Notices
Results 1 to 79 of 79

Thread: Singularity

  1. #1 Singularity 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    17
    So I was reading about the singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang and read that it had zero volume.

    I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of an object with zero volume. Can somebody please explain that to me?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    It's a difficult question. We really don't know much about what was there before a few nanoseconds after the inflation began. What we have are some ideas and concepts, some models, but all with a lot of uncertainty. One idea, which you seem to referencing, is the singularity... That there was "no there... there." It was before spacetime itself, and is rather resistant to easy understanding... It's so far beyond anything the human mind has had to conceive during its evolution that it really is difficult to understand.

    I guess my point is that nobody really knows, and you're not alone in your confusion or struggle to wrap your head around it.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Sir Roger Penrose thinks there is evidence within the WMAP of universes existing before the big bang.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706

    The link below expands on the hypothesis with less jargon and with a pretty but entirely fanciful piece of art work. This picture is not helpful to understanding (in my opinion) and is a reflection of the point made by inow - that evolution has given us the capacity to survive, and understanding the universe was not necessary for our survival so we don't have that particular capacity.

    http://io9.com/5694701/does-cosmic-b...e-the-big-bang
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    I came to a different conclusion when I read the article.

    Ignoring the nonsense of singularities, what if there is a density at which matter of any kind cannot exist, beyond even that of the present record holding 18 billion solar mass black hole? Suppose all matter inside it is converted into strings or whatever and these have no gravity, being too small?

    The black hole literally comes apart, there being insufficient mass left to hold it together for it's size (bigger than our solar system), so the granddaddy of all explosions involving maybe tens of billions of solar masses of material (so make a hyper nova look like a damp fire cracker), filling surrounding space with the fundamental building blocks of matter, as well as fundamental particles. That would leave such rings.

    It would also recycle matter meaning black holes are not forever, and leave a possibility of a universe maybe trillions of years old.

    Just an idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Singularity 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Socratic Spelunker
    So I was reading about the singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang and read that it had zero volume.

    I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of an object with zero volume. Can somebody please explain that to me?
    A point ha zero volume. So does a line segment and so does a plane. So do a lot of other things. Any submanifold of lower dimension than the host manifold has zero volume in the host.

    The singular nature of spacetime is a bit subtle. Even if you accept general relativity as accurate to arbitrarily small times (and physicists do not) the singularity is not even part of spacetime and did not "exist prior to the big bang".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Sir Roger Penrose thinks there is evidence within the WMAP of universes existing before the big bang.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706
    maybe

    A key reference in that paper is to a book by Penrose that will not be released until next May.

    Edit: It will not be available in the U.S. market until May, but I have ordered a copy from Britain where it is available now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Singularity 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    A point ha zero volume. So does a line segment and so does a plane. So do a lot of other things. Any submanifold of lower dimension than the host manifold has zero volume in the host.
    Everything is built up from lower dimensions. You cannot have a four physical dimensional object without it also having three lower dimensions. Which have volume. If it exists, it has volume.

    The singular nature of spacetime is a bit subtle. Even if you accept general relativity as accurate to arbitrarily small times (and physicists do not) the singularity is not even part of spacetime and did not "exist prior to the big bang".
    Exist here or exist elsewhere? If something does not exist in time, as in change, it does not exist at all and will never exist.

    How does a singularity suddenly form? It can hardly be a transfer of matter and energy from "A" to "B" since that would surely occur as fundamental particles, energy, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Singularity 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Everything is built up from lower dimensions. You cannot have a four physical dimensional object without it also having three lower dimensions. Which have volume. If it exists, it has volume.
    wrong

    Your ignorance of mathematics is e ven greater than youignorance of physics.

    Where do you get such garbage ?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Exist here or exist elsewhere? If something does not exist in time, as in change, it does not exist at all and will never existHow does a singularity suddenly form? It can hardly be a transfer of matter and energy from "A" to "B" since that would surely occur as fundamental particles, energy, etc.
    meaningless word salad
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Singularity 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    wrong

    Your ignorance of mathematics is e ven greater than youignorance of physics.

    Where do you get such garbage ?

    meaningless word salad
    How about you tell people why they are wrong since a ten year old ignoramus could produce a similar post which contains nothing more than denial and insults?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    From a newspaper:

    First evidence of other universes that exist alongside our own after scientists spot 'cosmic bruises'

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...iscovered.html


    What I see as wrong with this is that for the "bruises" to be in the CMB is that they would have happened when the universe was just a few hundred million years old so very small at the time so the originally fairly big bruise would have grown with the universe and now cover much of the CMB.

    Also since the universe would have been expanding at a good rate, surely the other universe that bumped into ours would not be able to move out of the way in time so even now they would still be touching?

    The idea also necessitates a "solid boundary" around a universe so that they could not casually merge if they come into contact with each other.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: Singularity 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    How about you tell people why they are wrong since a ten year old ignoramus could produce a similar post which contains nothing more than denial and insults?
    I commonly do.

    I tried with you until you made it abundantly clear that you are just too damn stupid to understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    From a newspaper:

    First evidence of other universes that exist alongside our own after scientists spot 'cosmic bruises'

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...iscovered.html


    What I see as wrong with this is that for the "bruises" to be in the CMB is that they would have happened when the universe was just a few hundred million years old so very small at the time so the originally fairly big bruise would have grown with the universe and now cover much of the CMB.

