Before Big Bang God or Singularity

Alright, ICANT, if you would be kind enough, could you tell me what you think a singularity is?
In your own words, not an definition.I'll work from there.Edited by Son Goku, : Can I spell?, "your" not "you"

Alright, good start.First of all, I'll begin with what you might call an operational definition of a singularity. A singularity is a point where a physical quantity becomes undefined. Usually due to the appearance of underlying physics not fully appreciated in the model.A simple example is the strength of the electromagnetic field. It's usually an easily measurable quantity, measured in Newtons per Coulomb and it's described by Maxwell's equations. However very near an electron the value of the electromagnetic field strength is predicted by Maxwell's equations to approach infinite. This is simply because Maxwell's theory doesn't take into account the quantum mechanical nature of matter on this scale and the quantum mechanical nature of the electromagnetic field itself.When you do take this into account you get Quantum Electrodynamics and the picture of a smooth classical electromagnetic field is replaced by what you might call a quantum electromagnetic field, that's lumpy (hence the word quantum) and probabilistic. The little lumps of the field being called photons.Another way you can have a singularity is when the quantity is no longer a sensible one. For instance car manufacturers often measure the brittleness of the windscreen glass. Higher values indicate that it is more brittle. There are theories which predict the brittleness of the glass. These theories also say the brittleness increases with temperature. However they also predict the brittleness becomes infinite at a certain temperature, which is a singularity in the theory. That temperature is the melting point of the glass. When the glass is a liquid then of course brittleness no longer makes sense and becomes undefined, hence the singularity.Now Hawking and Penrose in the 1960s showed that Einstein's General Relativity has singularities in two cases:
(1) Inside black holes.
(2) At the Big Bang.
The quantity that develops the infinity is the space time curvature as you mentioned.Keeping the interpretation given above, this means that in these places General Relativity breaks down and "space time curvature" or "spacetime" breaks down as a sensible concept and/or new physics emerges.
We need a new theory, almost certainly a quantum one, to account for this. It is provisionally named Quantum Gravity.

Well just to make sure we're on the same page. I've given a response to GDR about the definition of a singularity. See what you think of it.The existence of the Big Bang is a different issue, one completely supported by physical evidence. We now know, to a high confidence interval, that the universe was super hot and very small 13.7 billion years ago. Before this point we are encapable of tracking what went on, due to the appearance of exotic new physical effects we do not understand. A singularity is the mathematical warning sign that this exotic physics has appeared.

Windscreen is the British word and hence cooler and more popular with today's youth.

General Relativity has a singularity at the Big Bang, because one of its physical quantities diverges (becomes infinite) there. This is a mathematical issue in General Relativity. As I said, a singularity is not a "thing", it signals a break down in the theory. Hawking and Penrose showed that General Relativity has such a mathematical "breakdown" near the Big Bang. As such it is no longer capable of fulling predicting things.
You must not think of a singularity as an physical object that is supposed to exist and that Hawking and Penrose are claiming that they found it or something.If you think that General Relativity hasn't a singularity at the Big Bang, then you are making an assertion about the formal structure of the theory. An assertion that is provably incorrect. You would be asserting that General Relativity does not break down at the Big Bang.

It can't predict anything previous to that point. Of course it makes predictions in general, today and in the past. It is only near the Big Bang and inside black holes that it breaks down. Well because: In general though, that assertion doesn't really solve any of the pertinent problems or issues. It doesn't tell us anything about the new physics that replaces General Relativity. You must not treat this as some kind of "Atheistic science versus Christianity" battleground. It's a question about the physics of a region of the universe we currently know nothing about and need a new theory to describe. It would give us answers to questions such as "What is responsible for a Black Hole's entropy?"Your assertion does not answer that and is little more than a declaration that you believe in God, which has no more to do with this than any other issue.

