Talk:Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem

Vilenkin sources

This article is full of citations to Vilenkin (arxiv) and Carroll papers and books. It would be nice to find a non-philosophical treatise that reviews the theorem and their counter-proposals.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Are philosophy and religion outside of physics

I know it is a philosophical issue, wether philosophy is part of physics, but that question itself proves that they are at leat very closely linked - the question wether philosophy is part of physics, which in my opinion makes philosophy an integrate part of physics 2001:14BB:677:7175:B1F1:ACE4:35EE:AAE5 (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Plain English

"Thereby any non-comoving past-directed timelike geodesic satisfying the condition ...must have a finite proper length, and so must be past-incomplete." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.41.85 (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

New arxiv

@Strecosaurus: you added the following statement in your edit However, some emergent Universe models were later found to be consistent with the theorem. and cited . The problem with this is the following:

1. it does not add to the claim of Vilenkin, he says that no emergent universe can violate the theorem. If your source proposes a version that is consistent with Vilenkin then it is not a violation.
2. this an arXiV source that is too recent. There are a lot of arxiv sources in this article and it is not helping. We need peer-reviewed articles or reviews of all the sources if not this article is going to get filled with contradicting claims. We cannot attest the notability of recent articles.

Best ReyHahn (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Well this is a peer-reviewed article, but anyway, as I've said, I'll trust your judgement over mine. Cheers! Strecosaurus (talk) 08:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

References