Or something else?
Or something else?
Maybe the universe is just the result of can of gasoline God spilled in a puddle of water while filling up his version of a 1960's Mustang and he's let the whole thing go this long because of all the pretty swirly patterns.
Seriously, according to the current understanding of physics a BB universe would begin with a singularity - although it seems recently somebody proposed something slightly different, but I can't remember where I read that.
Didnt Steven Hawkings propose something different?
Some say that String theory can prove we have multi-dimensions and Mulitiple-Universes, the Universe then formed after these large branes-which are maybe other universes cam craching into each other and made the BigBang we speak of
First off: Could you please define exactly what you understand by the term "singularity"? Do you equate that to a 0 dimensional point? And really being nothing?
If so, this really seems hard to swallow.
That is why M-theory with the colliding branes as origin of the BB appeals more to me. Though admittedly, both options: singularity or having existed eternally are both intellectually awfully tough to cope with.
For example: if the universe has existed for eternity, how can we can from an eternal past to the present time?
I do not believe in singularity and other myth . If you do not understand something , you can always say , it is singularity, but it is not an explanation. Inflation of the space is singularity too. Vacuum Energy is singularity too.
The Membrane theory of the String Theory is a mathematical theory. It describes many physical processes very well.
I believe in the eternal Information within pure gouge field of energy in eternal space. 13 billions years ago the energy concentrated and created the matter and the repulsive particle (Dark Energy). We would like to search if some combinations of neutrino-photon-particle could create some negative pressure.
About this problem – http://bencieszyn.w.interia.pl/antim...atter-ang.html
A singularity...but one defined as infinate homogenouse energy at t=0. The bang waas actually a decay of this singularity.Originally Posted by Platinum Rhymer
Singularity ? Fable? Dot ? Point ? Myth? Zeus ? Afrodita? Uncerntainty? Error in nothingness?
When a man do not know why - he says , it is singularity !
I am with you on this one. 0 dimensional points and singularities are fishy... singularities are like situations that arise in math problems when suddenly you divide by zero.... you did something wrong...Originally Posted by czeslaw
Something of a theory is always lost in traslation when moved from the scientific realm to the layman realm. There is no good analogy for the big bang.
Inflationary theory, one of several pre-big bang ideas, doesn't try to explain before planck time, so there is actually no singularity in the theory. Logic would dictate that one would have to eventually reach a singularity tracing the evolution of an expanding universe backwards in time, but this is conviently dodged.
String theroy, or M-Theory, in and of itself doesn't describe a brane collision, that was one version of M-Theory called Eukpyrotic (sp?... I cannot even pronounce it and don't have my book handy. ops: ) String theory still relies on an inflationary model when describing big bang type events.
There are any number of misrepresentations of theories on this board and in print. Bad Astronomy, Bad Cosmology, AND Bad Physics...
Yes singularities are inherentlynmathematical, howvere consider the fact that before the coming of special relativity, many assumed that because of the singualrity that occurs in the Lorentz transformation that the Lorentz transformation must breakdown when the velocity was approximately equal to c (we are of course talking about an ether theory so velocity is absolute). In special relativty this singularity is no problem as if we like we can merely look upon it as the equations telling us that we have perfomed an illegal operation.Originally Posted by gzhpcu
"We mentioned that the FLRW cosmology begins with a singularity. This is a much more serious breakdown than a flat tire or a cracked engine block. It is, in fact, a physical impossibility -- a region where the laws of physics break down altogether and even spacetime comes to an end." -- Tony Rothman, General Relativity professor at Harvard, author of Science a la Mode, Physical Fashions and Fictions 
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Well it's not thta quite cut and dried, as I tried illustrate above singualrites are mathemmaticla artifacts and there physical signifcance depends on the physical interpretation that is adopted (another example of a not so troublesome singualrity is the event horizon of a black hole, which like many singularites occur because of the specific cooridnate system adopted, granted graviational singualtires are not so easy to remove).Originally Posted by Cougar
The horizon of the Black Hole is impossible for our Universe because of the General Relativity. Close to horizon the time slows down and everything goes towards the horizon only. There is different density according to the diameter of the mass.
There are giant mass nearly Black Hole in almost every galaxy. This masses behave like super gravity object covered by luminously matter. Stephen Hawking wrote how this Black Hole loose its mass and energy. If there exist really Black Hole , it collapses to singularity, but we never find something like this. Singularity is always outside of our space and time. General Relativity is against the Singularity.
There is hypothesis , the Black Hole if it did collapsed, it goes into another kind of the space with other dimensions, but it is not our Universe.