

Cuddles did not say they were arrogant idiots because of what they do. Cuddles made an observation about them. You jumped to an unsupported conclusion. You even asked Cuddles if he was speaking as a moderator when you didn't see a mod box. Mods only speak as mods when they indicate as much. The exception is forum management, where they speak as mods unless otherwise indicated.

What nonsense! When it comes to questions like, "does time have a beginning?" it should be clear by now that there are no "experts!" There are, however, people who have spent a great deal of time pondering the question with varying degrees of knowledge, and whose views have more interest than others. Many professionals have varying opinions in this area (Steinhardt, Tegmark). All such views have value and interest.
In contrast, your views have little interest and little value.

If you'd loosen your shorts, maybe you would realize that referring to "many professionals [having] varying opinions" supports my opinion. These people have broad and deep understandings of the subject matter. The discuss it intelligently. They understand the various theories and debate them using accepted terminology and mathematics.

What you won't find Steinhard and Tegmark doing is playing games with English semantics. You won't see them attempting to poke holes in things they don't understand. You won't see them making accusations of something being "self inconsistent" until they fully understand the theory itself and can arcticulate what the theory predicts.

What I see here all too often is evidence that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

[ynot]

Can you give an example of something you think has "actual or independent existence"?

You . . . me . . . them . . .

In conventional physics time is simply one direction in a spacetime manifold. It's different from a spatial direction, but only in a a specific (and for some purposes unimportant) way. Like space, it is dynamic in the sense that it can be warped and changed by the presence of matter and energy (that's an experimental fact, not a speculation).

In some more speculative theories time and space are derived, average concepts which cease to be useful concepts at extremely high energies. As an analogy, we might speak of the surface of a pillow. But looking very closely we find the pillow is made of woven threads with holes in between, each thread having its own surface. But on close inspection the threads themselves are made of filaments with space between, which are made of molecules, which are made of atoms, which themselves are mostly empty. At that level the concept of a "surface" for the pillow is meaningless; similarly, sufficiently short time intervals may not exist in any useful sense.

Are you saying that nothing has actual existence, or that everything has actual existence including abstract concepts, thoughts, beliefs, etc? The action of having a thought is an actual thing but the thought itself isn’t. Actual means a thing (physical/material) that can be directly observed, or a thing (non-physical/material) that an be indirectly observed by it’s effect on something that can be directly observed.

Regardless of how it’s perceived and observed an actual pillow has actual existence where as a pillow I merely imagine only has an abstract existence.

 

[ynot]

What I see here all too often is evidence that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

A great deal of knowledge that is wrong is a more dangerous thing. (not referring to any particular knowledge of course ;-)

 

[OneShotKi11]

Well with where the conversation has headed, can i ask a few Experts to give their opinion to the question at hand?

Does time have a beggining?

I would really like to hear exactly what they have to say on the matter given their expertise in the feild.
This is not to prove a point but more so for my own education. I really like to ponder these ideas, form my own uneducated conclusions and then research the actual answers given by those who know best.

 

[orange31]

Are you saying that nothing has actual existence, or that everything has actual existence including abstract concepts, thoughts, beliefs, etc? The action of having a thought is an actual thing but the thought itself isn’t. Actual means a thing (physical/material) that can be directly observed, or a thing (non-physical/material) that an be indirectly observed by it’s effect on something that can be directly observed.

Regardless of how it’s perceived and observed an actual pillow has actual existence where as a pillow I merely imagine only has an abstract existence.

As I suspect you know, this has been widely discussed long ago by one of the QM originators, Niels Bohr, and the other 'first generation' scientists. There are many good books about it, particularly in a University Library.

(Tangent - people often think they have to buy books from amazon, when they usually can get a library card at a local state university (not as sure about private colleges), which has enormous resources).

It's my impression that the 'second generation' QM physicists (1960s) and on have simply done the math and consider questions such as yours as the exclusive purvue of philosophy.

 

[ynot]

As I suspect you know, this has been widely discussed long ago by one of the QM originators, Niels Bohr, and the other 'first generation' scientists. There are many good books about it, particularly in a University Library.

(Tangent - people often think they have to buy books from amazon, when they usually can get a library card at a local state university (not as sure about private colleges), which has enormous resources).

It's my impression that the 'second generation' QM physicists (1960s) and on have simply done the math and consider questions such as yours as the exclusive purvue of philosophy.

So abstract math has become the new reality and actual reality is now philosophy?

Not too long ago I build several working test models to help establish if it’s possible to travel directly downwind faster than the wind using only the immediate force of the wind. I believe these models proved conclusively that the answer is yes (to my surprise). I demonstrated the working models to a “professional expert” who didn’t think this was possible before seeing my models working. He was able to examine the very simple mechanical models very closely to ensure there was no cheating. After seeing the clear and unambiguous tests he said something like - “I would need to do the math before I could agree that it works”! I asked him if he needs to do the math when he has a piss to confirm he’s pissing. Don’t think he understood the point I was trying to make. Perhaps some others here won’t get it either.

