Hacker News Reader

Interesting that this article discusses the Big Bang as happening after Inflation. I always assumed Inflation was the initial stage of the Big Bang. Is that just assumed in casual descriptions, but technically not true?

View on HN

It is theorized that for a tiny fraction of time before the big bang the laws of physics were not the same as they are now, and if they had been such an expansion would not have taken place. This is the distinction they are likely trying to make.

Correct me if I'm wrong, since I only got my information from non-academic sources, but if I recall correctly the problem was that with the inflation, you would have to apply both the theory of general relativity (the science of the really big), and quantum theory (the science of the really small). In which case they totally don't work together and you would get really weird numbers.

Would a more logical explanation not be that our current theories are likely to be flawed, just like Newton's theory about gravity was flawed (but nevertheless incredibly useful) ?

More at its core is that it means that the expansion exceeded the cosmic speed limit, the speed of light. Two of the competing theories have been a rapid expansion (inflation) and another that two branes collided and the big bang started in an expanded state. As of late, it appears there has been more confirmation of the former rather than the latter. From what I've read, it is as another commenter noted -- the universe in it's earliest state did not yet conform to the rules of physics as we know them today. This early state is something on the order of the first trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com