    Also since the universe would have been expanding at a good rate, surely the other universe that bumped into ours would not be able to move out of the way in time so even now they would still be touching?

    The idea also necessitates a "solid boundary" around a universe so that they could not casually merge if they come into contact with each other.
    Wild misrepresentation.

    See the real articles.

    http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/1011.3706

    http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/1012.1486

    One ought not rely on exaggerations and hyperbole in the popular press, even when spiced up with personal delusions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Wild misrepresentation.

    See the real articles.

    http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/1011.3706

    http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/1012.1486

    One ought not rely on exaggerations and hyperbole in the popular press, even when spiced up with personal delusions.
    I read the articles and all they are is dollar words to point out what the DM said.

    The first one says they are real and not imaginary, based on previous surveys where somehow no one seemed to have noticed such huge anomalies.

    The second one says that the CMB is random noise and these are not so they must be different. It then somehow jumps to the idea that these must be evidence of a cycle of BB's.

    A bit like your using nasty words to say little if anything.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: Singularity 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    I commonly do.

    I tried with you until you made it abundantly clear that you are just too damn stupid to understand.
    I have had creationists say exactly the same, pointing to the bible and saying the truth is there for all to see.

    Insults do not imply even a reasonable intellect. Just a nasty personality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    I read the articles and all they are is dollar words to point out what the DM said.

    The first one says they are real and not imaginary, based on previous surveys where somehow no one seemed to have noticed such huge anomalies.

    The second one says that the CMB is random noise and these are not so they must be different. It then somehow jumps to the idea that these must be evidence of a cycle of BB's.

    A bit like your using nasty words to say little if anything.
    In short, you read words and concepts that you did not understand, but felt obliged to comment anyway.

    No surprise there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    20
    a singularity is a condition that cannot be described because all laws of physics will break down at a singularity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian_P
    a singularity is a condition that cannot be described because all laws of physics will break down at a singularity.
    That is what one finds in the popular ;iterature, and is sufficient for that purpose, but not for use in science itself.

    In reality the nature of singularities in general relativity is much more technical and more subtle. It is a failure of a region of spacetime to be timelike geodesically complete.

    It is quite like;ly that singularities signal the limits of our models rather than something physical. Way too much importance is placed on them in the popular press, and the popular understanding is deeply flawed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    20
    Yes, this statement is from a popular book written by a theoretical physician, there is nothing wrong with it. It is simply the case that one cannot describe such conditions by using this theory. So you are very right when you say that it is a kind of limit this model (theory) has. One could recognise a singularity as an artificial object, nothing real, but predicted by the theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    baltimore, md, usa, earth
    Posts
    33
    maybe it's just a event in space-time, like a massive blackhole with no consumed mass/matter yet is just only present in space with zero mass/matter/volume. just a blank hole with intense gravity in the midst of space-time-continuum. it's probably not even on the em spectrum because it has no particles or something, just a concentrated build up of gravity/energy.

    i wonder if stuff could shift/deflect gravitational voids to a inhibited spot in space-time to have something out of no where exist without common building blocks (matter/mass/volume). sort of the like the idea of universal jenga or something (one block being gravity, another being mass, another being volume, another being other, etc).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by FuturePasTimeCE
    maybe it's just a event in space-time, like a massive blackhole with no consumed mass/matter yet is just only present in space with zero mass/matter/volume. just a blank hole with intense gravity in the midst of space-time-continuum. it's probably not even on the em spectrum because it has no particles or something, just a concentrated build up of gravity/energy.

    i wonder if stuff could shift/deflect gravitational voids to a inhibited spot in space-time to have something out of no where exist without common building blocks (matter/mass/volume). sort of the like the idea of universal jenga or something (one block being gravity, another being mass, another being volume, another being other, etc).
    The whole point is that in general relativity a singularity is not a part of spacetime at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    17
    so basically, we don't really know how it works, but it did have zero volume?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    The whole point is that in general relativity a singularity is not a part of spacetime at all.
    This is the second time I see you writing this down and I am interested what you mean. Can you please explain it and give an example or a description if possible. I simply do not understand how do you come to this statement. If you describe it more clearly I can probably learn something from it.

    greetings
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Socratic Spelunker
    so basically, we don't really know how it works, but it did have zero volume?
    So far what I have read: It started with A.Einstein. He developed the general theory of relativity and his theory predicted a singularity, a point of infinite spacetime-curvature and infinite density where time comes to an end. S.Hawking and R.Penrose developed it further and could prove that there must be a singularity in our past, but that only by the way. If you take the equations of this theory and calculate it you will come to the result that there must be singularities.

    And that is the important point: A singularity is a result of mathematical calculation. Please note that clearly!; A singularity is nothing more than the result of calculations. If you describe our would by only the general theory of relativity there must be singularities in the universe. On such a condition with infinite spacetime-curvature and infinite density all known laws of physics break down; thus, one cannot describe such condition with physical models. A physical theory predict a condition where our known physical laws break down, what a paradox. There is nothing that can describe such a condition.

    greetings
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Socratic Spelunker
    so basically, we don't really know how it works, but it did have zero volume?
    In order for "it" to have volume, one would have to apply the metric of spacetime to "it" and take an integral. Since no singularity can be part of the differentiable manifold that is spacetime, one cannot apply the metric and the term "volume" cannot be applied.

