# Thread: Is it POSSIBLE to understand a singularity.

1. The singularity is, hands down, the single biggest mystery in the known universe. In a singularity, space, time, and all known laws of physics fall apart. Scientists believe that understanding the singularity will require new physics, but where are we going to get these new physics?

Theoretical physics is based on previously-proven facts of regular physics, and regular physics is based on observation. The first theoretical physicists derived their theories from known concepts of Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics, so observational physics provides the foundation for theoretical physics.

So since the singularity of a black hole does not follow the known laws of physics, we have to go back to square one, but we have nothing to work with. Understanding science relies fundamentally on having something previously known -- such as an observation or valid theory -- that can start a "chain reaction," if I may, to lead to another conclusion, but with the singularity, the laws of known physics fall apart, so theoretical physics becomes useless, and the singularity is covered from view by the event horizon, so observation is impossible. Therefore, the only ways we can engage in scientific research -- observation and theory -- are thrown out the window.

So where are we going to get these new physics? The known laws of physics were understood by our ancestors only because they had observations to get the wheels in motion. What are WE going to do with the singularity? We have nothing to work with.

So what I'm asking is this: Is the singularity so strange that we can never hope to understand it, and science is wasting its time trying to do so? Your thoughts?

2.

3. I'm glad they didn't stop thinking about building flying machines after Leonardo Da Vinci finished his heli/ornothopter drawings.

It's beyond Mathematical understanding currently, but the base idea is reasonably simple from a discriptive standpoint. A point with a size which is 0 units in diameter and has as much mass as a sun. (units in this case meaning any kind of unit you wish. Be it centremeters, feet or neutron diameters). Beyond that the maths and understanding kind of goes out the window, but the basic idea of why such a concept needs to exist is fairly straight forward.

It might take a few hundred years for the more complicated discriptions of process and effect to be worked out with any degree of workability, but what's 500 years in the scheme of things? It's not like black holes are impatiently awaiting our conclusions after all.

Once the maths can be made to work, then one could consider the singulary's theoretical discription to be all but complete. Direct observation of course awaits quick and fast space travel.

Of course one of the reasons for Hawking to understand the singularly in the Black Hole is because it is a reasonable model for discribing the Singulary at the beginning of the big bang. One cannot go back in time to the actual big bang, so the black holes serve as a sort of testing bed for ideas.

To give up on the theoretical physics behind the Black Hole Singulary would be to miss the entire point. We arn't trying to harness them for anything (yet) merely trying to use them to understand more about the universe. Just because it's hard, and possibly even impossible to conclusivley understand, does not mean there can be no benifit. In studying one phenomenon, one begins to understand many other things, including the nature of Gravity itself. To increase understanding so that our theories and definitions about how things in the physical universe work is the point.

Gravity is more than just "What goes up must come down". (tell that to Voyager 2, it went up in 1972... hasn't come down yet :P )

Gravity is more than just Newtonian mathematical principals. (Relitivity mucks around with that a fair bit, and is measurable in space craft)

Perhaps the study of singularies will as a biproduct of the study, be able to increase sciences understanding on how gravity works in different situations. Singularies, in the black hole sense, are literally caused by gravity, and so any study of black holes will be in part, a study on gravity as well. And last time I checked, Modern life has a large need to understand gravity. (Satellites, Space Craft, Aircraft, Inertial Gyroscopic Navigation Systems, etc)

4. That's not what I'm asking. I understand that it's IMPORTANT to understand the singularity, but what I'm asking is is it even POSSIBLE. Regardless of how important understanding the singularity is, if it's impossible, we're wasting our time trying to. It's like going faster than c. If we can do that, we could travel the diameter of the universe in a moment's notice, but we can't go faster than c, so we can pretty much rule that out.

5. DaVinci, had what many ideas come from. a known process by which flight was possible..the birds.

the singularity, has no foundation in rational thinking. in reality it doesn't even need to have existed for expansion. there are other reasons which could cause expansion, if indeed the universe is expanding. then what ever your notion or anyone else's is, what and how could such a unit form or from what. taking the latest theory, or that it was with in something called nothingness, it would have to simply always just been.

frankly, i feel BBT is a waste of time. when its all in and done, if ever, someone will realize they have finally explained something other than a universal BB. however i also do not think our understanding of many things are complete, which in an effort to explain, even the unexplainable many things will evolve.

