> we’ve been using the 13.8 billion cosmological age estimate ever since I started brushing up my layman's understanding of the subject.
I remembered the age of the universe as as 13.7 billion years, but I wasn't sure why that was.
Well, the initial WMAP results in 2003 supported an age of 13.7 billion years. Later results nudged this upwards to 13.8 billion years. Of course, all the results have error bars.
Well for one, if the laws of physics are not time invariant (i.e. the laws of physics are not the same at all points in time) then energy can be created or destroyed [1]. So that would be quite a shocker.
Saying "X is true because otherwise, it would be quite a shocker" isn't really a proof.
It's almost an appeal to common sense. (which, admittedly, is often the best argument we have). IMHO there's often a bit of over-confidence among scientists about the universe being 13 billion years old and what happened during the Big Bang, if it just relies on such a common sense argument.
I know it's unscientific to suggest maybe laws of physics are not time invariant across such scales, because until we have a time machine we can't test this theory, but then flipping the argument (that laws of physics are definitely time invariant) is also technically unscientific -- we're basically assuming this without strong evidence.
This goes back to the old debate on the problem of induction in science, (see David Hume, Karl Popper, etc.) and I think it isn't emphasized enough in modern discussions that, perhaps, there's a small chance that these foundational concepts in physics could be invalid.
I did not present proof. They asked what it would mean and a consequence of physical laws not being time invariant would be that energy does not need to be conserved.
To the extent that relates to epistemology that would be more like anti-proof I guess? It does not prove that the laws are time invariant, rather it raises the bar to demonstrate that the laws are not time invariant because that means energy need not be conserved. You can not get one without the other without attacking even deeper fundamentals of modern scientific models. So you must either demonstrate the linked claims, which are pretty foundational themselves, or you must overturn basically everything; both of which demand very robust evidence.
It's really not. If there is nonzero energy, and our current models don't allow for energy to be created, either we need new models that do allow for energy to be created (time-variant physics, for instance), or we need the existing models to propose a way it was initialized. Without that there's a gaping hole in the model the size of all of the energy in the universe.
Certainly you can't 1) have a model where energy is constant 2) believe there is nonzero energy in the universe and 3) dismiss any model where energy can change as bogus out of hand because you believe it should be constant, without counter-proposing how it even got here.
Nobody argues it wouldn't be nice. Physics argues we can't ever know. It's a rather significant difference and if this gets proven wrong, you'll find that physicists are the ones partying the hardest.
The difficulty is we don't know what happened in the first planck second after the big bang, let alone before the big bang (if that's meaningful).
We haven't unified quantum mechanics and relativity. Hence we can't be certain that singularities exist, or that the universe started off in a singularity.
I'm aware. What I'm saying is if that's how much you don't know, you'd better not make any claims like "X can't be accurate because it doesn't match what I think I do know".
Yes, but my understanding is that dark energy doesn't play by the same rules, it's an exception. I certainly can't explain why but also it may not be known exactly why, given dark energy is an unexplained phenomenon.
The party line is that energy is not conserved at cosmological scales. However, it's more of a semantic question: We can tell you exactly by how much it gets violated (that's basically the first Friedmann equation), and if you prefer, you can attribute the missing energy to the gravitational field. A lot of physicists don't like that approach as it isn't possible to write down a corresponding stress-energy tensor, ie gravitational energy cannot be properly localized.
I have had the same thought that primordial reality had the same timestream as us but it was much longer, like the first "year" of reality was far longer than one year today, just the thinking "could time have been shorter or longer, why not"
I'll ignore your analogy with a CPU, which I don't think is apposite.
Whether there's a 'system clock', a sort of reference clock that can tell you how fast time is passing, so you can calibrate other clocks against it, seems to be the same category error. As far as I can see, either time is all there, all at once; or one second lasts exactly one second. (I've perpetrated the same category error there, because a second doesn't 'last' for some period of time; it just is).
[Edit] That's not very clear. I mean: if you are measuring a distance, you use a calibrated ruler. If you doubt the calibration of your ruler, you might recalibrate for precision. But you don't have a clear idea of what one foot is, it doesn't make any sense to ask whether your one-foot ruler has grown or shrunk; how would you tell if the purported 'fact' is true or false?
And if some fact about the Universe means that it has grown or shrunk, how would you tell? If you can't in principle tell whether a 'fact' is true or false, it follows that the 'fact' isn't a fact, because it has no effect on anything.
You're certainly welcome to completely ignore the question at hand, it's just surprising that you'd use so many characters to do so.
The question is if there's a different sort of thing beyond our idea of time. We have our concept of N caesium oscillations is the base reference for everything, and the duration of all action is derived from it. Could there be more depth to the rate at which things occur than that, especially on cosmic scales? Could other processes, which operate at different base clock levels, be interacting with the universe we observe in ways we don't yet understand? Could those processes have clock levels that vary over history with respect to our caesium definition?
You can claim not, that's its precisely that shallow. But neither of us can provide evidence either way, and your belief is simply much less interesting to me.
> You're certainly welcome to completely ignore the question at hand
What I ignored was an analogy. Not an argument from analogy; and not a question. Just a rhetorical device, which I considered irrelevant, and didn't feel like arguing about.
> the base reference for everything
Caesium oscillations are a proxy for the passage of time. I can imagine a universe in which the rate of Caesium oscillations might vary, or be influenced, making atomic clocks unreliable. I don't know how one might measure the passage of time directly; I suspect it's impossible, and can only be done with proxies.
I don't see why you couldn't have more than one timescale operating and interacting. It's an interesting speculation. But William of Ockham advised against multiplying hypotheses; and I can't see what multiple interacting timescales might explain, that can't be explained without them.
Could those processes, for instance, have configured the initial state of the entire universe in 6 of their days, but 13.8B-6,000 of our call years? I see no reason why not.
