What is the Big Bang Theory?

This is not in contradiction to anything I said, but since you're bringing it up, it's not true. The singularity simply means "we don't know what there was earlier than 10^-43 seconds". We know it was very small, but no modern scientist claims it was a point.

This is also not in contradiction to anything I said.

The point is, there is no "outside". The early universe was finite but unbounded.

FR's comments that started this side-discussion (1+1=3 and pi=3.14159) were born of "beliefs", not of accuracy. I responded with a simple model for the sake of clarity. If you prefer other units, that's fine, but it has no effect on the argument.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

dupe post.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not necessarily : This may help.
http://profmattstrassler.com/articl...-cosmology/history-of-the-universe/inflation/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree that there is no evidence against this, afaik. But then this raises two pertinent questions 1. How this continuum came in the first place ? 2. Does it explain our present day observations to the hilt ?

Q1 will take you back to Big Bang or in search, Q2 may solve some and may falter at something else.

 

You failed to supply a link.

Here is a more reputable paper on entropy and Inflation.....
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.1087v3.pdf
There exists the ‘entropy problem’ of the early universe, that is, why did the universe begin with an extremely low entropy and how did it evolve into such high entropy at late times? It has been long believed that inflation cannot be the solution since it requires an extremely low entropy to ever occur. However, we point out that since the inflation is always accompanied with a horizon, the correct probability of inflation is associated with the quantum entanglement entropy, which should in principle be larger than what considered previously. This motivates us to reexamine the issue by computing the evolution of the cosmological entanglement entropy in the early universe. We invoke a toy model of nonlinear generalized Chaplygin gas (GCG), which has the advantage of providing a smooth and unitary transition between the inflation epoch and the radiation dominant era. We found that soon after the onset of the inflation, the total entanglement entropy rapidly decreases to a minimum, and it rises monotonically afterwards throughout the remainder of the inflation and the radiation epochs. This indicates that the universe does not need to begin with an extremely low entropy; its smallness can be naturally induced by the dynamics of inflation itself. We believe that our computation largely captures the essential feature of entropy evolution and can provide us insights beyond the toy model.

 

That's nonsense. It's like saying our solar system didn't have one sun until humans invented the number 1. It's absurd.

What's your point? A flat plane is a flat plane, whichever Universe you're in.

 

Can you pin point on what you want a link...

Para # 1 is kind of qualitative explanation of entropy.
Para # 2 is my observation.

 

Please tell me what is "not necessary", and what point you are making with this unexplained link ?

 

Anything you obtain off the net requires a link.
Not just an all encompassing "this is a brief on entropy" That is not sufficient.

 

I did not say "not necessary"I said "not necessarily"
The point I'm making is that Inflation did not necessarily start at t=0 and Inflation can do away with any singularity
The link again.....
http://profmattstrassler.com/articl...-cosmology/history-of-the-universe/inflation/
extract:
This was what is the origin of the Hot Big Bang. Some people (including me) simply say: “This moment is the start of the Big Bang”. Others say that the Big Bang includes the Hot Big Bang and inflation, though this is odd, since inflation is more of a Whoosh than a Bang. Some say that inflation is what put the “Bang” into “Big Bang”, by first making the universe large and expanding, and then making it hot. Still others say that it includes the Hot Big Bang, inflation, and everything that came before it… but this is risky, because before inflation there might have been something that does not in any sense deserve the term “Bang” (which implies a very energetic, intense and sudden event.)

Since this terminology hasn’t settled yet, what you decide to call “The Big Bang” is kind of up to you. It’s just important to know that you have different options, and that different scientists and websites may use different meanings for “Big Bang”
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Of course we are in speculative territory, but Inflation explains heaps.

 

Paddoboy, generally throws this figure, 10^-43 seconds very often. The significance and implication of this figure is that it is Planck's time ( T(p) = 5.4 X 10^-44 seconds, taken as 10^-43 Seconds), and we are gearing towards a proposition that the time itself is discrete with the smallest quantum as Planck's time (10^-43 Sec). So it is correct to say that we know nothing prior to t = 10^-43seconds, it is not that something could have happened, but if we say that something happened at 10^-50 seconds, then the discreteness of time goes kaput.

See things at 10^-43 seconds or 10^-36 seconds (start of inflation) are all speculative, none would have stopped us from speculating below 10^-43seconds, but thats the Planck's time barrier we put.

 

The BB by definition is the start of space and time as we know them.

http://profmattstrassler.com/articl...he-universe/big-bang-expansion-not-explosion/

And as yet we do not know the how or the why of the actual event.

 

Not necessary, definitions do not require link.
Since you do not know them, so you would need link. You ask as a student then I would.

 

That's OK...If that's all it was then great.

 

Thats what I said, inflation did not start at t = 0.

And if inflation has done away with BB singularity, then great, you only shout around that BB singularity is of the spacetime, change of heart?

Basically the problem with you Paddoboy is, that if anything is uttered by mainstream guys then its a gospel truth for you, you do not apply your brain. Your master's choice has to be sacrosanct for you. You are not following science, you are mindlessly following your masters' voices.

 

I have discussed this before with you. The quantum realm/level exists. Our theories and models and laws do not apply at those regions.
The Planck time/volume/mass/scale is a man made constructed thingy that aligns with the quantum level.
Although we can only speculate when discussing this region, all speculation is open including any that makes the discreet Planck units go kaput.
At least that is the interpretation I have found to be most likely.

 

You mean QM, which is one of our theories not aliens', does not apply at quantum realm / level ?

What ? Had a 'discreet' rendezvous with Mr Planck ?[/QUOTE]

 

Yep.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Most all physicists believe that the singularity is not physical.
Space time still existed in an unknown state there. The BB/inflation still evolved space time as we know it. No change of heart, just some speculation which often seems to confuse you.

No at all. Most mainstream accepted science is mainstream accepted science because it makes the most sense. and matches reality far better.
It's only the religious trolls and others with different agendas that like to somehow believe they are going to rewrite 21st century cosmology on a forum such as this. It ainý gonna happen, and particularly not from your quarters. That is a fact.
Anything else is just simple sour grapes on your part in not being able to invalidate any of the stuff you somehow in your delusions believe you are invalidating.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

[/QUOTE]
Back to your usual idiocy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You had me in for a while.