6. Originally Posted by davidstebbins
...So what I'm asking is this: Is the singularity so strange that we can never hope to understand it, and science is wasting its time trying to do so? Your thoughts?
Why put limitations on our quest for knowledge?

7. Originally Posted by jackson33
DaVinci, had what many ideas come from. a known process by which flight was possible..the birds.

the singularity, has no foundation in rational thinking. in reality it doesn't even need to have existed for expansion. there are other reasons which could cause expansion, if indeed the universe is expanding. then what ever your notion or anyone else's is, what and how could such a unit form or from what. taking the latest theory, or that it was with in something called nothingness, it would have to simply always just been.

frankly, i feel BBT is a waste of time. when its all in and done, if ever, someone will realize they have finally explained something other than a universal BB. however i also do not think our understanding of many things are complete, which in an effort to explain, even the unexplainable many things will evolve.
Um, could you try speaking in English?

8. Originally Posted by davidstebbins
So what I'm asking is this: Is the singularity so strange that we can never hope to understand it, and science is wasting its time trying to do so? Your thoughts?
Remove the trappings of physics, of chemistry, matter and energy from our universe and what remains I beleve is dynamics. One might argue though that the physics causes the dynamics. I disagree: the physics serving only as a convenient host for the dynamics. Intrinsic to much of non-linear dynamics is the property of "critical point" and the phase transition that results from trajecting through a critical point. Think of the transition that water goes through as the temperature trajects through zero degrees. Phase transitions are all around us and I believe hint at a larger phenomenon: the Big Bang was also a phase transition that some larger-than-universe dynamic system I'll call the hyper-verse went through as it was somehow pushed past one of its critical points.

We can study phase transitions by studying the global dynamic properties of the underlying dynamics. Then to study the critical point you call the singularity, one then needs to understand the global dynamics of the hyper-verse. One way that might be accomplished is to analytically "continue" the laws of physics beyond the big bang in purely mathematical terms. The example I use is the analytical continuation of the Euler product into the Zeta function: the domain of definition of the Euler product which is limited to the real part of s>1, is analytically continued to the whole complex plane: The zeta function "reduces" to the Euler product when the critical point (Re(s)>1) is reached. In the analogy of our universe, this "hyper-universe" reduces to our universe when some critical point is reached. That critical point is the singularity you speak of. Understanding the dynamics of this hyper-verse would allow us to understand this singularity.

9. Originally Posted by zetaman
Originally Posted by davidstebbins
So what I'm asking is this: Is the singularity so strange that we can never hope to understand it, and science is wasting its time trying to do so? Your thoughts?
Remove the trappings of physics, of chemistry, matter and energy from our universe and what remains I beleve is dynamics. One might argue though that the physics causes the dynamics. I disagree: the physics serving only as a convenient host for the dynamics. Intrinsic to much of non-linear dynamics is the property of "critical point" and the phase transition that results from trajecting through a critical point. Think of the transition that water goes through as the temperature trajects through zero degrees. Phase transitions are all around us and I believe hint at a larger phenomenon: the Big Bang was also a phase transition that some larger-than-universe dynamic system I'll call the hyper-verse went through as it was somehow pushed past one of its critical points.

We can study phase transitions by studying the global dynamic properties of the underlying dynamics. Then to study the critical point you call the singularity, one then needs to understand the global dynamics of the hyper-verse. One way that might be accomplished is to analytically "continue" the laws of physics beyond the big bang in purely mathematical terms. The example I use is the analytical continuation of the Euler product into the Zeta function: the domain of definition of the Euler product which is limited to the real part of s>1, is analytically continued to the whole complex plane: The zeta function "reduces" to the Euler product when the critical point (Re(s)>1) is reached. In the analogy of our universe, this "hyper-universe" reduces to our universe when some critical point is reached. That critical point is the singularity you speak of. Understanding the dynamics of this hyper-verse would allow us to understand this singularity.
You know that idea is absolutely meaningless unless you can prove it with mathematics, don't you?

10. Originally Posted by davidstebbins
That's not what I'm asking. I understand that it's IMPORTANT to understand the singularity, but what I'm asking is is it even POSSIBLE. Regardless of how important understanding the singularity is, if it's impossible, we're wasting our time trying to.
Is it Important? or a waste of time?

