Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 2) It never did, and that's why the universe is close to flat. (I.e., we're 
> still inside the event horizon of the big bang.)

  I have never quite understood that hypothesis, for at least two reasons:

  1) Spacetime inside an event horizon is pretty weird, and the spacetime
we currently reside in isn't (relatively speaking, at least).

  2) All spacetime geodesics inside an even horizon point towards the
singularity. (Ok, in a rotating black hole it's more complicated than
that, but in principle I suppose it's the same.) We are not moving towards
a singularity; we are expanding, hence moving *away* from any possible
"central point" of the Universe. That kind of contradicts the idea.

  Of course I am no physicist, and I have zero knowledge of the GR
equations, so I could be completely off track with this. My point is,
however, that I just don't understand how that hypothesis could be even
worthy of consideration.

> But I suspect it's the giant FTL "inflation" or some other wonkiness of 
> pre-first-microsecond space-time that means the "singularity" wasn't all 
> that singular.

  I have read somewhere that it's considered that even if the entire
Universe was concentrated in a singularity at the beginning, it's hard
to say anything about its nature because anything prior to the first
unit of planck time did not obey any current laws of nature (in other
words, laws of nature break up when we go back in time more than one
planck time unit after it all started).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message