PDA

View Full Version : The Singularity



SOMSOC
2004-Jun-03, 04:58 PM
Somewhere between 18 and 20 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny space no larger than the dot on a page.
This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded, thus creating the Universe and everything in it.


There are many problems with this theory. And the theory itself still does not answer many important questions.
Such as where did all the matter come from? if this singularity came from a universe imploding where did the very first matter come from, some scientsts say that it just appeared like magic.I dont take that as a sceintific answer.

can any shed any light on this baffling question

Kind Regards
somsoc

StarLab
2004-Jun-03, 05:31 PM
Ever heard of the Ekyprotic universe model?

Littlemews
2004-Jun-03, 07:12 PM
Such as where did all the matter come from?
If the information I found is correct, it's not matter, but mass-energy and vacuum... or the answer seems logical for that is the God create it but how, we really dunno(no religion)...

GOURDHEAD
2004-Jun-04, 07:14 PM
Such as where did all the matter come from? if this singularity came from a universe imploding where did the very first matter come from, some scientsts say that it just appeared like magic.I dont take that as a sceintific answer.

The question has no scientific answer. It is not knowable. The way I handle it is to assume that what any observer can observe is a transient condition among the many of which the universe is capable. Something has always been and will always be. It has nowhere to come from nor any place to go to. It's better to think of the big bang as the beginning of an episode as opposed to the beginning .

StarLab
2004-Jun-04, 07:59 PM
Ever heard of the Ekyprotic universe model?
OK, I'll have to explain myself: two universes collided at the point we call the big bang, and are as of now overlapping each other. All the energy contained in the universe and the Big Bang comes from these two overlapping universes. ;)

emporium
2004-Jun-04, 08:52 PM
Hawking created a model which issued the use of a virtual particle called the instanton. It is said to have been matter, energy, time, space and gravity all forced into one small virtual point. This particle so called because it only existed for an instant. If one part of this instanton did not contribute then the instanton could not expand. However, if all parts did then it would enter the inflationary stage and go on to create an expanding flat universe. Such was this instantons critical value needed to be so perfect for the creation of a universe like ours, that billions upon billions of parallel universes could have failed before reaching this critical value.... and probably no other one ever did or ever will reach this value. The instanton removes the point at the beginning of the hot big bang model where time and space got confused and no longer followed the standard laws of physics, and replaces it with a horizontal beginning in which it is able to place space within time and time within space without the huge confusion. For more information on this visit:

http:/.web.uvic.ca/~jtwong/newtheories.htm and the subsequent pages

Regards K_

John L
2004-Jun-04, 08:57 PM
The ultimate goal in physics is to devise a system that not only explains everything in the universe as it is today, but also be able to roll back time on the equations to T=0 and actually determine the structure from which our universe originated. We aren't close enough yet to be able to do this. The only reason the Big Bang model is currently used is because of the universal expansion. When that was discovered they decided to look at it backwards. If its expanding now to a larger and larger size with more and more space being continuously created, then, running time backwards, everything must have started out very close together. Running it all back to T=0 would have everything in our universe today compacted into a single point.

The Ekpyrotic Model that StarLab is talking about is a possible alternative explanation. It agrees with the Big Bang model on all testable observations, and it is currently being searched for subtle differences that, once tested, would prove it over the Big Bang model or disprove the Ekpyrotic Model altogether. There are currently lots of theories like this, all waiting on some way to test them to prove their differences from the Big Bang represent reality. And with all of them the problem is that the differences, if they''ve even been accurately identified yet, are too subtle for our current technology to detect.

StarLab
2004-Jun-05, 05:44 PM
To expand on what John said a bit, Ekpyrotism is the closest theory to String, Supersting and M-. The Big Bang is not neglected in Ekpyrotism; au contraire, the Big Bang is the point at which the two universes first collided. The Instanton might indeed have been the instantaneous resultant of this collision.

island
2004-Jun-05, 05:45 PM
Hi,

There is brand new physics that has only recently come to light, which notes that virtual and real particle pair production affects vacuum expansion, because you can't use energy from the vaccum without having an effect on the vacuum. The process increases negative pressure, (antigravity), in other words, but this gets offset by the increase in mass-energy, (gravity) that results from pair production.

