On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 5:19:50 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/15/2017 2:40 PM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 2:37:02 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/15/2017 12:06 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> > >> > But if it tunnels into existence at t=0, how can it be infinite in >> > extent? I find that egregiously hard to imagine, plus the fact that >> > one has to use QM to explain the tunneling, and that, ipso facto, >> > seems to imply it's infinitesimally small in spatial extent t=0 at >> >> A limitation of imagination. Nothing about tunneling assumes a size. >> >> Brent >> > > Agreed. My imagination is not the be-all, or end-all of anything. But > isn't it claimed that Einstein's field equations breakdown earlier than > Planck time, and this is where QM must be invoked, when the universe is > presumably very small in spatial extent? > > > The part of the universe visible to us now (and any other finite patch) > was very small. >
OK, but if everything we can measure, aka the visible universe, was hugely smaller in the past, what's the compelling reason to assume that the UN-observable universe was hugely larger at t=0, in fact infinite? It seems like an unwarranted conclusion when confronted with what measurements of the visible universe indicate. AG > > Alternatively, doesn't tunneling assume QM, which is a theory about the > micro world. As I recall the concept is limited to QM. AG > > > No. It's theory about the energy barrier between states. It can be > states of anything. > > Brent > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
