<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>The Ekpyrotic Universe: Colliding Branes and the Origin of the Hot Big Bang · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/hep-th_0103239/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/hep-th_0103239/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>The Ekpyrotic Universe: Colliding Branes and the Origin of the Hot Big Bang — mentioned by tsimionescu</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32620029</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:hep-th_0103239:32620029</guid><pubDate>Sat, 27 Aug 2022 15:25:55 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; I’d be surprised if either scientists were trying to publish articles like that — or if they were, that they could pass peer review. The article we&amp;#x27;re discussing itself even links to one such paper [0]. All of the others she mentions are also published works - Penrose&amp;#x27;s CCC [1], the ekpyrotic universe [2], Hawking&amp;#x27;s no-boundary state [3] etc. &amp;gt; On the other hand, if you are working on theories that can extend into the early universe, it’s not unimportant to try and figure out where the model breaks down. Maybe t=0 isn’t possible, but t=1s? 1ns? 1ps? How much can we feasibly describe? Sure…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/hep-th_0103239/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>hep-th</category></item></channel></rss>
