Notices
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: singularities big bang and particle

  1. #1 singularities big bang and particle 
    Forum Junior Powerdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    270
    According to the big bang theory, the universe at the time zero, was a singularitie.
    This seems strange except if you consider that the universe was one particle. As it was only one particle, it was a singularity. This singularitie could only "survive" for a very short period of time, and then explode in differents forms of particles.

    So my malteaser theory, is to say that at the origin of the universe, the universe was one single particle with a fantastic masse and energy.

    Now prove me wrong


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: singularities big bang and particle 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Powerdoc
    According to the big bang theory, the universe at the time zero, was a singularitie.
    This seems strange except if you consider that the universe was one particle. As it was only one particle, it was a singularity. This singularitie could only "survive" for a very short period of time, and then explode in differents forms of particles.

    So my malteaser theory, is to say that at the origin of the universe, the universe was one single particle with a fantastic masse and energy.

    Now prove me wrong
    Who said time zero? I thought it had only been established back to a planck length away from T=0 before which the laws of physics would have been different... anybody?..


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: singularities big bang and particle 
    Forum Junior Powerdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Quote Originally Posted by Powerdoc
    According to the big bang theory, the universe at the time zero, was a singularitie.
    This seems strange except if you consider that the universe was one particle. As it was only one particle, it was a singularity. This singularitie could only "survive" for a very short period of time, and then explode in differents forms of particles.

    So my malteaser theory, is to say that at the origin of the universe, the universe was one single particle with a fantastic masse and energy.

    Now prove me wrong
    Who said time zero? I thought it had only been established back to a planck length away from T=0 before which the laws of physics would have been different... anybody?..
    I wonder if the statement that the laws of physics where different is a tweak to explain the unthinkable ?

    So do not say t zero but before 10e -44 sec
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: singularities big bang and particle 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Powerdoc
    According to the big bang theory, the universe at the time zero, was a singularitie.
    This seems strange except if you consider that the universe was one particle. As it was only one particle, it was a singularity. This singularitie could only "survive" for a very short period of time, and then explode in differents forms of particles.

    So my malteaser theory, is to say that at the origin of the universe, the universe was one single particle with a fantastic masse and energy.

    Now prove me wrong
    think your saying everything that now is thought to be mass in the entire
    universe, what ever its size, was at one point one unit, with that same mass and would have no light but solid mass and of course be very large.
    kind of like one big rock.

    if i had to choose between the two, id say that is logical to the soup or suitcase theories, but would still have the same final problems, in explanations. of course, no one can prove you right or wrong and my
    question would be the same in either case. Why would there be a need to have such a unit, any of the BB theory and there are many more.

    why is it so hard to assume something has always been. what would the difference be if something is a a trillion billion light years old or 15 billion
    light years old or if it formed or just simply is. there is some need to excuse the obvious to me and that some things may have always been.

    if i could prove that light is a certain age or the cause and reactions of something at some point in the history caused a visual understanding of light as we vision it or even the understanding of long distant light travel, then i could explain virtually everything, with out the need to have a theory, based on something from nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,517
    Okay first problem - you cant talk about big bang cosmology and the time t=0. Its kind of like saying "look at this lump of cheese and wow its tempreture is 0K".

    Second problem - how is a particle the same as a singularity? Newtonian mechanics has lots of "particles" and yet has no singularities and de-sitter spaces have no matter yet are expanding and thus have singularities.

    Third problem - It is not our job to prove you wrong, you have to prove your malteaser theory right
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    So do not say t zero but before 10e -44 sec
    you cannot go further back than 1 planktime after bigbang, going any further back is none-sense.
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior Powerdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    So do not say t zero but before 10e -44 sec
    you cannot go further back than 1 planktime after bigbang, going any further back is none-sense.
    Saying that it's non sense, is good way to not question the big bang theory. There was something before the big bang occur : what is it ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior Powerdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    Okay first problem - you cant talk about big bang cosmology and the time t=0. Its kind of like saying "look at this lump of cheese and wow its tempreture is 0K".

    Second problem - how is a particle the same as a singularity? Newtonian mechanics has lots of "particles" and yet has no singularities and de-sitter spaces have no matter yet are expanding and thus have singularities.

    Third problem - It is not our job to prove you wrong, you have to prove your malteaser theory right
    does the quark have a size, or are they just a level of energy ?
    Does the photon have a size either ?
    Can we consider this particles as singularities (excepting they are many) ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,517
    quarks, like electrons are supposed to be idealised point particles if i recall correctly. Ditto for photons - so they have zero volume. But what does that have to do with the idea of a singularity?

    A singularity has a very specific meaning but complicated meaning in GR (where i assume we are talking). A spacetime manifold has a singularity if it has timelike curves which are finite in length (so if you are following one of those curves you reach a point where you no longer exist) - thus the BB has a singularity, as does a black hole etc.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Saying that it's non sense, is good way to not question the big bang theory.
    saying anything smaller than plank lenght is none-sense, saying anything hotter than plank temperature. is none.sense
    you cant go further back therefor its nonesense in this universe. you can only explain it from a outside view wich doesnt make much sense either.
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior Powerdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    quarks, like electrons are supposed to be idealised point particles if i recall correctly. Ditto for photons - so they have zero volume. But what does that have to do with the idea of a singularity?

