Hi, everybody. I have the question about initial, gravitational big bang singularity. My first question is if the universe was created from dimensionless singularity, is singularity truly dimensionless? Can extreme gravity truly destroy all that is (space, time, matter, energy, just about everything you can or you can't think of at an given moment) and come back to dimensionless singularity. I mean can something really exist without volume, without dimensions, without size? I wonder if physicists consider that singularity truly exists, since all the equations break down in it? Should I, and do you actually think that singularity is something real, I mean how can it be real if it literally destroy physics and space-time and matter and energy. Should I consider singularity as a proven fact? Should I consider that dimensionless-ness/sizelessness does exist? Is dimensionlessness/sizelessness a proven fact, I'm not talking about just singularity, I'm also talking about dimensionless/size-less particles? I mean, is there any way to experimentally prove dimensionless singularity and dimensionless particles? How do you do it, what are the methods? There is also one more thing that tortures me: If universe does not expand into anything/nothing at all, I have a hypothetical question: Let's suppose you have to separate universes, both they have been created from dimensionless singularity, so let's suppose scientists want to get into another universe, how exactly can they do it, since there is absolutely nothing outside of any of those 2 universes? I heard this from any documentary if human civilization could reach such level of science and technology with so much energy in which you can open portal to another universe? But my question here is: how can you open portal at all to anything at all if there is absolutely nothing (no space, no time not anything, complete non-existence) between these 2 universes??? Basically, what this is implying is that both universe and dimensionless singularity were created from absolutely nothing/non-existence, so non-existence creates existence? Of course that science cannot tell what was before the big bang and before singularity, but we have to think for just one minute, where did singularity came from as well. Also, dimensionless particles like let's say photon, how can they exist if they are truly dimensionless, how can they have effects on sorrounding environment and just about everything? But do physicists truly take singularity as literally dimensionless and literally the end of space-time and the end of matter and energy, or do physicists take singularity and its dimensionlessness only as figurative speech, and yet the are aware that dimensionlessness does not exist-can anyone give me more detailed explanation here, because I truly don't know should I understand singularity and particles literally dimensionless or not, do the physicists understand singularity literally dimensionless of not? Does dimensionlessness of singularity and do dimensionless particles truly exist or not? How can the existence any of these non-existence and dimensionless singularity be experimentally and practically proven at all? That's all, I truly hope you can shed some light in this darkness. Thank you for your time and patience.
A singularity comes from math and is defined as a point, with no dimensions in x,y or z. One problem with the idea of a BB singularity, comes from relativity. Relativity says there is no preferred reference, so one may ask from which reference is this point being defined from? If we had a point, on the surface of the earth, and placed that same point in a frame, with distance contraction, we would get a fractional point. This is not consistent with the definition of a point. One would have to assume the point, being referred to for the BB, was based on the only frame that existed at the beginning, or the highly distance contracted frame of the BB. If that is the case, the distance contraction in that frame, relative to the earth, would make the same BB point, if placed on the earth, huge, since there would be distance expansion of the point to large finite size. This confusion is compounded by the problem of mixing references. The 15 billion year old universe, is based on time on the earth reference, with the earth not even existing for half of the entire 15 billion years. This was not a valid reference for most of the age of the universe.
I think when people in the know say, "dimensionless," they mean that the spatial distance between any two points you might care to identify at a later time is zero at the assigned time of the singularity. Probable not. It is not clear that singularities exist as physical things; they are theoretical constructs, for certain, but whether or not there can be something in the world, so to speak. Not the initial singularity. This is surely an extrapolation, one that is confusing in the physics itself, and there are many alternatives. I recommend agnosticism. These universes do not share a spacetime, so there seems no way they could interact.
Since by definition a singularity is where theory breaks down, that theory can't explain what actually happens there. It's fair to say that scientists have some work to do to explain exactly what happens.
In actual fact, a Singularity is not Infinite, but can lead to infinite quantities. It exists because our laws of physics and GR are not applicable there, so in actual fact at the quantum realm, or the Planck volume [the smallest theoretical size possible] we are in the dark so to speak. For all we know a surface of some sort could exist below that Planck/quantum volume. The same applies to portals to other Universes.Wormholes and such are not specifically against the laws of physics or GR, but as yet we have no evidence for either wormholes, portals, or other Universes. This sort of stuff is speculation [nothing wrong with that] and sometimes are predictions of other theoretical concepts like String theory and its derivitives. What we need to view whatever exists at the Singularity, is a observable QGT [Quantum Gravity Theory] For your info Planck scale: Planck length =1.61619926 × 10-35 meters Planck time= 10-43 seconds. Planck volume =
The current versions of the Big Bang model (BB) no longer emphasizes a singularity as necessarily having been the beginning of the universe. Now BB explanations often start like the the wiki quote below. Many Big Bang theorists no longer believe that a singularity was necessarily the beginning of the universe. Wiki quote: "....According to the theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago which is thus considered the age of the universe. At this time, the universe was in an extremely hot and dense state and began expanding rapidly. After the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang We also no longer hear precise detailed talk about the Big Bang event itself such as: .0086 billionths of a second after the Big Bang this happened, and another 1.567 billionths of a second after that something else happened, and so on. Such precision is now considered by many to be just speculation, and the Big Bang event itself is likewise considered hypothetical instead of a mandatory part of the theory.