Surely it can't be both.

11. Originally Posted by musicalaviator
Originally Posted by davidstebbins
That's not what I'm asking. I understand that it's IMPORTANT to understand the singularity, but what I'm asking is is it even POSSIBLE. Regardless of how important understanding the singularity is, if it's impossible, we're wasting our time trying to.
Is it Important? or a waste of time?

Surely it can't be both.
You know what I mean.

12. Perhaps when we discover a theory of quantum gravity, that is, unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity, we may be able to come to a better understanding of singularities...or not. At present we don't even have an understanding of the physics at the Planck scale, (the Plank length is 1.6 x 10^-35 meters). At this scale the four fundamental forces are united, the concepts of size and distance break down and the uncertainty principle becomes dominant. What spacetime is like at this scale is open to conjecture.

The Plank epoch, from 0 to 10^-43 seconds, is the earliest time in the history of the universe. However, the singularity existed before the Plank epoch so even with a theory of quantum gravity it seems the physics of the singularity will still remain a mystery. Perhaps using string theory or M-theory we will come to an understanding of singularities.

Just my understanding of the subject.

13. If you want to understand singularity, then hear this and believe=All is the same.

To experience singularity, you would need to learn to use your mind for a moment in a way that it does not cling. That would mean its not filled with thought stuff, nor empty, but rather not-not-empty. Then you are beyond time and concept. :wink:

'Mind that no longer clings means nibbana' -Majjhima Nikaya

Beyond time and concept also would mean that there is neither any teaching of thinking or not-thinking, or anything at all happening. Only mind is happening. If this is in any way interesting to you, you could google out Diamond sutra. Check it out, it has nothing to do with any religious belief. It cuts through all thought and dogma. Thats why its one of a kind.

14. Originally Posted by Ilpoj
If you want to understand singularity, then hear this and believe=All is the same.

To experience singularity, you would need to learn to use your mind for a moment in a way that it does not cling. That would mean its not filled with thought stuff, nor empty, but rather not-not-empty. Then you are beyond time and concept. :wink:

'Mind that no longer clings means nibbana' -Majjhima Nikaya

Beyond time and concept also would mean that there is neither any teaching of thinking or not-thinking, or anything at all happening. Only mind is happening. If this is in any way interesting to you, you could google out Diamond sutra. Check it out, it has nothing to do with any religious belief. It cuts through all thought and dogma. Thats why its one of a kind.
None of this has anything to do with a singularity in physics. Don't just use whatever definitions for words you feel like, use the one that is in the proper context.

15. The singularity is not yet achieved, that we saw was less dimensional space becoming atleast 3D. The fusion was the big bang.

16. Earlier, science saught a singularity for a different reasoning and goal, in the quest to find a unifying theory, namely, to combine the forces and determine a grand unification theory. Here, the search was on for the smallest basic particle of matter, one which is indevisable and irreducable.

The quark became the prime candidate, and it was deemed so small it did not possess another 'side' to it. Many books were published 20 years ago, which became best sellers, in the vein of Dawkins today. Then came the big let down: an entire universe was found in quarks, and cosmologists started to pull out their shock of white hairs.

This original concept of a Singularity has now been put to rest. Its meaning is there is no singularity: we cannot and have not as of today, been able to encounter the source, origin or final point of anything in the universe or this planet.

Why then are we looking for the BB point or pre- and multi-universe scenarios? The closest potential reasoning is by Prof. Roger Penfolds, and his theory the stars were not produced in the universe, but their cores popped out from underlying space, which harbours an unseen realm.

17. Originally Posted by IamJoseph
Earlier, science saught a singularity for a different reasoning and goal, in the quest to find a unifying theory, namely, to combine the forces and determine a grand unification theory.
False. The concept of the singularity was introduced by Georges Le Maitre, a Jesuit priest, as a logical esxtension backward in time of the apparent expansion of the Universe identified by Hubble.
Originally Posted by IamJoseph
Here, the search was on for the smallest basic particle of matter, one which is indevisable and irreducable.
False. You appear to be confusing particle physics and cosmology.
Originally Posted by IamJoseph
Many books were published 20 years ago, which became best sellers, in the vein of Dawkins today.
Strawman Alert. What do best selling works by top scientists actually have to do with the advance of science?
Originally Posted by IamJoseph
Then came the big let down: an entire universe was found in quarks, and cosmologists started to pull out their shock of white hairs.
Citation request.
Originally Posted by IamJoseph
we cannot and have not as of today, been able to encounter the source, origin or final point of anything in the universe or this planet.
False. We have clearly established the origin of the planet, of its continental masses, its ocean floors, and have a pretty good grasp of the origin of its oceans and atmosphere.
Originally Posted by IamJoseph
The closest potential reasoning is by Prof. Roger Penfolds, and his theory the stars were not produced in the universe, but their cores popped out from underlying space, which harbours an unseen realm.
Citation request.

