Thread: singularities big bang and particle

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

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?..

Originally Posted by Megabrain

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

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.

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

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.

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 ?

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) ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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

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

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.

Originally Posted by river_rat

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.