Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   question from ignorance
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 15 (24712)
11-27-2002 11:46 PM


hey, someone hep me, hep me here... i don't see how something that seems so intuitively true can be so far off base... assuming a singularity and assuming a big bang, did all space/matter, etc explode in all directions according to laws of thermodynamics? if so, i just don't understand why there isn't an epicenter where the singularity originally was... would someone explain to me why there isn't? thanks

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by joz, posted 11-28-2002 12:19 AM forgiven has not replied
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-28-2002 12:34 AM forgiven has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 15 (24726)
11-28-2002 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by forgiven
11-27-2002 11:46 PM


Because the non point occupied by the singularity contained every point in the protouniverse and can`t therefore be a point in the universe....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by forgiven, posted 11-27-2002 11:46 PM forgiven has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 15 (24729)
11-28-2002 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by forgiven
11-27-2002 11:46 PM


. . . think of it as an expanding balloon. If you imagine yourself as a 2D object on the surface of the balloon, there is no centre to the balloon surface. The centre you are looking for is in 'hyper-space' - in 3D. Now ramp up the analogy to 3D/4D and that explains your question . . .
[PS for those in the know around here: Having said that, this doesn't stop there being a concentraiton of the universe mass at one point on the balloon's surface. This will cause local curvature and time-dialation in 3+1 space-time]
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-28-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by forgiven, posted 11-27-2002 11:46 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by forgiven, posted 11-28-2002 7:55 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 15 (24769)
11-28-2002 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tranquility Base
11-28-2002 12:34 AM


ok, thanks tb and joz... let me see if i understand what the two of you are saying
the "singularity" actually didn't contain matter, space, time, etc *inside* it (there is no "inside"), instead it *is* all of that...
i understand the analogy... i guess the problem is what i wrote above... what's the prevailing wisdom, is it that the singularity contained all the above or is it that the above "things" came into being only by virtue of the bb? thx

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-28-2002 12:34 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by John, posted 11-28-2002 11:05 AM forgiven has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 15 (24792)
11-28-2002 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by forgiven
11-28-2002 7:55 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
i understand the analogy... i guess the problem is what i wrote above... what's the prevailing wisdom, is it that the singularity contained all the above or is it that the above "things" came into being only by virtue of the bb? thx
At a singularity, some of the values in our equations reach zero. When that happens, anything goes. Causality doesn't work. This is what we were talking about when you first started posting here.
Now, all of the "things" you mention are in a space (for lack of a better word) of size zero. It is a bit of a netherworld really. "Things" occupying no space makes no sense. Space occupying no space makes even less sense, but there you have it.
To answer the question, everything you know came to be at the BB. What existed prior to that, if anything, is beyond current human knowledge.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by forgiven, posted 11-28-2002 7:55 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by forgiven, posted 11-28-2002 12:29 PM John has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 15 (24806)
11-28-2002 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by John
11-28-2002 11:05 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
At a singularity, some of the values in our equations reach zero. When that happens, anything goes. Causality doesn't work. This is what we were talking about when you first started posting here.
Now, all of the "things" you mention are in a space (for lack of a better word) of size zero. It is a bit of a netherworld really. "Things" occupying no space makes no sense. Space occupying no space makes even less sense, but there you have it.
To answer the question, everything you know came to be at the BB. What existed prior to that, if anything, is beyond current human knowledge.

ok, i'm getting there thx... am i correct or not in assuming that this "size zero" is known to be so? iow i guess i'm asking how we know the "size" of the singularity... it appears (again, just intuitively i have no real knowledge of this nor any agenda except to understand) that the singularity either contained or was made up of all that now exists.. if this is so, and i'm not saying it is, then whatever exists now (in its present form with its present shape, size, etc etc) existed before bb

