|
|
|
Wings
New Member
USA
6 Posts |
 Posted - 03/30/2007 : 15:45:46
|
I apologize for creating a topic that I'm sure has been discussed to death. I'm quite ignorant of the nature of the Universe, the Big Bang, and many other facets of Science, so I figured I would ask here since this community appears to be quite knowledgable and intelligent.
My questions are as follows.
I have heard before that our current physical laws, such as the Conservation of Energy, break down when the singularity is discussed. I don't understand how this can be? How can energy not be created and destroyed, but yet when the singularity is discussed, it's stated that this is actually possible? Did I misread someone's statement here?
Another question is, when it's discussed that time stops at the singularity, they are discussing activity and motion rather than presence, is that correct? The energy is still there, it's just sort of frozen, is that correct?
Thank you for taking the time to read these questions.
EDIT : I apologize, I meant that time doesn't exist at the singularity, rather than stops.
|
Edited by - Wings on 03/30/2007 18:09:00
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 19:52:03 [Permalink]
|
Wikipedia defines a sigularity as follows:
A gravitational singularity (sometimes spacetime singularity) is, approximately, a place where quantities which are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite.
Thats a pretty good definition. Around the sigularity is the event horizon. The event horizon is the area in space where gravity is so strong that it exceeds the escape velocity of light. What that means is no information from inside the event horizon can be conveyde to the rest of the universe outside of the event horizon. So there is no way we can know what happens at a singularity. General relativity says that if a mass is large enough gravity will compress the mass and nothing can stop it resulting in a singularity. Physical laws breakdown because gravity is essentially infinit at a singularity.
But I suppose since no information can come out of a black hole, the the singularity is not really in our universe anymore.
Oh shoot! Hawkins lost that bet. Hawkins and most physicist now say that information does come come from an event horizon, it is just in a mangled form. So singularities do exist in this universe and will eventually evaporate through radiation and conservation of energy will eventually be restored.
My brain hurts now and I am going to bed....
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
 |
|
|
Wings
New Member
USA
6 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 20:00:37 [Permalink]
|
Okay, I realize that I wasn't very clear in my first post. It was kind of hard to really figure out exactly what to say.
Alright, what I was considering was the singularity that is theorized from before the universe's birth. I remember reading on the JREF forum and from a few other places that the laws of the universe, such as the Law of Conservation which states that energy can not be created or destroyed. But when I hear some people talking about it, I've read that they feel that those laws do not apply towards the singularity.
Okay, now that I've figured out exactly how to phrase the subject, perhaps I can figure this out better.
Also, would I be wrong to consider that since the black hole you described still exists within the universe, and that the information within it leaks out, that it never violates the Law of Conservation in the sense that the information is accounted for and will eventually leak out? |
| Edited by - Wings on 03/30/2007 20:01:27 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 20:02:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Another question is, when it's discussed that time stops at the singularity, they are discussing activity and motion rather than presence, is that correct? The energy is still there, it's just sort of frozen, is that correct?
Time stops at the event horizon. Time slows relative to the an observer at higher velocities or higher gravitational fields. At the speed of light relative to an observer or at an event horizon time would stop relative to the observer that is 'stationary' or outside of the gravitational field. I don't know what you mean by 'presence'.
Energy has nothing to do with time.
I really am leaving now.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Wings
New Member
USA
6 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 20:07:48 [Permalink]
|
I wasn't clear there, I was referring to the singularity that the universe came from. The singularity that the Big Bang theory predicts?
What I meant by presence was that the energy that the universe is made up of, was present yet time didn't apply in the sense of how we percieve time?
I suppose I'm not being very clear, it's hard to really word the questions.
Have a good night, furshur! |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 20:10:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Alright, what I was considering was the singularity that is theorized from before the universe's birth. I remember reading on the JREF forum and from a few other places that the laws of the universe, such as the Law of Conservation which states that energy can not be created or destroyed. But when I hear some people talking about it, I've read that they feel that those laws do not apply towards the singularity.
The universe is expanding if your run the 'movie' backward it will end in a singulariy. Is a singularity the end of the movie (to carry the metaphor to far), nobody knows. Besides, as far as energy not being created or destroyed - why do you assume a singularity is devoid of energy - I would say infinite gravitational potental energy is not zero energy....
thats it I'm done for the night I have to get up and feed the horses in the morning...