    If one were to make some stretch in order for "volume" of a singularity to make sense, then the volume would have to be zero.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    20
    A singularity is the beginning and end of space and time, thus it must be part of spacetime.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian_P
    A singularity is the beginning and end of space and time, thus it must be part of spacetime.

    wrong

    Try reading The large scale structure of spacetime by Hawking and Ellis.

    Cartoons won't do the trick.

    The basic problem is that spacetime is an intrinsic manifold of undetermined topology that depends on the curvature tensor, which is also unknown but determined by the distribution of matter/energy. It is not some pre-established set or topological space onto which is imposed a differentiable structure -- the determining factor is the curvature tensor, which must exist and be well-defined at each point of the manifold. So no point in spacetime itself can be singular.

    Singularities in general relativity are subtle things. The cartoons in the popular literature are deceiving.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    20
    OK,I must believe you for now. Unfortunately I do not have the book yet. It is really expensive, $49.00 at amazon.com. Can you explain it please. You have written earlier, that it has no volume which is totally self explanatory.

    I have thought about it; I would describe a singularity by it pure meaning as a single point in space. We have many such things in our environment (house, flat, etc.) Take the edge of a table for example. a very sharp edge. Imagine you look closer and closer to the edge of the table with lager and larger magnification. Even until you see the atoms, you will not see where the edge ends or begins. You will never reach the end or beginning of the edge of the table.

    So you can never say here is the beginning or the end of the edge of the table. The questions is, will you ever reach the end or the beginning of the edge of the table. Regardless how close you look to the edge you will never reach the end (ore beginning) of the table. Consequently, the edge of the table must be a part of the table, the beginning and the end, a single point of space, a singularity.

    Do not think I am crazy!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Cartoons won't do the trick.

    The basic problem is that spacetime is an intrinsic manifold of undetermined topology that depends on the curvature tensor, which is also unknown but determined by the distribution of matter/energy. It is not some pre-established set or topological space onto which is imposed a differentiable structure -- the determining factor is the curvature tensor, which must exist and be well-defined at each point of the manifold. So no point in spacetime itself can be singular.

    Singularities in general relativity are subtle things. The cartoons in the popular literature are deceiving.
    good explanation, thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian_P
    OK,I must believe you for now. Unfortunately I do not have the book yet. It is really expensive, $49.00 at amazon.com.
    Unfortunately that is not expensive by current standards for mathematics and physics books.

    I suggest that you look at a copy in a library before you buy it. It is not for a general audience -- it is an advanced book on mathemaical physics. Unless you have a srong background in mathemntics at the post-graduate level you may find it very difficult reading. But it is also the standard reference on the subject.

    If you continue to pursue real science you will find books that arre much more expensive. Sad but true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    In short, you read words and concepts that you did not understand, but felt obliged to comment anyway.

    No surprise there.
    Perhaps you might one day like to offer an explanation for what you believe instead of just making a silly comment?

    Clearly you are the one that did not understand since the links you gave were even more simplistic than those of a tabloid newspaper but they had dressed the obvious up in big words so people like you would be fooled into thinking they were something worthwhile.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian_P
    a singularity is a condition that cannot be described because all laws of physics will break down at a singularity.
    No, that is just dogma on the laws. Conditions are just far more extreme.

    We have no evidence a singularity exists. As DrRocket pointed out before contradicting himself twice, we have no idea of what really goes on inside a black hole. Black holes have been found spinning at near light speed and one dimensional singularities don't spin because they are exactly the same point source from all directions.

    There is no evidence that fundamental particles break down in such cases. A ball of material spinning would explain what is going on. Though we cannot see it directly, it's gravitational forces is a link between the inside of a black hole and the universe outside.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian_P
    a singularity is a condition that cannot be described because all laws of physics will break down at a singularity.
    Just dogma.

    We have no evidence that singularities exist. As they are one dimensional point sources, without height, width or breadth, they cannot spin. Having realised their blunder, some are now trying to claim they do have size, which means they are not singularities.

    We have no evidence that fundamental particles can break down and a ball of them spinning in the centre would explain what is going on. While we cannot see what is happening inside a black hole, gravity from inside does give us some idea. As all large masses spin, so does the centre of the black hole. Laws do not break down. Conditions are just more extreme.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian_P
    a singularity is a condition that cannot be described because all laws of physics will break down at a singularity.
    No, that is just dogma on the laws. Conditions are just far more extreme.

    We have no evidence a singularity exists. As DrRocket pointed out before contradicting himself twice, we have no idea of what really goes on inside a black hole. Black holes have been found spinning at near light speed and one dimensional singularities don't spin because they are exactly the same point source from all directions.

    There is no evidence that fundamental particles break down in such cases. A ball of material spinning would explain what is going on. Though we cannot see it directly, it's gravitational forces is a link between the inside of a black hole and the universe outside.
    garbage
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian_P
    a singularity is a condition that cannot be described because all laws of physics will break down at a singularity.
    Just dogma.

    We have no evidence that singularities exist. As they are one dimensional point sources, without height, width or breadth, they cannot spin. Having realised their blunder, some are now trying to claim they do have size, which means they are not singularities.

    We have no evidence that fundamental particles can break down and a ball of them spinning in the centre would explain what is going on. While we cannot see what is happening inside a black hole, gravity from inside does give us some idea. As all large masses spin, so does the centre of the black hole. Laws do not break down. Conditions are just more extreme.
    still garbage
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian_P
    OK,I must believe you for now. Unfortunately I do not have the book yet. It is really expensive, $49.00 at amazon.com.
    Unfortunately that is not expensive by current standards for mathematics and physics books.

    I suggest that you look at a copy in a library before you buy it. It is not for a general audience -- it is an advanced book on mathematical physics. Unless you have a strong background in mathematics at the post-graduate level you may find it very difficult reading. But it is also the standard reference on the subject.

    If you continue to pursue real science you will find books that are much more expensive. Sad but true.
    What does the post-graduate level mean? I know only the German education system and I am not that familiar with the Anglo American system.

    In the case I want to learn the mathematical background; what way must I go to understand special/general relativity? I guess I must understand differential and integral calculus, what are the bests way to archive this. I am going to learn this in a higher educational degree soon but not for now.

    I also search for webpage in which special and general relativity is explained in a systematic way; Do you know such a link?

    greetings
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian_P
    a singularity is a condition that cannot be described because all laws of physics will break down at a singularity.
    Just dogma.

    We have no evidence that singularities exist. As they are one dimensional point sources, without height, width or breadth, they cannot spin. Having realised their blunder, some are now trying to claim they do have size, which means they are not singularities.

    We have no evidence that fundamental particles can break down and a ball of them spinning in the centre would explain what is going on. While we cannot see what is happening inside a black hole, gravity from inside does give us some idea.
    Back to your double standards:
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    As all large masses spin, so does the centre of the black hole. Laws do not break down. Conditions are just more extreme.
    Where is the evidence for that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian_P
    What does the post-graduate level mean? I know only the German education system and I am not that familiar with the Anglo American system.
    post-graduate means beyond the first buniversity degree


    Quote Originally Posted by Christian_P
    In the case I want to learn the mathematical background; what way must I go to understand special/general relativity? I guess I must understand differential and integral calculus, what are the bests way to archive this. I am going to learn this in a higher educational degree soon but not for now.


    The mathematics in Hawking and Ellis is well beyond basic differential and integral calculus. It involves differential geometry, Riemannian geometry. This is usually post-graduate material.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian_P
    I also search for webpage in which special and general relativity is explained in a systematic way; Do you know such a link?

    greetings
    You would be betteer off looking for a good text rather than a web site. Special relativity is fairly easy. General relativity involves (pseodo-)Riemannian geometry and is much more difficult. A standard text in general relativity is Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. A good book on special relativity is Introduction to Special Relativity by Rindler.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Dishmaster. How easy to criticise. How difficult to give evidence.

    As I have explained previously (possibly you removed the post as you were unable to understand it which seems to be your only criteria?), a one dimensional singularity cannot rotate because it is one dimension, so all black holes would be non rotating, which is nonsense. Even Hawking gave up on them in his book "A brief history of time". Perhaps you think that he is an idiot too?

    Your evidence that an electron or any other fundamental particle has any smaller structure, so can be broken down? DrRocket says that we cannot know what goes on inside a black hole, yet you and he are dictating what does go on there.

    Show me one large massive object in space that does not spin. As planets are formed by rocks, ice, dust, etc they would continue to have the rotation (around a centre of the system - the sun) of the accretion disk which formed them but there is no reason why they should all rotate individually.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    garbage
    A 5 year old child could give this as an answer since it requires not an iota of knowledge about the subject being discussed.

    As you used it twice, am I making things too hard for you? It must be difficult for you when there are no ready made answers on the internet which you can use as your own.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Dishmaster. How easy to criticise. How difficult to give evidence.

    As I have explained previously (possibly you removed the post as you were unable to understand it which seems to be your only criteria?), a one dimensional singularity cannot rotate because it is one dimension, so all black holes would be non rotating, which is nonsense. Even Hawking gave up on them in his book "A brief history of time". Perhaps you think that he is an idiot too?

    Your evidence that an electron or any other fundamental particle has any smaller structure, so can be broken down? DrRocket says that we cannot know what goes on inside a black hole, yet you and he are dictating what does go on there.
    I am not saying, I know what is going on in there. This is the crucial point here. For the same reasons, you can't either. Just one remark on this issue from my side (I am no expert on this topic, so I usually don't participate in the discussion.) If a singularity exists, it is not identical to the Black Hole it may surround. You can have Black Holes even without a singularity inside. You just have to obey the Schwarzschild criterion. So, while a BH can spin, a singularity cannot. At least this is how I see it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Show me one large massive object in space that does not spin. As planets are formed by rocks, ice, dust, etc they would continue to have the rotation (around a centre of the system - the sun) of the accretion disk which formed them but there is no reason why they should all rotate individually.
    This is not an argument for your speculation. All you do is draw analogies. Since you have brought up the idea, itis you who has to provide the evidence. It is not n us to show that you ar wrong. Such an approach is unscientific.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    garbage
    A 5 year old child could give this as an answer since it requires not an iota of knowledge about the subject being discussed.
    wrong

    But then you are qualified for once -- you have not one iota of knowledge about the subject being discussed. Else you too would recognize your statements as garbage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    [As you used it twice, am I making things too hard for you? It must be difficult for you when there are no ready made answers on the internet which you can use as your own.
    nope. It is easy to recognize garbage -- if one understands the subject.