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by John, posted 11-28-2002 11:05 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by John, posted 11-28-2002 3:17 PM forgiven has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 15 (24823)
11-28-2002 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by forgiven
11-28-2002 12:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
ok, i'm getting there thx...
I aim to please.
quote:
am i correct or not in assuming that this "size zero" is known to be so?
If you mean to ask if this is observable, then the anwser is "no." In fact, there is a brief period of time between now and then when there wasn't any light-- the proper subatomic particles had not yet formed. Since all we have to go on is light, we can't see further back than that point. If I am not mistaken there is some effort being made to peer beyond that point using gravitational wave detectors. I could be confused on that though.
quote:
iow i guess i'm asking how we know the "size" of the singularity...
Its observation and extrapolation. The universe is expanding very quickly in all directions. Throw that in reverse and you end up with everything in one place. Then consider what is known about gravity and about atomic nuclei. Gravity increases with mass and distance from the center. The more massive something is the stronger the gravity. Also consider that the gravitational force increases with the square of the distance from the center. The more dense an object is the closer your are to the center, hence the gravitational force is stronger. As the universe shrinks (our film being in reverse) these forces crush the atomic nuclei, then the subatomic particles. Size continues to decrease, gravity continues to increase. Size goes to zero. Gravity goes to ∞.
quote:
if this is so, and i'm not saying it is, then whatever exists now (in its present form with its present shape, size, etc etc) existed before bb
At best, all you'd have is infinite energy, certainly not everything "in its present form with its present shape, size, etc etc."
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by forgiven, posted 11-28-2002 12:29 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by forgiven, posted 11-28-2002 6:11 PM John has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 15 (24840)
11-28-2002 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by John
11-28-2002 3:17 PM


inching closer i think... thx for the time, i was right to think this is far more complex than i could imagine
[B]
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
quote:
iow i guess i'm asking how we know the "size" of the singularity...
Its observation and extrapolation. The universe is expanding very quickly in all directions. Throw that in reverse and you end up with everything in one place.
ok, i guess this is the part that still has me confused... what you wrote there makes sense to me... if the universe for some reason stopped expanding and started contracting, it just seems that it would eventually reach "wherever" the singularity was... or " everything in one place" as you said... that means (to my mind) everything left one place at the same speed and will return in the same way, for (if no other reasons) the gravitational reasons you gave.. but this just continues to elude me... if it "returns" from the point it originated, i just can't see how that point (i use the word because i have no other) can't be considered the epicenter... is it simply the word 'epicenter' that makes this wrong? it seems to me even using 'starting point' or some term such as 'originating hyperspace vector' the concept remains
quote:
quote:
if this is so, and i'm not saying it is, then whatever exists now (in its present form with its present shape, size, etc etc) existed before bb
At best, all you'd have is infinite energy, certainly not everything "in its present form with its present shape, size, etc etc."
right, i worded it sloppily... i'll buy space (and all material things) being energy at some non-point in non-time.. anyway, the thing that continues to block my thoughts is how the concept of contraction to an original state of affairs can even be entertained without some sort of acknowledgement that the location of this original state of affairs can be the center of the universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John, posted 11-28-2002 3:17 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by John, posted 11-29-2002 11:06 AM forgiven has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 15 (24934)
11-29-2002 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by forgiven
11-28-2002 6:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
ok, i guess this is the part that still has me confused...
That's because we are really talking about four (or more) dimensional space, not the three dimensional space our brains have evolved to handle.
quote:
if the universe for some reason stopped expanding and started contracting, it just seems that it would eventually reach "wherever" the singularity was...
There is no 'where the singularity was.' Everything, in a sense, is that singularity.
quote:
everything in one place" as you said... that means (to my mind) everything left one place at the same speed and will return in the same way, for (if no other reasons) the gravitational reasons you gave..
Lets go back the the balloon analogy. Imagine yourself on the surface of a balloon. Imagine several other points on the surface of that balloon. Now deflate the balloon. All of those points close toward each other. Reinflate the balloon. All of those points move away from one another. If you deflated the balloon down to a point, all of the points would be at the same place but not one of those (previously discussed points, one of which you are standing upon) points would be the center point. There is no center to the expansion any more than there is a center point on the surface of a sphere.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by forgiven, posted 11-28-2002 6:11 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by forgiven, posted 11-29-2002 3:26 PM John has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 15 (24959)
11-29-2002 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by John
11-29-2002 11:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
There is no 'where the singularity was.' Everything, in a sense, is that singularity.
ok, this sentence helps... i had pictured all that is, the entire universe as we know it today, having been either part of the singularity (as you say above) or *inside* the singularity... and that was the problem, i think.. instead of a baloon, i was picturing a soap bubble, except all energy, matter, space, time, etc, were inside it.. then when the bubble pops, it "escapes" outward
no, i guess a better way to describe what i was thinking is, i had pictured all that is exactly *as* it is, except compacted to an infintesimal magnitude... for example, the milky way... i had pictured it as *inside* the singularity, no change from the way it is now except vastly smaller and more compact... and at big bang not only did things begin expanding away from one another, they also .. hmmm.. grew(?) i guess to their present (optimum) shape/size/volume etc... i realize now the reason is, i'm still thinking of it in terms of God's thoughts
not sure if that made sense rknot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by John, posted 11-29-2002 11:06 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by graedek, posted 11-29-2002 4:16 PM forgiven has replied
 Message 13 by John, posted 11-30-2002 12:01 AM forgiven has replied

  
graedek
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 15 (24969)
11-29-2002 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by forgiven
11-29-2002 3:26 PM


