crashfrog writes:
For your information, Cosmic egg was re-introduced into cosmology albeit under the name of primaeval atom by a catholic priest Abbe Lemaitre who was the egg the Big Bang hypothesis hatched from.
I'm a deeply stupid person - I'm told so by everybody who disagrees with me, so it must be true - but I'm looking through all my physics texts (and a copy of "A Brief History of the Universe", for good measure) and try as I might I can't find a single place where a mainstream scientists suggests that the universe hatched from an egg.
Can you elaborate? Eggs, of course, are the yolky, hard-shelled issue of chickens and other birds/reptiles, but not usually of priests.
Apart from adhominems added, your post grapples with a single quote out of context.
Context doesn't seem to be something you're any good at. I felt it was better to telescope your remarks to eliminate the enormous amount of nonsense you seem to typically generate.
Those books unlike ancient mythologies might not mention literal eggs, yet the underlying logic and all the train of thought and chain of associations behind the ancient ideas and their modern version is the same. An egg cosmic or otherwise is something relatively small compared to a bird species or the entirety of the universe. The hatching of it is a single event that had allegedly occurred at a certain point of time giving birth to many subsequent events to which all of those events could be traced. A some kind of calendar of those chains of events or a timescale is always present and so on.
Now whether in the modern versions this is called a primeval atom or Planck particle, the fundamental idea is the same. One primeval atom splits into many at a certain point of time and the resulting many, in their turn split in many more as a function of time. That could be called an expansion of the egg. Hatching of an egg is a kind of bursting. An explosion of sorts. Similar in a way to an explosion of the bomb Gamow was involved in designing. The model is the same, only the length of time-line and the pretended precision of measurements would vary.
The egg expansion period in some variations of the myth may be followed by a contraction stage with the whole cycle infinitely repeated. If you remove the maths, the message is very like what Penrose is suggesting. In Stenger instead of a particle you get a single bit of information to expand later into all the quadrillions of terabytes of cosmic data . In all the versions of the myth some kind of cosmic evolution is present as all the enormity of existence is contained inside something relatively tiny only to shrink back again. In the Bible there isn't even anything material splitting or hatching. Just a single word of God out of which all of existence with the space and time is to be drawn out in a series of epochs.
If you fail to catch on to the similarities, that is not my problem, I am sorry.
Also, when you call what I write a lot of nonsense, be more specific and attach a bit of your own good sense next to it so that the difference should be apparent.
Otherwise, some people may be left unimpressed. Back it up a bit more and you'll be alright, I promise.
™ Version 4.2
