Originally Posted by

**Jeff Root**
No, as I've said maybe six or seven times in various different

threads, including previously in this one, I meant QM, not GR.

And as I've said several times, we know for sure that QM has

to be extended to account for whatever happened at the Big

Bang. As it stands now, it can't do that. Extending it in that

way might, for example, describe how all the matter-energy

of the Universe came into existence over a period of time

(maybe a second, or a picosecond), eliminating the infinite

density predicted by GR. No change needs to be made to GR

to change the result of GR's prediction. GR's prediction is

calculated with the assumption that the mass-energy of the

Universe doesn't change.

If I have an apple (which I do), and multiply the number of

apples I have by two every day, in less than two months I'll

have over a quintillion apples. Certainly that number of

apples doesn't exist in the whole world. Multiplication must

be incorrect, mustn't it? It failed by predicting an impossible

number of apples in a perfectly reasonable period of time.

Or maybe one of the inputs into the multiplication was wrong.

Maybe it wasn't a failure of multiplication, but a failure to

account for the fact that I can't increase the number of apples

I have in the way I assumed.

GR might be incomplete, like QM, but the fact that it predicts

a singularity and infinite density at t=0 is not a failure of GR.

It is a correct prediction by GR from the assumption that the

mass-energy of the Universe is unchanging.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis