Hawking’s A Brief History of Time, A Commentary

Charles William Johnson

©2009 Copyrighted Earth/matriX Editions

CHAPTER ONE

CHAPTER ONE: OUR PICTURE OF THE UNIVERSE

Hawking asks pertinent questions at the start: "What do we know about the universe, and how do we know it? Where did the universe come from, and where is it going? Did the universe have a beginning, and if so, what happened before then? What is the nature of time? Will it ever come to end?" (p.1)

But, Hawking`s most telltale statement comes immediately: "Only time (whatever that may be) will tell." (p.2). Of all the questions that one might ask, one cannot ask "what is time", nor "what is space"; possibly, "what is movement", yes. But, we speak about spacetime/movement and the conditions of existence, or as the conditions of existence, but we seem unable to answer exactly what these concepts actually are. We can only seem to speak about what they "represent", or "reflect". Spacetime/movement represent or reflect existence, the existence of matter-energy.

Although Hawking will speak about time throughout the book, he will never attempt to define it. Furthermore, no one has until now, and surely no one will for some time to come.

As far as the concept of space is concerned, it is more often taken for granted, as we somehow intuit what space is. We actually believe that know what space is, and are ignorant of what time is. However, it is our contention that in as much as we do not know what time is, neither do we actually know what space is.

At the outset of Chapter One, Hawking attempts to deal with certain concepts that have been prevalent throughout history. He deals with the different models of conception of the universe and existence: Aristotle`s, Ptolemy`s model, Copernicus` model, Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Newton`s ideas, among others. It is here that we immediately begin to realize the difficulties that Hawking will have in explaining the concept of time that he is dealing with.

He refers to the concepts of the "center" of the universe, circular motion as conceived ages ago as "the most perfect", "ellipses" (as elongated circles); the very concept of a "circle", concepts of "stronger", "closer", "more massive"; "foxed" stars; "finite" number of stars; an "infinite" universe; "extra" stars; an "infinite static" model of the universe; "eternal and unchanging" universe; "expanding" universe; "forever"; the universe "started" at a finite time in the past; "first cause" to explain the existence of the universe; a "beginning in time"; "limited in space"; "an infinite period of time before any event"; "time continues back forever" whether the universe had existed forever; "the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of the universe" (Hawking`s thesis); and on and on.

These conceptual theses enclose certain theoretical traps from the outset. They all seem to be ignorant of their defining elements. For any concept to take on meaning it must be related to other concepts. For example, the concept of "center" makes little or no sense alone. The center of what and in relation to what. All of these concepts are related, but they are not always actually related in the analysis; rather they are taken for granted, as though we knew what everyone meant when they talked about the center of the galaxy or the center of the universe or the center of our planet.

However, in our explanations, if we wish to reflect reality as it exists, we must make known the concepts that we are using and constantly relate them to the relational events that they refer to; we can take nothing for granted in our explanations. Whatever is taken for granted in our explanations runs the risk of breaking off from reality, or making things more confused.

Theoretical conception and human reasoning is a relational exercise, just as all spacetime/movement events are related in reality. The explanatory purpose of science is to explain and lay bare these relations. The concepts that Hawking refers to throughout history do not explain existence, but themselves require explanation.

All binominal concepts (finite/infinite; big/bigger; etc.) are defined as of a third concept or event: finite/infinite, big/bigger in relation to what, in relation to some other spacetime/movement event. Finite means "countable", a determinant amount that the human being can determine by his activity of counting those events in relation to himself and his numbering system.

In the theoretical conception of reality, we must be able to relate spacetime/movement events through the concepts to other spacetime/movement events. In this sense, we must be able to relate the concepts to the same extent that we can relate the events that the concepts reflect or represent. The theoretical conception would appear to be an unending exercise, just as the events appear to be unending.

PROPOSITION: "This argument is an instance of the pitfalls that you can encounter in talking about infinity. In an infinite universe, every point can be regarded as the center, because every point has an infinite number of stars on each side of it. The correct approach, it was realized only much later, is to consider the finite situation, in which the stars all fall in on each other, and then to ask how things change if one adds more stars roughly uniformly distributed outside this region. According to Newton`s law, the extra stars would make no difference at all to the original ones on average, so the stars would fall in just as fast. We can add as many stars as we like, but they will still always collapse in on themselves. We now know it is impossible to have an infinite static model of the universe in which gravity is always attractive." (p.5)

The question in attempting to resolve this conception of the universe is to refer to the very concept of "center"; the center in relation to what. All of our analyses of reality invariably refer to our own reference frame and within that, we are constantly devising ideal concepts such as the "center" of some event. It is difficult, and almost impossible, for us not to think things in terms of "center" and "peripheries". Even in such odd shaped objects such as our own bodies, we constantly conceptualize the idea of the "center of our body".

