[Klaynos]

A misconception, "singularity" was not thought up by cosmologists, it is a mathematical term for what happens to certain functions (in this case and most often it means f(x) = 1/x where x is 0), this in physics is taken to mean that the theory has broken down at that point as 0's and infinities are taken to be not physical.

needimprovement, I would suggest doing some investigations in how modern science is conducted. Someone didn't just pitch up one day and say:

Quote

Hey guys I think the universe started in a singularity

And everyone responded with:

Quote

That's a jolly good idea, we'll stick with that.

What happened was, there was some mathematical framework developed that modelled the currently observable universe, it make reliable, accurate, mathematical predictions about what we can and do observer, this model was then run backwards in time and it showed what is now known as the big bang theory of the universe. At t=0 it breaks down, we know it breaks down, discussion of the singularity will result in the response of "well we know it breaks down and we're working on it"

So in answer to your original question of where did it all come from, we don't know. We're working on it.

[Darkpassenger]

Klaynos, on 20 August 2010 - 08:50 AM, said:

So in answer to your original question of where did it all come from, we don't know. We're working on it.

Golf clap to you sir.

[needimprovement]

Klaynos, on 20 August 2010 - 08:50 AM, said:

So in answer to your original question of where did it all come from, we don't know. We're working on it.

Thank you sir. If physical reality breaks down at the singularity, then the cause of the universe cannot be physical. Unless of course you agree with hawking's version of the big bang.

[Mr Skeptic]

Physical reality doesn't "break down". In fact, that's just gibberish.

[Klaynos]

Our understanding breaks down.

[Simpleton]

need improvement, on 16 August 2010 - 03:56 AM, said:

What caused it to suddenly create a universe? What caused the singularity to change into the Big Bang?

Can anyone explain how ALL the mass-energy was accumulated into the "singularity"?

Where did the Energy in singularity come from? Could it be that human cosmologists are only stating an unproven Theory? We know that energy can be transformed into mass, and mass into energy. My ultimate question: (If the "singularity" contained all the energy and mass in the present universe, then you will have to admit that said energy and mass came from somewhere or something) Where did it come from?

Any ideas?

If You can imagine god, (god luck picking from the available choice's) Then I feel free to imagine this.
It seams that sometime somewhere along the way, all of the matter and energy will end up in black holes. I have to assume (so much like that word (love Benny Hill) but there seams to be a lot of assumptions in this thread) that includes back ground radiation, dark energy and dark mater as well. Now I have to assume again that, space without any medium would have lost it's restriction on speed limits and many other rules and laws. When I then imagine the last two black holes maybe thousand millions of light year's apart (keep in mined that there is no more light) then I visualise a head on collision of the remaining two black holes, incredibly hard and solid, colliding at a speed not governed or limited by any medium. Imagine what would happen.

[IM Egdall]

From what I undertstand, our current understanding gets us all the way back to an incredible 10-43 seconds after the big bang. This is called Planck time. It is at this point that physicists generally believe that space and time began to behave as we see them today . So what about time zero? Nobody knows. From time zero to Planck time, all known science fails us. At time zero, the mathematics breaks down; that is the equations of general relativity give us infinity for answers. The so-called singularity at time zero has infinite density, infintie spacetime curvature (gravity), infinite pressure, infinite temperature.

There are all kinds of new theories which propose answers to what this cosmic singularity really is, and in some cases even what caused the big bang. These new theories try to combine quantum mechanics with general relativity. String theory is the most popular of these so-called quantum gravity theories. An overwhelming number of experiments, measurements, and observations support the ephicacy of both general relativty and quantum mechanics; but there is no definitive evidence one way or the other to support any of these new theories. So we must remain skeptical for now.

[needimprovement]

Mr Skeptic, on 24 August 2010 - 06:19 AM, said:

Physical reality doesn't "break down". In fact, that's just gibberish.

What ever happens, it cannot be explained in a physical sense. You cannot intelligibly speak of a physical cause existing in a singularity.

[Klaynos]

We can't explain it yet, that doesn't mean we can't/won't understand it.

[Mr Skeptic]

needimprovement, on 25 August 2010 - 11:15 PM, said:

What ever happens, it cannot be explained in a physical sense. You cannot intelligibly speak of a physical cause existing in a singularity.