18. Originally Posted by StarMountainKid
Perhaps when we discover a theory of quantum gravity, that is, unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity, we may be able to come to a better understanding of singularities...or not. At present we don't even have an understanding of the physics at the Planck scale, (the Plank length is 1.6 x 10^-35 meters). At this scale the four fundamental forces are united, the concepts of size and distance break down and the uncertainty principle becomes dominant. What spacetime is like at this scale is open to conjecture.

The Plank epoch, from 0 to 10^-43 seconds, is the earliest time in the history of the universe. However, the singularity existed before the Plank epoch so even with a theory of quantum gravity it seems the physics of the singularity will still remain a mystery. Perhaps using string theory or M-theory we will come to an understanding of singularities.

Just my understanding of the subject.
A couple of questions.
First am I right to say that singularities are often described as regions where the density of matter is infinite? If it is not possible to have a smaller length than the Planck length because space, or space-time, breaks down into something else,where it is not possible to measure distance,then how can the density of matter be infinite as the Planck length,no matter how small,is not a pure mathematical point. Even if it were possible to pack all the matter,in the universe,into a region of space equivalent to the size of the Planck length the density,altho' massive, would not be infinite.
Second I "understood" (well not really!) that it was meaningless to consider time before the Planck epoch or have I got that wrong?

19. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
We have clearly established the origin of the planet, of its continental masses, its ocean floors, and have a pretty good grasp of the origin of its oceans and atmosphere.

This comes under peripheral forms. We still do not know what lies at the core of particles, eg: where it ends/begins. The search for an irreducable and indevisable point has been elusive at all levels. And this is a fundamental issue for a real understanding of the universe. We do not know where quarks or the smallest known entities, come from.

We have tracked, and determined only that 'virtual' particles are born/pops out, allocating this to aether vibrations and waves which cause a variance of levels and thereby effecting a cycle of particle reproduction; we have determined an electron can escape its orbit belt and become free [alpha particle]. This means we do not know in actual terms what makes a particle into iron, oxygen, a tree or a pineapple: because we don't know its basic earliest action. We don't know the common denominator of the universal matter.

Originally Posted by IamJoseph
The closest potential reasoning is by Prof. Roger Penfolds, and his theory the stars were not produced in the universe, but their cores popped out from underlying space, which harbours an unseen realm.
Citation request.[/quote]

He said this in a BBC radio interview. I have not further details, but this statement was also discussed in other media and cable as controversial, coming from a long time atheist scientist.

20. What a delightful debating style you have. I make six points and you respond to one of them with yet another strawman approach. (Pretty soon I'll run out of interest.)
I am also not especially happy about relying on an anecdotal recollection of a casual remark made by a scientist in a TV interview. It's not exactly Nature, is it?

21. Originally Posted by IamJoseph
Originally Posted by Ophiolite
We have clearly established the origin of the planet, of its continental masses, its ocean floors, and have a pretty good grasp of the origin of its oceans and atmosphere.

This comes under peripheral forms. We still do not know what lies at the core of particles, eg: where it ends/begins. The search for an irreducable and indevisable point has been elusive at all levels. And this is a fundamental issue for a real understanding of the universe. We do not know where quarks or the smallest known entities, come from.

We have tracked, and determined only that 'virtual' particles are born/pops out, allocating this to aether vibrations and waves which cause a variance of levels and thereby effecting a cycle of particle reproduction; we have determined an electron can escape its orbit belt and become free [alpha particle]. This means we do not know in actual terms what makes a particle into iron, oxygen, a tree or a pineapple: because we don't know its basic earliest action. We don't know the common denominator of the universal matter.
in order to explain how something works, it is essential that the explanation remains at the same level of explanatory power as the item it attempts to explain - e.g. if you want to know the workings of the combustion engine, you are mostly interested in how the various macroscopic parts interact and what the best choice of material is for various parts of the engine

an explanation of the combustion engine using subatomic particles would not be a very satisfying one

22. Originally Posted by marnixR
Originally Posted by IamJoseph
Originally Posted by Ophiolite
We have clearly established the origin of the planet, of its continental masses, its ocean floors, and have a pretty good grasp of the origin of its oceans and atmosphere.

