11 Where would you put inflation on the blue curve?
2 t=1 is how much in seconds?
I think the miscommunication here is that I suspect when you say "the big bang was like an explosion", what you mean by 'explosion' and what myself and others are assuming you mean might not be the same thing.I have just reread all the responses and can't find anywhere where someone actually gives any solid reasons. Could you perhaps let me know where they were or give a reason of your own?
I realise the thread has moved on somewhat, but I wanted to respond to this (my response is relevant to the later discussions). I've made a very rough graph to help explain things.Ok, but if you are suggesting that time in any way existed before t=0, than BB was not birth of the universe, but (loosely speaking) some kind of 'phase transition'. If universe began at BB then time also did so.
I agree that 'time began at BB' is my preferred way, but only because I can't see it any other way.
What are your thoughts on imaginary time? Is that concept of any use?
The whole Universe was in a hot dense state when 14 Billion years ago expansion started..
There is 1 to 1 mapping between t and Q
So take inflation era in t and map it to Q
This is a model only
I wrote Q=t-1/t but it can be
Q=A*t-B/t with some unknown A and B
Or another function at all.
I just wanted to show that you can map FINITE interval after the BB until NOW to an INFINITE interval.
So you can say that 'time began' at the point where a(t)=0, but that is an assertion that is as unsupported by evidence as any other (at present) so I don't know why you would do so.
Your blog is really nice visually and the tone is modest and friendly. New Zealand seems like a nice place. The NZ scenery carries over and suggests that the universe is also a nice place.Sorry to ressurect this thread but I've started a blog on this and was hoping that some of you could visit it and tell me what you think.
The address is http://phil-astroscott.blogspot.com/2010/06/hi-im-phil-and-ive-decided-to-take-my.html" [Broken]
The link doesn't work anymore. I don't know a direct link that works. The only way I know to read it for free is to allow your browser to accept cookies from scientificamerican.com and then click the link in the Wikipedia article.There is a nice Scientific American article by Lineweaver and Davis (Australians). I have a link in my signature. It is the "princeton.edu" link.
It has to do with time dilation.marcus said:THE DISTANCE TO MOST of the GALAXIES we can see using a telescope are INCREASING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT not because of inflation but just because that is how it is. General Relativity allows this (although the earlier "special" theory did not) and in fact the standard model with the jargon name REQUIRES it.
This doesn't have anything to do with time dilation (your reasoning in your blog).
Fredrik, thanks for alerting me to that! There is an alternate copy at Charles Lineweaver's site at his university. The quality is just as good, and no magazine advert nuisance or cookies. So I changed the link in my signature.The link doesn't work anymore. I don't know a direct link that works. The only way I know to read it for free is to allow your browser to accept cookies from scientificamerican.com and then click the link in the Wikipedia article.
I think part of what motivates this question is the fact that not only do people not understand what the Big Bang was, but most people don't really know what explosions are either. Just seeing a fireball in a movie doesn't tell you anything about what is going on inside it or how it works.Because there were no matches available at that time to ignite the explosion.