Once we invent a symmetrical/measurable concept such as the center, then we dedicate ourselves to trying to either prove its existence or its non-existence, and we thus develop all kinds of reasoning for this task. The physicists and astronomers in analyzing the cosmos have not been exempt from such an exercise. In fact, as we see from Hawking`s own theoretical reasoning, much revolves around proving these concepts, that is, whether the "center" of the universe exists or not. This does not necessarily mean that in the proving or disproving that one has been able to describe or explain the existence of the universe; basically, it just means that they have proven or disproven the "concept" of the center. How the universe actually exists is an entirely distinct question which cannot be approached through the symmetrical-binominal concepts themselves.

Once we understand the difficulties in attempting to prove/disprove the existence of the universe in terms of center/periphery, then we can understand the difficulties in comprehending existence in terms of beginnings/endings, which is yet another limited conceptual form of theoretical reasoning that human beings have been dealing with throughout their existence.

PROPOSITION

This becomes evident in Hawking`s treatment of the next significant idea that he deals with: "the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of the universe" (p.8). This reminds me of a Marxist treatment of the concept of dialectics, where he attempted to prove that dialectics arose with the coming of capitalism! When dialectics means the study of movement, we realize that movement did not arise with capitalism. However, Hawking is going to take only the humanly determined relevant existence of time: with the start of the universe then time becomes relevant; existent. Such a comfortable theoretical treatment of a slippery subject such as time is easily handled.

Hawking goes on to state: "One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could still imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!" (p.9)

Through the understanding of time, it is difficult to comprehend why physicists and astronomers, with their limited knowledge and contractual experience with spacetime/movement, insist upon conceiving the idea of an original big bang, as a unique one-time event, without considering the existence of various, even previous big bang events. Furthermore, it is not understandable why with the existence of the big bang event that time itself could not have existed prior to the event. This would be a proposition that would actually be close to telling us the nature of spacetime itself; what created spacetime.

In a sense, if we are proposing that spacetime created or determined the existence of matter-energy events (that is, the big bang event itself), then by denying the existence of spacetime prior to the big-bang event itself, one is denying the conditions of existence of the big bang event itself with that! The supposition of Hawking, then, is to attribute to matter-energy events the creation of space and time and movement themselves!

Spacetime determines the existence of specific forms of matter-energy; and not the inverse proposition that matter-energy create spacetime.

The very idea of an initial explosion (that is, big bang) requires and implies the relational event of some force/thing/event that set the universe in motion. One cannot speak about events such as "explosions" without referring to the previous event that provoked the explosion. If one does this, then we are violating the very definitions of the concepts that we are proposing to explain the spacetime events.

PROPOSITION: "In order to talk about the nature of the universe and to discuss questions such as whether it has a beginning or an end, you have to be clear about what a scientific theory is. I shall take the simple view that a theory is just a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that we make. It exists only in our minds and does not have any other reality (whatever that might mean). A good theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." (p.9)

This is where Hawking should have begun his inquiry, and his comments here reflect a lack of understanding of what theory actually represents.

As we stated from the outset of our analysis, there is only one theoretical conception of reality possible, which must be enunciated in the terms of reality itself. The terms of reality are spacetime/movement. These elements have been discovered repeatedly throughout human history. They have been given distinct names depending upon many specific cultural and social conventions: for example, materialism means the study of space; dialectics, relativity, yin-yang, synergy, etc. mean the study of movement; and history means the study of time.

A theoretical conception of reality (= matter-energy) means the abstracted mental pictures that we draw in our brain regarding our sensorial and perceptual apprehension of spacetime/movement. These abstracted mental conceptions, expressed through word-concepts, must reflect the exact location of the spacetime/movement coordinates of the matter-energy events that we are analyzing and coming into relational contact with.