    If answers are so easy to find on the internet, then why do you remain so abysmally ignorant ?

    Try reading a book. Or go to school and take a real physics class.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    [quote="Dishmaster"]I am not saying, I know what is going on in there. This is the crucial point here. For the same reasons, you can't either. Just one remark on this issue from my side (I am no expert on this topic, so I usually don't participate in the discussion.) If a singularity exists, it is not identical to the Black Hole it may surround. You can have Black Holes even without a singularity inside. You just have to obey the Schwarzschild criterion. So, while a BH can spin, a singularity cannot. At least this is how I see it.[?quote]

    The idea of a singularity is often updated, as in revised. I think the idea of naked singularities as in no event horizon has been dumped. Some now talk of them having size, so they can spin. We all know how black holes form but why should a whole universe inside a singularity form? Then having done so, become "unstable" and inflate and expand?

    There was an Indian professor earlier this year, whose name escapes me who suggested that gravity ceases at 10^93 tons per cubic meter so a rebound but I pointed out to him that this would stop the original singularity forming in the first place and once it expands to a density less than 10^93 tons per cubic meter, gravity is back in place so it starts compressing again so forever stuck between expanding and contracting.

    As I pointed out before this is not hard and fast science like almost any other field that you can name. It is speculation, and even the greatest brains in the world do not know the answers.

    This is not an argument for your speculation. All you do is draw analogies. Since you have brought up the idea, itis you who has to provide the evidence. It is not n us to show that you ar wrong. Such an approach is unscientific.
    I just note that everything in space spins from tiny moonlets to stars to SMBH's to galaxies. There must surely be a reason for this since if you smash enough rock and ice together to make a large asteroid, what reason is there for it to spin? The more massive planets rotate faster than we do, the less massive planets, slower (ignoring gravity lock from the sun, like Mercury).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    wrong

    But then you are qualified for once -- you have not one iota of knowledge about the subject being discussed. Else you too would recognize your statements as garbage.

    nope. It is easy to recognize garbage -- if one understands the subject.

    If answers are so easy to find on the internet, then why do you remain so abysmally ignorant ?

    Try reading a book. Or go to school and take a real physics class.
    Show me anything in your post that a five year old who had never opened a science book in their life could not write.

    Your trying to belittle me does not disguise the fact that you do not answer any questions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Show me anything in your post that a five year old who had never opened a science book in their life could not write.

    .
    It is abundantly clear that no one can show you anything.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    It is abundantly clear that no one can show you anything.
    Still no answers, as anyone can see.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    It is abundantly clear that no one can show you anything.
    Still no answers, as anyone can see.
    You have been shown LOTS of answers. You are either too blind or too stupid, likely both, to recognize them.

    It is called physics. Go learn some.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    It is abundantly clear that no one can show you anything.
    Still no answers, as anyone can see.
    You have been shown LOTS of answers. You are either too blind or too stupid, likely both, to recognize them.

    It is called physics. Go learn some.
    I see. Puerile insults are now called physics and answers.

    Use a dictionary. Let me know when you actually post some "physics" and some "answers". I will look for hell freezing over as an indication that you are posting either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    Well I'll try to post some answers Cyberia.

    Regarding your assertion that a point ( singularity ) cannot spin. As far as anyone knows the electron is a dimensionless point particle and we associate a spin with it. Agreed , you'll never actually 'see' it spinning, but angular momentum is conserved so it has a quality that is like a spin of 1/2.

    The second point I'd like to make is that the Swartzchild solution is the first ( 1916) and simplest solution to the field equations and gives a point type singularity as a solution. It is also one of the most unlikely to occurr in reality because , just as a skater's spin increases when she draws in her arms, any insignificant initial spin will be magnified by the gravitational collapse which creates the singularity, ie ALL black holes will have spin.
    The second solution to the field equations, also highly unlikely, is attributed to a couple of Swedish or Norwegian guys ( can't remember their names ) and it described a black hole with a charge. This also leads to a point-like singularity but can have interesting qualities like two event horizons.
    The third and fourth solutions from the middle 60s,describe a spinning black hole and a spinning black hole with charge. The former being attributed to Kerr ( Australian ) and the llatter to Kerr and some other guy ( forget the name ). I'll only deal with the spinning case as that is the most likely to occurr in reality. Its solution can also have two event horizons but even more interesting is the fact that its 'singularity" is a ring type and as a result is 'time-like'. What this means is that if you draw a Penrose diagram ( which see ) for it, it allows for passage trough the black hole without having to meet the singularity into either another universe or possibly a different part of our universe ( no-one knows for sure obviously ).
    Now remember, these are just solutions to the equations of GR. This is the best theory for gravity that we currently have, and it describes all normal situations pretty well, but as to wether it can cope with the conditions close to or at the singularity is anyone's guess. These results are just extrapolations of the theory to an area outside the boundry conditions and so are pure conjecture and may not describe reality at all. That being said they are at least based on some valid theory and are therefore an 'educated guess'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    MigL. Though the electron cannot be measured using current technology, it is said to be something like 1,800 times less massive than a proton which while very small is planet sized compared to a "string". It has 3 dimensions, so can spin.

