Timeline for Is the Big Bang defined as before or after Inflation?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 28, 2014 at 4:00 | history | edited | anna v | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
clarification after comments
|
| Aug 28, 2014 at 3:20 | comment | added | anna v | classical BB. It will still emerge and apply at its region of validity . The various definitions you state are due to this confusion of trying to keep both the classical and QM frame at once . | |
| Aug 28, 2014 at 3:16 | comment | added | anna v | We actually live our everyday lives in a classical physics framework. That it is emergent and the underlying framework is quantum mechanical does not invalidate the theoretical models that describe so successfully our classical experience. It just limits their region of validity. The Big Bang model is successful in its region of validity and it is modeled as if there is a singularity at the very beginning. When the limits of the validity of classical GR are reached then QM has to be invoked and the data modeled with it, which is what the inflationary model does. That does not invalidate the | |
| Aug 28, 2014 at 3:13 | comment | added | anna v | @innisfree I am not talking about mysteries of quantum gravity. I am talking of mixing two frameworks that have different postulates and axioms and expect consistency. Generally in quantum mechanics singularities disappear. The classical frame is an emergent frame. When one is actually "handwaving" , mixing two frames, confusions will arise. | |
| Aug 27, 2014 at 19:49 | comment | added | innisfree | The ambiguity in what we call the BB has nothing to do with mysteries of quantum gravity. | |
| Aug 27, 2014 at 19:34 | comment | added | Jim | But none of the new definitions make use of a singularity. Or are you saying we should do away with the "Big Bang" term altogether? | |
| Aug 27, 2014 at 19:32 | history | answered | anna v | CC BY-SA 3.0 |