Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Noonan
Much of the graph revolves around the idea of forces extrapolated from the known forces of today to an extra ordinary density where we assume that because the mathematics does not appear to break down then neither should the forces.
If there was a point well before one got even close to the first minutes or days of the big bang where there was a decoupling to a quantum foam of energy and the forces as exist today were generated by the combination of energy into matter by processes not related to the nuclear forces then that would help.
It seems that nature only permits straight line for so long as with Newtonian gravity before it adds curvatures of its own. The thing with mathematics is that the lines stay straight or at least get predicted that way which then sets the path of thinking and while it is all good on paper how do you tell nature that it is supposed to work that way?
I must be getting a bit pedantic by now and yet it certainly has me thinking.
Cheers  |
Pedantic, not true. If it applies here it applies to me so let's not mention it
.
And as for the rest of your post I agree.
But I don't fight those issues because the graph like you say is back engineered, and it stops short of predicting a cause for expansion or source of the plasma. Rather important prerequisites IMHO.
The "before" that you mention had to have happened. The matter that collapsed to form the big crunch preexisted and formed under conditions that BBTC considers unknowable and therefore not of much interest as far as what we commit research efforts to.
And you mention the curves ... if you think about it and I bet you have, the curves would be there if space and time were not coupled and in spite of GTR's exquisite renditions of the effects of gravity.