Welcome to Gaia! ::

What on earth kind of proof do you have to make a conjecture like that time isn't infinite in the past direction? Simply because some particular model only goes back to time t=0 is absolutely no reason to think that there was nothing before that. t=-1 may not make any sense in the framework of a particular theory but that doesn't mean that we have any more proof that there was no t=-1 than someone who asserts that there was and that it involved exploding orbs or whatever. You are right anything like that would be on the wrong end of a singularity and we wouldn't be able to get at it. In fact thanks to the way we have built up our models we have convieniently made it so that the question doesn't even make sense to ask WITHIN THE FRAMEWORKS OF THOSE MODELS. That does not by any means mean that the question does not make sense. The question was not asked within the framework of gtr so we should not force the terms in the question to fit the definitions of that model. What you guys are saying is that the concept of before the big bang does not have a meaning within the framework of the standard model of cosmology but say it that way don't say it as though it were the unquestionable truth handed down from on high because it isn't and if you say it that way then your answer is no more meaninful or satisfying than "because god made it".

You are totally right I didn't read the thread at all. In fact I didn't even read what you just said. I am operating totally on psychic impressions. wink Though seriously what you seem to think comes over as clear actually comes over as nothing more than a foot note. When you say I didn't read the thread at all you seem to mean I didn't pay meticulous attention to everything you in particular said in the thread. Which is warranted since I started the rant off with a jab at your assertion that time is not infinite in the past direction but that assertion was given without any reference to a theory and had (at least to me) very much the feel of an assertion handed down from on high something to the effect of "gah isn't it obvious!" But whether or not you were putting your particular argument in the framework of gtr or not isn't really what was making me mad. (and mad let us grant him, that he's mad tis true, tis a pity and pity it... oh you get the idea) What makes me mad is that people get too attached to theories and take them places they don't fit and act as though they still have authority. We cannot take gtr's prediction of an initial time of t=0 very seriously since our own model of the universe tells us that gtr breaks down before it hits the singularity at t=0 anyway! To that effect if we are to be faithful to the models that we have built then we must admit that we do not know what happened at t=0 nor do we have the right to claim (with certainty anyway) that such a statement as t=-1 does not make any sense in the physical world. Since the question was (or so I would assume) about the real world and not about gtr then we should look at it in the way it was intended. You told us that in gtr the question doesn't make sense but once said it needn't be pounded home too hard. People might be aware that the question does not make sense in the modern model of cosmology and not be satisfied by that. Unable to fit nicely into a modern model the question does not automatically become unanswerable because it does not come with nice solid definitions. The question still holds a basic intuitive force and that is I think all that a question needs in order to be understood. In fact I would say that is all a question really needs definitions come after understanding. The question of the origin of the universe deserves better treatment than a simple "the question does not make sense" Just because the answer lies on the other end of a singularity doesn't mean it isn't there. (though I agree it definitely may not be) but sometimes interesting things lie on the other side of infinities. Just take the Riemann zeta function. I think that any model of the universe in which the universe doesn't have to exist is probably incomplete. Its einsteins question of whether or not god had any choice in the creation of the universe. While he may perhaps have been talking about the physical laws I think it is easily extended to the question of whether or not the existence of the universe is a foregone conclusion once one has all the rules to the game so to speak.

yes, I have a medical condition using quotes causes me intense physical pain... No actually I think that using quotes is overall antiproductive. While it increases the ability to see what statements are being applied to I think it causes a lot of duplication of argument and keeps people from considering the argument of a post as a whole. But with that objection on record I will respond with quotes.





Well while I agree with you that time before time is at best paradoxical We are not talking about time before time but rather wether or not time existed before the big bang. Since gtr permits closed timelike curves it is not even clear that gtr provides us with a very logical definition of "before" either. As far as whether or not gtr permits time to exist before the big bang is a far from obvious question to me since we could easily append a de-sitter curve just in front of the big bang and we have a solution in which we get two universes parting from the same big bang. Now of course calling them two separate universes is perhaps not in line with your terminology since by your argument (2) it would be part of this same universe. Regardless however it would provide a solution of gtr which involved time before the big bang.



yes precisely what I was trying to point out myself. my argument was meant to show that the idea of time became meaningless inside our best theories of today before t=0. If we let t=0 be a label for the first moment of time and also admit that our physical theories tell us that in fact asking the question of what was before plank time is nonsensical. That was the whole point. If saying that asking the question of what came before t=0 is nonsensical simply because we don't have a theory that describes it very well then t=plank time or before should really be where we draw the line which I take as a sign that perhaps t=0 isn't as absolute of a boundary as we might have thought either.





The distinction between theory and the real world is hardly "patently absurd" it may seem odd to you but theories are occaisionally found not to correspond to the real world. So we come back again to the question of whether or not questions about the real world have meaning outside of some theory. As I think we have both made abundantly clear my answer to this is yes and your answer to it is no. So we can stop head butting about it.... Unless of course you would like to continue in which case I'm up for it, it is an interesting enough topic.


