Cosmic Censorship

Thanks for responding.

With respect, somehow that statement seems contradictory to me. I always accepted that space itself has no properties of any kind. It is a geometric construct within stuff happens.

However, I think I understand Bohm's Pilot Wave.
In that context, what about the expansion of pure energy, from which all matter in the universe was created?
In my scenario, expansion of pure energy at an unimaginable power and temperature occurred at FTL in a permittive pre-condition, creating space (and time) in the process.

questions:
a) Can a wave function of pure energy propagate at FTL in existing space?
b) Could it propagate at FTL in a non-space permittive ondition, creating space in the process?

Please understand, I am trying to get different perspectives from which a common mathematical function can be modelled. Please have patience. It is not my intent to dispute concensus science.
I seek only clarity of understanding.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm a little confused by that perspective.

I understand a sphere has no sharp edges, but what then is a circumference of a sphere? Is it not an abstract boundary of sorts?
Is this related to the Poincaré conjecture?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not impressed. I notice one of the conditions they make is that the sphere be made of a material that can "pass through itself".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And yet we have confirmation via aLIGO of physically real GW's. Which, in mainstream accepted GR framework, are 'ripples' aka shear distortions of 'pure space-time'. Since temporal component is not distorted, that reduces to distortions of 'pure space'. Do you now see a problem with your statement I highlighted?

 

What do you mean by "pure energy". This is not a concept in physics that I recognise. I mean, is there any concept of "impure" energy to contrast with it? Energy can be present in many forms, but all of them relate to either matter or fields, so far as I am aware.

 

Oops, perhaps I misunderstood this,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

I was speaking in context of a super heated expanding singularity. Still wrong?

 

If something can be said to be "heated" then it must contain matter, surely, unless you mean there is just a lot of very short wavelength EM radiation? I suspect you mean the latter, as my understanding of the Big Bang model is that this is what is thought to have been originally present. So if you mean just energy in the form of radiation rather than hot matter I'm OK with that.

 

Thanks for citing those models. Looks like I have a lot of reading to do.
question:
Does "timeless pure space" exist apart from our expanding universe? Or is pure space a permittive condition which is uncensored by the mathematics of space-time?

 

Yess, that's what I have been trying to say from my lay perspective.! Thanks for .clarifying.

 

Sorry but I'm unable to meaningfully interpret that. But will add that if you subscribe to the 'zero-energy universe' notion, then the averaged, large-scale curvature of space is - according to some cosmologists - zero at all times of cosmic evolution. But there is much contention and differences of opinion as for instance:
https://www.quora.com/How-is-the-ze...sis-compatible-with-the-accelerating-universe
Others such as Sean Carroll strongly dispute both Philip Gibbs's position and that of Lawrence Krauss. This is an area where there is a pretense of unity but in fact different schools and wings have formed and mostly quiet trench warfare takes place.

 

There, fixed it.

 

OK, we're all agreed then.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I just have a Pavlovian response to the phrase "pure energy", which sounds to me like some sort of woo out of Star Trek. James R put it nicely in another thread a few months ago: "An error a lot of people make is to think that energy is like a substance. Energy isn't a substance. You can't have a bottle of pure energy. Energy is always associated with some kind of system."

It's a property of a system, and is actually really quite a hard concept to define - in a way that is not circular, that is. But that is for another thread....

 

This is one area where talk of 'pure energy' is widespread within mainstream physics sites - just search using "conversion of matter to energy". In many instances of use the term 'pure energy' or just 'energy' turns out to mean EM radiation as in electron/positron annihilation to yield gamma rays.
To reiterate from an earlier thread: Mistaken notions involving distributed systems that lead to asking 'where is the potential energy in a stone after lifting it against gravity" does not mean energy cannot sometimes be located as an intensive and proper quantity within an object. Such as thermal energy, or KE in a flywheel.

 

I vizualize a pre-universe zero state condition or equation between two (or more dynamic values or potentials, not a zero condition.

Is the term "symmetry breaking" related to the BB?

 

Something else I can't offer much input. Cosmological origin theories abound and I cannot think of one that satisfies all the issues thrown up and needing to be concurrently solved. An ongoing 'industry' with a bright and indefinitely long future. But fascinating to follow for sure.

 

Yes I'd rather they said radiation if this is what they mean. 'Pure" implies the converse is somehow "impure" or "not pure" energy, which in my view is a very silly idea.

 

The Observable Universe has an "edge", or really a boundary. The boundary is a function of the speed of light and time. There is, probably, more Universe beyond what we can see, it is just that we can only observe the light which has had time to reach us. That is why it is called Observable. This part of the Universe is spherical, has a diameter (about 93 billion light years IIRC).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

As you can read "shape" has a different meaning to what we usually consider as shape.

 

I understand. From your link

(bolded by me)
I tend to lean toward the Poincare conjucture..