You'll have to define your symbols. Cosmologists use 0 to represent present day values, and t to represent time and T to represent temperature. I presume that's not what you mean here.
~neutralino
If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day - John A. Wheeler.
No, that's what I mean, neutralino. Does time zero equal temperature zero?
So, you're asking if the current age of the universe is equal to the temperature of the universe at the current day? Well, I should point out that you can only equate things that are the same type of thing. For example, if I said an apple was equal to an elephant, I'd imagine to be looked at pretty strangely.
So the answer to your question is... no, t0!=T0
~neutralino
If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day - John A. Wheeler.
Perhaps if the apple and elephant were both equal to zero, it wouldn't seem so strange.
I'm referring to the inverse relationship whereby as time increases temperature decreases which should make sense as per the hot big bang model - very hot at the beginning and cooling through expansion.
If we go back in time to the big bang, all the way to time zero, absolute zero, how hot would the temperature be? I'm thinking it would be zero as well.
Perhaps if the apple and elephant were both equal to zero, it wouldn't seem so strange.
I'm referring to the inverse relationship whereby as time increases temperature decreases which should make sense as per the hot big bang model - very hot at the beginning and cooling through expansion.
If we go back in time to the big bang, all the way to time zero, absolute zero, how hot would the temperature be? I'm thinking it would be zero as well.
Ok, so you're asking about intial time and intial temperature (not the standard use of the notation!)
Your last paragraph doesn't follow from the second. You've correctly said that temperature depends inversely on t. More precisely, in the standard model, where a is the scale factor which goes like . So, roughly, we get that . This implies that as we run back time, the temperature increases and, if the model allowed us to (which it doesn't) the temperature would be infinite at t=0. We could have guessed this from the name of the theory: the hot big bang model!
~neutralino
If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day - John A. Wheeler.
Would not t0.0.....1 correlate to infinite temperature?
I'm trying to violate the uncertainty principle by positing t at absolute zero. There seems to be an infinite amount of variables that can be inserted between the two states.
All we can tell from the equation I gave you is the asymptotic values of both parameters; i.e. as t tends to zero, T tends to infinity. Since division by zero is not allowed, we cannot say that at t=0 the temperature is infinite. That's why I said the model doesn't allow one to do it. In other words, all we can say is that at a very small fraction of a second after the big bang, the temperature is very high.
~neutralino
If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day - John A. Wheeler.
Are you willing to be serious and go beyond the consensus, neutralino?
I'm saying there is no need to pretend to tend toward zero, according to the original hypothesis there was no time. So we are not dividing by zero in the undefined sense, but stating that 0/0 equals 1, which is representative of the singularity extrapolated by the inverse relationship.
In other words, so others can follow, if time can logically be decreased infinitely, then temperature can logically increase infinitely; but if there is no time, it should correlate to the highest temperature, no?
Are you willing to be serious and go beyond the consensus, neutralino?
It depends how you define "be serious." If you mean break all known laws of physics and mathematics then, no, I am not willing to do that.
Quote:
I'm saying there is no need to pretend to tend toward zero, according to the original hypothesis there was no time. So we are not dividing by zero in the undefined sense, but stating that 0/0 equals 1, which is representative of the singularity extrapolated by the inverse relationship.
1. What is the "original hypothesis"?
2. It doesn't matter how you word it, you cannot state that 0/0=1 (and expect mathematics to work).
Quote:
In other words, so others can follow, if time can logically be decreased infinitely, then temperature can logically increase infinitely; but if there is no time, it should correlate to the highest temperature, no?
I don't know what you mean by "if there is no time." I've stated my views; as t tends to zero, T tends to infinity. That's all we can say on the matter.
~neutralino
If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day - John A. Wheeler.
neutralino;
That’s the problem with the abstract nature of mathematics; zero and infinity are meaningless to a physical reality; they can’t be used as limits in the equations. (something from nothing does not work) We need to convert temperature into a type of absolute such as the degree of freedom in thermodynamics; then motion becomes an unknown absolute value. One degree of freedom will translate to the ultimate absolute zero. Nobody is asking what cannot be answered by the Standard Model: “What is the state of existence at time zero or before?” That may require a drastic revision of the standard model!
Linear Mode