If we do not identify the exact spacetime/movement coordinates of the events perceived then we basically misapprehend reality. A mental-physical conception reflects the apprehension of spacetime/movement as it exists in those specific events.

The definition that Hawking offers, that a theory is just a model of the universe or part of it, along with a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that we make, and exists only in our minds without any other reality, simply is simply stated erroneous and explains in part the "theory-building" efforts of most present-day scientists of all fields of human knowledge.

The very word-concept of model is a misnomer. We live our dailies lives without the "scientific" need to build models in order to get by relating to the things in our home. Neither do we need these invented models (= chaos, quantum, relativity, etc.) of reality which have been produced and then interpreted into fixed word-concepts in order to deal with the universe. However, this is what occurs throughout scientific endeavors.

In a word, there is no such thing as a model; in that Hawking is correct in saying that they only exist in the head. What does exist are spacetime/movement events, manifested in specific forms of matter-energy, as we know it, and the possibility that human beings can theoretically, mentally conceive these relationships as of the relations themselves or as of the word-concepts constructed for the mental pictures. Physically existent is the possibility for human beings to come into relational contact with some of these spacetime/movement events (and still remain alive; we can come into relational mental contact with the sun, but avoid any material-energy relation directly close to the sun, other than receiving its rays here on earth).

Our theoretical conception of reality can either apprehend reality (spacetime/movement; matter-energy) as it exists or not. As of that apprehension we can either explain the spacetime/movement coordinates of the matter-energy events that we are observing or not. As of that we can either enter into relational contact with the spacetime/movement (matter-energy) events or not; depending upon the convenience and need and possibility to do so and still remain human beings without destroying ourselves.

As far as theory enclosing the possibility of "saying beforehand" (predicting) which spacetime/movement events will occur before they actually occur, as being a part of the theory (or model) is something that scientists have always been searching for. This topic would require another extensive essay independent of this analysis in order to deal properly with the capacity of the human being to project certain spacetime/movement coordinates that occur now into a future time frame and explain what they will be at that future time. By understanding that it is impossible to foresee all possible spacetime/movement events of any one particular spacetime/movement event, projected into future space, time and movement, we begin to realize that such predictions are extremely conditioned by the conditions of existence and spacetime/movement coordinates of any particular event.

PROPOSITION: "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory". (p.10)

In fact, like the vast majority of scientific writers, the concept of "theory" that is being employed here regards the idea of a specific "thesis" of the behavior of a specific event. Relativity theory, quantum theory, chaos theory, synergy theory, etc., among so many more word-concepts, are simply the representation of specific events of matter-energy. They do not reflect or represent how spacetime/movement exists on all levels of spacetime/movement. The theoretical conception of spacetime/movement refers to the level of the existence of spacetime/movement, and not to some specific matter-energy event.

Hawking confuses a specific idea about a particular event of matter-energy and proposes that to be a theory or to be the theoretical conception of reality. It is not. Only the theoretical, mental abstraction of spacetime/movement can explain a specific matter-energy event. And a specific matter-energy event explained means that a specific thesis about matter-energy existence has been forwarded; nothing more. That is why, as he states, a specific event can be contradicted by another specific event; because no two spacetime/movement (matter-energy) events are alike; no two events are exactly the same, nor can they occupy the same coordinates of spacetime/movement ----ever.

For this reason, it is understandable that he states further that "in practice, what often happens is that a new theory is devised that is really an extension of the previous theory". (p.10) What he is actually referring to is that a specific thesis regarding a matter-energy event can be devised which is actually an extension of another previous matter-energy event. That is obvious, but that is not theory building; that is the practice of building or recognizing specific theses regarding specific and distinct spacetime/movement events of matter-energy.

Hawking then goes on to cite the need for TOE, a theory of everything. "The eventual goal of science is to provide a single theory that describes the whole universe. However, the approach most scientists actually follow is to separate the problem into two parts. First, there are the laws that tell us how the universe changes with time.... Second, there is the question of the initial state of the universe. ... It turns out to be very difficult to devise a theory to describe the universe all in one go. Instead, we break the problem up into bits and invent a number of partial theories. Each of these partial theories describes and predicts a certain limited class of observations, neglecting the effects of other quantities, or representing them by simple sets of numbers. It may be that this approach is completely wrong. If everything in the universe depends on everything else in fundamental way, it might be impossible to get close to a full solution by investigating parts of the problem in isolation. ... Today scientists describe the universe in terms of two basic partial theories ---the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics." (p.11)

True, it is difficult to devise a theory to describe the universe all in one go, but this is not the conceptual to go about it. The theoretical conception of spacetime/movement merely means that human beings are capable of explaining each specific level of existence (spacetime/movement itself and matter-energy events; which obviously are the same thing).

