Mordred Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 It could have still been in a hot dense state without being a singularity. Correct, LQC for example doesn't have the singularity condition, due to the bounce. Singularity can also mean a point where our current physics can no longer describe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Correct, LQC for example doesn't have the singularity condition, due to the bounce. Singularity can also mean a point where our current physics can no longer describe. Could the singularity just be the limit of the maths, ie to zero, but the actual final density was well before that; imagined as a diminishing scale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I would say that LQG has the constraint on singularities, Mordred; because of the model's smallest building blocks or 'loops', space-time cannot become singular. But I don't necessarily see this as meaning there had to be a 'bounce' from a previous universe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 The problem with proving the big bang, the singularity that started what we know, is that we don't even know if it happened, there is no solid evidence on the theory. Everyone is trying to prove their own proof. Some of you reading this will defiantly disagree with me, but do you actually have evidence of such a thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 The problem with proving the big bang, the singularity that started what we know, is that we don't even know if it happened, there is no solid evidence on the theory. Everyone is trying to prove their own proof. Some of you reading this will defiantly disagree with me, but do you actually have evidence of such a thing? It is not clear what you are saying. Are you saying there is no evidence for the singularity? In which case you are correct. Or are you saying there is no evidence for the big bang model? In which case you are very obviously wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) I would say that LQG has the constraint on singularities, Mordred; because of the model's smallest building blocks or 'loops', space-time cannot become singular. But I don't necessarily see this as meaning there had to be a 'bounce' from a previous universe Numerous of LQC's papers specify the bounce. This includes there equivelent to chaotic eternal inflation where the bounce forms multiple universes. As with any metric there is always numerous variations. Your correct on the singularity avoidance being a constraint. If anyone wants to study LQC here is one of the better study aids on the subject http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4598 "Introduction to Loop Quantum Cosmology by Abhay Ashtekar Edited March 31, 2015 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAntiparticle Posted April 5, 2015 Share Posted April 5, 2015 Since this is all speculation anyway. A supernova is caused when a star looses mass to quickly and is incapable of supporting itself, thus exploding.It has already been observed that an entity with a comparatively small surface area can have be incredibly dense, i.e. neutron stars.Could it be argued that it is possible for an infinitesimal particle of infinite mass could have at somepoint existed and suffered what would have been the equivalent of a supernova? Ejecting its mass and setting about the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavelcherepan Posted April 5, 2015 Share Posted April 5, 2015 A supernova is caused when a star looses mass to quickly and is incapable of supporting itself, thus exploding. That's not how supernovas work. Supernova happens when a massive star runs out of fuel in its core and electron degenerate pressure is not able to support against the weight of outer layers and then it starts collapsing onto itself. Could it be argued that it is possible for an infinitesimal particle of infinite mass could have at somepoint existed and suffered what would have been the equivalent of a supernova? Ejecting its mass and setting about the universe. In that case there'd be a center of expansion. Universe doesn't have one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IResnick Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 We truly will most likely never know. Seeing that both time and space came into exisence after the big bang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now