1. As scientists unwound the universe in reverse the equations used to do this indicated that the temperature and density as it approaches the infinite and likewise its density. This is a paradoxical condition. But not to worry these infinities are just an artifact of the calculus are not actually characteristics of the singularity, as "nothing" cannot have any attributes. "Nothing" cannot have any physical characteristics whatsoever unless it is actually "something". How can it be "nothing" and "something" at the same time? I would suggest that the reality of infinite temperature and density not physically possible especially when the body which has these characteristics is dimensionless. So when the mathematics tells us the density of the singularity is infinite but yet it has only one dimension which is the mathematical equivalent for "nothing", what does that really mean? Likewise for temperature, isn't it meaningless to have infinite temperature when it is dimensionless? Even the notion of infinite density and temperature applied to the singularity which is equivalent to nothing, is an irresolvable paradox unless you consider that either multiplying or dividing infinities by zero is either zero or another infinity. In addition without volume density becomes meaningless: where density = Mass/volume within a singularity with no volume and no mass infinite densities are essentially meaningless. If nothing in the physical world is capable of these same characteristics of infinitudes then how can the cosmic singularity which has no dimensions possibly have any these physical characteristics at all. Finally infinite density is a just the mathematical result of any amount of energy and matter extrapolated into a singularity. Consider if the universe were the size and weight of a loaf of bread and it was compressed into a singularity it would have infinite density, likewise an ice cube compressed into a singularity would have infinite temperature! The amount of input into a singularity is irrelevant in producing these same infinities. Of these infinite values are meaningless then the theoretical machinations are not able to distinguish between the cosmic singularity and really "Nothing" The question is could it really be nothing? If the infinitudes attibuted to the singularity are of no meaning. what then is the difference between the cosmic singularity and really "nothing"? And if has no material characteristics it in fact exceeds the limits of scientific discovery and can be argued that it not just unexplained it is unexplainable.

2.

3. Originally Posted by Jerryboy
As scientists unwound the universe in reverse the equations used to do this indicated that the temperature and density as it approaches the infinite and likewise its density.
Note that the key word there is "approaches". The big bang theory doesn't go to time zero (and the problems of infinite density, etc.)

I assume that makes the rest of your post rather irrelevant (but I couldn't really see what your point was).

4. As it approaches "the singularity" at Planck time it sheds time, space and all the math and physics of our universe. IF time still exists each moment is exactly like the previous one. But to suggest that the big bang doesn't go to the singularity is without scientific, mathematical or evidence or support. Even black holes within our universe have singularities which end with the extinction of space/time physical laws. What you suggests is without general support, but interesting insofar as what keeps the almost singularity from becoming complete.
`

5. Even black holes within our universe have singularities which end with the extinction of space/time physical laws.
Not correct. Singularities show up in the mathematics of General Relativity only because the theory is incomplete in that it does not incorporate any quantum effects. A full theory of quantum gravity ( which, sadly, we do not yet have ) will almost certainly not contain any gravitational singularities. In fact, even the most basic extensions of GR which contain space-times with torsion already preclude the existence of singularities ( see my recent thread on Einstein-Cartan theory ).

But to suggest that the big bang doesn't go to the singularity is without scientific, mathematical or evidence or support.
Also incorrect, see above. General Relativity and relativistic quantum field theories are no longer applicable once one approaches the Planck era. At the Planck era and beyond quantum effects of gravity can no longer be ignored, and we don't have a working theory for this yet.

6. maybe there (or the first particle) was a particle or whatever with zero mass and a ftl ability that broke down at planck, simply because of its ftl ability. we would never be able to find out then and t0 would = planck then.

 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   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement