What Caused the Singularity & Is There Anything Before the Universe?

[Shenstar]

My objection is you are assuming eventual understanding, if something is a "placeholder" by definition something needs to take its place - I am refuting that point.

I don't think we can assume SOMETHING happened pre Planck time, the idea the U came from nothing has to be considered, as if we assume it came from SOMETHING then where did that something come from - the question can be pushed back ad infinitum.

Yes we don't have a clue what happens at the singularity in space/time and I am happy with the term singularity as a statement of fact of the breakdown of theory at a certain point, what I am arguing is that the singularity may be physical, and therefore theoretically a singularity and the early stages of U may be forever beyond our understanding.

To clarify my refutation is the implied assumption of eventual scientific understanding of a singularity in space/time.

Doesn't nothing = something

What is nothing defined as, usually infinite density with finite mass? Time was zero

But also another problem arises, and that is for a singularity to exist other than it must exist. That other is empty space (not space-time as we know it). And this is what the singularity and the observable universe expands into.

 

[Chronos]

Granted, current physics fails at the initial singularity, but, we may be able to extend models beyond that point with better theories. However, I agree a universe from 'nothing' remains a possibility. An 'ad infinitum' of prior incarnations does not satisfactorily resolve the fundamental issue, imo.

 

[DavidMcC]

Singularity gives certain impression in people's minds, especially the layman.

Indeed, and not only in the layman's. The problem is that there is a precise mathematical definition, which would have to be qualified to avoid possible confusion in physics (as opposed to maths). There is no such confusion in pure maths, of course. It's only when it is applied to physics that there can be a problem.

 

[Lost in Space]

It seems to me that singularities have been defined as having both the properties of zero and infinity when talking about volume and density. So where does the 1 come in? Does 1 equal time? And if so, is this a fractal that is infinitely divisible?

 

[Chalnoth]

It seems to me that singularities have been defined as having both the properties of zero and infinity when talking about volume and density. So where does the 1 come in? Does 1 equal time? And if so, is this a fractal that is infinitely divisible?

Singularities are mathematical nonsense and cannot exist in reality. So it doesn't make any sense to try to understand them. Instead, physicists approach singularities in one of two ways (or a mixture of these two):

1. Different physical laws.
2. Different physical configurations.

Basically, the singularity arises within the math due to a combination of the particular makeup of the system and the laws we use to understand the system. We don't expect the singularity can be real, so physicists investigate a wide variety of ways that we can change the way the system behaves so that the singularity is avoided. Unfortunately, we don't yet know which of these many ideas are correct (if any).

 

[Quinzio]

Those interested may read the Bogdanov book "Before the Big Bang".

 

[Chalnoth]

Those interested may read the Bogdanov book "Before the Big Bang".

Is it written by the same brothers as these?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair

Because if so, I am extraordinarily skeptical.

 

[Lost in Space]

Regardless of whether singularities exist as physical entities or are only "mathematical nonsense", to quote Chalnoth, do they differ from each other or are they essentially one thing? In other words should we be using the term 'the singularity' rather than 'singularities'? I'm only asking as it seems to me that if they do exist as physical things inside black holes, are they somehow all linked to each other or are all of them possibly the same one?

 

[Chalnoth]

Regardless of whether singularities exist as physical entities or are only "mathematical nonsense", to quote Chalnoth, do they differ from each other or are they essentially one thing? In other words should we be using the term 'the singularity' rather than 'singularities'? I'm only asking as it seems to me that if they do exist as physical things inside black holes, are they somehow all linked to each other or are all of them possibly the same one?

About the only thing you can sensibly say about singularities is that they show up in the math under different circumstances. Beyond that, because they are nonsense, you can't determine anything else about them (their nonsensical nature allows you to prove any statement about the singularity as being true).

 

[Lost in Space]

About the only thing you can sensibly say about singularities is that they show up in the math under different circumstances. Beyond that, because they are nonsense, you can't determine anything else about them (their nonsensical nature allows you to prove any statement about the singularity as being true).

So they're just mathematical anomalies? Do you think then that there is there any way that future mathematics might be able to resolve them? Or is it just that present day maths presents them in various circumstances but paradoxically comes up against an unresolvable boundary?

 

[Chalnoth]

So they're just mathematical anomalies? Do you think then that there is there any way that future mathematics might be able to resolve them? Or is it just that present day maths presents them in various circumstances but paradoxically comes up against an unresolvable boundary?

No, it's not about new math being needed. It's about using the wrong math to describe our universe. There are proposals for the correct math to use (e.g. string theory, loop quantum gravity), but there is no doubt that if you just take plain General Relativity, you get singularities, indicating that General Relativity is wrong at some level. No new mathematical contortions could ever extend plain General Relativity to give an understanding of the singularities in General Relativity. You have to actually use different math to do that.

 

[Lost in Space]

No, it's not about new math being needed. It's about using the wrong math to describe our universe. There are proposals for the correct math to use (e.g. string theory, loop quantum gravity), but there is no doubt that if you just take plain General Relativity, you get singularities, indicating that General Relativity is wrong at some level. No new mathematical contortions could ever extend plain General Relativity to give an understanding of the singularities in General Relativity. You have to actually use different math to do that.

So if we ever get a theory of quantum gravity or correctly apply string theory etc, we will be able to totally eradicate singularities?

 

[Chalnoth]

So if we ever get a theory of quantum gravity or correctly apply string theory etc, we will be able to totally eradicate singularities?

That is the hope. If those theories still retain singularities, well, then we'll have to look more closely at them.

 

[yoda jedi]

SOMETHING happened

a system in (quasi perfect) thermodynamic equilibrium, with small deviation(s) that give rise to the universe(s).
.

 

[Eric Peterson]

According to the law of the conservation of mass and energy, the total mass and energy of the universe must be the same after as before the creation of the universe. This shows the net energy and mass of the universe must be zero. This shows there must be a equal amount of antimass and antienergy out there for balance. Furthermore according to the law of conservation of momentum, the only way for the mass and antimass to separate is if the antimass is traveling backward through time.

 

[Chalnoth]

According to the law of the conservation of mass and energy, the total mass and energy of the universe must be the same after as before the creation of the universe. This shows the net energy and mass of the universe must be zero. This shows there must be a equal amount of antimass and antienergy out there for balance. Furthermore according to the law of conservation of momentum, the only way for the mass and antimass to separate is if the antimass is traveling backward through time.

Energy isn't conserved in curved space-time, except in some very special cases with particular definitions of energy. If our universe conforms to one of these special cases (which is by no means certain), then the negative energy comes from the potential energy of gravity, not from any sort of anti-mass.

And mass isn't conserved at all: we create particles with more mass all the time in collisions in particle accelerators, for instance. Anti-matter also has positive mass, not negative mass. And traveling backwards through time wouldn't allow for conservation of momentum in any event.

 

[jackmell]

You guys talk a lot about removing a singularity. May I give you my favorite example of removing a singularity which I feel may have relevance here? Consider the Euler sum:

$$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^s}$$

The Euler sum, breaks down (diverges) at Re(s)=1 and so fails to describe what the sum is. It is singular there. However, there is something which is exactly equal to the sum in its domain of convergence, yet does not have the (same) singularity. That is the zeta function. The zeta function has a larger domain than the Euler sum and is only singular at a single point. It is my personal hope that one day we will be able to do the same in Cosmology: remove the GR singularity (or maybe most of it) by a theory which is "larger" than GR, encompasses GR in GR's domain of convergence (our Universe), yet has a larger domain (includes the pre-existence) that it converges in.