Fun fact: the Oklo reactor, a naturally occurring nuclear reactor that was active more than a billion years ago, was used to test if physical constants were the same in ancient times.
And we can split hairs and conclude that for "the last two billion years, on this planet, in this galaxy, the physics affecting nuclear decay have not changed"
It's great to know that say dating using carbon-14 decay is still useful over those time ranges on planet earth (I don't know if that is something we care about given that fossils don't tend to contain much carbon, but coal and oil deposits are around 400 million years old).
I don't want to imply that this is too small of a sample size, but I will imply that nuclear decay, and the movement of galaxies across the universe might be unrelated. Don't know. Not sure how we'd measure that. Supernova observations would tell us about nuclear fusion and it's limits. Does it tell us about nuclear fission? I don't know.
No, we measure the frequency of vibrations of _light_, not of a type of atom. Specifically, it is light emitted by cesium atoms that are transitioning from one specific energy state to another specific energy state. Although this is arbitrary, it is highly reproducible and would give precisely the same measured lengths of time at any point since the big bang.
That assumes that fundamental laws of physics did not change (will not change). This is what we believe and have no evidence otherwise. This is important since we rely on measuring atomic transitions of cesium atoms which itself were formed/forming billions of years after the big bang itself.
The laws of physics invariance under time is a core to our understanding. It would be very disrupting if we found otherwise.
Right, but most deviations one can think of (like, changes over time to physical "constants") would have an observable effect, so ancient galaxies would look much more different from modern galaxies and spectra wouldn't look the same other than a red shift, which moves all the lines in a uniform way.
If a computer chugs along doing { counter++; } at 1 clock cycle per clock cycle for 13.7 billion clock cycles, it will think 13.7 billion clock cycles have passed when counter is 13.7 billion.
On the other hand, if a computer chugs along at one clock cycle per clock cycle for 1 clock cycle, and reads &counter and sees 13.7 billion, it will think 13.7 billion clock cycles have passed.
Either way it's perfectly capable of introspecting it's source code and logically stepping back until the memory location was 0 to see how many clock cycles would have been required to reach it's current state, but that sort of reasoning is completely devoid of meaning without both perfect knowledge of what the true start state was, and a guarantee that no external influences have occurred.
Here in reality, we know neither the our start state nor our isolation level, but the hubris of many is too string to not at least try finding some logical step-back functions and iterating them until they don't know how to go any further, then proudly proclaiming that "The Start". (after all - how could it not be The Start, look, I can iterate the inverse of my step-backward function from then to now and it matches! QED!)
I agree with you 100% on your assessment of what can be known, but I think I disagree nearly as strongly on your assessment of the humanity that springs from attempting to know it.
To exist in the state you describe - with neither start state nor isolation level measurable in any tamper-proof way - and to yet still dedicate one's life to observing and pondering the complexity of the resulting cosmos is, to my eye, laudable and beautiful.
Where you see hubris, I see humility. Everyone who attempts to expand the corpus of human understanding of cosmology knows that the endgame is somewhere short of perfection. And yet they are inspired to carry on. It seems to me that matters of state, economics, medicine, technology, and many other fields will benefit from a similar disposition.
I think the hubris comes in when folks assume that because that answer is presented by Science/Observation rather than Religion/Philosophy, it's somehow guaranteed to be "more accurate", when in reality both are guesses with equally unknowable error bars.
Time in this context is just an arbitrary measurement. Like extrapolating the calendar back to the Big Bang which is when space/time began, another way to think about time.
Unfortunately we can’t observe fundamental things like “what are the rules of physics and time at the beginning of the universe?”. We look for clues and make large assumptions, but given that the universe experienced a 10^78 factor expansion during the Big Bang, assuming that actually happened, then why would it make sense to assume that the rules of the universe today are the rules for the very early beginning of the universe? A strand of DNA would become 10 light years. Given that relativity redefined our understanding of basic physics but only applies as we approach the speed of light, it would stand to reason that the rules of physics would be different from our current models based on today’s observations when the matter of the universe is packed much more tightly together.
Entirely reasonable assumptions! Our models match surprisingly well though... The CMB has a blackbody spectrum that aligns with predictions, we see galaxies more or less when and where we'd expect them, stellar populations look like what we'd expect for a universe made of hot hydrogen, and more! It's not quite perfect, but modern physics explains stuff really quite well even billions of years ago!
The inflationary epoch where it expanded by 10^78 in volume happened in the first 10^-32 seconds. The furthest galaxy we can see (fairly poorly) is 300M years after the Big Bang. It's likely if time or the rules were different, 300M years was enough for things to mostly die down to steady state. And as you say, they match more or less but those errors could easily hide remnants of when things were different. Of course, these are all numbers that assume the Big Bang theory is correct which is difficult to impossible to falsify since we can't possibly observe or test anything from that long ago. We'll have to wait to see if refinements to our model that clear up contradictions change what we think about the beginning of the universe and other boundary conditions.
Modern physics is guided by those observations, they can't be then used as an argument for its veracity.
Let's say I walk into a room and observe someone writing a tally mark on a chalk board once every second. I count 4x10^17 tally marks. I might assume that 4x10^17 seconds ago that same person entered the room and started tallying. I might even observe for the next 4x10^17 seconds they continue to tally. Heck I might even see a recorder going that when I play back at what I assume to be 1x speed, has chalk scratches at regular intervals for 4x10^17 seconds. I still don't have any actual evidence that they started those 8x10^17 seconds ago.
I remembered the age of the universe as as 13.7 billion years, but I wasn't sure why that was.
Well, the initial WMAP results in 2003 supported an age of 13.7 billion years. Later results nudged this upwards to 13.8 billion years. Of course, all the results have error bars.