To be honest I view both of those things to be on just about equal footing. "concrete scientific answers" are really nothing more than "pseudophilosophical guesswork" with a bit of testing backing them. Where there are "concrete" answers I like to hear them but where there are not I usually enjoy hearing the guesswork too.


Actually I think it is a perfectly valid analogy since Riemann invented the method of extension himself. I am not saying that there must be such an extension in the case of gtr but I am saying that there might be one waiting to be discovered. While admittedly even if such an extension were to be discovered it would most likely not have any physical significance it would certainly be the kind of result I would love to hear about. Maybe it would even inspire me to do some "pseudophilosophical guesswork" of my own, I do tend to enjoy that kind of thing.



you mistake what I was saying entirely I wasn't talking about the universe coming into being at any particular time. Rather I was attempting to address the fundamental psychological question that drives the question of what came before the big bang. That question is rooted in the fact that humans like things to be logically necessary. The question of what happened to make the universe exist is in essence a question of the logical necessity of the universe.

By the rules of the game I mean the physical principles by which the "game" of the universe is played. If we had all the rules to the game or rather if we had all the correct physical laws by which the universe operates then I think we would find that at least on some level the universe exists as a matter of logical necessity. Or to adapt the question of einsteins from before I think that god had no choice in the creation of the universe.

I tend to think that if it is testable then it is science. The mathematical nature of something is hardly necessary for something to be a science. As soon as pseudophilosophical guesswork gives us testable predictions we can include it in the scientific realm. That is not to say that any crank theory is on the same footing as gtr but just because something isn't the peak of scientific rigor does not mean it is not science. btw why is it a lazy opinion?


The difference between saying that there is no difference between theory and the real world and saying that in order to ask a question you must frame it in the perspective of a theory are admittedly different... but by how much? gtr does have a vast amount of back up but what gtr says about the early universe and what the early universe really was are two different things. gtr alone doesn't solve homogeneity or the horizon problem so it is hardly the only thing we need to consider when we look at the early universe. The "I'm asking a question about the real world, not GR" should work. That line is intended to invite speculation. Its an invitation to say crazy things rather than the stock answers that have been tried and tested. I think it is important to realize that even questions which are "patently absurd" or that lack the stable footing of a perfectly logical background can still provide insight, that is the beauty of a koan.

yes, I suppose I should have included the condition that the theory be open to revision upon falsification. But isn't science ultimately just the synthesis of theories combined with the willingness to be wrong?

I don't get my kicks out of warping your words. I understand where you are coming from. (at least I think I understand, but then again considering your probable opinion of me by this time in the thread you would almost certainly disagree) The answer that the question doesn't make sense is actually a damn good answer. But I also think it is a damn boring answer. It certainly isn't your duty to come up with a completely new working theory or even mention if there are alternative current working theories. But then duty doesn't even enter into it, I haven't been posting to this thread because I think its my duty to do anything. I post to this thread becasue I think its interesting. why are you posting?


not to be dense or anything here but... what is according to me? that it is science or that it is on the same footing?

Yes and no. My point in saying that it is no reason to think that there is nothing before t=0 was intended as a remark to say that relativity doesn't say anything about what came before the big bang. And just as you said it is because the question doesn't make sense in relativity but that is just exactly my point. The theory says nothing about it not that there is nothing to be said about it. As for the idea that all theories are on the same footing yes they are, or rather they should be. Whether or not a theory has empirical backing changes my readyness to believe it. However every theory in absence of empirical backing should have the same footing. yes. Now as far as relativity goes it does have a great deal of empirical backing and its predictions are very valuable when it does in fact give predictions. But just as you said earlier the question of what came "before" the big bang doesn't make sense within the framework of relativity.



I am not absolutely sure where you got the idea that I think there is no reason to believe anything, but it isn't true. I do think that we cannot answer the question no matter how well our theory performs just as you said. But whether or not we should believe a particular answer or not is different than having an answer to a question in an absolute sense. We cannot answer the question absolutely, we cannot answer any question absolutely. However I have no problem with someone believing a particular answer so long as they are willing to change that belief when sufficient evidence is produced. Just because relativity behaves well under the conditions where we have observed it does not mean that it will continue to produce good predictions under conditions where we have not observed it. The rayleigh-jeans law appears to predict the right black body spectrum for long wavelengths but that doesn't stop it from giving being totally wrong.

I think that relativity is incomplete, not wrong necessarily but incomplete in the way that the picture of light without the concept of quantization was incomplete. I am betting that at some point close enough to the big bang some fact we are unaware of becomes very important and either provides an impetus for the big bang without a continuing past or provides a past from which the big bang stemmed. Perhaps I am wrong to think that a theory of the big bang is incomplete without showing its necessity but I will continue to think that until I have a good enough reason not to.