Granted, we know nothing about the BB itself, and only really start getting some understanding at t=10-43 seconds, but I'm not too sure referring to it as hypothetical is accurate. [Although we have three or four alternative theorists that might be happy] I mean it does seem to be a case of logical extrapolation backwards. And yes certainly the closer we are to that t=10-43 seconds, the less accurate/certain we are as to exactly what happened.
paddoboy A lot of what we know about the early conditions of the Universe is coming out of particle accelerators. While we cannot create those conditions in the macro, we can in the micro. We've even found a new form of matter that cannot exist at lower energies that consists of four quarks. Those multi-billion dollar experiments are about a lot more than just making sparks. GrumpyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, I think nowadays there are few theorists now mentioning t=10-43 seconds, relating to shortly after a Big Bang beginning. More theorists instead now talk about a hot dense beginning and often do not refer to a big bang event or exact times thereafter. This approach would seem to allow for a number of other possible hypothetical beginnings including a multi-verse beginning, a quantum fluctuation beginning, etc.
While the moment of the BB can be somewhat extrapolated back to that point, whatever was the cause, multiverse, quantum fluctuation, colliding branes, remains as just pure speculation at this time.
This discussion brings back memories, since reminds me of my first physics useful theory back in the late 1980's. Say you were standing on the BB singularity at time=0. Because of the extreme density=mass /volume (=0), the modern universe (if hypothetically already in existence) would appear almost like point in the BB singularity reference. The zero volume and huge mass mathematically is analogous to infinite mass density relative to GR, so one gets a nearly speed of light reference. As the BB physically expands, so its mass density lowers, space-time will expand and the universe will also appear to expand from the POV of the BB. We (science) tend to use the earth reference to explain this, but like I said, this was not a real reference until billions of years after time zero. Only the BB reference was real and the only reference in town at the very beginning. So I used this reference. It was not arbitrary but based on the only real reference that the current theory implies. Say we assume the singularity was a point. Since the singularity reference would see the modern finite universe as a point, what would a single point on the earth look like? It would be a fraction of a point. This implies space-time, around the expanding singularity reference, does not coordinate in time or space with the POV of the earth, during the early BB expansion. However, as the BB expands and the universe appears to get larger from the BB POV, as it moves away from volume =0, there will be a sweet spot of expansion, where it suddenly appears like a point from the POV of the earth; boom! What led to this, was the mixing and matching of references, when describing the BB singularity. For example, the inflation takes 10-37 seconds. From which reference is this occurring, earth or the singularity? Time is much slower in the singularity compared to the earth. Is this 10-37 speeded up time extrapolated to the earth, o rid this fast time interval actual BB reference time? In the analysis above, when the fraction of a point in the BB reference appears like a point, I guess the 10-37 would also appear at the earth reference. If we use the speed of light as the ground state of the universe, we can add other features to the analysis, like dark matter and dark energy. These dark features were already acting on the BB before the BB becomes evident on the the earth as light energy; let there be light energy. It is easy to create the dark mass and energy. Mass cannot move at the speed of light, but energy can, according to SR. Therefore to condense the mass of the BB from pure energy, BB reference velocity has to decrease from C to something less than C. To do this, one would need to apply the brakes, so the speed of light photons have to slow then to less than C ,so mass can form. The reference velocity is simply and artifact of the SR wall (as a function of V) between mass and energy. The brake heat is where dark matter and dark energy stem. The result, relative to the BB, is singularity plus brake heat, with the dark energy repulsion (brake heat) causing the initial expansion, driving the process until light energy appears. The earth does not see the dark expansion, at least yet, but one day we will see it by noticing a dark energy phase difference.
Huh???? Brake heat??? It would help if you used proper scientific terminology to get across what is actually nonsense. On your post in general..... The BB did not happen in space/time....It was an evolution/creation of space/time and as a result, the BB happened everywhere at the same time. so speaking of PoV is crazy. No Pov, no sweet spot, no Earth
C'mon, you know that WW posts this garbage all the time. He's got a team of monkies that type away non-stop....damn, they're going to produce 'King Lear' one day!
