To sum up the results, you are saying that your version o f the BBT only takes the back-extrapolation of the universe's expansion to the size of a grapefruit and 10^-12 seconds after the "point" in time that you say is somehow not part of the theory.
Yes, that's pretty close to my personal view of it. BBT, too often in literature, gets bent to serve one's purposes. If we want to restrict BBT to the more solid scientific ground, then IMO we should limit the beginning moment for the theory to be that which physics can properly address. CERN can take us to t=1E12sec, which is the proper way to begin the theory, at least until objective evidence can take us closer to at magical t=0, if that ever existed. Perhaps the universe was initiated with a given size, and not a singularity, for instance.
I guess that is some progress, compared to the frequent popular media articles that tend to take it back to 10^-43 seconds and smaller than a proton, quitting only at the Planck size, or even going below that to a "quantum fluctuation".
Yes, the 1E-43 sec gets us to the smallest unit of time per Planck. Thus, authors who know this don't want to stray too far from actual science in their land of metaphysics, which is a fun playground for many, too many. Do they ever produce mathematical equations for events at this point? They can't because physicists have stated that their equations fall completely apart before then. Thus, the only solid ground begins, apparently, at t=1E-43 sec.
It's not wrong to play in this entertaining quicksand, but it must be seen as suppositional until they can meet the requirements of a true scientific hypothesis or theory.
This, of course, brings us to how to treat Inflation Theory, which is held to have occurred prior to 1E-12 sec. It has strong merit, and it comes with math, but it's not hard physics, yet, AFAIK. So, is it really a part of BBT? Perhaps it's not a winner, but gets "honorable mention" instead.
But, you are still missing my point that even to get to the size of a grapefruit, you need a "dark energy" that we do not understand, and have simply ASSUMED it does what is needed to do to get the expansion that the theory envisions. My point is that there could be other assumptions about how "dark energy" behaves, and they could result in substantially different histories of the universe. Oscillatory behavior cannot be ruled out on the basis of current knowledge. But, it seems to be excluded from the information silo associated with the BBT.
Yes, we can observe only the CMBR period, thus before this time we have no observations, unless something like neutrino telescopes come our way.
But DE and DM have tweaked the BBT variables, and will continue to do so, no doubt.
I think it's reasonable to assume CERN's estimate for the physical conditions they can test to have occurred at approx. t= 1E-12s implies these two variables have been incorporated into BBT.
There is no reason to diminish BBT simply because changes are made to it.
The original estimates of the expansion rate, by many, were almost 10x that of today's far more accurate rate. Those early estimated rates produce a value of about 1 billion years for the universe, but astronomers, and geologists, noted that if this was an accurate estimate, then stars would be younger than the universe, as well as some rocks.
It wasn't tossed into the trash because of this "failure" because there were still lines of evidence that gave it credence, and BBT made many other predictions that could help make or break it. I don't think BBT became mainstream until the CMBR prediction was verified.
And, since you do not believe in "inflation" being part of the BBT, I think it is misleading for you to call what you do believe "the BBT".
I hold some "belief" that Inflation theory, or something like it, must have occurred in a time preceding the time when science can produce results (t=1E-12 s).
We both know many include Inflation Theory within BBT. I think we both agree it is still ad hoc, though I think it has merit and is elegant.
The reason I've been willing to post so often in this thread is for the problem I see with many, not you, who think metaphysics, even pseudoscience, is science. IOW, my opposition isn't with you, but with the creep toward scientism; something I think we both don't wish to see advance. I personally see it as a subtle form of atheism; a crutch for it.
Your version seems to have excluded the "bang". I suggest that you call it the "Lambda Cold Dark Matter Theory after 10^-12 seconds". That still seems to invoke the timing of a "bang" at t=0 seconds, but at least it would avoid a lot of confusion with the articles that we keep seeing about the BBT in Space.com and elsewhere.
Well said.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram