Did the Universe appear from an infinitely dense, infinitely small point?

[noncryptic]

the mainstream model does predict a point. Where my trouble had laid, was with people who claimed the BB did not present a model far in the past that a curvature was infinite. Saying our model did not is highly against the mainstream.

Which mainstream model is that exactly, can you provide a source?

[Strange]

Perhaps I should have said that the Big Bang was the
beginning of everything that we know of: The observable
Universe and at least some distance beyond what we can
observe. It was the beginning of the cosmic expansion
that we observe. Something may well have existed before
that, and something may exist which did not participate in
the Big Bang (other universes in the multiverse hypothesis).

That appears to be using the term "big bang" for some hypothetical creation event. That is not how the term is normally used.

Time
zero is defined by the Big Bang theory.

And yet, everything I have read says that is not the case. Do you have a reference to support this assertion?

[Jeff Root]

The only places I have ever read anything about time zero
are where I was reading about the Big Bang theory. I never
read in those places that time zero was defined outside of
the theory.

Where else could time zero be defined?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Swift]

Hello,

The BB, as taught in my astrophysics class, starts AFTER the 10^-37 seconds, not at the beginning. As stated, since the laws of physics did not operate before that slight amount (but very important) time, there is no singularity in the BB. It is indeed overuse of that term that has caused confusion

By the way, welcome to BAUT Troka

[Strange]

The only places I have ever read anything about time zero
are where I was reading about the Big Bang theory. I never
read in those places that time zero was defined outside of
the theory.

Well, we might be getting into more of your playing with words here but I suppose you could argue that the big bang theory "defines" a time 0 (i.e. you can carry on winding the expansion back to zero size). On the same basis you could argue that it defines negative time (why not just carry on extrapolating).

On the other hand, the big bang theory says nothing about what happens before that initial 10^-37 seconds (or whatever). It is entirely about the evolution of the universe from the point where we can predict anything up to the present day (and the future).

[Jeff Root]

On the other hand, the big bang theory says nothing
about what happens before that initial 10^-37 seconds
(or whatever). It is entirely about the evolution of the
universe from the point where we can predict anything
up to the present day (and the future).

Where does that figure of "10^-37 seconds" (or whatever)
come from? Does it come from the Big Bang theory?
Or somewhere else?

It defines time zero as 10^-37 second (or whatever)
before the event being referred to.

What would the figure mean if time zero were not defined
in the Big Bang theory? It wouldn't mean anything.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Strange]

Where does that figure of "10^-37 seconds" (or whatever)
come from? Does it come from the Big Bang theory?
Or somewhere else?

It defines time zero as 10^-37 second (or whatever)
before the event being referred to.

What would the figure mean if time zero were not defined
in the Big Bang theory? It wouldn't mean anything.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Yes, yes, yes. Whatever. Perhaps we can agree that "time zero" is "defined" by the theory.

But the theory says nothing about what happens at time zero (or for some time after). So the concept of t=0 is no more useful in the context of the theory than the concept of t=-1. The theory isn't about how the the universe "started" (if indeed it did - and the fact we don't know is evidence of that fact) but about how it evolved since then.

[publiusr]

I seem to remember the infinitely dense, infinitely small point was called 'the monoblock' after it was called the cosmic egg.

I rather like the term monoblock.