Knowledge of spacetime/movement is possible. We can know theoretically mentally (in all cases of relations) and practically/physically (some cases) spacetime/movement, that is, specific matter-energy events as they exist.

Our theoretical/mental abstraction of spacetime/movement is the level referred to as the theory of everything (everything meaning reality, all that exists).

The uncountable number of methods of reasoning about reality (spacetime/movement) reflect the uncountable number of reasons that we offer to explain why/how/what/when a specific matter-energy event exists. We assign innumerable reasons as to why reality exists as it does: functionalist, interactionist, relativistic, synergetic, dialectic, etc., reasons as to why a specific event behaves or exists as it does. This particular level of thesis-building is not relational to theoretical abstraction of spacetime/movement as such, but relational to the products and specific manifestations of spacetime/movement: that is, relational to specific matter-energy events, forms of spacetime/movement events.

By Hawking resigning himself not to attempt to devise a theoretical conception at the level of spacetime/movement events due to its difficulty, as he states, he recognizes the human being`s efforts at devising specific and partial theories. However, there are no partial theories; there are only specific theses regarding the existence and behavior of particular matter-energy events. To refer to the specific theories of relativity and quantum mechanics is but to confuse things, as things have been confused for a long time.

Each particular set of ideas (relativity and quantum mechanics) refer to specific levels-moments/relations of particular matter-energy events. In other words, the theory of relativity "describes the force of gravity and the large-scale structure of the universe" (p.11); whereas, quantum mechanics "deals with phenomena on extremely small scales, such as a millionth of a millionth of an inch" (p.11).

It is obvious that one cannot expect to devise from the theoretical analysis of these two distinct levels of spacetime/movement (two distinct, identified and isolated levels-moments/relations of spacetime/movement) that one might add them up and come up with a general theory of everything. We are only referring to two abstracted levels of reality (large and extremely small scale levels). The levels-moments/relations of spacetime/movement are uncountable by human beings.

We cannot expect to devise empirically, and inductively, from the ground up, from the existence of two levels of matter-energy events a theoretical conception that would account for all of the levels!

One can only attempt to construct a theory of spacetime/movement (of reality as it exists), in all of its levels-moments/relations as of itself. One can only expect to construct a theoretical conception of reality as of its own terms of existence (= spacetime/movement), which would thereby account for all of its specific levels-moments/relations of matter-energy events.

The theoretical conception cannot be built as of the simple sum of the specific theses reasoned regarding particular matter-energy events.

We agree with Hawking when he himself concedes that possibly the cited procedure is incorrect, completely wrong. It is more a case as he immediately states, that the universe depends (relates) on everything; in other words, everything is related (spatially, temporally relationally) to everything else. In other words, all spacetime/movement events are related in terms of spacetime/movement. No event of spacetime/movement as we know it exists unrelated to all other events. Every spacetime/movement event is in relational contact, relational existence with all other spacetime/movement events.

The very concept of something being isolated, unrelated, etc., is contradictory of spacetime/movement existence itself. It is simply a human invention.

It is for this reason, the possibility of conceiving reality or parts of reality (as he states) as being isolated, that he can then say that, "Unfortunately, however, these two theories (relativity and quantum mechanics) are known to be inconsistent with each other --they cannot both be correct. One of the major endeavors in physics today, and the major theme of this book, is the search for a new theory that will incorporate them both ---a quantum theory of gravity." (p.12)

When one can theoretically/mentally conceive of reality as being unrelated, or isolated, such ideas as these appear. The theoretical conceptions of these specific theses might be or seem to be contradictory, but one must remember that reality is not. The events that both of these partial theories refer to are themselves related in reality, even though the specific theses might be counterposed against one another. The events that reflect the theses of the general theory of relativity and the events that reflect the theses of quantum mechanics are related in reality, that is, in terms of spacetime/movement themselves.