    As DrRocket said elsewhere, we cannot know what is inside a black hole, so it is all educated guesses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    The fact that it has mass is inconsequential. It is an elementary particle, like quarks, and cannot be reduced. It is my understanding that it is dimensionless, ie a point particle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    MigL. Though the electron cannot be measured using current technology,
    I find that most amusing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    It has 3 dimensions, so can spin
    uh?
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    As DrRocket said elsewhere, we cannot know what is inside a black hole, so it is all educated guesses.
    you should prefix 'educated' with 'un'

    The easiest way to picture a 'black hole' is to say simply that it's mass has dissappeared leaving only it's gravity behind, somewhat reminiscent of a cheshire cat methinks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL
    The fact that it has mass is inconsequential. It is an elementary particle, like quarks, and cannot be reduced. It is my understanding that it is dimensionless, ie a point particle.
    That is how it is treated in quantum field theory.

    As to "spin", spin is a quantum characteristic that is not "spin" in the sense of an ordinary top as Cyberia misunderstands it -- but Cyberia misunderstands nearly all of physics.

    The fact that it has mass is not inconsequential. For instance non-zero rest mass precludes travel at the speed of light. It is however verey small when compared to, say, a proton.

    It is also false (no surprise that Cyberia is clueless) that the electron mass cannot be measured. It is a fundamental constant and is known rather precisely.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_rest_mass

    So once again Cyberia is wrong about all subjects that he has chosen to address, a record unblemished by success.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    I do realise that the rest mass of an electron can be measured ( Was it Millikan's experiment? Its such a long time ago.). But its size has only ever been upper-limited, ie it could well be a dimensionless point particle. And I meant inconsequential to the subject we were describing, rotation. Point particles do have an angular momentum which we describe as 'spin'.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but, wasn't re-normalization developed by Feynman originally to get rid of infinite quantities that appear in the fields ( gravity or electromagnetic ) near a dimensionless point particle ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL
    I do realise that the rest mass of an electron can be measured ( Was it Millikan's experiment? Its such a long time ago.). But its size has only ever been upper-limited, ie it could well be a dimensionless point particle. And I meant inconsequential to the subject we were describing, rotation. Point particles do have an angular momentum which we describe as 'spin'.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but, wasn't re-normalization developed by Feynman originally to get rid of infinite quantities that appear in the fields ( gravity or electromagnetic ) near a dimensionless point particle ?
    Millikan measured the charge of the electron, using oil drops. He did not measure the rest mass.

    Size of the electron is a subtle thing. It is treated as a point in QED. There are problems with that -- infinite self-energy for instance. But there are problems with models of non-zero volume as well. Nobody really knows how to resolve this.

    "Renormalization" refers to a process in quantum field theory calculations that gets rid of infinities. It somehow works but is not well-defined from a mathematical perspective. Cyberia uses the term differently -- I doubt that even he knows what it is supposed to mean as he uses the term.

    I don't know if Feynman invented renormalization. Wilson, much later, received a Nobel Prize for his work on the subject. It remains mathematically dubious -- but seems to give accurate predictions.

    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/renormalization.html

    Spin is related to angular momentum, but spin is uniquely quantum in nature.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL
    The fact that it has mass is inconsequential. It is an elementary particle, like quarks, and cannot be reduced. It is my understanding that it is dimensionless, ie a point particle.
    The smallest anything can be is 10^-35 meter. How big is an electron compared to that? A point source even at that size? Or would it look like a planet at that size?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    It is also false (no surprise that Cyberia is clueless) that the electron mass cannot be measured. It is a fundamental constant and is known rather precisely.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_rest_mass

    So once again Cyberia is wrong about all subjects that he has chosen to address, a record unblemished by success.
    Once again, so eager to insult you do not read my post which makes it clear I was talking about the SIZE of the electron.

    Yet another red face as you head off at near light speed, causing a Doppler effect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL
    The fact that it has mass is inconsequential. It is an elementary particle, like quarks, and cannot be reduced. It is my understanding that it is dimensionless, ie a point particle.
    The smallest anything can be is 10^-35 meter. How big is an electron compared to that? A point source even at that size? Or would it look like a planet at that size?
    The classical electron radius is of the order 3x10^-15 m. This neglects quantum mechanical properties. However, this is based on scattering experiments. Since it also has wave characteristics, taking the classical radius as a face value is very questionable. Indeed, electrons are considered point-like in QM.

    A question back to you: Do you think that protons are bigger than electrons? Well, in this case see:
    http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1007....2010.337.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    As to "spin", spin is a quantum characteristic that is not "spin" in the sense of an ordinary top as Cyberia misunderstands it -- but Cyberia misunderstands nearly all of physics.
    A particle can be a point and have orbital momentum. It needs to have size to have angular momentum, as in spinning on it's axis and so producing a charge as in an electron.

    Can your brain spin, being a point source?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    As to "spin", spin is a quantum characteristic that is not "spin" in the sense of an ordinary top as Cyberia misunderstands it -- but Cyberia misunderstands nearly all of physics.
    A particle can be a point and have orbital momentum. It needs to have size to have angular momentum, as in spinning on it's axis and so producing a charge as in an electron.

    Can your brain spin, being a point source?


    All that you have proved is that your knowledge of quantum mechanics is zero (really less than zero because what you "know" is wrong).