This comes under peripheral forms. We still do not know what lies at the core of particles, eg: where it ends/begins. The search for an irreducable and indevisable point has been elusive at all levels. And this is a fundamental issue for a real understanding of the universe. We do not know where quarks or the smallest known entities, come from.

We have tracked, and determined only that 'virtual' particles are born/pops out, allocating this to aether vibrations and waves which cause a variance of levels and thereby effecting a cycle of particle reproduction; we have determined an electron can escape its orbit belt and become free [alpha particle]. This means we do not know in actual terms what makes a particle into iron, oxygen, a tree or a pineapple: because we don't know its basic earliest action. We don't know the common denominator of the universal matter.
in order to explain how something works, it is essential that the explanation remains at the same level of explanatory power as the item it attempts to explain - e.g. if you want to know the workings of the combustion engine, you are mostly interested in how the various macroscopic parts interact and what the best choice of material is for various parts of the engine

an explanation of the combustion engine using subatomic particles would not be a very satisfying one
In order to explain how something works, ADMIT the gun is pointed at your head...............feel the situation..........right?

23. you seem to be going slightly off-topic - you sure you're feeling ok ?

24. Originally Posted by marnixR
you seem to be going slightly off-topic - you sure you're feeling ok ?
He's a kid/prick, doesn't mean you can give him the psychedelic BS.

25. Originally Posted by davidstebbins
That's not what I'm asking. I understand that it's IMPORTANT to understand the singularity, but what I'm asking is is it even POSSIBLE. Regardless of how important understanding the singularity is, if it's impossible, we're wasting our time trying to. It's like going faster than c. If we can do that, we could travel the diameter of the universe in a moment's notice, but we can't go faster than c, so we can pretty much rule that out.
Of course a singularity can be anything that is bounded, but I assume that your are referring to a singularity of the smallest possible dimension. A single irreducible point.
IMO, within such a point, matter, energy, time, gravity and relativity are meaningless terms. However, there are two universal constants which may still apply; a) potential and b) quantum.
Visualize "unlimited pure potential compressed into an infinitely small singularity resulting in a single mega quantum event" (BB). The beginning of time, energy, matter, gravity, and relativity.

26. Has anyone read the Renata Loll papers on CDT (Causal Dynamic Triangulation)?

Causal dynamical triangulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparently this spacetime geometry presents no conflict with any of the major accepted Theories in physics, from macro down to Planck.
One of her lectures,

Renate Loll on the Quantum Origins of Space and Time - YouTube

27. davidstebbens,

...So what I'm asking is this: Is the singularity so strange that we can never hope to understand it, and science is wasting its time trying to do so? Your thoughts?
My thoughts are as follows:

In modern Big Bang physics many theorists today prefer not to explain the beginning of the universe as being a singularity.

Instead they explain it this way:

...According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion caused the Universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state.
-- without mentioning a singularity beginning.

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many think that at the center of a black hole there is a singularity, as a single vacuous, dimensionless point, but others think instead there is a finite diameter not just for the event horizon but also for the black hole entity inside of it.

Do black holes have finite size

This brings to question whether there really is such a thing as a singularity. Of course one can be theorized mathematically, but in reality it would seem that there is no evidence to support their existence. Even though most theorists still support the idea of a singularity, a minority are now leaning away from this idea.

If it could never be determined then we could never know. In the future if it is not needed for theory, then in time it will become a less popular idea, and something finite could eventually theoretically replace the vacuous void idea and equations involving a singularity.

28. Originally Posted by Write4U
Has anyone read the Renata Loll papers on CDT (Causal Dynamic Triangulation)?

Causal dynamical triangulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparently this spacetime geometry presents no conflict with any of the major accepted Theories in physics, from macro down to Planck.
One of her lectures,

Renate Loll on the Quantum Origins of Space and Time - YouTube
Yes, I'm quite familiar with Loll's ideas. Very interesting approach. Let's see how this pans out.