PROPOSITION: "Yet, if there really is a complete unified theory, it would also presumably determine our actions. And so the theory itself would determine the outcome of our search for it! And why should it determine that we come to the right conclusions from the evidence? Might it not equally well determine that we draw the wrong conclusion? Or no conclusion at all?" (p.12)

Aside from these previous statements being simply silly in philosophical terms of positivistic logic, there is something here that must be stated and clarified. Hawking goes on to state that "a complete unified theory may not make much difference to our chances of survival". (pp.12-13) "...the search for the ultimate theory of the universe seems difficult to justify on practical grounds.... The discovery of a complete unified theory, therefore, may not aid the survival of our species". (p.13)

The understanding that should remain in this initial review of Hawking`s idea regarding theory is the human purpose of theoretical constructs themselves. Human beings make abstracted, mental pictures of specific matter-energy events in order to translate those theoretical apprehensions into human action in relation to the matter-energy events themselves.

It is therefore obvious that the search for an exact theoretical conception of matter-energy has to do with the possibilities of human action; and therefore with such concepts as human survival. To even suggest that a so-called unified theory of reality might not have anything to do with human survival is ludicrous.

Human beings attempt to know their environment in order to affect their human relations (to other human beings and to nature itself ---of which obviously we are a part).

The theoretical abstractions (our mental apprehensions of matter-energy) have to do directly with the possibility of human relations with matter-energy; nothing less than that. The fact that we are at present not theoretically abstracting our human relations to nature adequately (in terms of ecology, for example), have to do with the rate at which we are destroying our own conditions of existence; the rate with which we are destroying matter-energy events (that is, spacetime/movement itself at least in terms of transforming it).

The theoretical conception relates directly to the human possibility of reproducing our needs and conditions of existence.

The survival of our species, as Hawking states, and the very survival of the conditions of existence of matter-energy as we know them on this planet and in this universe are becoming to depend directly upon human action; specifically the human action of destroying our conditions of existence.

To even question or suggest that theoretical conception might not have anything to do with our physical (mental) survival seems off the mark of human knowledge.

PROPOSITION: "And, our goal is nothing less than a complete description of the universe we live in". (p.13)

The human endeavor throughout history has been to create societies of individuals which might relate in such a way that we are able to fulfill our human capacity and potential for relating with one another. Human societies, somehow, have never been able to fulfill this state.

As we stated earlier, the human purpose of existence is mental/practical: knowing and transforming matter-energy in relationship to ourselves. We cannot be limited to a specific goal of simply describing what exists; in fact, in knowing that all spacetime/movement is precisely in constant movement, such a full-blown description is impossible.

What is humanly possible is a constant approach to reality, identifying and knowing its spacetime/movement coordinates (in relation to everything that exists; in relation to spacetime/movement itself), in order to act in relation to spacetime/movement on the basis of that knowledge.

In a word, human beings need not describe reality as such, but live it in relationship to it.

To this end, however, it is necessary to lay bare and clarify our mental processes of analysis of spacetime/movement and relate this theoretical conception to human activity itself, and the possibilities of human action. To this end we shall offer this analysis of Stephen Hawking`s review of the history of time.

Earth/matrix
Science Today

• The Temperature Scale and the
  Universal Constant for Particle Mass
  
  
• The International Temperature
  Scale 1990
  
  
• Color Scale and Temperature
  Scale Relations
  
  
• The Pluto / Sun Relationship and
  the Thermodynamic Temperature Scale
  
  
• The Inverse Fine-Structure
  Constant
  
  

• Quantum Mechanics of the Reciprocity of Light and Gravity
  
  

• Matter and Energy Disengaged
  
  

• The Astronomical Unit (AU): Mercury/Sun Distance

• Mercury as Astronomical Unit (AU), for Distance, Orbital Periodicity and Velocity
  
  

• The Particle Zoo
  
  
• A Multi-Gravitational Solar
  System Infinitely so...
  
  
• The Bi-Gravitational Solar System Center-Point and Barycenter

• By Intelligent Design:
  The 1.068 Solar Radii Constant.
  
  
• The Potential Impact of
  Asteroids on Earth
  
  
• The Moon's Librations and
  Core Diameter

• The Solar matriX:
  The Sun - Jupiter Barycenter

• The Vacuocentric Solar System Head-on View

• The Vacuocentric Solar System: Additional Commentary