Slashdot Mirror
Before the Big Bang: A Twin Universe?
esocid writes "Until very recently, asking what happened at or before the Big Bang was considered by physicists to be a religious question. General relativity theory just doesn't go there — at T=0, it spews out zeros, infinities, and errors — and so the question didn't make sense from a scientific view. But in the past few years, a new theory called Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) has emerged. The theory suggests the possibility of a "quantum bounce," where our universe stems from the collapse of a previous universe. This may be similar with beliefs of Physicist Neil Turok of Cambridge University who has theorized about a cyclic universe, constantly expanding and compressing."
he got her really drunk.
I was about to mod this funny, but suddenly I got this feeling that maybe you were serious.
I have no response to that other than, um, sometimes its best to not post your thoughts in public where others can see...
The universe is safe for you and me, but what of Lazarus?
Considering approximately 5% of Physicists in the Unites States are religious I dont think they considered it a religous question.
If the likes of stephen hawking and albert einstein with general reletivity cant work it out how are illiterate goat herders from 2000 years ago supposed to have done it?
So Skulldilocks threw acid on the schoolchildrens' faces, cause somebody from the bible told her to do it!
It's just like history, really... History repeats itself, do does the Universe.
There were two universes but Manfred drones destroyed the Light Universe. Fortunately, we're already in the Dark Universe.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Does anyone know what they are speaking about ? But I doubt that there is a twin universe that is now gone. I am more on the line that there is a parallel universe that is almost like our own, expect Bush wasn't president of the U.S and we now have people on Mars and so on. That universe had Al Gore as president.
Will our galaxy drift until it reaches a clump of galaxies (another universe?), where it will be compressed, or will the compression take place after all galaxies expand outward, slow down in their expansion, and then all slowly begin compressing in a big crunch?
Obviously, IANAPBICAT (I am not a physicist but I'm curious about this).
You can't send a takedown notice to an already printed newspaper.
Marvel Comics has been telling us this for years! Decades, even!
Galactus, the Overmind, and the Stranger all came from the previous Universe, by one mechanism or another surviving the Big Crunch and the following Big Bang. There may be other previous universe types, but those 3 are the only ones I picked up on, back in my comic book days. (decades ago, even)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Or Hindu belief...
You are assuming that the scale of space is stable - that the separation of galaxies comes entirely from their material moving apart (at sublight speed) since they were essentially together in the moments after the big bang.
In fact space itself stretches. The separation of the material between pairs of distant (and near) galaxies comes from both their motion through space and the stretching (expansion) of the space between them.
The result is that sufficiently distant galaxies can be much farther apart than they could have traveled - even at the speed of light - through non-expanding space in the time since the big bang.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Aren't you forgetting about the Theory of Relativity, and the affect on Space-Time of the movements of such massive objects as Galaxies? In a purely Newtonian sense, you have a point, but Einstein proved things are a lot more complex than that.
Sure it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB
Also, http://xkcd.com/54/
If space (and in effect time) stretched like that, it wouldn't even matter. It would be like stretching a gummy bear... sure, maybe you got a long gummy bear, but it is still ONE gummy bear. If space stretched, so would time, and one unit of space-time is one-unit of space-time, regardless.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Adams said it best: "The Universe, as has been observed before, is an unsettlingly big place, a fact which for the sake of a quiet life most people tend to ignore."
OK, I'm not a cosmologist. The Big Bang is a theory so could certainly be wrong, so I'm posing a question here as well as posing a 'what if?'. We're looking for the God Particle (Higgs boson), which attaches itself to all matter except photons. Well, I think they attach to photons in some way too. Where I'm going is to a steady state universe where the most distant light has been affected by Higgs' particles. That light has lost energy getting here though not velocity. We see it as a red shift. Further along back in that direction, the photons have been affected enough to no longer be light but background RF radiation. Is it possible that we are truly in an infinite universe and that the most distant sources of photons that we can discern are now in the RF range? Not because of a receding outer limit but because their extreme distance has drained their energy?
So is this older than the Kessel Run, or simply faster?
There's nothing particularly special about loop quantum gravity that makes it possible to avoid having a singularity at the big bang. Loop quantum gravity is just one theory of quantum gravity. The best known theory of quantum gravity is string theory. In pretty much any theory of quantum gravity, the classical picture of the big bang singularity is going to get heavily modified. The conditions of the big bang are pretty much the only conditions under which you really need a theory of quantum gravity (unless you're really clever about finding some other situation, like black hole evaporation, where quantum gravitational effects come in). In all theories of quantum gravity, there's a scale called the Planck scale, and when you go beyond that scale (e.g., the universe is hot enough so that the wavelengths of particles are on the order of the Planck length), mysterious stuff happens. Because of this, it's reasonably plausible that the big bang singularity is eliminated in any theory of quantum gravity.
Old attempts to make a theory of a rebounding big bang (with, e.g., a cyclic universe) had various technical problems, which have been solved in recent years. In a rebounding big bang, there are issues to worry about such as what happens to causality, entropy, and the thermodynamic arrow of time. E.g., you could imagine that a universe cycles through a series of big bangs, and that each cycle is a lot like the one before, or you could imagine that the second law of thermodynamics operates across rebounds, so that each cycle has more entropy than the one before. You could imagine that there could be cause and effect relationships extending across rebounds, or that that could be prevented by the laws of physics. Some people believe that there's an unsolved "entropy problem" in the current standard big bang theory. Here is a good FAQ about cyclic models.
Find free books.
But CMB fills the entire universe, it doesn't come from one localized area. See the part of his post:
What you want is a specific "point" at which the big bang happened. That's not the case. When it happened - it WAS the universe - ie it was every single point at once. As the universe expands - anywhere you look from or to you'll be able to see this background radiation. Of course there will be fluctuations if the expansion of the universe isn't completely uniform - and why should it be? Matter distorts space and time, contributing to this non-uniformity.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Actually, I understand that general relativity doesn't apply to the fabric of space, only to objects within space. So space's expansion isn't limited to the speed of light.
How to use coral cache: http://slashdot.org.nyud.net:8090/~oscartheduck
Though coming from very different directions, both LQG pioneer Lee Smolin and Stephen Wolfram, who needs no introduction here, have opined that the best candidate as the fundamental level of a discrete physics (i.e. where the appearance of being continuous is emergent) is a graph theoretic network of nodes and links where it ceases to make sense to ask what they are made of. (This is also explored in Greg Egan's Schild's Ladder .) The basic idea is that there is some simple enough but cosmologically consistent transformation rule which produces the next local state of the graph from the current local state, supposedly at the Planck scale (of order 10^43 times per second).
A likely scenario is that "somewhere" long unreachable beyond our event horizons, there was a region of network sustaining chaotic inflationary expansion in which a bubble of more conservative physics emerged. Our conservative bubble only exhibits polynomial (near cubic) growth but that was enough to separate it from the exponentially growing seed graph.
My current betting is that Type 1a Supernovae, or at least some more precise analogue thereof in our parent cosmos, seed new outbreaks of chaotic inflation in which a new generation of more conservative bubble cosmoses arise, the whole process being susceptible to selection for fecundity and constrained only by the need for a viable history to some initial conditions simple enough to have just happened, presumably for no better reason than because nothing is unstable.
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
the explanation I have heard from a couple physicists and astronomers goes more like this:
Imagine space as a slightly inflated rubber balloon. Imagine two dots on the outside of that balloon. Then add air to the balloon, inflating it further.
What you get is two dots that are farther apart, more real distance between them but the same balloon.
So that explains all the dinosaurs!
Consider having two probes going away from Earth at 60%-lightspeed in opposite directions, and they want to communicate with each other. At 120%-c speeds, you might think it's impossible. But each of them could communicate back and forth with Earth at mere 60%-c speeds. If you do the actual math you work out that they appear to each other as moving away at something-like-80%c (that figure is totally made up, but you should get the idea anyway).
