I haven't read the paper but am going by your take on it.
My tongue-in-cheek name notwithstanding, I think that the notion of time moving backward, as seductive as it may be, is probably wrong. One of the inferences that is often made about time (based on direct experience) is that it is a 'thing' that seems to 'flow'. I say that time is not something that changes, rather time is the measure of the rate at which everything else changes. So if absolutely nothing in the universe were to change, we could not say that time passes. Ergo if change is primary and time is merely something we deduce from change, then the idea of time 'moving backwards' must be false. Guth's position in this context would be that there was no change 'before' inflation meaning that time did not exist.

Mind you, I'm no expert on this, so I certainly might be the one who is wrong.

I have to apologize in advance because of other matters I have to pass through this forum with only my single comment.

• One caveat - harvey1 - August 28, 2003 - 16:45 UTC