Timeline for Is the Big Bang defined as before or after Inflation?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 9, 2023 at 18:12 | comment | added | Edouard | The aforementioned Youtube video can be seen at youtube.com/watch?v=0f3wnJ-fq7Q . | |
| Aug 9, 2023 at 18:11 | comment | added | Jim | @Edouard Indeed. Also worth noting is that they may be starting to think of eternal inflation as canon, which must take place before the Big Bang | |
| Aug 9, 2023 at 18:07 | comment | added | Edouard | As discussed at arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0408/0408111.pdf , the question remains controversal: Recent NASA data from the James West Space Telescope has claimed, on a Youtube video, that inflation occurred before the Big Bang, but NASA may be less apt to take quantum mechanical effects into account than other agencies, such as CERN. | |
| Feb 6, 2021 at 21:47 | answer | added | benrg | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 2, 2021 at 22:16 | answer | added | Baird1939 | timeline score: -3 | |
| Jul 12, 2019 at 19:08 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Jul 12, 2019 at 18:51 | answer | added | Edouard | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 1, 2017 at 13:47 | answer | added | John Duffield | timeline score: -2 | |
| May 27, 2015 at 5:21 | comment | added | Pacerier | @dmckee, The correct question should be "The experts are divided about Proposition X. What are the reasons and thought processes which leads to the non-consensus?" | |
| S Oct 20, 2014 at 9:11 | history | suggested | Incnis Mrsi |
[terminology]
|
|
| Oct 20, 2014 at 8:49 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 20, 2014 at 9:11 | |||||
| Oct 20, 2014 at 8:43 | answer | added | Incnis Mrsi | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 15, 2014 at 14:02 | answer | added | Jim | timeline score: 21 | |
| Aug 28, 2014 at 13:06 | comment | added | Jim | And what better place to house such a clarification than something that aims to be an above-averagely reputable source of the state and content of mainstream physics? | |
| Aug 28, 2014 at 13:04 | comment | added | Jim | @dmckee Thus the P.S. in my post. As Stack Exchange sites are rapidly becoming more reputable versions of Yahoo Answers (though not yet as reputable as Wikipedia, but that's a matter of time), even if the experts are divided, boiling it down to such and explaining/overviewing the division would be just as much a valid and useful answer to any interested as stating the true definition (if there is one). So this is not so much a request for opinions as it is a request for expert clarification on the nature and resolution (or lack thereof) of the division | |
| Aug 28, 2014 at 5:53 | answer | added | John Rennie | timeline score: 20 | |
| Aug 27, 2014 at 23:56 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | The statement of the questions seems to boil down to "The experts are divided about Proposition X. What is the expert consensus on Proposition X?" | |
| Aug 27, 2014 at 21:26 | comment | added | Jim | I see this question has a VTC as primarily opinion-based. This, I believe, is unwarranted. My question is not about what people's opinion of the definition is, it asks what the accepted definition is (something not based on opinion). If there is not one but two accepted definitions for the term, whose usage then depends on the opinion of the user, then that in itself would constitute an answer to the question and would still not be an opinion-based answer | |
| Aug 27, 2014 at 20:49 | review | Close votes | |||
| Aug 28, 2014 at 2:51 | |||||
| Aug 27, 2014 at 20:39 | comment | added | akrasia | What I am saying is that if we know nothing about inflation at all, we might as well place the Big Bang after it. If we know something (for example that General Relativity applied during at least part of the inflationary epoch), we should stick with the old definition. | |
| Aug 27, 2014 at 20:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/504720115624341505 | ||
| Aug 27, 2014 at 19:55 | comment | added | Jim | @akrasia this whole issue hinges on the validity of inflation theory, so we'll take it as accepted. But defining the BB as the end of inflation simply due to a lack of evidence that anything came before that moment seems akin to saying that the BB is the start of inflation and then shortening the duration of inflation to zero | |
| Aug 27, 2014 at 19:47 | comment | added | akrasia | The key issue is whether you agree that we have no evidence for anything that came before the end of inflation. If so, I agree that you might as well say that point is the big bang. We don't know the physics of inflation, but if you believe that any of the speculative theories have any observational support, then I would put the Big Bang before it. | |
| Aug 27, 2014 at 19:44 | comment | added | Void | Don't take me wrong, I understand your arguments, but I also understand it as a matter of a convention or personal taste. It's just a label given to a state defined by a physical criterion. Even the "Big bang" is originally a derogatory term which could be better described as "Everywhere stretch" as suggested I thiiink in a video by MinutePhysics. In the original sense we could e.g. define it as the whole era during which any normal material would be ripped apart just by the expansion. Etc. etc. | |
| Aug 27, 2014 at 19:32 | answer | added | anna v | timeline score: 5 | |
| Aug 27, 2014 at 19:31 | comment | added | Jim | If you're a Dodelson person, read this. It's pretty convincing until you read others from the opposite side (or at least reread my question) | |
| Aug 27, 2014 at 19:25 | comment | added | Void | As a matter of personal taste, I would go with Dodelson (also since his book formed my view of this field the most). But we don't really know much about the preinflationary era and thus a "Dodelson Big bang" might be moved around by our new observations or even loose any good meaning (say in a weird bouncy epoch, cyclical model or whatever). So it might be a good idea to actually assign a special name to the "post-inflation Big bang" for compact reference because that is already a quite definite physical point. | |
| Aug 27, 2014 at 19:16 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 149 characters in body
|
| Aug 27, 2014 at 19:08 | history | asked | Jim | CC BY-SA 3.0 |