KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA (04/10/84)
From: Kirk Kelley <KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA> This discussion should probably move to the Physics list. Have you ever wondered why astronomers and physicists keep refering to THE big bang. Surely it does not take all the mass and time of the universe before a black hole produces a singularity that leads to an explosion. Not all physicists subscribe to the big bang. Fred Hoyle, formerly of Cambridge, has said a sickly pall now hangs over the big-bang theory. Jayant Narlikar, a leading Indian theoretical physicist comments "Astrophysicists of today who hold that the `ultimate cosmological problem' has been more or less solved may well be in for a few surprises before this century is out." -- meditator on nothing
REM%MIT-MC@sri-unix.UUCP (04/10/84)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC> We refer to R.Reagan as "THE President of the USA" even though other presidents came before him. Likewise we refer to our current big-bang as "THE big bang", and I think the terminology is appropriate, providing when somebody asks about the terminology we define "THE big bang" as "the one that caused this universe we're in now, as contrasted with predecessors and successors and alternatives which might also exist in time" rather than misleading the asker into thinking there was/willbe/is only one bing bang ever.
REM%MIT-MC@sri-unix.UUCP (04/10/84)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Date: 9-Apr-84 14:17 PST
From: Kirk Kelley <KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA>
Fred Hoyle, formerly of Cambridge, has said a sickly pall now
hangs over the big-bang theory.
I think he's overstating it. As I understand, to a first-order
approximation we now understand what has happened since a tiny fraction
of a second after the big-bang singularity. It's just that looking
close to the singularity things are so different from now that we
haven't yet figured out exactly what was going on, maybe inflationary
universe, maybe not, ... But the basic theory after three minutes is
pretty much undisputed except for parameters like total mass-energy
and age to present, right?
Jayant Narlikar, a leading Indian theoretical
physicist comments "Astrophysicists of today who hold that the `ultimate
cosmological problem' has been more or less solved may well be in
for a few surprises before this century is out."
Well, we still have some stuff to work out, but really I don't think
the 'ultimate cosmological problem' of our origin is still totally up
in the air. Still, the details of the first microsecond are bound to
be new and interesting and perhaps surprising, and parameters that
affect our ultimate fate (total mass-energy, lifetime of proton) are
important for the other ultimate cosmological problem (our ultimate
fate) and have yet to be determined. I'm not sure which of the two
"ultimate cosmological problems" he&you were referring to above,
origin or fate.liberte@uiucdcs.UUCP (04/16/84)
#R:sri-arpa:-1212600:uiucdcs:12700060:000:380
uiucdcs!liberte Apr 15 20:15:00 1984
Some possibilities:
More big bangs before and after our big bang.
More big bangs outside of our big bang, in outer big bang space.
Little big bangs inside our big bang - black holes?
BIG big bangs that include our big bang as one of several little big bangs.
Daniel LaLiberte, U of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Computer Science
{moderation in all things - including moderation}esj@ihuxl.UUCP (Natty Dread ) (04/17/84)
Just as an aside, Hoyle was the last diehard proponent of the Steady-State Theory (matter being created continuously from nothing/virtual pairs/whatever). Narlikar is a disciple of Hoyle. -- "Don't you ever get lonely up here, Talby?" ihnp4!ihuxl!esj
darryl@ism780.UUCP (04/24/84)
#R:sri-arpa:-1212600:ism780:13100001:000:185 ism780!darryl Apr 23 00:45:00 1984 For several different possibilities on the beginning of (our) universe, see this month's (May) Scientific American, "The Inflationary Universe". Darryl Richman ...!ima!ism780!darryl