John C. Mather: “There is no first moment of time” (2017) • Hacker News Board

Re: John C. Mather: “There is no first moment of time” (2017)

#41

Post by WastingMyTime89 » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 4:29 AM UTC

fallingfrog wrote: post #34

The way I understand it, time is defined in terms of entropy- the points in the space of configurations of the universe adjacent to ours are all possible, but the ones that are most likely are all possible future points and the ones that are least likely are points in the past. Entropy is always increasing, on the macro scale. (The past, like the future, is uncertain and there could be many past states leading to thi…

Yes but it wouldn’t matter because for us it’s strictly equivalent to experiencing time linearly. That’s the epistemological limit of science. Physics don’t concern itself with truth, only empirical evidence and models.

That’s also why for all his brillance John C. Matter is very wrong here. "[…] we have no equations that show how true nothingness turns into somethingness. So, since the universe did not spring into existence, it has always existed, though perhaps not in its current form." is a conclusion which doesn’t follow from its premise. We just have no idea and no way to test anything.

Re: John C. Mather: “There is no first moment of time” (2017)

#42

Post by anonymousiam » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 4:42 AM UTC

interpenetrate wrote: post #37

anonymousiam wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not laughable at all. Before the existence of our universe, there was no time. Time was created along with the space, matter, and energy when the thing "sprang into existence." It's not valid to extrapolate backward to a time before our universe existed. This is a concept that I've tried to explain to others for years, but it's difficult for most people to grasp.

Time, as component of the universe, itself "sprang into existence?" Despite "sprang" being a fantastical word to use in this context, it at least carries with it one thing for sure: a temporal component. "Springing" on its own indicates some sort of motion, which can only take place in time. Furthermore, "sprang" indicates a past tense, so that this "springing" took place at some (primordial) moment in time. Accordin…

Did you read the article? I put "sprang" in quotes for a reason. Speech (and writing) is how we express ourselves, but our languages are biased by the experience of our forebears, and linear time is a part of that bias.

Re: John C. Mather: “There is no first moment of time” (2017)

#43

Post by anonymousiam » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 4:45 AM UTC

paulrouget wrote: post #35

anonymousiam wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not laughable at all. Before the existence of our universe, there was no time. Time was created along with the space, matter, and energy when the thing "sprang into existence." It's not valid to extrapolate backward to a time before our universe existed. This is a concept that I've tried to explain to others for years, but it's difficult for most people to grasp.

> Before the existence of our universe, there was no time We don't know that. > Time was created along with the space, matter, and energy when the thing "sprang into existence." These are just speculations. Some theories indeed mention that, but they are not part of our standard models. For now, we just don't know. > it's difficult for most people to grasp. Oh come on…

"We don't know that."

Yes we do: https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time

> it's difficult for most people to grasp.

"Oh come on…"

Q.E.D.

Re: John C. Mather: “There is no first moment of time” (2017)

#44

Post by anonymousiam » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 4:47 AM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #38

anonymousiam wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not laughable at all. Before the existence of our universe, there was no time. Time was created along with the space, matter, and energy when the thing "sprang into existence." It's not valid to extrapolate backward to a time before our universe existed. This is a concept that I've tried to explain to others for years, but it's difficult for most people to grasp.

> It's not valid to extrapolate backward to a time before our universe existed. And yet, you've managed to do just that! > This is a concept that I've tried to explain to others for years, but it's difficult for most people to grasp. Not surprising since not all people experience the same reality.

"And yet, you've managed to do just that!"

How?

Re: John C. Mather: “There is no first moment of time” (2017)

#45

Post by russellbeattie » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 5:04 AM UTC

There is no time, only movement. No movement == no time. You can't measure time without movement. If everything in the universe stopped moving, no time would pass.

The first moment happened when space was created and something in it changed its position.

(Of course, that something is matter, which is just a wave, and a wave by definition is movement... So really, time started when reality started wobbling.)

Re: John C. Mather: “There is no first moment of time” (2017)

#46

Post by vladTheInhaler » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 5:07 AM UTC

kadoban wrote: post #30

idealmedtech wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he proved that under existing axiomatic systems, there are some statements which cannot be proven to be true axiomatically, even though they are true; such axiomatic systems are, in his terminology, incomplete. A subtle but important difference.