29. Originally Posted by Write4U

Of course a singularity can be anything that is bounded, but I assume that your are referring to a singularity of the smallest possible dimension. A single irreducible point.
IMO, within such a point, matter, energy, time, gravity and relativity are meaningless terms. However, there are two universal constants which may still apply; a) potential and b) quantum.
Visualize "unlimited pure potential compressed into an infinitely small singularity resulting in a single mega quantum event" (BB). The beginning of time, energy, matter, gravity, and relativity.
Given that beyond the Planck scale quantum gravitational effects will play a role, it is likely that the singularity is not actually a single 0-dimensional point of infinite density. The prediction is made by GR, but one mustn't forget that GR does not account for quantum effects.
Also, there are other proposals which avoid singularities altogether, such as Mathur's Fuzzball :

Fuzzball (string theory) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incidentally this would also solve the Information Paradox.

30. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Write4U

Of course a singularity can be anything that is bounded, but I assume that your are referring to a singularity of the smallest possible dimension. A single irreducible point.
IMO, within such a point, matter, energy, time, gravity and relativity are meaningless terms. However, there are two universal constants which may still apply; a) potential and b) quantum.
Visualize "unlimited pure potential compressed into an infinitely small singularity resulting in a single mega quantum event" (BB). The beginning of time, energy, matter, gravity, and relativity.
Given that beyond the Planck scale quantum gravitational effects will play a role, it is likely that the singularity is not actually a single 0-dimensional point of infinite density. The prediction is made by GR, but one mustn't forget that GR does not account for quantum effects.
Also, there are other proposals which avoid singularities altogether, such as Mathur's Fuzzball :

Fuzzball (string theory) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incidentally this would also solve the Information Paradox.
As an ex musician, the string theory has always fascinated me. The phrases: "Music of the spheres" and "To the sympnony of life no one has the score" have always intuitively appealed to me.

I have always had a little pet paradigm about the concept of Potential. Among the many uses and application of the word, I found a fundamental common concept, i.e. "a latent excellence which may become reality"

I deduced that while not all potential becomes reality, all reality (past, present, future) was, is, and will be preceded by potential.
I found some confirmation in David Bohm's theory of the "Implicate" and "Explicate" orders, where the explicate (reality) emerges from the implicate (potential). He even postulates a state of pure potential, without any physical atrributes other than a universal power in a state of latency.

My question is if it could be possible that the "foam" from which the strings emerge as quarks, could be this state of pure potential and it is convergence of potentials might be causal to certain reinforcing harmonics from which the quarks emerge.

I know I'm deep in woo here, but if potential indeed must preceed an event, any event, every event, it would perhaps explain the conversion from the non-physical (implicate) to the physical (explicate), it must be part of all quantum events.

It would also account for that single instant of infinite non-physical potential compressed into an infinitely small space and be causal to the BB (a single mega quantum event), spewing out the potential foam from which then the strings emerge as quarks, gather energy, and universal evolution begins.

This process might possibly be reversed in black holes where all physical properties disintegrate back into a state of pure potential, allowing for a singularity at the "bottom" to absorb them, until sufficiemt compressed potential has accumulated to once again be released in a single mega quantum event.

Can there be any merit to this musing? I readily admit my knowledge of physics is very limited, and I may not be aware of other considerations which must be accounted for, but the simple elegance of the concept gives me some confidence.

I have tried to give this serious thought, but realize my lack of hard knowledge may have completely steered me on the wrong path. I'll welcome any knowledgeable critique, I am here to learn not to try and spout nonsense.

31. Originally Posted by Write4U
My question is if it could be possible that the "foam" from which the strings emerge as quarks, could be this state of pure potential and it is convergence of potentials might be causal to certain reinforcing harmonics from which the quarks emerge.
On a very simple level the different elementary particles ( such as quarks etc ) are simply different vibrational states of a String. There is no "foam" of any kind involved, so your question doesn't really make sense to me.

32. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Write4U
My question is if it could be possible that the "foam" from which the strings emerge as quarks, could be this state of pure potential and it is convergence of potentials might be causal to certain reinforcing harmonics from which the quarks emerge.
On a very simple level the different elementary particles ( such as quarks etc ) are simply different vibrational states of a String. There is no "foam" of any kind involved, so your question doesn't really make sense to me.
Sorry if I was unclear in the use of "foam".