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 20:17:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wings
I have heard before that our current physical laws, such as the Conservation of Energy, break down when the singularity is discussed. I don't understand how this can be? How can energy not be created and destroyed, but yet when the singularity is discussed, it's stated that this is actually possible? Did I misread someone's statement here?
I don't pretend to really know much more than you, but I think you are confusing forces with laws.
In the very first moments of the Universe's existence, during what's called the Planck epoch, it is known that gravity played a much stronger role than it does today. The four fundamental forces are also thought to derive from a single force, which then diverged:
quote:
Since the complete theory of quantum gravity, a theory unifying quantum mechanics and relativistic gravity, is unknown, the physics of the Planck epoch are unclear, and the exact manner in which the fundamental forces were unified, and how they came to be separate entities, is still poorly understood. Three of the four forces have been successfully integrated in a common framework, but gravity remains problematic. If quantum effects are ignored, the universe starts from a singularity with an infinite density. This conclusion could change when quantum gravity is taken into account.
As far as the Law of Conservation, I don't think scientists pretend to know where the energy came from or if it always existed. They just begin from the moment it was there.
However, this article offers a pretty good layman's explanation of what may have happened before the Big Bang, which I've found to be the best concise explanation available.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/30/2007 20:19:13 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 20:24:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wings
Another question is, when it's discussed that time stops at the singularity, they are discussing activity and motion rather than presence, is that correct? The energy is still there, it's just sort of frozen, is that correct?
Yeah, furshur answered this one pretty well already, the important part being that time stops relative to an observer.
I remember watching the documentary "A Brief History of Time" where they showed an astronaut wearing a wristwatch floating toward a black hole. After he passed the event horizon, he appeared frozen in time to anyone outside that boundary. But for the astronaut himself, he could see his watch ticking just as before. Of course, they also said it wouldn't be long before the density of the black hole crushed him into a strand of spaghetti.
As far as the singularity which spawned the Universe, time wouldn't have been stopped, since there was no time yet (no space means no time).
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/30/2007 20:27:21 |
|
|
|
Wings
New Member
USA
6 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 20:38:12 [Permalink]
|
| Okay, at the expense of really sounding like an idiot, would a singularity with no space or time be the same as simply nothing at all? I mean, what would seperate this singularity with no spacetime from nothing? |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 20:48:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wings
Okay, at the expense of really sounding like an idiot, would a singularity with no space or time be the same as simply nothing at all? I mean, what would seperate this singularity with no spacetime from nothing?
Well, I think most of the problem is that we currently understand the universe in terms of math, which is sort of abstract and not easy to actually visualize.
I think of a singularity as a point in the geometric sense: "A spatial point is a concept used to define an exact location in space. It has no volume, area or length."
So how can a point be anything if it has no dimensions? I guess because it's different than nothing--it's a point. It's more of a concept than anything you'll ever actually set eyes on. Even dot or period we use to represent a point isn't a point, since if you magnified it, it would have dimensions.
I think a singularity is sort of like that. It's a mathematical concept, defined as "a place where quantities which are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite." In that sense, because it has a definition, it isn't nothing.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/30/2007 20:48:24 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 08:13:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Okay, at the expense of really sounding like an idiot, would a singularity with no space or time be the same as simply nothing at all? I mean, what would seperate this singularity with no spacetime from nothing?
You don't sound like an idiot, you are just asking a question that cannot be answered.
I wouldn't say that a singularity not in the universe (since it is the universe) was nothing. It is very difficult, for me at least, to wrap my mind around something that is outside of space time. What surrounded the singularity (if the universe was in fact a singularity) was nothing but the singularity was something. Geeze, that's clear! How bout this, when did the Big Bang occur? What I mean is, how long was the singularity just sitting there before the big bang occurred? Answer - null. There was no space time, so that question has no meaning.
My brain hurts again, I think I'll go shovel some horse crap...
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 22:59:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wings
I apologize for creating a topic that I'm sure has been discussed to death. I'm quite ignorant of the nature of the Universe, the Big Bang, and many other facets of Science, so I figured I would ask here since this community appears to be quite knowledgable and intelligent.
My questions are as follows.
I have heard before that our current physical laws, such as the Conservation of Energy, break down when the singularity is discussed.
