I believe cosmologists generally refer to the Big Bang theory as the progression from the hot dense state to the modern shape. This Hot Big Bang part is very well understood in theory and very well supported in observation, with the Cosmic Microwave Background being a pre-eminent discovery supporting that.
What preceded the hot dense soup involves conditions that are a problem for both theory and experiment. For theory, those conditions involve both quantum gravity and general relativity and we don't have any accepted way to resolve those yet. And, for experiment, the hot dense soup is opaque to our observations. There are educated guesses as to what might have come before, and one guess is that it leads back to a singularity, and the popular view of the Big Bang theory is often that singularity as the kickoff, but we don't have anything resembling evidence. And whether anything came "before" even that is super speculation, even the concept of "before" may not apply.
“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”
-- Douglas Adams
As I understand it, we’ve already started designing new instruments to see through that dense hot soup.
The biggest problem is that it gets massively more dense and hot the closer you get to the beginning (whatever the hell “the beginning even is). So the tech needed to see a few seconds after the Big Bang is unimaginably more complex than the tech needed to see a minute after the Big Bang. We would probably need to see the first microseconds in order to truly understand the event well.
I’m just a hobbyist, so others please correct me if I’ve gotten something wrong here.
We said goodbye to Gail today. She was a true pioneer and a fierce fighter for her team and for doing the right thing. Those of us who worked with her were truly blessed.
I have a hundred or so pages of handwritten letters in Hungarian, but got useless results from AWS Textract and from transkribus. However, I also have about the same number of pages (written by the same person) that I have already gotten hand-transcribed into Hungarian. How might I approach using the already-transcribed stuff to train some kind of AI model or text-recognition model to work on the rest?
Nice. I worked at Commodore and was responsible (ish) for the new Topaz for OS 2.0. We had been told to replace Topaz with a sans-serif font, and we replaced it with a font originally called "Clear" that was on one of the Fred Fish disks.
There was a big argument over the lower-case L. It has a rightward curl at the base even though it's sans-serif. This is widely seen now, but we had a lot of pushback at the time.
Topaz shipped in an 8-point and 9-point version. As I mentioned, we used Clear, maybe with a few mods (ampersand maybe), but that only existed in 8-point. I drew Topaz 9 sans-serif by starting with Topaz 9, and shaving off the serifs, and making minor tweaks.
I went looking. The font "Clean" that's part of the NewFonts package on Fish disk 34 is pretty much identical to the font I've seen that was included in 1.4 prototypes. Kinda similar to a proportional font that shipped with DPaint IV if I'm not mistaken
I think I'm blending two things then. I looked at a few old notes, and one of the devs replaced Topaz in Kickstart with what you see as the 1.4 font, as a way to kind of force the issue, since we hadn't really done any work to make or obtain a sans-serif font. Nobody wanted that font, which turned up the pressure.
I guess in addition to shaving the serifs off Topaz 9, I also did Topaz 8. And "Clean" was the source of the interim font, not of new Topaz. Memories fade, and thanks for the extra info.
What preceded the hot dense soup involves conditions that are a problem for both theory and experiment. For theory, those conditions involve both quantum gravity and general relativity and we don't have any accepted way to resolve those yet. And, for experiment, the hot dense soup is opaque to our observations. There are educated guesses as to what might have come before, and one guess is that it leads back to a singularity, and the popular view of the Big Bang theory is often that singularity as the kickoff, but we don't have anything resembling evidence. And whether anything came "before" even that is super speculation, even the concept of "before" may not apply.
“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.” -- Douglas Adams