One thing I've always wondered is if there's any _interesting_ statements that can't be proved or if they're all kind of self-referential nonsense statements.

A while ago there was a result that relates to materials science: https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.04135

Re: John C. Mather: “There is no first moment of time” (2017)

#47

Post by joombaga » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 5:14 AM UTC

patcon wrote: post #19

rosywoozlechan wrote: post #10

> even though there’s no first moment of time, we can still measure the age. This seems to be a contradiction? The time that's passed since some kind of transformation, but not the age? What is the age of something that has no beginning?

I felt similarly. Thinking through the article's comparison between first moment in time and "smallest possible positive number", maybe it's sensible... > even though there’s no first moment of time, we can still measure the age. > even though there’s no first [positive number after zero], we can still measure the [range between zero and one]. That second variation doesn't seem so contradictory, so maybe the original…

The second variation does not seem equivalent to me. If there's no "first moment of time", you should be measuring the [range between negative infinity and one]. Using a fixed point like "zero" is the same as assuming there _is_ a first moment of time.

Re: John C. Mather: “There is no first moment of time” (2017)

#48

Post by TedDoesntTalk » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 5:43 AM UTC

anonymousiam wrote: post #43

paulrouget wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Before the existence of our universe, there was no time We don't know that. > Time was created along with the space, matter, and energy when the thing "sprang into existence." These are just speculations. Some theories indeed mention that, but they are not part of our standard models. For now, we just don't know. > it's difficult for most people to grasp. Oh come on…

"We don't know that." Yes we do: https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time > it's difficult for most people to grasp. "Oh come on…" Q.E.D.

> Yes we do: https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time

I don’t see anything in that article mentioning that time did not exist before the universe existed. Did I miss it?

Re: John C. Mather: “There is no first moment of time” (2017)

#49

Post by Sakos » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 5:46 AM UTC

zibby8 wrote: post #3

> There’s another way in which the giant firecracker idea misleads us, because even scientists often talk about the “universe springing into existence.” Well, it didn’t, as far as we can tell. The opposite is true. There is no first moment of time, just as there is no smallest positive number. In physics we have equations and laws of nature that describe how one situation changes into another, but we have no equation…

> Or the equations are only approximations that hold under certain conditions?

Well, clearly that's possible. What is it with people on HN coming up with "gotchas" regarding topics they know nothing about?

He didn't say there could not ever be equations that show "nothingness turning into somethingness", all he says is that we have no way of showing it with what we know, what we can deduce, and much less what we can prove. If there are equations that satisfy the constraints, we're not aware of them yet (the same way we don't know yet how to combine general relativity and quantum mechanics). According to our current understanding, "the universe did not spring into existence, it has always existed, though perhaps not in its current form".

If you want to suggest random ideas, maybe you want to back them up with more than just "but what if they do exist?"

Re: John C. Mather: “There is no first moment of time” (2017)

#50

Post by interpenetrate » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 5:47 AM UTC

anonymousiam wrote: post #42

interpenetrate wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time, as component of the universe, itself "sprang into existence?" Despite "sprang" being a fantastical word to use in this context, it at least carries with it one thing for sure: a temporal component. "Springing" on its own indicates some sort of motion, which can only take place in time. Furthermore, "sprang" indicates a past tense, so that this "springing" took place at some (primordial) moment in time. Accordin…

Did you read the article? I put "sprang" in quotes for a reason. Speech (and writing) is how we express ourselves, but our languages are biased by the experience of our forebears, and linear time is a part of that bias.

Forget "sprang." You said this:

> Before the existence of our universe, there was no time.

This is just a logical error. Unless you're using "before" in some novel way that needs clarifying.

To be clear: The author is saying that the universe has no beginning in time (and no outer bound of space). Once you remove your logical error of presupposing time before time, you are saying that the universe has a beginning in time (and presumably is enclosed within spatial bounds).

Is this not what you're saying?

The esteemed author, in saying confidently that there is no "before" the universe because the universe has no beginning, falls into the same trap that you do but lands on the other side of Kant's Antinomy: the author takes the empiricist stance in the dialectic, and you take the dogmatic stance. But even so, at least the author's stance is amenable to the infinite empirical regression of scientific practice; your stance just "puts speculative reason to slumber."