From Wiki,
Quantum foam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Additionally, quantum foam can be used as a qualitative description of subatomic spacetime turbulence at extremely small distances (on the order of the Planck length). At such small scales of time and space, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows energy to briefly decay into particles and antiparticles and then annihilate without violating physical conservation laws.
and

Quantum foam is theorized to be created by virtual particles of very high energy. Virtual particles appear in quantum field theory, arising briefly and then annihilating during particle interactions in such a way that they affect the measured outputs of the interaction, even though the virtual particles are themselves space. These "vacuum fluctuations" affect the properties of the vacuum, giving it a nonzero energy known as vacuum energy, itself a type of zero-point energy. However, physicists are uncertain about the magnitude of this form of energy.
I hope this explains what I meant, by "foam".

IMO, the keywords contained in these descriptions are; quantum foam, virtual particles, vacuum fluctuations, uncertainty principle, vacuum energy, and zero-point energy.

All these words seem to indicate a non-physical (virtual) condition which is (must be) present for reality to emerge into a physical state. I believe this is what Bohm referred to as the implicate (pure non-physical potential) becoming explicate (instantiated in physical reality).

But that still does not describe the properties of the virtual particles, other than that they appear to have a string like quality, allowing them to vibrate within their chaotic (uncertain) quantum turbulence, sometimes cancelling the vibration of each, sometimes reinforcing the harmonic or creating a new harmonic vibration, a new (compound) string, with mutually compatible harmonics.

I visualize this non-physical turbulence (quantum foam) of units of potential creating a non-physical (vacuum energy) as the fundamental universal potential field, a non-physical (zero point energy) condition or excellence which precedes reality, from which the virtual strings (units of potential) become instantiated through quantum into reality with physical and energetic properties.

I also visualize that it is in this quantum foam time is created (needed). Assuming that a single quantum event requires, say, a Planck moment, a sequence of synchronous quantum events within an active quantum foam, even at Planck moment, would require time throughout the quantum field.

IMO, time, also not having any physical properties, is created within the quantum potential field as a result of quantum fluctuation,....etc.

ok, lest I make a complete ass of myself, I'll leave it at that. I hope that this clarifies my fondness of the word Potential. It just seems to fit wherever we look, and we use it constantly in science as a real quality in the observed patterns of how natural law functions.

But, no matter how the term is used, it always indicates a precondition to every conceivable event.

33. I don't understand the nature of the question.

1) how the heck should we know?

2) have you actually read anything about the subject at hand, there are some elaborate models about these singularities, suggesting you havn't read anything at all.

3) if Hawkings can predict the Hawkings Radiation it clearly shows some understanding of singularities.

4) this topic seems immensly navel gazing, and totally irrelevant.

5) maybe you should go to a philosophy forum, where they usually ask navel gazing, silly selfexplanatory and immensly irrelevant questions.

34. Originally Posted by HexHammer
3) if Hawkings can predict the Hawkings Radiation it clearly shows some understanding of singularities.
Actually, Hawking radiation is something that originates at the event horizon; it isn't directly related to the nature of the singularity ( if there is such a thing ).

35. Originally Posted by HexHammer

..... 3) if Hawkings can predict the Hawkings Radiation it clearly shows some understanding of singularities........
Although Hawking radiation is mathematically predicted does not mean that it necessarily exists even though there have been observational claims of its existence. Proof that it exists also would not necessarily mean that Hawking's equations involving a singularity properly explain this radiation or black holes as a singularity since quantitative verification of exact amounts of such radiation might never be possible.

36. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Although Hawking radiation is mathematically predicted does not mean that it necessarily exists even though there have been observational claims of its existence.
Have there? I was under the impression that would be pretty much impossible except, perhaps, for microscopic black holes...

37. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by forrest noble
Although Hawking radiation is mathematically predicted does not mean that it necessarily exists even though there have been observational claims of its existence.
Have there? I was under the impression that would be pretty much impossible except, perhaps, for microscopic black holes...
Here's one "indirect claim" and guess there might be others. My own theoretical ideas are not contrary to such radiation but whether Hawking equations are valid concerning quantitative output is another question

Physicists may have observed Hawking radiation for the first time

 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