(March 10, 2014 at 9:40 pm)rasetsu Wrote:(March 10, 2014 at 9:34 pm)Heywood Wrote: The bolded claim cannot be substantiated by science. The problem is our physics breaks down before we can model the actual bang of the big bang. Big bang theory only describes the aftermath of the bang. It doesn't say what banged, why it banged, how big the thing that banged was etc.
We know that at one time the universe was smaller than an atom...our physics takes us back that far. We don't know that it was ever smaller than a planck length.
That doesn't change my point any.
You have no logical justification what so ever to choose that point for your boundary other than your own unsubstantiated speculation that the universe was at one time smaller than a Planck length.
On the other hand the planck length and the observable universe are really the only logical choices for boundaries of a cosmological scale. Something the size of the planck length is smallest thing that you could in theory observe, the observable universe is the largest thing that in theory that you could observe.
