"Physicists announced Thursday that they now have the smoking gun that shows the universe went through extremely rapid expansion in the moments after the big bang, growing from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second.

You can read the whole article here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060316/...smic_inflation

"Physicists announced Thursday that they now have the smoking gun that shows the universe went through extremely rapid expansion in the moments after the big bang, growing from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second.

You can read the whole article here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060316/...smic_inflation

I saw a documentary about this several months ago. Très intéressant.

I saw a documentary about this several months ago. Très intéressant.

I am greatly interested in the whole BB phenomenon. So far, in all of the sources, both popular and scientific, that I have found, there has been no mention of the relation of proximity to the singularity, containing all of the mass/energy of the universe, to the flow of time itself. Since we know that time slows in a gravitational field so much that near the event horizon of a black hole, it "stops altogether" (relatively speaking, of course), what about time near the BB in its various early stages of development?

Guys, a little assistance here if you please? Astrophysics/cosmology is not my main scientific field.

I am greatly interested in the whole BB phenomenon. So far, in all of the sources, both popular and scientific, that I have found, there has been no mention of the relation of proximity to the singularity, containing all of the mass/energy of the universe, to the flow of time itself. Since we know that time slows in a gravitational field so much that near the event horizon of a black hole, it "stops altogether" (relatively speaking, of course), what about time near the BB in its various early stages of development?

Guys, a little assistance here if you please? Astrophysics/cosmology is not my main scientific field.

Stern, your question is slightly misleading. Time is relative, of course, so the "rate" at which time flows "near the big bang" is meaningless because before the inflationary stage everything is near the big bang so it is the same for everything. It is only when different systems [observers] experience different gravitational fields that they experience time dilation effects relative to each other. there could be some weird corrections of course, but it seems likely that we can know generally what the gravitational fields were like (unless dark matter is much stranger than we think, which is possible if these quantum critical phase transitions are right). basically, the singularity containing all the mass energy of the universe only exists for the moment of the big bang, when there is no spacetime. As soon as there is spacetime (i.e., when the bang happens) it is no longer a singularity. Before the bang we can't say anythng because the las of physics break down when confronted with a singularity because almighty god hides his porno there, and after the big bang it's not a singularity anymore. I feel like I should add something about anal but I have nothing at the moment. Err, how about those brown dwarves?

Stern, your question is slightly misleading. Time is relative, of course, so the "rate" at which time flows "near the big bang" is meaningless because before the inflationary stage everything is near the big bang so it is the same for everything. It is only when different systems [observers] experience different gravitational fields that they experience time dilation effects relative to each other. there could be some weird corrections of course, but it seems likely that we can know generally what the gravitational fields were like (unless dark matter is much stranger than we think, which is possible if these quantum critical phase transitions are right). basically, the singularity containing all the mass energy of the universe only exists for the moment of the big bang, when there is no spacetime. As soon as there is spacetime (i.e., when the bang happens) it is no longer a singularity. Before the bang we can't say anythng because the las of physics break down when confronted with a singularity because almighty god hides his porno there, and after the big bang it's not a singularity anymore. I feel like I should add something about anal but I have nothing at the moment. Err, how about those brown dwarves?

What about during the bang (assuming 'during' even has meaning here)? If all this hoo-ha filled observable space in a trillionth of a trillionth of a sec, then wasn't shit flying many times faster than the speed of light?

What about during the bang (assuming 'during' even has meaning here)? If all this hoo-ha filled observable space in a trillionth of a trillionth of a sec, then wasn't shit flying many times faster than the speed of light?

In the early universe, in the femtosecond and shorter time frame, reality as we understand it may not likely apply. Part of the reason the US is launching so many infrared telescopes is because of the length of time elapsed since the origin of the universe. Most of the matter that is at the edge is what was there at the beginning, and to see past the rest of the universe to it, we have to pull tricks, like a) getting out of the atmosphere, and b) lurking in a Lagrange point with a quintuple solar umbrella (parasol, to you French guys) like the James Webb Space Telescope, (under development, or getting built, I forget which) to get away from the earth's heat. Point is, the beginning of the universe has some pretty exotic particles and behavior compared to now. Funny what 14+ Billion years will do for the flavor of the wine.

Damn ffs.

In the early universe, in the femtosecond and shorter time frame, reality as we understand it may not likely apply. Part of the reason the US is launching so many infrared telescopes is because of the length of time elapsed since the origin of the universe. Most of the matter that is at the edge is what was there at the beginning, and to see past the rest of the universe to it, we have to pull tricks, like a) getting out of the atmosphere, and b) lurking in a Lagrange point with a quintuple solar umbrella (parasol, to you French guys) like the James Webb Space Telescope, (under development, or getting built, I forget which) to get away from the earth's heat. Point is, the beginning of the universe has some pretty exotic particles and behavior compared to now. Funny what 14+ Billion years will do for the flavor of the wine.

Damn ffs.

This is along the lines I'm talking about. If we graph time from an "outside" perspective back to the BB instant, I'm thinking that it approaches zero asymptotically. If that were true, and I have no data which is why I'm asking the neighborhood astrophysicists, then we would have both a beginning of the universe at the BB AND the universe existing for all previous time. It would be as though one could meaningfully say that the BB occurred at time = negative infinity.

At least that's how I would design reality if I had been in charge, like, forever.

This is along the lines I'm talking about. If we graph time from an "outside" perspective back to the BB instant, I'm thinking that it approaches zero asymptotically. If that were true, and I have no data which is why I'm asking the neighborhood astrophysicists, then we would have both a beginning of the universe at the BB AND the universe existing for all previous time. It would be as though one could meaningfully say that the BB occurred at time = negative infinity.

At least that's how I would design reality if I had been in charge, like, forever.

Ouch, my head hurts:

http://baconeatingatheistjew.blogspo...nally-got.html

I know, another shameless blog promotion. But I don't make any money on it, so ethically I can justify it.