21 Mar '14 03:44>1 edit
I am only minimally knowledgeable about quantum physics, but one line in a story about the recent discovery of "smoking gun evidence" supporting the Big Bang Theory caught my attention:
"The acclaimed theoretical physicist [Stephen Hawking] told BBC ... that the discovery proves his theory of 'inflation' in the early universe, and shows Professor Neil Turok, another space expert, is wrong in his belief that there are a series of Big Bangs in a cyclic universe."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/stephen-hawking/10704797/Stephen-Hawking-claims-victory-in-Big-Bang-bet.html
What are the implications of this? Physically/metaphysically, can we thus conclude that the universe necessarily had a "beginning," as it were?
"The acclaimed theoretical physicist [Stephen Hawking] told BBC ... that the discovery proves his theory of 'inflation' in the early universe, and shows Professor Neil Turok, another space expert, is wrong in his belief that there are a series of Big Bangs in a cyclic universe."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/stephen-hawking/10704797/Stephen-Hawking-claims-victory-in-Big-Bang-bet.html
What are the implications of this? Physically/metaphysically, can we thus conclude that the universe necessarily had a "beginning," as it were?