Well, look at it this way. Using the Newtonian representation of gravity you can come up with a formula for earth's gravity of F = GMm/r^2. Now if you go to r=0, you get infinite gravity -- a singularity! OMG THERE'S A SINGULARITY AT THE CENTER OF EARTH!!!! Or not. It just means the equation doesn't work in that range. In this example, the error is that the above equation only works so long as you are outside the sphere of mass, and as you go deeper you have to subtract from Earth's mass whatever mass is outside your radius. Thus, using the proper equations, earth's gravity at the center of earth is zero.

If your equation gives you a singularity, it almost certainly means your equation is wrong not that there's an infinite point sitting there in reality.

[needimprovement]

Mr Skeptic, on 26 August 2010 - 01:55 AM, said:

Well, look at it this way. Using the Newtonian representation of gravity you can come up with a formula for earth's gravity of F = GMm/r^2. Now if you go to r=0, you get infinite gravity -- a singularity! OMG THERE'S A SINGULARITY AT THE CENTER OF EARTH!!!! Or not. It just means the equation doesn't work in that range. In this example, the error is that the above equation only works so long as you are outside the sphere of mass, and as you go deeper you have to subtract from Earth's mass whatever mass is outside your radius. Thus, using the proper equations, earth's gravity at the center of earth is zero.

If your equation gives you a singularity, it almost certainly means your equation is wrong not that there's an infinite point sitting there in reality.

This is a false comparison which ignores contextual consideration. There is not a singularity at the centre of the earth. There is a central point, which is the smallest possible ontological point before you cease to speak about something quantitative. The central point of the earth, is not zero in ontological terms. It is the smallest possible quantity before zero=nothing. To speak of a physical centre is not to speak of a physical nothing. The centre necessarily takes up space. The big-bang event includes space/time/energy, and extends from an infinitely dense point. That point is not physical. You are no-longer speaking about a spatial physical dimension, since no quantitative thing can exist without a quantitative measurable dimension. There is no physical definable quantity in an infinite point. That's why physics breaks down at that point, simply because the object of empirical science fails to exist. Does this mean that singularities are probably false. No, in the context of the big-bang, there is good reason to think this to be the case accept to preserve a universal physics, since the implication is that the universe either came out nothing, or it came out of that which cannot be understood in physical terms; hence a naturalistic bias. This is not acceptable to those who want to understand reality in purely physical terms; and thus they conclude that physical reality cannot have proceeded from an infinitely dense point in actual reality, as that would imply a reality larger than what a physical explanation can provide.

Klaynos, on 25 August 2010 - 11:21 PM, said:

We can't explain it yet, that doesn't mean we can't/won't understand it.

You cannot explain, in physical terms, how or why a physical universe extends from an infinitely dense point unless you can prove that the universe does not in fact extend from an infinitely dense point. The evidence appears to suggest otherwise.

[Mr Skeptic]

needimprovement, on 26 August 2010 - 10:57 PM, said:

This is a false comparison which ignores contextual consideration. There is not a singularity at the centre of the earth. There is a central point, which is the smallest possible ontological point before you cease to speak about something quantitative. The central point of the earth, is not zero in ontological terms. It is the smallest possible quantity before zero=nothing. To speak of a physical centre is not to speak of a physical nothing. The centre necessarily takes up space. The big-bang event includes space/time/energy, and extends from an infinitely dense point. That point is not physical. You are no-longer speaking about a spatial physical dimension, since no quantitative thing can exist without a quantitative measurable dimension. There is no physical definable quantity in an infinite point. That's why physics breaks down at that point, simply because the object of empirical science fails to exist.

Well you got that right: I misused an equation and got a singularity. Is there a singularity there? Does physics break down? No, I just misused an equation.

Quote

Does this mean that singularities are probably false. No, in the context of the big-bang, there is good reason to think this to be the case accept to preserve a universal physics, since the implication is that the universe either came out nothing, or it came out of that which cannot be understood in physical terms; hence a naturalistic bias.

This is a false dichotomy. Instead of correcting you, I shall let you try again. If you are unable to figure out a correct dichotomy, please tell me and I will give you the answer.

Quote

This is not acceptable to those who want to understand reality in purely physical terms; and thus they conclude that physical reality cannot have proceeded from an infinitely dense point in actual reality, as that would imply a reality larger than what a physical explanation can provide.