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
So it would be safe to say that if nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, we could witness objects distancing themselves at almost 3 times the speed of light, considering the addition of each: ...
Nope. You can't observe objects whose effective speed in your reference frame - combining inflation with velocity - is greater than C. The light from them never reaches you and light from you can never reach them. From your point of view they're "off the edge". It's as if you and they were each below the event horizon of a black hole relative to each other.
(And sorry about an error in my previous post. The correct buzzword for the stretching of space is "inflation".)
Or at least that's how I understand it. IANAP(hysicist)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
To use your analogy, draw a grid on the balloon. When you inflate the balloon, the grid squares grow. But one unit is still one unit. If you had to measure around the balloon, it would be x squares, regardless the size. This is because we are IN the balloon so that is our frame of reference. You are measuring it outside of the universe, and it just doesn't work like that.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
If object B looked back at object A, B would see A moving away from it slower than the speed of light due to time dilation. Time isn't actually any different for A than for B or for you in the center because you're not supposed to say that any one of them is actually the one that's moving. So if you're sitting in the center waving your hand at second intervals, B and A would see you waving very quickly. Likewise if I'm at B waving my hand at 1 second intervals you in the center would see my waving as quicker than your own! (I might have mixed up who sees who as waving slower).
It makes no sense, but it's OK because the theory never allows us to loop past each other like on a donut and simultaneously notice that the other person is a lot older than we are.
Professor Sir Roger Penrose gave a fantastic lecture at UWA in Aug 2007 on a very similar theme.
...and all of it will happen again. Maybe.
Read this off http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony the other day. Kinda similar idea in ways:
What if the big bang was just the explosion of all the crap that was in the event horizon of a black hole from a parent universe?
Questions I have are:
-How could there be such a massive black hole in a parent universe that our universe originated from? Subsequent universes would have smaller and smaller total mass/energy so it couldn't go on forever, and that would mean there was a starting point?
-Wtf is the collapsing of a black hole? I thought they evaporated...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula or something?
Well, if we can't make observations about such physical phenomena as space expanding faster than the speed of light, then isn't it pointless to discuss such phenomena from the standpoint of physics? If we can't make any observations to confirm a model then it's pointless to develop the model except as an exercise in mathematical reasoning.
Oh, and buzzword isn't the same as a precisely-defined technical term. For a good litmus test, compare the precision of the definition of "Web 2.0" to the definition of "Force."
SRSLY.
I was going to say that twins are an impossible fantasy and you might as well just have sex with the same woman twice, but then I realised that around here "sex", and indeed "woman", are also impossible fantasies.
Blank until
but wait ... if 2 people leave my house at lightspeed in opposite directions, after an hour they will be at 2 lighthours from each other ! so they would have to be already travelling 2 hours after that hour ?
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
My god man, I want what you're having.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
You are pointing to imperfections in an analogy and claiming they are flaws in the concept the analogy is meant to describe. The balloon analogy is not a premise supporting expansion. It's just a visual aid.
This is because we are IN the balloon so that is our frame of reference.
No, we are on the balloon. The surface of the balloon is a 2D representation of our 3D space. Talking about the inside of the balloon is nonsensical.
All I know is that for Han Solo and the Millennium Falcon, it's a shorter trip than for anyone else!So is this older than the Kessel Run, or simply faster?
No, they are one light hour apart, relative to each other...
Otherwise they would have had to have travelled at 2C for the past hour...
Which if course, is impossible...
GrpA
Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
The problem with such theories is twofold:
First, we will likely never prove anything at the Planck scale. This means that without some radically better ideas, we may be stuck with current situation -- lots of theories but no proof.
Second, one cannot take a theory that is wrong in a measurable way, make some small adjustment, and end up with a theory that is right. In field theory if we get the strength of electromagnetism wrong, we can adjust it. It's just a number. If we find a new particle we didn't expect, it's straightforward to add it and does not radically change all the other particles. But in Wolfram's cellular-automata ideas, if you change even slightly the inter-link rules, you get radically different behavior on large scales. These ideas may even be right, but they're impossible to work with.