If a black hole emits a real particle/antiparticle pair, via Hawking Radiation, then the two particles will likely meet up and annihilate, and the same thing happens if only the antiparticle gets ejected, since there is so much ordinary matter in our world for it to meet up with. But the particle, (typically an electron), can survive indefinitely if its counterpart antiparticle gets sucked back into the black hole, and this maintains the effect on the vacuum, indefinitely, since it isn't very likely that this particle will meet any antimatter to anhilate with.

The process causes tension between the vacuum and ordinary matter to increase in proportion to the offset increases in mass-energy and negative pressure and the projection is that this will eventually cause another Big-Bang.

The most obvious advatages of this new physics is that they very simple explain the horizon and flatness problems without the need for Alan Guth's theoretically AWkwArD inflationary scenario, (if the universe already has volume when a big bang occurs), nor does flatness require the PRECARIOUS balancing act that it is currently credited with, if Omega is held constant, around one, by the process.

If the above described density parameters hold the value for omega at around 0.2, then geometrical instability isn't a problem of "flatness", and this is at least a more realistically plausible explanation for what has previously hinged on a what was thought to be a precarious and unlikely balance. The implication is that tension between matter and the vacuum will become so great that we will eventually have another big bang, and the next universe will necessarily be flat as consequence of the fact that the last one was too, and this carries the constants forward through time.

I don't think that a perfect cosmic singularity of infinite density, energy, and absolute zero volume can exist and still produce an asymmetric footprint for force decoupling, because it contradicts the notion of "idealistically pure symmetry" that it is inherent asymmetries which lead to all more disordered states for the entire duration of the rest of the expansion event. Surely, the imperfections which produce the constants must necessarily pre-exist at t=10^-43.

There is no need for an equally awkward inflationary period to explain the distance between galaxies on opposite sides of the universe if the universe already has volume when tension between matter and the vacuum becomes so great that a big bang occurs, and so the asymmetries which produce the universal constants are "convolved" inherently forth to a higher order of the same inclination toward thermal equilibrium, as the process continues to move ever forward in time, in an impossible effort to achieve the "pure symmetry" of a perfectly balanced static state, which is more nearly achieved each time that the universe "evolves" over the described perpetual thermodynamic process.

This also resolve the relationship between quantum forces and super gravity, and, per the above, there was no "Singularity", because asymmetries, (imperfections), are carried perpetually forward in this manner, in the never ending effort toward the impossible goal of perfect symmetry, which exposes the singularity for the idealization that it actually represents.

I always ask creationists who wonder about where it all came from to start with... WHAT on Earth would ever make you think that everything wasn't always there???... since every bit of evidence that we have at our disposal... says exactly the opposite... ;)

You might want to keep this theory in mind... cause I didn't even skim the top of the iceberg.

StarLab
2004-Jun-05, 08:24 PM
I always ask creationists who wonder about where it all came from to start with... WHAT on Earth would ever make you think that everything wasn't always there???... since every bit of evidence that we have at our disposal... says exactly the opposite...

You might want to keep this theory in mind... cause I didn't even skim the top of the iceberg.
I'll skim just a bit deeper for you..I'm not religious, but that doesn't stop me from noticing that all, or most, creationist theories claim that before earth and sky, there was chaos. of course, chaos can be a number of things. It can be whatever our universe was before the big bang, it can be the Ekpyrotic Universe Model.


I don't think that a perfect cosmic singularity of infinite density, energy, and absolute zero volume can exist and still produce an asymmetric footprint for force decoupling, because it contradicts the notion of "idealistically pure symmetry" that it is inherent asymmetries which lead to all more disordered states for the entire duration of the rest of the expansion event. Surely, the imperfections which produce the constants must necessarily pre-exist at t=10^-43.
Island, I like your thinking here. :D ;) B)


The implication is that tension between matter and the vacuum will become so great that we will eventually have another big bang, and the next universe will necessarily be flat as consequence of the fact that the last one was too, and this carries the constants forward through time.
Time is a relevant factor that can be defeated only through the conscience.

On a slightly more important note, it seems from Island's post that there are two ways of thinking in the cosmological world: one (Big Bang), that time is constant and the universe is inherently unstable; two (Ekpyrotic and SuperString), that time is inextricably linked to the fate of our universe, time can be controlled, yet independent and isolated, and the universe is inherently stable. I believe in the latter.

GOURDHEAD
2004-Jun-05, 09:17 PM
Time is a relevant factor that can be defeated only through the conscience.