You cannot explain, in physical terms, how or why a physical universe extends from an infinitely dense point unless you can prove that the universe does not in fact extend from an infinitely dense point. The evidence appears to suggest otherwise.

Well good thing that there is no reason to expect that we should explain the universe from an infinitely dense point. In fact, that suggestion doesn't even make sense.

In any case, we can describe an infinitely large reality, infinitely large in several senses of the word. So is larger than that?

[Moontanman]

needimprovement, on 16 August 2010 - 03:56 AM, said:

What caused it to suddenly create a universe? What caused the singularity to change into the Big Bang?

Can anyone explain how ALL the mass-energy was accumulated into the "singularity"?

Where did the Energy in singularity come from? Could it be that human cosmologists are only stating an unproven Theory? We know that energy can be transformed into mass, and mass into energy. My ultimate question: (If the "singularity" contained all the energy and mass in the present universe, then you will have to admit that said energy and mass came from somewhere or something) Where did it come from?

Any ideas?

You're making a huge assumption based on that assumption agreeing with your religious views, the idea that the big bang came from a singularity is loosing ground in favor of other theories. Hanging your religious hat on a scientific theory is a bad idea because science goes where the evidence points and just because it points to something that agrees with your ideas of creation in a flash can and often is a mistake. It's a big complex universe and some think our theories that show things like singularities will be over turned for better theories that do not require infinite densities.... or infinities in general... Science is not dogma, science changes as the evidence changes.. Religion tends to stay stuck in dogma....


Are you a Catholic priest? Or is one talking through you? I know several Catholics and none of them are as "religious" as you....

[needimprovement]

Moontanman, on 27 August 2010 - 12:34 AM, said:

Are you a Catholic priest? Or is one talking through you? I know several Catholics and none of them are as "religious" as you....

I'm not a priest. I am a simple believer in God. Seems that you don't like my posts. Don't worry I'm going to absent myself from SFN for a bit.

[needimprovement]

Mr Skeptic, on 26 August 2010 - 11:39 PM, said:

Well you got that right: I misused an equation and got a singularity. Is there a singularity there? Does physics break down? No, I just misused an equation.

No. You made false comparison between the big bang and the centre of the earth.The centre of the earth does not involve the problem of all time, space, and energy extending from an infinitely dense point. It merely involves a central point which ontologically takes up space.

Mr Skeptic, on 26 August 2010 - 11:39 PM, said:

This is a false dichotomy. Instead of correcting you, I shall let you try again. If you are unable to figure out a correct dichotomy, please tell me and I will give you the answer.

This is an assertion pretending to be informed. Instead of answering it, I will treat it for what it is.

Mr Skeptic, on 26 August 2010 - 11:39 PM, said:

Well good thing that there is no reason to expect that we should explain the universe from an infinitely dense point. In fact, that suggestion doesn't even make sense.

I wouldn't expect science to explain it.

Mr Skeptic, on 26 August 2010 - 11:39 PM, said:

In any case, we can describe an infinitely large reality, infinitely large in several senses of the word. So is larger than that?

We cannot make sense of it physically. The singularity lies beyond empirical explanation.

[Mr Skeptic]

needimprovement, on 27 August 2010 - 05:47 AM, said:

No. You made false comparison between the big bang and the centre of the earth.The centre of the earth does not involve the problem of all time, space, and energy extending from an infinitely dense point. It merely involves a central point which ontologically takes up space.

Feel free to show how it is a false comparison. You'd have to show that there was in fact a singularity, not just that the equation gives a singularity (since as I demonstrated, just because a theory gives a singularity doesn't mean there is a singularity)

Quote

Quote

Quote

Does this mean that singularities are probably false. No, in the context of the big-bang, there is good reason to think this to be the case accept to preserve a universal physics, since the implication is that the universe either came out nothing, or it came out of that which cannot be understood in physical terms; hence a naturalistic bias.

This is a false dichotomy. Instead of correcting you, I shall let you try again. If you are unable to figure out a correct dichotomy, please tell me and I will give you the answer.

This is an assertion pretending to be informed. Instead of answering it, I will treat it for what it is.

Oh, look at that! You can make snarky remarks and pretend that you're being clever for it.