    A singularity has a very specific meaning but complicated meaning in GR (where i assume we are talking). A spacetime manifold has a singularity if it has timelike curves which are finite in length (so if you are following one of those curves you reach a point where you no longer exist) - thus the BB has a singularity, as does a black hole etc.
    My point is that if the universe was a unique particle in the beginning, it's logical that the universe had zero volume.

    For zelos : my point is to study the big bang from the outside. Of course currently we can only study it from the inside, and there is a lof of chances that there is no outside at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,517
    Why? You can have a unique particle in a universe on infinite volume.

    What you are trying to do is embedd our universe into some higher space - the problem is that there is no unique way of doing that.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Junior Powerdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    Why? You can have a unique particle in a universe on infinite volume.

    What you are trying to do is embedd our universe into some higher space - the problem is that there is no unique way of doing that.
    First of all, I do not define space as universe. Space is the geometrical aera where the universe grow continuously since the big bang.

    Second point. Even if in this space there was many universes it will be almost impossible for us to discover it, if there isn't any collision. Perhaps it will be possible to discover some gravitational interferences. For example we should discover that our universe is not that spheric. BTW from the inside and only seeing the light from the past, I higly doubt it's possible.
    The truth is that we are almost blind, and are only able to see the past.

    Third point, for me singularity mean an unique entity without size in the entire universe ( I don't use the word space here : for space I don't know according to point 2) . I think that a unique huge particle could fit that description. Remember that when we study the early stages of the universes, there is a lot of stranges particles, that do not exist anymore.

    Fourth point : the question is : is such a particle can exist according to physic particle ? I will say not, in our present time, but who knows ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    45
    Powerdoc -

    you should read Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos and also The Elegant Universe.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Elegant-Univ...e=UTF8&s=books

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fabric-Cosmo...347864?ie=UTF8
    Allness - The path to enlightenment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Junior Powerdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by marcUK
    Powerdoc -

    you should read Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos and also The Elegant Universe.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Elegant-Univ...e=UTF8&s=books

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fabric-Cosmo...347864?ie=UTF8
    Yes I should. Thanks for the links
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,517
    Quote Originally Posted by Powerdoc
    First of all, I do not define space as universe. Space is the geometrical aera where the universe grow continuously since the big bang.
    Thats fine but then you are not in modern physics anymore - you cant seperate spacetime and the stuff in it.

    Second point. Even if in this space there was many universes it will be almost impossible for us to discover it, if there isn't any collision. Perhaps it will be possible to discover some gravitational interferences. For example we should discover that our universe is not that spheric. BTW from the inside and only seeing the light from the past, I higly doubt it's possible.
    The truth is that we are almost blind, and are only able to see the past.
    I am not talking about a multiverse, and the thing you are embedding our universe into you cant call "space" easily.

    Third point, for me singularity mean an unique entity without size in the entire universe ( I don't use the word space here : for space I don't know according to point 2) . I think that a unique huge particle could fit that description. Remember that when we study the early stages of the universes, there is a lot of stranges particles, that do not exist anymore.
    Once again thats fine, but that is not what a singularity is when cosmologists talk about singularities.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Junior Powerdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    Quote Originally Posted by Powerdoc
    First of all, I do not define space as universe. Space is the geometrical aera where the universe grow continuously since the big bang.
    Thats fine but then you are not in modern physics anymore - you cant seperate spacetime and the stuff in it.

    Second point. Even if in this space there was many universes it will be almost impossible for us to discover it, if there isn't any collision. Perhaps it will be possible to discover some gravitational interferences. For example we should discover that our universe is not that spheric. BTW from the inside and only seeing the light from the past, I higly doubt it's possible.
    The truth is that we are almost blind, and are only able to see the past.
    I am not talking about a multiverse, and the thing you are embedding our universe into you cant call "space" easily.

    Third point, for me singularity mean an unique entity without size in the entire universe ( I don't use the word space here : for space I don't know according to point 2) . I think that a unique huge particle could fit that description. Remember that when we study the early stages of the universes, there is a lot of stranges particles, that do not exist anymore.
    Once again thats fine, but that is not what a singularity is when cosmologists talk about singularities.
    I can separate space with the stuff in it, because for the space I define is only a mathematical entity. The part of this geometrical space wich is outside universe has absolutely no influence on it, because there is nothing, and even in the Einstein theory, total emptiness have no influence on the equations. So you can ignore this part of mathematical space outside universe.
    This mathematical space is just a mental representation. Astrophysic is not concerned with anything outside the universe : they will say it's irrelevant, but I like to think that if we travel at a tremendeous speed, wich should be able after several billions of years to go outside the universe : perhaps as we are just a part of if, we will just expand it.
    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
  •