Does "Cosmic Censorship" show the 'inside solution' to be impossible?

[RussT]

Can there be 'spherical expansion' from a Planck Singularity?

http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people...bet_story.html

After Stephen Hawking said the following… “that even in light of the new calculations, there is no “generic” way in which naked singularities might form according to the known laws of physics”.

The following is a direct quote from Dr. Preskill, so they are NOT a reporters words!

But Dr. Preskill replied: “Stephen, I’m surprised to hear you, of all people, say that. There’s one naked singularity that we all agree existed: the Big Bang. The universe itself.”

SO, what should have been the reply here?

The ONE place that NO mainstream scientist wants to go!!! Are we so sure???

And that is, since the evidence is telling us that ALL of the black holes that we see in our universe, do have an event horizon, that is surfaced, and that has world lines that are cone shaped, spiraling down to the r=0 (or more correctly, as near as possible to infinity/Planck length), that that should/could mean, that the Planck singularity MUST have an event horizon covering it, and if so, then the Planck singularity CANNOT do what we say it is doing, IE; Expanding ‘spherically’ (Inside solution) with nearly infinite density of High Energy (TeV) Gamma Radiation.

So, based on the bet, the hunt was on. The Big bang (inside solution) was assumed to be correct, and Hawking, Preskill, Penrose, Thorne, Susskind, and countless others have tried to determine if a naked singularity can indeed exist.

BUT, this is the wrong way to think of and examine this whole problem. It is just like starting the universe off with the FLRW equations, and then trying to determine if the universe is flat, negatively curved, or positively curved and thinking that you are actually covering ALL possibilities for how the universe could be working. If the Planck singularity cannot expand ‘spherically’ because it IS/MUST BE covered by a proper black hole event horizon, then the FLRW equations are meaningless.

So, a correct evaluation of this has never been done, at least NONE that I have ever seen in all my reading (which is extensive). I mean it is certainly not incumbent upon (and is actually extremely Taboo) any mainstream scientist to actively and intentionally try to prove the Big Bang wrong, so the afore mentioned GR guru’s would not and have not tried to explicitly show how the Planck singularity could not possibly be doing what has been predicted for it to do for the last 70+ years.

The correct way to examine this is to go directly to black hole mechanics and analyze how event horizons and their r=0 singularities are created, and then compare those properties with what we actually see in our universe and THEN compare that to the Big Bang Naked Singularity (inside ‘spherically’ expanding solution) and see if it makes sense.

First of all, the ‘only’ way to create a point/Planck/r=0 singularity is for a progenitor to have/cause/(gravitational collapse) an explosion that creates an Event Horizon, that then spirals down to r=0.

SO, since the only way to create an r=0 singularity is for an event horizon to form first, then, either the initiating singularity(s) for our universe (and this does not necessarily have to start ‘time’) has an event horizon covering them, OR that event horizon MUST have evaporated away. There are NO other choices, period!

Also, as per observation, EVERY black hole, stellar or massive, has a rotating/spinning accretion disc. In fact, as far as I know, there is no such thing as a non-rotating accretion disc anywhere in our universe! So, EVERY massive black hole known in our universe is a rotating massive black hole, which we do NOT even know what the progenitor is. So, as per observation, every black hole has a rotating/spinning ‘ring singularity’.

EVERY black hole in our universe, stellar or massive, has an event horizon that has a specific directional orientation, that is ‘cone shaped’ from its world lines from the point singularity back up through the event horizon and out to the ‘space’ outside the event horizon, that when continued to infinity have a very narrow ‘cone shaped’ view of the ‘space’ outside. And as per the paragraph above, every black hole has a rotating/spinning ‘ring singularity’, that MUST have, due to its ‘ring’ shape, a specific directional orientation, as due all the other black holes in our universe.

Now, since mainstream is SO insistent and directly confrontational on “Observation” as one of the key elements of the current paradigm(s), please show any evidence that a non-rotational accretion disc exists anywhere in our universe, and I will retract all of the above. In the absence of that evidence, the above evidence shows that ‘ring singularities’ MUST have a specific directionality, so even in the extremely unlikely event that when the event horizon did evaporate/vanish, even if it could ‘possibly’ emit High Energy Gamma Radiation (which I believe most physicists would agree is highly unlikely), it most certainly could NOT ‘expand spherically’!

Now, I am not saying that the Planck singularity isn’t involved in the initial conditions for describing how our universe is working, quite the contrary, it is the key to the unification of GR and QFT, I am just showing, non-trivially and unambiguously, that the Planck singularity CANNOT emit High Energy Gamma Radiation or Expand Spherically. There is no ‘inside solution’ that exists. Massive Black Holes have one end (the progenitor that makes the event horizon) or the other end (down to the Planck ring singularity and through).

