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…
Yes we do: https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time
> it's difficult for most people to grasp.
"Oh come on…"
Q.E.D.
I don’t see anything in that article mentioning that time did not exist before the universe existed. Did I miss it?
We have an accepted standard model. 2 in fact. QM and Lambda CDM say very little about how things were working very close the t=0, and say absolutely nothing about how the conditions were a t=0 or "before".
As I said in my comment, people suggest ideas of how things could be. But nothing tangible, nothing ever included in ΛCDM, nothing predicted by QM… we are missing data, solid math, and solid physic to postulate anything about t<=0. I mean … we don't even know how gravity works in these conditions. How could we even say anything about time!
> Q.E.D.
I would classify your previous comment as pseudo science, and saying "it's difficult for most people to grasp" as lack of humility.
If you do understand how space and time were structured "before the existence of our universe", you should go claim a Nobel price.
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. According to your account, time presupposes itself.
You're applying the terms of experience to non-experience. The error is in a sophism of figure of speech.
Unfortunately you haven't explained anything at all. All you've demonstrated is that Kant was justified in writing the Antinomy.
> 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."
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.
How?
It seems almost impossible to avoid this sort of thing (~omniscience), at least when discussing certain topics, but it can be a lot of fun to try. Noticing it in others when reading comments is much easier, and a good form of practice.