Quote:
Originally Posted by silentstriker
Well I've put forth my argument and I think we're just talking about semantics but I'll end it with the fact that the very reason we don't call our theory complete is because we can't ask the question what happened before "t1" or for that matter, 50 million "years" before t1. The very fact that you've defined the variable as t1 makes the question of "what the hell was t0" a valid one. Anyway you are free to respond and disagree but I think we're playing with words not with any scientific ideas so I'll leave it here.
|
When I say t1 what I mean is some (varying) time-interval T before the present not t1 after the big bang.
The problem lies in talking of the Big bang as an actual event that took place and the planck epoch as an actual period of time that elapsed. Under general relativity alone, these would be true. But as you know, with the quantum effects, this is no longer the case. So the big bang is not an actual event which actually took place but a prediction made by GR that is no longer valid. The time at which the big bang happens in GR is now a sort of pseudo-origin. A new theory might resolve the conflict leaving the predictions of GR untouched. But there is no reason (that I know of, I could be mistaken) to expect this to happen however. For example a new theory might make time itself meaningless beyond a certain time in the past. Or time might extend back to a far greater period of time than t1. There is no reason to privilege one of these with respect to the others.