If you did not mean consciousness (sentient technology), please explain.

island
2004-Jun-05, 09:50 PM
Well, StarLab, you can "believe" whatever you want, and I'm not necessarily knocking "faith"... ;)... but it doesn't stand up the the "" ** BRAND NEW ** "" physics that I gave whose science invalidates stringy theories because it maintains symmetry via negative mass and density particles.

You do understand how using a piece of the vaccum to make a particle, would cause a further rarefaction of the energy of the vacuum, which will increase the ""SUCK"" of the vacuum in proportion to the energy that you removed, don't you?

If the sign of the mass indicates that the asymmetry that exists between the two classes of particles is due to the fact that the anti-particle exists in a negative energy state, by way of -rho and negative mass, until enough vacuum energy is condensed over an isolated area to achieve positive curvature.

Particle theory says that for every fermion type there is another fermion type that has exactly the same mass, and negative mass and density particles explain this without jumping to the conclusion that particle theory is necessarily wrong because our observations don't seem to support this predicted symmetry.

The symmetry is then maintained if particles that are created from the energy of the vacuum, have negative mass and density before they are condensed into positive mass and density virtual particles, which can then be converted into real particles, given enough energy.

Negative energy and density is then **Generally** maintained by the negative pressure component, so both virtual and real that are created will increase negative pressure via further rarefaction of the vacuum.

The above will affect vacuum expansion while G will remain constant, because the increase in mass energy which occurs by way of condensation of vacuum energy, will immediately be offset by the described increase in negative pressure which necessarily occurs if negative mass particles have negative density... until they don't!

Here's a link that I found where they're discussing the entropy of a black hole as it applies to what I'm talking about:
http://superstringtheory.com/forum/hawking...essages2/3.html (http://superstringtheory.com/forum/hawking/messages2/3.htmlhttp://superstringtheory.com/forum/hawking/messages2/3.html)

Too bad that they're discussing it in a "soon to be defunct physics" forum... ;)

I told you that I barely touched the top of this, and you should have listened... cause stringy theories... are... DUN!... ;)

island
2004-Jun-05, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by GOURDHEAD@Jun 5 2004, 09:17 PM


If you did not mean consciousness (sentient technology), please explain.
I can't resist hitting this one, because it turns out that the process that I decribed works by way of what is known in evolutionary theory as "Asymmetrict Transitions", which, I can only find the following about it on the web:

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASYMTRANS.html

An illustration:
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASYMILL.html

Anyway, from the illustration, you can see how this is the same process that occurs when you make particles from the vacuum in the manner that I previously described.

As I implied, this will eventually lead to another Big Bang by way of what is known in evolutionary theory as a "MetaSystems Transition". The process carries the system's imperfections/asymmetries forward, ("convolved), to a higher order of entropic efficiency.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MST.html

Okay, now that I've freaked everybody out really good...

I'll kiss ur butt if you can't find th following logic, above...



...A "Big Bang" is to an "Evolutionary Leap"...

...What "Punctuated Equilibrium" is to a "Near Static Universe"


... give causal meaning to the Anthropic Principle, in terms of the entropy of the universe, where an evolutionary leap enables entropy to increase exponentially by way of the... "TECHNOLOGY" ... that the leap enabled ... believe it or not...

... making the Anthropic Principle the Theory of Everything by virtue of the fact that the GUT falls directly out of it... (i.e., it proves that asymmetries are carried perpetually forth to higher orders, disproving idealizations like, supersymmetry and supergravity... etc)... for example

Now read all that with care and then tell me that it doesn't make enough really weird sense to make you sick!... ;)

*without nitpickers please*

StarLab
2004-Jun-06, 12:14 AM
We can only theorize events, Island...whether or not they happen - and some really do - is plausible, yet an entirely different situation.

Without reading your anthropic principal sites and observations, lemme tell ya somethin:

If you did not mean consciousness (sentient technology), please explain.
I'm just talking about the leap from organic material to energetic material, freeing oneself from the bonds of matter. It's just a matter of evolution. We are at the point where chemical and biological evolution can develop no further, and we must look for technological means to support ourselves. Of course, our developed conscience tells us that since we chose to use our imagination to separate ourselves from terrestrial nature (hence why we can evolve no further in a biological sense), we must leave the bonds of the ozone, of the atmosphere. In time, we develop into the technology we created, and our knowledge would be so fast at this point that we would have to store memories in the fabric of the cosmos.
If at any point you lost my train of thought, I recommend you pick up 3001: The Final Odyssey by A. C. Clarke.