Instead we develop a low-energy theory that predicts everything we need and everything we observe, and that is all physics can do. This kind of wishful thinking about gravity is not physics, because it cannot be proven (or disproven). Falsifiability is an important feature of a physical theory, and is too often neglected these days. Likewise fantasizing about the beginning of the universe is not falsifiable. We have only one universe, and cannot do experiments on its beginning.
Science is prediction, not explanation.
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
Doesn't the geometry of the universe have to be closed in order for expansion to reverse and turn into a collapse?
I remember that some calculations showed it to be either flat or almost so. Of course, the key could lie in the "almost"...
Your mistake is thinking that time and space are constants. They are not. They are relative to your reference frame. Hence the name relativity. After one hour, the two people are two light hours apart from each other from your reference frame. From their reference frame, time is going slower and distances in the directions they are traveling are shorter, so they would not measure themselves as being two light hours apart. They would measure themselves as being no more than one light hour apart, although from your reference frame it would be many billions of years in the future at that time.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
it's just like this one, except everyone wears cowboy hats.
(I'd already modded severl posts, when I just had to reply to this one. So, I'm posting anonymously.)
The speed of inflation apparently isn't limited to the speed of light, which (more-or-less) applies to the transmission of information. There's no way to embed bits into empty space, so there's no limit to the speed of expansion. The question is, is the current rate of inflation a constant, or is it changing? And if it's changing, is that change decaying or accelerating? If the rate is increasing at an accellerating rate, then there will come a time when the space between the earth and the sun is increaing faster than gravity can hold them together. At that point, earth will "gravitationally decouple" and float away. Don't worry, though, about freezing to death. Within a just few hours our atoms will decouple, and we'll all decompose into expanding clouds of gas. And then subatomic particles will get sundered. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip for more details.
Are you talking about the universe, or the United States economy?
You can see objects whose effective speed is greater than c _now_, but wasnt when the light was emitted. We can see objects with a redshift equal to that of an object travelling twice or more the speed of light. (Redshift of about 6 ish)
Actually, CMB is not from the Big Bang, but from the "recombination" event about 400,000 years after the Big Bang. That's when the universe changed from cloudy to clear, and the light in the universe was suddenly free to travel in straight lines. But again, this event took place all over the universe at the same time, therefore we see the radiation coming from all directions. At this time, the universe was nearly uniform (to one part in 100,000), so the radiation is nearly uniform in all directions.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Observations to support a model may not be immediately apparent, but there can be indirect evidence. Development of a given model may provide a framework for other models, some of which provide opportunity for observational evidence. Observational support for a derivative model may provide indirect support for supporting models. It's certainly not as good as direct support, but absent evidence to the contrary, it's better than essentially only mathematical support, which has caused some theories such as string theory to come under fire.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Of course. If there's a long series of 'big bangs' followed by 'big crunches' etc... Then it would just follow that there was a previous 'universe' that underwent a big bang/big crunch cycle, one before that, and probably one after ours crunches down then explodes again to creat another 'universe'.
Yes, it will crunch down again because gravity always wins, even against Chuck Norris.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
This is why we need an option to mod posts "stupid"
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
No, we are on the balloon. The surface of the balloon is a 2D representation of our 3D space.
You are trying to oversimplifying it and it is getting in the way. The balloon is our universe. Drawing a grid on the outside would be akin to cubing up a block of cheese. Get past the fact that it is drawn on a 2d surface. This represents cubes of space/time within our universe.
In the end, the change in distance is offset by the change in time, which makes it a non-issue.
An unrelated, but equally technical postulation would be, imagine that everything in the universe was growing! Everything is also moving away from each other at a proportional ratio to how fast it is growing. Use any numbers you want. When it comes down to it, IT DOESN'T MATTER, because everything would be the same in our frame of reference. It would only be different to someone outside of our universe, who isn't affected.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
We DO "see" the remnants of the big bang. It's the nearly uniform 3K cosmic background radiation. That's what happens when you take an imensely energetic ball of stuff and stretch it to the current size of the universe.