 

[Perpetual Student]

...
Not too long ago I build several working test models to help establish if it’s possible to travel directly downwind faster than the wind using only the immediate force of the wind. I believe these models proved conclusively that the answer is yes (to my surprise). I demonstrated the working models to a “professional expert” who didn’t think this was possible before seeing my models working. He was able to examine the very simple mechanical models very closely to ensure there was no cheating. After seeing the clear and unambiguous tests he said something like - “I would need to do the math before I could agree that it works”! I asked him if he needs to do the math when he has a piss to confirm he’s pissing. Don’t think he understood the point I was trying to make. Perhaps some others here won’t get it either.

What's the point? The universe has unambiguously demonstrated that it behaves mathematically at all levels. Wanting to "do the math" is a direct way to understand why any physical system behaves as it does. Assuming your model worked as you claim, if I had the interest, I would also want to do or see the math to understand why and how such a thing is possible.

 

[sol invictus]

Are you saying that nothing has actual existence, or that everything has actual existence including abstract concepts, thoughts, beliefs, etc?

I have no idea what you mean by "actual existence", so I can't answer that.

The only thing I'm reasonably sure of is that the world operates according to the rules of mathematics (if that wasn't the case, the success of science would be incomprehensible). Which rules specifically we don't know for sure, although we do have what are at least pretty good approximations to them. Because that approach works (in the sense that it can predict the results of experiments, for example) I trust it far more than philosophy of the traditional kind for answering questions about (say) time and its putative beginning.

The action of having a thought is an actual thing but the thought itself isn’t. Actual means a thing (physical/material) that can be directly observed, or a thing (non-physical/material) that an be indirectly observed by it’s effect on something that can be directly observed.

That makes no sense on so many levels I don't know where to start. But perhaps "directly observed" is the best place - what does that mean? How can you ever "directly observe" something?

Well with where the conversation has headed, can i ask a few Experts to give their opinion to the question at hand?

Does time have a beggining?

I lean towards the quantum option - that if one really understood how to deal with quantum cosmology, one would find many branches of the wavefunction, some of which behave like classical expanding universes, but which all interfere with each other at times near the big bang. You might be able to go back before the bang, but there is no particular reason to expect classical behavior. In other words there may well be a beginning to time in the sense that there is an earliest time where physics becomes sufficiently classical that one can discuss it at all. But it's also possible in such a scenario that classical behavior does emerge at some point prior to the bang, in which case the bang is merely some quantum interlude.

So abstract math has become the new reality and actual reality is now philosophy?

Do you have any idea how incredibly naive you sound when you discuss this "actual reality" of yours?

 

[sol invictus]

After seeing the clear and unambiguous tests he said something like - “I would need to do the math before I could agree that it works”! I asked him if he needs to do the math when he has a piss to confirm he’s pissing. Don’t think he understood the point I was trying to make. Perhaps some others here won’t get it either.

You do realize that all the mathematical analyses showed that these carts can work, right? There was never any doubt about it from that point of view. It was people's intuition (including yours) that said they couldn't. That wrong intuition was so strong it sparked one of the longest discussions I've seen here. The math was completely unambiguous, the physics very simple, but the doubters adamantly refused to accept it (again including you).

All that over a simple little cart, something one might actually expect intuition to be reasonably accurate on. And yet instead of drawing the obvious lesson from that experience, you still believe you can apply your intuition, unaided by mathematics, to incredibly difficult questions totally outside your experience, like the beginning of time. Very odd.

 

[realpaladin]

Nice! This thread reads like a companion to 'A History of Numbers' which I am reading now.

It states that people have increasing problems with accepting numbers that they can not intuitively grasp.

The number 0 was already hotly debated centuries ago, nowadays infinity, complex numbers and imaginary numbers have trouble getting easily accepted.

But I read here that the number 0 is still being debated.

 

[dlorde]

... And yet instead of drawing the obvious lesson from that experience, you still believe you can apply your intuition, unaided by mathematics, to incredibly difficult questions totally outside your experience, like the beginning of time. Very odd.

It's the Dunning–Kruger effect at work.

 

[Perpetual Student]

What I see here all too often is evidence that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

For your own safety and for those around you, perhaps you should turn yourself in for confinement.

 

[Klimax]

For your own safety and for those around you, perhaps you should turn yourself in for confinement.

At best(for you) it looks like pot-kettle. Anyway you should improve understanding of written english.

Again:

Indeed. What is it with arrogant idiots thinking they can fool anyone into believing they know so much more than actual professionals? There seems to be something about both quantum physics and relativity that draws them out the woodwork.

I bolded part of Cuddles post and italiced a part of it.

It is clear that refered "arrogant idiots" are people whose grasp of physics and mathematics is very bad,who tries to convince everybody (possibly except scientists) their theory is correct and they know more then others.

Conclusion: Disagreement with knowledge of established physics and with well-founded argument and backing, is not under Cuddles label. (Beware,some people start to sound too like creationists! -and obviously not SI or UY)

 

[octogen80]

The beginning of time presumes our big bang was a one off occurrence,no parrallel or multiuniverses.Everything is simple to a simpleton.