    Quantum mechanical spin is not classical angular momentum. An electron is not a spinning top.

    Neither is it a sphere wqith a classical diameter.

    Atoms are not little solar systems -- too much Disney.

    No one can communicate with you simply because your perception of physics is based on misconceptions piled on misconceptions.

    Read a damn physics book.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    As to "spin", spin is a quantum characteristic that is not "spin" in the sense of an ordinary top as Cyberia misunderstands it -- but Cyberia misunderstands nearly all of physics.
    A particle can be a point and have orbital momentum. It needs to have size to have angular momentum, as in spinning on it's axis and so producing a charge as in an electron.

    Can your brain spin, being a point source?
    You must abandon the cartoon idea of subatomic particles being hard balls. They are not! The old model analogy with a planetary system is wrong. Electrons do not orbit the nucleus of an atom. The are smeared out according to a QM probability function. And yet, they possess angular momentum in a QM sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    DrRocket. You have just listed a number of denials which any child could do, and does do here.

    Are you claiming that an electron does not literally spin?

    Despite the dismissal of "shells", electrons still move to higher and lower levels as in shells, and the outer number of electrons, as in shell denotes the behaviour of the element.

    The copper corral as I pointed out elsewhere years ago to another DrRocket is electrons in motion due to a current flowing, so irrelevant.

    To say that an electron is a point source is nonsense if it is anything larger than a Planck length.

    It is meaningless to cube a word. It shows your own ignorance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    You must abandon the cartoon idea of subatomic particles being hard balls. They are not! The old model analogy with a planetary system is wrong. Electrons do not orbit the nucleus of an atom. The are smeared out according to a QM probability function. And yet, they possess angular momentum in a QM sense.
    If not a "hard ball", what is an electron? Certainly not a wave. I have just explained to Yogi why the quantum cloud idea may be wrong. If a cloud is an efficient model, why not for our solar system also?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    DrRocket. You have just listed a number of denials which any child could do, and does do here.

    Are you claiming that an electron does not literally spin?
    Of course not. Spin as it applies to the electron is a purely quantum mechanical notion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    To say that an electron is a point source is nonsense if it is anything larger than a Planck length.
    Not according to the best available theory of the electron -- quantum electrodynamics.

    Your ignorance again makes itself abundantly clear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Of course not. Spin as it applies to the electron is a purely quantum mechanical notion.

    Not according to the best available theory of the electron -- quantum electrodynamics.

    Your ignorance again makes itself abundantly clear.
    These are just guess work labeled "quantum something or other". There is no actual evidence to support this guess work.

    How can someone be ignorant if they refuse to accept guess work as true?

    You are gullible enough to be a creationist but I think you'd fail the IQ test.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Of course not. Spin as it applies to the electron is a purely quantum mechanical notion.

    Not according to the best available theory of the electron -- quantum electrodynamics.

    Your ignorance again makes itself abundantly clear.
    These are just guess work labeled "quantum something or other". There is no actual evidence to support this guess work.
    Oh my goodness. The QCD is the currently best understood part of the entire physics. Its predictions are so overwhelmingly accurate and precisely confirmed by experiments that it is either dumb of ignorant to dismiss it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    How can someone be ignorant if they refuse to accept guess work as true?
    You seem to be okay with this behaviour as long as it is your own guess work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Of course not. Spin as it applies to the electron is a purely quantum mechanical notion.

    Not according to the best available theory of the electron -- quantum electrodynamics.

    Your ignorance again makes itself abundantly clear.
    These are just guess work labeled "quantum something or other". There is no actual evidence to support this guess work.

    How can someone be ignorant if they refuse to accept guess work as true?

    You are gullible enough to be a creationist but I think you'd fail the IQ test.
    This is the most stupid statement that you have made so far, and THAT is sayingg a lot.

    Quantum electrodynamics is one of the most successful physical theories of all time, the model for quantum field theories, and demonstrated by predictions accurate to something like 16 decimal places as verified experimentally.

    We are still waiting for your first correct, or even plausible, statement regarding physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    [quote="Dishmaster"]Oh my goodness. The QCD is the currently best understood part of the entire physics. Its predictions are so overwhelmingly accurate and precisely confirmed by experiments that it is either dumb of ignorant to dismiss it.

    The fact that some things can be proved true does not mean everything associated with that field is automatically true.

    You seem to be okay with this behaviour as long as it is your own guess work.
    I admit what I say is ideas. I do not have a slavish following claiming that all my ideas are infallibly true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    This is the most stupid statement that you have made so far, and THAT is sayingg a lot.

    Quantum electrodynamics is one of the most successful physical theories of all time, the model for quantum field theories, and demonstrated by predictions accurate to something like 16 decimal places as verified experimentally.

    We are still waiting for your first correct, or even plausible, statement regarding physics.
    Another non answer.

    I am still waiting for your first answer so I can reply to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    ]

    Another non answer.

    I am still waiting for your first answer so I can reply to it.
    To another non-question.

    You need to learn enough physics to pose a well-formulated question.

    We are all still waiting for that question. What is truly sad is that you really believe that you have expressed a meaningful thought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    ]

    Another non answer.

    I am still waiting for your first answer so I can reply to it.
    To another non-question.

    You need to learn enough physics to pose a well-formulated question.