Bad news travels faster than the speed of light :)
It's save to say that if the speed of light is at 10, bad news travels at 11.
You'll sure arrive early, but, wouldn't be welcome!
Everyone here is apparently rather stupid.
If I leave your house traveling at the speed of light, and look back an hour later, I'll see your house exactly as I left it. (Pretending that time would actually pass enough for me to 'see' anything.)
So, 'relatively', anyone who also left at the same time, in any direction, at any speed, looks like they're 'relatively' an hour away! Because they're standing at my starting point motionless!
Of course, as no one can actually do anything at the speed of light, even assuming they could reach it, this concept is rather stupid.
Which is why all this discussion is rather stupid. The original poster apparently doesn't realize that when scientists talk about seeing things farther away than the age of the universe, they're actually talking about where they are now, not where they are when the light that is now reaching us left them.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I dunno.. I remember back in the eighties, when friend of mine and I used to go out and buy a 6 pack (or whatever) and sit around discussing "cosmic" stuff, and one night I said, "What if the "Big Bang" was an implosion of another pre-existing universe, creating this one?", to which my friend said, "Yes! I like it!" ;-) )
Now, of course, IANAG (I Am Not a Genius); I can't even begin to fathom the math, but the concept doesn't seem so surprising or new to me - I mean, a drunk teenager came across the idea 20 years ago, as I'm sure many other people have (just maybe not while drunk
I can't believe this is just now coming out ? However, a cycle seems unlikely because our Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate; unless it eventually slows down, and then finally collapses, I don't see us imploding any time.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Ok so ro understand all this Hoopla I need to know 3 things. ! Where is the centre of the three dimensional universe (The one at least I live in)? If none why not. 2. Is there a frame of reference in this three dimensional universe that I can call 'standing still' or zero or absolute zero motion? ditto 1. 3. I found this phone left to me by aliens. It is unbreakeable, ie. it cannot be examined, it never breaks down, it doesn't need batteries (unlike some other phones) so never runs down. It can replicate itself at will, so I can give as many copies to as many entities as I want. It allows two way video/audio/information (including translation functions) transfer conversations from anywhere in this or other universes. It's only function is to allow conversations between two (for now) entities in the universe(s) to communicate NOW. It is, therefore, I assume, not constrained by the speed of light because two people, light years apart, can communicate as though the were sitting together at the same desk. It has a display that shows each persons 'local' time ( say some sort of accurate timer (hydrogen atom ticks?) since the 'big bang'). I've just given a copy of the phone to my ladyfriend named Bright who travels much faster than light. She has just left home in a relative way, but may return home so we can re-do the previous night. Can anyone explain how I could use this phone ( and Brights) to explain WTF is going on, what I would see on the display, etc, etc. Its all free open sourced hardware/software and uses the free inter/intra universe(s) net. It apparently has other functions I have not yet uncovered. BTW its named ePhone, apparently after Einstein.
A man spends the first half of his life accumulating stuff, the second trying to get rid of it all.
How exactly would this answer a religious question again? It still doesn't answer the question of where the Universe came from in the first place nor why it came about nor... I mean seriously, replacing a "We don't know" with the equivalent of "It's turtles all the way down" doesn't exactly answer any so called religious questions at all. In fact, it doesn't even encroach on them.
Is this the dinosaur hunter's geeky brother?
"Ooh, the Web 2.0 strong in this site is," Yoda replied.
Yeah, I see what you mean. Maybe you meant a lower-case "f"?
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
In cosmology, there are all kinds of weird and interesting solutions. For people asking about geometry questions and considering general relativity it is essential to remember that these are CLASSICAL FIELD theories! LQG (loop quantum gravity) is a proposed quantum theory of gravity. There is no "geometry" in a quantum theory. Although this idea is debated to some extent i.e. NCG (non-commutative geometry) etc.
