From: laura@nospam.me   
      
   "David Mitchell"  wrote in message   
   news:pan.2005.01.23.07.58.20.707643@edenroad.demon.co.uk...   
   > On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:17:00 -0600, personalpages.tds.net/~rcsilk wrote:   
   >   
   > > the universe, it is believed, is finite, not eternal, yet the time span   
   is   
   > > so incredibly huge as to make it appear eternal.   
   >   
   > Actually, not really.  The universe is 13.7 GY old, according to our best   
   > measurements, and will probably last indefinitely, although there will be   
   > almost no more interactions beyond say  10**40 years   
      
   That's if the universe keeps expanding at the currently calculated rate,   
   which is by no means a certainty.   
   It looks like it now, but that can change along with future discoveries.   
      
   >   
   > The point Hawking was making is that there _was_ no time before the   
   > universe came into being: spacetime itself was created then.   
   >   
   > So to talk about "the time" before time itself was created is meaningless.   
      
   Just as thinking of the big bang as originating at a particular point in 3D   
   space is meaningless.   
   That would require space to have been there for the big bang to explode   
   into, and it was not.   
   This is why the cosmic microwave background radiation is uniform in all   
   directions.   
      
   >   
   > > The fact that the big bang theory (or portions thereof) can be traced to   
   a   
   > > single point of origin   
      
   That's a common misunderstanding.   
   It's not a point in the traditional sense. It is impossible to point at the   
   point of origin.   
      
   > shows that it has a beginning (at least, our physical   
   > > universe does), so it cannot (by definition) be considered eternal.   
   >   
   > Well, yes, it can, in the sense that it occupies all the time there is.   
   > One definition of "eternal" is that there is no time when 'it' doesn't   
   > exist, which is what Hawking is saying.   
      
   Hmm, yes, but one can talk about the state before the big bang, only without   
   using concepts of duration. A timeless state that could be called eternity.   
   If I understand correctly, the current theory favors "quantum foam" as the   
   phenomenon that got the universe started. Before the universe, there was   
   quantum foam (and there still is), and time has no bearing on it whatsoever.   
   This something-from-nothing effect is what has some physicists contemplating   
   a possible way of extracting zero-point energy.   
   Correct me if I'm way off, please - I'm no physicist, but I do find these   
   things interesting :-)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)