I don't like calling the Big Bang "T=0", but going on that wording it breaksdown between T = 0 and T = A very small amount of time. Naturally you can. Not. Can you use God to explain the origins of a Black Hole's entropy?
If the question had been "What is behind reality?" or something similar then: would be a resonable response. It is not a reasonable response to:
"What is the physical theory that treats the new degrees of freedom present at the Big Bang and inside black holes?"The problem is you are still treating this as some kind of "origins issue".

If he exists, being omnipotent he can do whatever he wants. I don't see the relevance of this though. It has nothing to do with describing the Planck scale physics near the Big Bang. The Big Bang is certainly not falsified and the "singularity" isn't supposed to be an origin for the universe. This is such an unusual sentence; I'm not sure how to respond. We don't know what went on during that era. That's it. We don't take anything on faith.
For instance nobody is certain how the Sumerian version of Gilgamesh makes a transition from one verse to another because the tablets are missing. That doesn't mean people start inventing stuff between the verses and taking them on faith. They simply don't know.I fail to understand how not knowing something means you are taking something else on faith.

Not all breakdowns in a physical theory are due to inapplicability of a concept. Which is why I avoided the word. No, the uncertainty priniple is a result of quantum theory. Quantum Gravity would be far more correct than "Uncertainty principle gravity"(Whatever that would mean?).

No, or to be more accurate the question makes no sense.
The singularity is the mathematical breakdown of GR, so things do not "come out of it".I will cut the analogies and attempt to make this crystal clear. The Big Bang is the theory that the universe has been expanding for the past several billion years from an initially very small state. Not an infinitely small state, simply small. Small like a flea for example.Before this point nobody knows what happened, because everything breaks down. However "nobody knows what happened" is not equivalent to "It happened like Genesis 1 says".That is were things stand. The Big Bang describes the early history of the universe, but not how/why it exists. However the Big Bang is correct, as observations support it. There is no better theory of the early universe.

For two reasons:
(1)You have to be brief and simple when making public press releases.
(2)He is correct in a certain technical sense, but I would rather not go into explaining it. Experimental tests of Special Relativity and any experiment in CERN, Stanford, e.t.c. They all are evidence of spacetime.However, I am beginning to think you are being purposefully difficult. I've explained to you several times that the singularity is not the beginning of the universe, but an artefact of General Relativity. However you still keep asking "where did the singularity come from?"However none of this in any way affects the Big Bang. The Big Bang is a theory of the universe's early history and observations show it to be correct.In order to describe what happens previous to General Relativity's breakdown you need a new theory. However any old "new theory" will not do. The new theory would have to explain "What is the origin of a black hole's entropy?". If the theory can't do that, it isn't good enough.

Nobody knows, because there is no working theory of that period.

People are asking. Nobody currently knows, it's a difficult area. I don't get your point.

Being brief in this subject can mean throwing out the necessary details. As I said in my previous post: He is correct. However due to the many ways this subject can be viewed what he says may appear to contradict what cavediver and others have said. Yes to every question.I am still failing to understand your point. What Hawking is saying, is that, given all these properties of spacetime and general relativity, we can figure out that general relativity has a singularity early on in cosmological time.Your thinking, if I am correct, is this:
1. Scientists say the singularity created the universe.
2. However they figure out the singularity was there by using gravity, which only came into existence after the universe was created.You think this doesn't make sense because it sounds like "singularity created gravity which created singularity".Now for the umpteenth time, the singularity is not a physical object. This is the main reason you are having trouble understanding people's posts. You keep saying "Where did the singularity come from?". This is a nonsense question.

You're purposefully being difficult. I don't understand why you would waste time like this.I specifically keep telling you that it is not a physical object that came from somewhere, but just a mathematical artefact of General Relativity. Can you can provide a good reason why you keep saying "where did the singularity come from?"Hawking's derivation uses spacetime curvature to infer the presence of a singularity, which is a breakdown in General Relativity. This is a purely mathematical proof about the properties of General Relativity.
What you are saying is analogous to invalidating 1 + 1 = 2 by questioning who/what created 1.