For esoteric and philosophical reasons, it always sits well to consider a cyclic universe for much the same reason that people such as Einstein himself wanted to have the static solutions to the universe; that is, having cyclic or static behavior somehow circumvents pesky questions such as "What came before?!" and other semi-religious insights. (Actually... I digress... but my main problem with string theorists is that I dont see any difference between their dogma and the dogma followed by religious people. And string theorists get so smug about everything that I really want to demonstrate some fundamental physics of momentum transfer to the face.)
Anyhow... what is practically problematic with cyclic solutions, in my opinion and the majority of other less theoretical physicists (even though I am a theorist, I can say that I'm heavily partial to experiment), is that having an infinite class of solutions doesnt really give much meaning. It's like the saying, "Where any answer is possible, all answers are meaningless." Furthermore, in the case of a cyclic universe, it doesnt do ANYBODY any good since we are causally cut-off from the previous or next cycle. So then it's kind of superflous i.e. "Great. But so what? Hinduism and Buddhism say the same crap. Just less math involved."
Fundamentally, one just needs to consider the various "fluids" i.e. omega matter, omega radiation etc etc that exist in the Universe. It is the densities of these fluids that determine the overall geometry and thus fate of the Universe i.e. open, flat(which is a trivial open case) or closed.
Current observations place the total content at 26% radiation, 4% matter, and 70% dark energy. With this amount of dark energy, recall that dark nrg is a sort of "anti-gravity" fluid in that it actually drives expansion. So we currently fit into the flat universe model. This is one of the reasons why the dark nrg problem is such a huge deal! Getting a handle on it tells us ultimately where we are going and how. And also... where we came from. Take "we" as "Universe." Also... remember that if we do find that the total amount of dark energy density fluid exceeds 1, there was no possibility mathematically that a Big Bang occurred!!! (Refer to famous Type-Ia Supernovae Team survey paper)
Remember that there is also "stochastic inflationary cosmology" (which I like just as much as any other cosmology). In this paradigm, one can just say that our universe is one peak of a very large i.e. infinite number of "peaks" in some background fluctuations and that there are multiple inflations that occurred as a result of some stochastic processes acting over some primitive manifold. This is amenable to quantum theory due to the probabilistic interpretations.
Personally, I dig Turok (and the game of course). LQG is better for me than string theory as well. But again... what really matters is EXPERIMENT EXPERIMENT EXPERIMENT!!! OBSERVATIONS!!! Not just mathematically jacking-off!
All science is either physics or stamp-collecting.
Are we at War ? With whom ? Is it the ideology called Islam ? Will it go away if we surrender in Iraq ? Were the attacks on 9/11 an accident ? If they could have killed 300,000 rather than 3000, would they have held back ? Do you think they are not, will not keep trying ? What is the alternative to the 100 year war you are afraid of ? Would you say, "if you want defeat in Iraq - vote Obama" ? Is Obama's plan for Iraq something other than surrender ? Do you think defeat will lead to peace ? Do you think defeat in Iraq will pacify our enemies ? Do you think we have enemies ? Perhaps it is just a criminal conspiracy composed of 150m muslims (the 10% of "peaceful" islam that apparently run the show in that faith) Do you think NYPD is sufficient to handle that ? McCain or Obama or Hillary - I'm afraid we have our 100 year war ahead of us, like it or not.
No I think you are oversimplifying by implying the expansion affects everything such as particles and light (where our 'units' come from) and time. But time isn't just another dimension, its directional and we are 'falling' through it at a relatively constant rate.
Whatever is happening with the distance and redshift between galaxies, it is affecting space and time quite differently, otherwise we might not be able to notice the effect.
The edge of our universe is the cell membrane, which is why it registers as background radiation. Other galaxies are just atoms that make our cell composition up. We are nothing more than part of a larger organism. You know that feeling you get when you feel like you are under a microsocpe? Maybe you are...
I am really happy to hear about this concept being received, to a degree, by others and brought towards the public. T=0 bringing zero, infinties and errors, indeed. That's why I always believed the Big Bang was only the end of the beginning. The sense to this is so much more apparent to me.