Guth called it a "free lunch" after introducing the theory. It's a gross violation of the first law of thermodynamics and it's a bunch of bunk.
quote:
I don't understand how this can be?
That is because it cannot be. You can't get something from nothing. Period. You need energy to create a universe that is filled with energy. The first law of thermodynamics insists that whatever predated this universe included lots of energy. It's not just a "theory" by the way, it's the first law of thermodynamics they are trying to violate on a truly cosmic scale.
quote:
How can energy not be created and destroyed, but yet when the singularity is discussed, it's stated that this is actually possible? Did I misread someone's statement here?
No, in fact Guth called it the ultimate free lunch. It's not actually possible, but that is the theory alright. According to Guth there was the big "monopole problem". Nevermind the fact monopoles have never been shown to exist, the universe had a monopole problem. It could only be solved with "inflaton fields". Thats where the magic comes in. Those inflaton fields are not like normal scalar fields. They're magic. Instead of decreasing density with an increase in volume they *supposedly* stayed at a constant density with an *exponential* increase in volume. That's the magic part and that's the BS behind Guth's big bang theories in a nutshell.
quote:
Another question is, when it's discussed that time stops at the singularity, they are discussing activity and motion rather than presence, is that correct? The energy is still there, it's just sort of frozen, is that correct?
Great question. I think you'll find you get different answers depending on who you get them from. The whole thing is one big mythology as far as I'm concerned.
Here of the five metaphysical (physically undefined) energies/particles of standard theory.
1. Monopoles
2. Inflaton fields (free lunch part of BB theory)
3. Dark energy (fudge factor for a force of acceleration)
4. Dark Matter (fudge factor for missing mass)
5. Magnetic reconnection (Their attempt to deny the role of electricity)
Other than those five things, standard theory is a great theory.
As you may have surmised, I'm the local heretic when it comes to astronomy. Welcome to the board.  |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/10/2007 23:11:34 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 23:05:28 [Permalink]
|
Wings, pay no attention to Mozina.... he is a crank who thinks the sun has a solid surface, made of iron or something.
Just fair warning.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 23:10:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Wings, pay no attention to Mozina.... he is a crank who thinks the sun has a solid surface, made of iron or something.
Just fair warning.
Evidently it's just fine to believe in metaphysics. Don't forget the list, you'll find it useful to note the not one of the items on that list actually comes with a physical definition. They are all simply "made up" ideas that have never been shown to exist. I guess the label "crank" is a relative term. It's evidently a "crank" idea to believe there is an electrical aspect to cosmology, but it's just find to have faith in these metaphysical bad boys:
1. Monopoles
2. Inflaton fields (free lunch part of BB theory)
3. Dark energy (fudge factor for a force of acceleration)
4. Dark Matter (fudge factor for missing mass)
5. Magnetic reconnection (Their attempt to deny the role of electricity) |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 23:15:34 [Permalink]
|
http://www.symmetrymag.org/cms/?pid=1000045
quote:
It was a true Eureka moment if there ever was one. On the night of December 6, 1979, an obscure Stanford Linear Accelerator Center postdoc was up late, sweating over an even more obscure problem about particles called magnetic monopoles.
Here's a more "Guth friendly" perspective by the way. Note that his epiphany related to "monopoles" is predicated on their existence. In over 28 years since Guth popularized them as a "problem" that needed to be 'solved' with inflaton fields, never once has anyone ever seen one. The whole theory is based on a particle that has never been shown to exist in *any* controlled experiment. It's like claiming there is an invisible elf problem that your invisible energy field solves.
My favorite quote is this one:
quote:
"I never thought that anybody would ever actually measure these things. I thought we were just calculating for the fun of it."
How prophetic IMO. Coincidently nobody ever has measured monopoles or inflaton fields. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 04/10/2007 23:24:43 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 23:25:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Evidently it's just fine to believe in metaphysics. Don't forget the list, you'll find it useful to note the not one of the items on that list actually comes with a physical definition. They are all simply "made up" ideas that have never been shown to exist. I guess the label "crank" is a relative term. It's evidently a "crank" idea to believe there is an electrical aspect to cosmology, but it's just find to have faith in these metaphysical bad boys:
You believe the sun has a solid surface because you looked at a picture you don't understand. So yes, the term "crank" seems an apt description for you.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Big Bang and the Singularity
