Dubbelosix

Mordred makes some very good points, but I would like to make some things absolutely clear. The big bang can be thought of as a black hole, but there are differences, the horizon for instance, is different, where a black holes horizon is a true boundary. The universe has no boundary. It is also true from the mathematics of a black hole that from inside, the universe would not appear very dense. This is also true from our perspective, since matter makes up about 1% of all of spacetime and then there is the space outside the observable horizon, which could be much larger and devoid of any matter or energy. Another problem, is that the big bang doesn;t quite match the physics of a black hole, since its easier to argue it makes better sense for its time reversed partner, a white hole. Some notable scientists have speculated this and even wrote papers on it. Mordred is like me, we entertain theories we may not even agree with. You should have been harsher, I think I know what you mean though We won't get to observe anything beyond the radiation phase of the universe. It would completely smear anything that existed with structure before it. Besides I guess it is hard to say anything with structure existed before the universe became transparent for light, but who cares really lol... I will ask though, what are your opinions on a quantum theory of gravity? I have not much confidence at all for the gauge theory of quantization. I was made aware by Mordred though that the spin-2 statistics should remain in the wave formulation. I think Mordred is intelligent, but not been terribly sure this should be the case. I can understand though why, because I know some background of that field and the spin -2 field does give rise naturally to an attractive field. But there are other ways that doesn't involve a concept of spin and are purely classical.