GOURDHEAD
2004-Jun-06, 05:41 PM
If at any point you lost my train of thought, I recommend you pick up 3001: The Final Odyssey by A. C. Clarke

You and Clarke may have crawled out too far on the limb of some fantasy tree; your thinking doesn't strike me as being sufficiently constrained by either coherence nor Occam.

GOURDHEAD
2004-Jun-06, 05:54 PM
Of course, our developed conscience tells us that since we chose to use our imagination to separate ourselves from terrestrial nature (hence why we can evolve no further in a biological sense), we must leave the bonds of the ozone, of the atmosphere.

I'm still struggling with your use of conscience when I think you should be using consciousness or sentience. Perhaps I don't really know what you mean. Please explain why you prefer conscience.

I am unable to grasp the coherence of linking our ability to evolve to leaving the bonds of the ozone or of the atmosphere nor how imagination can separate us from terrestrial nature except through delusion and other forms of insanity.

StarLab
2004-Jun-06, 06:26 PM
I'm still struggling with your use of conscience when I think you should be using consciousness or sentience. Perhaps I don't really know what you mean. Please explain why you prefer conscience.

I am unable to grasp the coherence of linking our ability to evolve to leaving the bonds of the ozone or of the atmosphere nor how imagination can separate us from terrestrial nature except through delusion and other forms of insanity.
Well, now we are aware of the perils of our existence. We are so advanced that we are putting nature itself in danger. our conscience is so highly developed that every step we take from here on in jeapordizes the earth itself. Particularly, our ability to manipulate nature (more recently at the atomic level) puts us at odds with nature, which relies on all terrestrial forms of life being instinctive and without a conscience.

When I talk about cosnciousness, I am referring to mankinds knowledge of good and evil.
When I talk about conscience, I am referring to mankinds ability to distinguish between good and evil.
There is a difference between possessing that knowledge and knowing what to do with that knowledge. Consciousness is instinctive among all forms of life, but in humans the oral tradition - language - put us ahead of nature a few steps on the darwinian scale. We are stuck halfway between consciousness and having a conscience - or the plain fact that each person has a conscience, yet the concept of the individual has not been realized globally yet. Only with the advent of a human conscience will we truly become a sentient species.
Notice: If this post is too philosophical for anyone, don't bother reading any of my other posts.

StarLab
2004-Jun-06, 06:36 PM
Oh, and a question for Island: where does density actually play a role in the universe? Because if you want to talk about density in the same sentence as mass, you had better include why you are leaving volume out, because all three are mathematically linked. ;) :rolleyes: :P :unsure:

Tinaa
2004-Jun-06, 06:38 PM
Ah, but your perception of evil may be what I perceive as growing pains. Are you perhaps refering to a collective conscious of mankind? Genetic memory? Why would you say that biological evolution has stopped? We are close to a point of being to direct our own evolution.

StarLab
2004-Jun-06, 09:43 PM
What I'm saying is, nature has no control over us. We can manipulate nature now, not vice versa.

Yes, I'm referring to a time when humans collectively recognize the difference between morals and opinions.

StarLab
2004-Jun-06, 09:46 PM
Also, there exists our newfound ability to create nature, and destroy nature. We, an animal, have learned to make use of trees for ourselves via, and whilst, cutting them down. We have also developed oral and written language. Even more miraculous is our ability to train and tame other animals; I am specifically talking about, of course, dogs and horses.
Also, we've reached the point where it is our imagination, not nature, which controls our fate in the face of any global impending disasters.

Sp1ke
2004-Jun-07, 01:43 PM
a time when humans collectively recognize the difference between morals and opinions.
At the risk of moving the thread away from cosmology and into philosophy, I don't think you can rely on a time when morality and opinions can be distinct. Morality is generally an agreement amongst civilized people, not something fixed and absolute. It is formed by a consensus of opinions and does not exist in isolation of the people defining it.

Similarly, good and evil are not black and white concepts, they are sliding scales of grey. This is why we have so much trouble with dogmatism - if one person thinks they are absolutely right, that means that everyone with a different view is wrong. In reality, most opinions have some element of truth and some element of falsity. It's only the relative proportions that vary so it is possible for two different opinions to co-exist.

John L
2004-Jun-07, 02:24 PM
Island,

Interesting theory. Are there any prospects of testing it in the near future? I'd love to see the results.