    We are all still waiting for that question. What is truly sad is that you really believe that you have expressed a meaningful thought.
    Not even worth answering. Yawn.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Not even worth answering. Yawn.
    Typical Cyberia. Mouth open. Nothing useful coming out.

    Now go read a physics book and then try to make your very first correct statement.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrSpamit
    Typical Cyberia. Mouth open. Nothing useful coming out.

    Now go read a physics book and then try to make your very first correct statement.

    Not even worth answering. Yawn.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73 Re: Singularity 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Socratic Spelunker
    So I was reading about the singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang and read that it had zero volume.

    I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of an object with zero volume. Can somebody please explain that to me?
    Yes, you are completely right. And it is absolutely normal for your disability of imagining an object with no volume. Singularity is in fact so odd, that non of the human brains around the Earth are able to imagine such a phenomenon. Nor are we able to explain it. But what we know about it is that it was there, but just not anywhere, but at the same time it was everywhere. Now, assuming it has no location, I think that it was, in a way, in another dimension. And by some magical force it got thrown into ours, thus, creating what we call the "Big Bang".

    I will have many discussion about such matters. Feel free to jump into my blog anytime to check the weekly articles out.

    http://scikronos.blogspot.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74 Singularity 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30
    It is absolutely normal for your disability of imagining an object with no volume. Singularity is in fact so odd, that non of the human brains around the Earth are able to imagine such a phenomenon. Nor are we able to explain it. But what we know about it is that it was there, but just not anywhere, but at the same time it was everywhere. Now, assuming it has no location, I think that it was, in a way, in another dimension. And by some magical force it got thrown into ours, thus, creating what we call the "Big Bang".

    I will have many discussion about such matters. Feel free to jump into my blog anytime to check the weekly articles out.

    http://scikronos.blogspot.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75 Re: Singularity 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    Quote Originally Posted by Socratic Spelunker
    So I was reading about the singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang and read that it had zero volume.

    I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of an object with zero volume. Can somebody please explain that to me?
    Yes, you are completely right. And it is absolutely normal for your disability of imagining an object with no volume. Singularity is in fact so odd, that non of the human brains around the Earth are able to imagine such a phenomenon. Nor are we able to explain it. But what we know about it is that it was there, but just not anywhere, but at the same time it was everywhere. Now, assuming it has no location, I think that it was, in a way, in another dimension. And by some magical force it got thrown into ours, thus, creating what we call the "Big Bang".

    I will have many discussion about such matters. Feel free to jump into my blog anytime to check the weekly articles out.

    http://scikronos.blogspot.com
    nope

    There are LOTS of things with zero volume --- a point, aline, a plane (embedded in 3-space).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76 Re: Singularity 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    Quote Originally Posted by Socratic Spelunker
    So I was reading about the singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang and read that it had zero volume.

    I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of an object with zero volume. Can somebody please explain that to me?
    Yes, you are completely right. And it is absolutely normal for your disability of imagining an object with no volume. Singularity is in fact so odd, that non of the human brains around the Earth are able to imagine such a phenomenon. Nor are we able to explain it. But what we know about it is that it was there, but just not anywhere, but at the same time it was everywhere. Now, assuming it has no location, I think that it was, in a way, in another dimension. And by some magical force it got thrown into ours, thus, creating what we call the "Big Bang".

    I will have many discussion about such matters. Feel free to jump into my blog anytime to check the weekly articles out.

    http://scikronos.blogspot.com
    nope

    There are LOTS of things with zero volume --- a point, aline, a plane (embedded in 3-space).
    Yes, I apologize for that little mistake. I got carried away by actually describing singularity. The other information is a 100% correct, and I am completely positive about that. The dimension part was an opinion of my own, and I can not support it with any facts. Since modern day scientists can not explain such a phenomenon, I thought I would give my ideas a go.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77 Re: Singularity 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    Yes, I apologize for that little mistake. I got carried away by actually describing singularity. The other information is a 100% correct, and I am completely positive about that. .
    'You may be positive, but you are also quite wrong.

    Better read up on singularities. Try the papers and references here.

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/The-b...ogy-28430t.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78 Re: Singularity 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    Yes, I apologize for that little mistake. I got carried away by actually describing singularity. The other information is a 100% correct, and I am completely positive about that. .
    'You may be positive, but you are also quite wrong.

    Better read up on singularities. Try the papers and references here.

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/The-b...ogy-28430t.php
    I'm not going to argue about anything here. When I said I'm positive of my statement, (which, overall, is a statement saying that singularity is unimaginable by the human) I meant that it is right. Like you, I have read many papers and books, and I trust my sources.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79 Re: Singularity 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    [quote=GioNikola]
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by "GioNikola"
    Yes, I apologize for that little mistake. I got carried away by actually describing singularity. The other information is a 100% correct, and I am completely positive about that. .[/quote

    'You may be positive, but you are also quite wrong.

    Better read up on singularities. Try the papers and references here.

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/The-b...ogy-28430t.php
    I'm not going to argue about anything here. When I said I'm positive of my statement, (which, overall, is a statement saying that singularity is unimaginable by the human) I meant that it is right. Like you, I have read many papers and books, and I trust my sources.
    You do realize, don't you, that some of links provided are to the original papers by Hawking and Penrose on singularities in general relativty ?

    Trusting your sources is good, but it is best when the sources are accurate and when you understand them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •