Time has a beginning?

[Perpetual Student]

Here is a Quote from Paul Steinhardt's and Neil Turok's book Endless Universe:

...the most disturbing feature of the inflationary model by far is the idea that time has a "beginning." How did the universe start if there was nothing before it? The notion sounds contradictory, and maybe even nonsensical.

Some months ago I was confronted by a barrage of arguments against my silly comments along these lines. I was actually told that my lack of understanding was "stupid"! It's interesting that a couple of fairly accomplished theoretical physicists would make this statement, isn't it? I guess they are also stupid!

 

[Frankenstyle]

Calling them stupid would be premature, without seeing the quote in it's actual context.

 

[Skwinty]

I read this book and found it fascinating. The idea of an ekpyrotic universe means there are multiple universes, just not at the same time.

Lets hope that some resolution will come from the latest space endeavours with respect to gravitational waves as this should confirm or negate the theory.

 

[sol invictus]

Some months ago I was confronted by a barrage of arguments against my silly comments along these lines. I was actually told that my lack of understanding was "stupid"!

Quote, please.

It's interesting that a couple of fairly accomplished theoretical physicists would make this statement, isn't it?

It is interesting psychologically, yes.

First, inflation took place after the big bang. A period of inflation doesn't mean time had a beginning - there are counterexamples. So they are (deliberately, I might add) conflating inflation with the initial singularity.

Second, the argument as given is entirely from incredulity. It is not very difficult to come up with examples where time does in fact "begin" (what is north of the north pole?), and such examples are well known to them. And even if we didn't have such examples, just because we couldn't think of any doesn't mean it's "contradictory".

Those two are selling a rather poor idea, one which has not caught on much (despite their strenuous advertising efforts on its behalf) for very good reasons.

 

[Skwinty]

Those two are selling a rather poor idea, one which has not caught on much (despite their strenuous advertising efforts on its behalf) for very good reasons.

What has made you change your mind here Sol. Has some more data come to light?
In the Inflation versus Cyclic model thread you said this.


It's an interesting idea, and I'm glad people are working on it - but I'm very skeptical they will succeed without some major breakthrough.

 

[BonkingBear]

Here is a Quote from Paul Steinhardt's and Neil Turok's book Endless Universe:



Some months ago I was confronted by a barrage of arguments against my silly comments along these lines. I was actually told that my lack of understanding was "stupid"! It's interesting that a couple of fairly accomplished theoretical physicists would make this statement, isn't it? I guess they are also stupid!

Personaly I do not agree with their elpyrotic theory and I believe it does not have a lot of credabilty among the physics community - however they are not 'stupid'. However this statement was incorrect in that inflationary theory does not assume what they allude to re time. So I'm afraid you are not 'off the hook' !!

 

[sol invictus]

What has made you change your mind here Sol. Has some more data come to light?
In the Inflation versus Cyclic model thread you said this.


It's an interesting idea, and I'm glad people are working on it - but I'm very skeptical they will succeed without some major breakthrough.

I still agree with myself.

The idea is poor compared to inflation (it's much more complicated and contrived, and probably doesn't work at all) - but I'm glad someone's working on it, just in case. It hasn't caught on because very few people think it's going anywhere.

 

[dlorde]

Here is a Quote from Paul Steinhardt's and Neil Turok's book Endless Universe:

...the most disturbing feature of the inflationary model by far is the idea that time has a "beginning." How did the universe start if there was nothing before it? The notion sounds contradictory, and maybe even nonsensical.

Some months ago I was confronted by a barrage of arguments against my silly comments along these lines. I was actually told that my lack of understanding was "stupid"! It's interesting that a couple of fairly accomplished theoretical physicists would make this statement, isn't it? I guess they are also stupid!

At first glance that quote looks like the kind of introduction one would make prior to explaining why this 'disturbing' idea is actually a reasonable hypothesis, e.g. prefix it with "To the layman...", or words to that effect, and suffix it with "However...".

Without the full context, it's not possible to tell whether the quote indicates they are for or against the idea.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Some have asked for a context for:

...the most disturbing feature of the inflationary model by far is the idea that time has a "beginning." How did the universe start if there was nothing before it? The notion sounds contradictory, and maybe even nonsensical.

While I am not going to type three of four pages to give you a context, I'll provide a general description. The comment is made in Chapter 1, in a section called Flaws Too Important to Ignore. That section outlines what the authors believe to be flaws in the inflationary model. The primary flaw the authors see is the "contrived nature," of the model, which refers to observations of ordinary matter, dark matter, dark energy, and inflationary energy, which they say is a "patchwork of disconnected ingredients."
The secondary flaw is the one I quoted above (and closest to my heart). For more context you'll have to read the book. This section covers pages 9 through 12 in the soft cover edition.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

[The notion sounds contradictory, and maybe even nonsensical]Some months ago I was confronted by a barrage of arguments against my silly comments along these lines.

The statement "time has a beginning" is either true or false, but by itself I don't really see how it could be nonsensical.

Nobody should fault you for not believing that time had a beginning. The current theories aren't strong enough to make a statement about whether time began at some point. Our theories aren't strong enough to make statements about time before the singularity. That's not the same thing as proving time didn't exist before the singularity.

 

[Perpetual Student]

The statement "time has a beginning" is either true or false, but by itself I don't really see how it could be nonsensical.

As the authors say, "the notion sounds contradictory." That has been and remains my major objection to the big bang theory. Specifically, time having a beginning seems to be contradictory.
On another note, I wonder if cosmologists, who are attracted to this theory are clinging to some subconscious biblical urge.

 

[Reality Check]

As the authors say, "the notion sounds contradictory." That has been and remains my major objection to the big bang theory. Specifically, time having a beginning seems to be contradictory.

If we throw away all physics that "sounds" contradictory then goodbye quantum mechanics and relativity.

However as already noted by other posters the quote looks out of context since the inflationary model does not say anything about whether time has a beginning.

On another note, I wonder if cosmologists, who are attracted to this theory are clinging to some subconscious biblical urge.

I wonder what "subconscious biblical urge" the cosmologists who are atheists, Hindu, Islamic, etc are attracted by?

 

[Perpetual Student]

If we throw away all physics that "sounds" contradictory then goodbye quantum mechanics and relativity.

Quantum mechanics and relativity are supported by countless experiments throughout the world. There is not one single shred of evidence that time had a beginning.

However as already noted by other posters the quote looks out of context since the inflationary model does not say anything about whether time has a beginning.

I already provided the context. If you want more read the book.

I wonder what "subconscious biblical urge" the cosmologists who are atheists, Hindu, Islamic, etc are attracted by?

Very simple: the subconscious urge to cling to creation myths learned in childhood.

 

[sol invictus]

Quantum mechanics and relativity are supported by countless experiments throughout the world. There is not one single shred of evidence that time had a beginning.

Are we talking about inflation or the big bang? Either way, you're wrong - there is very good evidence for both (although not for what happened right at the would-be singularity - only down to maybe a microsecond after it).

Very simple: the subconscious urge to cling to creation myths learned in childhood.

You are aware of the history, right? That (perhaps because of the opposite of what you are claiming) scientists believed in a steady-state universe, until they were forced by overwhelming observational evidence to accept that the universe was expanding? And that everything we know about physics, absent some wild and totally unsupported speculations, tells us that if the universe is expanding then it had a singularity 13.7 billion years in the past?

 

[Reality Check]

Quantum mechanics and relativity are supported by countless experiments throughout the world. There is not one single shred of evidence that time had a beginning.

I was talking about the assumption of a human being's limited perception of the universe ("the notion sounds contradictory.") restraining the universe to have certain properties.

Perhaps you would like to provide some shreds of evidence that time did not have a beginning?
There is definite evidence that the universe had a beginning. This suggests that time had a beginning with the proviso that cyclic theories (like that of Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok ) can provide a way around this.

I already provided the context. If you want more read the book.

Then the statement is definitely wrong. The authors are either not talking about the beginning of time or they are not talking about inflation theory or they are wrong since inflation theory says nothing about the beginning of time.

Very simple: the subconscious urge to cling to creation myths learned in childhood.

What sol invictus said - for some reason this "subconscious biblical urge" only started influencing scientists in the last century or so.
What changed? Could it have been the evidence?

Where are the cosmology theories based on Hindu creation myths?
Where are the cosmology theories based on Norse creation myths?
Where are the cosmology theories based on Aztec creation myths?
etc.

 

[subvicepresident]

Isn't it rational to assume that time started with the big bang as just another dimension? Whole of relativity and quantum mechanics are full of counter-intuitivestuff which have fit experimental data. Why does this concrete example of a counter-intuitive piece of theory seems so outrageous?

 

[Tubbythin]

I've never really got why some people might find time having a beginning more repugnant than time not having a beginning. I find the idea that something could have existed forever much harder to get my head around.

 

[theprestige]

Seriously, what is it about the proposition that makes it sound illogical? Isn't it "I don't know, it just does"? And that's physics how, exactly?

 

[Delvo]

I've never really got why some people might find time having a beginning more repugnant than time not having a beginning. I find the idea that something could have existed forever much harder to get my head around.

One of the earliest thoughts I recall having about Christianity that just made it seem a bit odd was that if, as I was told, God was eternal and had "always" been there, that meant he had already waited "forever" before creating us and this world! What was going on for an eternity before that?

 

[Perpetual Student]

I've never really got why some people might find time having a beginning more repugnant than time not having a beginning. I find the idea that something could have existed forever much harder to get my head around.

Without time, there can be no causality. So, if time had a beginning, how was the beginning caused?