Very well then, I'll give you the answers. The two correct dichotomies that could be made from that sentence are:
The implication is that the universe either came out nothing, or it came out something.
the implication is that the universe either came out of that which cannot be understood in physical terms, or it came out of that which can be understood in physical terms.

See, when you make a correct dichotomy there is no option but the two mentioned. I disprove your false dichotomy by the possibility that the universe came from something which we do understand in physical terms, such as branes. The existence of a possibility that does not fit with the dichotomy proves it is a false dichotomy, regardless of how remote you may want to think the possibility is. So now I showed both that I was correctly informed (I disproved your false dichotomy), and that as well as not understanding the basics of logic you feel overly confident in your own answers (which is in fact very common, see the study Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments).

Quote

I wouldn't expect science to explain it.

If there is an explanation it is science if there is no explanation there is no science. What you want though is no real explanation, but instead a pseudoexplanation that "makes sense" but provides zero predictive value.

Quote

We cannot make sense of it physically. The singularity lies beyond empirical explanation.

What singularity?

Anyhow, we can have an infinite universe without any singularity, which is what I was talking about.

[Klaynos]

The singularity implies our theory is not complete. Not that there is a physically real infinity small volume.

Have a look on Wikipedia about singularities in maths and physics.

[Moontanman]

needimprovement, on 27 August 2010 - 02:07 AM, said:

I'm not a priest. I am a simple believer in God. Seems that you don't like my posts. Don't worry I'm going to absent myself from SFN for a bit.

It's not personal needimprovment, it has nothing to do with me disliking you or your posts, it has to do with not liking how you makes baseless assertions then proceed to back them up with more baseless assertions then even more baseless assertions often followed by insulting attempts at humor. Proved some evidence to back your self up other than more baseless claims and we'll get along fine...

[needimprovement]

Mr Skeptic, on 27 August 2010 - 06:24 AM, said:

Feel free to show how it is a false comparison. You'd have to show that there was in fact a singularity, not just that the equation gives a singularity (since as I demonstrated, just because a theory gives a singularity doesn't mean there is a singularity)

Perhaps i am wrong but the evidence suggests otherwise. You asking for a logical proof. I am merely going by what the scientists are saying, what the empirical evidence suggests. The universe has a beginning, time space and energy has a beginning, and that beginning involves our universe extending from an infinitely dense point which scientists describe as a singularity. An infinitely dense point is not physical

Mr Skeptic, on 27 August 2010 - 06:24 AM, said:

See, when you make a correct dichotomy there is no option but the two mentioned. I disprove your false dichotomy by the possibility that the universe came from something which we do understand in physical terms, such as branes.

You claim that it is a logically coherent possibility. But it isn't. There is no branes in an infinity dense point. Just because a "scientists" makes a hypothetical inference, this does not mean that the hypothesis is rational.

Mr Skeptic, on 27 August 2010 - 06:24 AM, said:

If there is an explanation it is science if there is no explanation there is no science. What you want though is no real explanation, but instead a pseudoexplanation that "makes sense" but provides zero predictive value.

First of all I never said that I can prove that a singularity exists. I meant only to say that the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that the universe has a beginning that is grounded in an infinitely dense point. The paragraph you have written is only meaningful to somebody who seeks to understand the entirety of existence in terms of physical states.

Your argument is basically the following; "if a theory doesn't point to a physical explanation, then it is false". That is ridiculous as much as it is also a pseudo explanation.

Mr Skeptic, on 27 August 2010 - 06:24 AM, said:

Anyhow, we can have an infinite universe without any singularity, which is what I was talking about.

An infinite universe is meaningless, unless you mean only that the universe is potentially infinite, in which case it is never actually infinite.

[Moontanman]

As has been said before needimprovemnt, the idea of a singularity is loosing ground to other theories that do not require it. It's why hanging your religious ideas of science is often a mistake, First it was the idea of a flat earth, then Catholic church hung it's hat on the geocentric universe with crystal spheres, each time the Church had to back away when reality was shown to be drastically different and people were jailed, tortured and even killed as the Church tried to suppress the correct information in favor of the view the church supported. Trying to say science supports a particular religious view is always a mistake....

The Church has gotten to where it's at by suppressing, often violently, other religions, not because of some basic truth....

This post has been edited by Moontanman: 29 August 2010 - 02:22 PM