I've been reading a somewhat outdated book by Paul Davies (1994), in which he discusses the numerous theories relating to the beginning of the universe....(i wanted to learn what problems/discoveries had gone on in the past for physicists)
he states the essence of the origin problem is that the big bang seems to be an event without a physical cause. (usually regarded as contradicting the laws of physics)
(sidenote: so am i to be correct in assuming the steady state theory was disproven by hubble observations?)
he also states that one suggested 'loophole' for the problem was quantum mechanics...heisenberg's uncertainty principle (position, momentum, and energy are subject to unpredictable fluctuations in the values). Suggesting that the inciting incident of universe expansion was a result of quantum fluctuation..thus quantum cosmology was born....
Was curious if you, john, or others know more about the current state of quantum cosmology studies.... (or what thinking currently prevails in physics in relation to the creation problem as stated above)
(i was hoping to not be too outdated in my thinking, but this book was a little easier for me to follow than some others out there...)

a synopsis of 'reality' would be appreciated if i am barking up the wrong tree here lol
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by forgiven, posted 11-29-2002 3:26 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by forgiven, posted 11-29-2002 5:33 PM graedek has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 15 (24976)
11-29-2002 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by graedek
11-29-2002 4:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by graedek:
(sidenote: so am i to be correct in assuming the steady state theory was disproven by hubble observations?)
(sideanswer: yes, and boy were there some devasted people when it happened... methinks there's more devastation in the works)
quote:
Was curious if you, john, or others know more about the current state of quantum cosmology studies.... (or what thinking currently prevails in physics in relation to the creation problem as stated above)
(i was hoping to not be too outdated in my thinking, but this book was a little easier for me to follow than some others out there...)
here's a *relatively* easy read on it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by graedek, posted 11-29-2002 4:16 PM graedek has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 15 (25010)
11-30-2002 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by forgiven
11-29-2002 3:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
no, i guess a better way to describe what i was thinking is, i had pictured all that is exactly *as* it is, except compacted to an infintesimal magnitude...
Nope. As you approach the singularity everything gets squashed. Going backwards as if watching a massive star collapse, first you'd get a big ball of normal matter, just very dense. The molecular bonds would break, then, as density increases you'd have atomic bounds crack. The atom itself will collapse. The little electrons(-) are pressed into the protons(+) leaving only neutrons-- a neutron star, one gigantic atomic nucleas. If mass is great enough these neutrons too will break and the star collapses in on itself. You've got a massive gravitational field pulling in and no longer anything pushing out. Everything we know is gone, even space and time. Very very cool
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by forgiven, posted 11-29-2002 3:26 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by forgiven, posted 11-30-2002 8:54 AM John has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 15 (25026)
11-30-2002 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by John
11-30-2002 12:01 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
no, i guess a better way to describe what i was thinking is, i had pictured all that is exactly *as* it is, except compacted to an infintesimal magnitude...
Nope. As you approach the singularity everything gets squashed. Going backwards as if watching a massive star collapse, first you'd get a big ball of normal matter, just very dense. The molecular bonds would break, then, as density increases you'd have atomic bounds crack. The atom itself will collapse. The little electrons(-) are pressed into the protons(+) leaving only neutrons-- a neutron star, one gigantic atomic nucleas. If mass is great enough these neutrons too will break and the star collapses in on itself. You've got a massive gravitational field pulling in and no longer anything pushing out. Everything we know is gone, even space and time. Very very cool

ahhhh.. kind of like a scroll rolling up on itself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by John, posted 11-30-2002 12:01 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by John, posted 11-30-2002 9:12 AM forgiven has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 15 (25028)
11-30-2002 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by forgiven
11-30-2002 8:54 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
ahhhh.. kind of like a scroll rolling up on itself?
I don't know what you are trying to say.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by forgiven, posted 11-30-2002 8:54 AM forgiven has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024