The Big Bang time paradox

[Felch]

Pride goeth before the fall

[MrFun]

There is no Big Bang creation theory. There is no creation theory. There is no Big Bang.

So experts such as Stephen Hawking never use the idea of Big Bang in postulating their understanding of the universe?

[Boris Godunov]

Have you actually read Stephen Hawking's books, MrFun?

[KrazyHorse]

Who cares if he has? They were written in the 80s. They're all nonsense now.

[Felch]

What's the word on the street then? What are all the cool kids believing in these days?

And do they realize that it's all bull**** and in a couple decades people will be like "That was written in the 00s. It's all nonsense now."

I used to love reading about this stuff, all the theoretical physics for the general public stuff, back in high school. I used to feel like I was knowing things only a few people knew, **** about superstrings and what not. At some point I realized that it was all probably about as true and meaningful as magical pixie dust. Cutting edge explanations for scientific mysteries are usually bull****.

So, what's replaced the Big Bang?

[KrazyHorse]

And do they realize that it's all bull**** and in a couple decades people will be like "That was written in the 00s. It's all nonsense now."

Depends what you're talking about. The 90s was the dawn of precision cosmology. We know things to a hundred times better precision than we did before. There's a big difference between our evidence for Lambda-CDM now than there was for whatever nonsense they believed in during the early 80s

[Lorizael]

And do they realize that it's all bull**** and in a couple decades people will be like "That was written in the 00s. It's all nonsense now."

I can't wait until we get to say that. Then maybe "aughts" will finally catch on.

[Lorizael]

Depends what you're talking about. The 90s was the dawn of precision cosmology. We know things to a hundred times better precision than we did before. There's a big difference between our evidence for Lambda-CDM now than there was for whatever nonsense they believed in during the early 80s

Isn't the central premise behind the big bang still more or less true? There was a point thirteenish billion years ago when the stuff of the universe was condensed into a very high energy state, and then a period of rapid inflation occurred which spread all that stuff very far out, cooled things down, and let matter and the laws of physics as we know them come into being?

[KrazyHorse]

We know that our knowledge of the physical makeup of the universe/our understanding of gravitation breaks down during the period known as inflation (rapid, accelerating expansion of the early Universe). We know that inflation could not have been the beginning (there has to have been something before inflation). We don't know what that something is, except in a very general sense.

The "Big Bang" was based on a model of the universe in which we understood gravity and the Universe generally to arbitrarily high temperatures. Under those assumptions the Universe began at a specific instant in time. Those assumptions are wrong, so we don't even know whether there was a first instant in time.

[DaShi]

Who cares if he has? They were written in the 80s. They're all nonsense now.

I always find it fun to look back at Stephen Hawking's old books and laugh.

[notyoueither]

I can't wait until we get to say that. Then maybe "aughts" will finally catch on.

I said 'early aughts' today.

[MrFun]

Have you actually read Stephen Hawking's books, MrFun?

No I did not, which is why I asked the question.

[Drake Tungsten]

Three grad students in my department published a paper based on this 2 months ago that's getting rave reviews.

Can we get them to post here? I only want the best...

[Japher]

I invented Windows 7...

[Heraclitus]

I do not see where he said that. And if he did, he's wrong. Sorry

No, I do not think he is, at least from what little I know.