I don't buy it. You don't have to have "time" before the big bang in order to explain dark energy (although dark energy really doesn't make much sense).
Just look at the universe how it is - it seems to be at approximately the right density to continue flying apart, never managing to compact down into a "big crunch" - we're either constant or we're expanding... there's no way we can slow down and start to collapse, at this point...
Also, it's rather ridiculous to start talking about "time" when you get back to the extremely early universe. Spacetime is one thing, and so when the universe was a single point, there WAS no time or space. Then space expanded out of "nothing" and time with it. So time is getting distorted too.
I'm a big stickler to the anthropic principle - it's very likely other universes also exist that have different variables for gravity and so on. It's just that they don't have suitable living conditions for us We never happened to show up in those. *shrugs*
We already knew that the Universe will either continue until it gets far enough apart for the gravity of stars not to be strong enough to pull them back together, or we will have a Big Crunch followed by another Big Bang.
It's surely not much of a leap to say that maybe our Big Bang wasn't the first?
Post by RedSpectratooLazytologin on Jun 5, 2006 13:00:37 GMT -5
I don't know about that, Psiweapon. M, or string theory suggests that our universe is something of a 11 dimensional film on a multiverse-sort-of soap bubble. each film would be a separate universe, and gravitons (The particle of gravity) are actually borrowed particles from another universe.
I don't know much about all of these things, I'm a biologist, not a physicist, but I would not call the concept of there being multiple universes to be folly.