[Kwalish Kid]

Why can't people, even mainstream people, merely point out that Preskill's comment has little to do with the logic of Hawking's statement. Hawking was talking about the formation of naked singularities. There is no reason that a Big Bang theorist has to believe that there must be a formation process for the very early universe.

[Jim]

After Stephen Hawking said the following… “that even in light of the new calculations, there is no “generic” way in which naked singularities might form according to the known laws of physics”. (Added for clarity: This is not a direct quote from Hawking, but from the article linked.)

The following is a direct quote from Dr. Preskill, so they are NOT a reporters words!

But Dr. Preskill replied: “Stephen, I’m surprised to hear you, of all people, say that. There’s one naked singularity that we all agree existed: the Big Bang. The universe itself.” (Added for clarity: This is a direct quote from the article linked and from Dr. Preskill.)

SO, what should have been the reply here?

Well, there was always Hawking's reply. From the article:

Dr. Hawking declined to yield unequivocally on his bet with Dr. Preskill and Dr. Thorne. He made another bet with the Caltech physicists last week that although a very limited set of conditions had been found for creating naked singularities, no general conditions would be found.

Hawking wasn't saying that no naked singularity could ever be formed, only that such a formation would require special conditions. I'd argue that the Big Bang is "special conditions."

[Coldcreation]

...snip...
Hawking wasn't saying that no naked singularity could ever be formed, only that such a formation would require special conditions. I'd argue that the Big Bang is "special conditions."

I would argue that the Big Bang is not a special condition.

Why should the big bang itself (whatever that means) be exempt from GR, from thermodynamical laws, from QM, from the known laws of physics in general?

CC

[dgavin]

I would argue that the Big Bang is not a special condition.

Why should the big bang itself (whatever that means) be exempt from GR, from thermodynamical laws, from QM, from the known laws of physics in general?

CC

Because GR, Thermal Dynamics, QM, and the Laws of Physics and space/time were a consequence of the the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang they didn't exist, at least not how we understand them.

Far as I know there is no theory about before the big bang that has any provable tests.

If the Cyclic Universe theory is considered (even though untestable), then the laws and space time collapse from an old universe into BB singularity, which will eventually form a new universe, with slightly different (less) parameters of the laws of Physics then the first.

I think a lot of confusion comes from terming a collapsed star (Black Hole) as a singularity, when in truth it may have not collapsed to a Planck length singularity but instead have most likely collapsed into a Quantum Star which has size and mass still, although extremely small sizes, much larger then a singe Planck.

To form a true singularity would most likely require that all the energy, and space time itself be compressed into a finite size that would cause a Quantum Degeneracy like effect to occur to allow it to compress down to a single planck length.

[Jim]

I would argue that the Big Bang is not a special condition.

How many Big Bangs are we talking about?

If it's one, that seems fairly special.

If it's one every 100 billion years or so, that seems rather uncommon.

Now, if you have evidence that a Big Bang ocurs every Wednesday, or even once every billion years, then maybe you could argue that there's nothing special about it.

[RussT]

Well, there was always Hawking's reply. From the article:

Dr. Hawking declined to yield unequivocally on his bet with Dr. Preskill and Dr. Thorne. He made another bet with the Caltech physicists last week that although a very limited set of conditions had been found for creating naked singularities, no general conditions would be found.

Hawking wasn't saying that no naked singularity could ever be formed, only that such a formation would require special conditions. I'd argue that the Big Bang is "special conditions."

Yes, and Hawking should never have conceded that bet based on 'computer simulations' or 'n-body simulations'!

The simple fact remains, that the "ONLY" way to create a Planck singularity is for a gravitational collapse to take place for an event horizon to be created to cause a gravitational collapse down to r=0.

And I would submit, that that collapse MUST have angular momentum to be able to even happen. That is, it should be impossible for a straight radial infall>Schwarzschild< to be able to occur.

[Coldcreation]

How many Big Bangs are we talking about?

If it's one, that seems fairly special.

If it's one every 100 billion years or so, that seems rather uncommon.

Now, if you have evidence that a Big Bang ocurs every Wednesday, or even once every billion years, then maybe you could argue that there's nothing special about it.

There is nothing exempt from the fundamental natural laws.

If you had evidence that the big bang occurred even once, then maybe you could argue that there is something special about it. The fact is, there is no evidence. If there was, believe me, it would form part of the standard model.

Anything that falls outside of physics ain't physics.


CC

[RussT]

Because GR, Thermal Dynamics, QM, and the Laws of Physics and space/time were a consequence of the the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang they didn't exist, at least not how we understand them.

dgavin, I don't believe we have posted to each other before. Welcome.

With all due respect, to you and everyone, THIS time before the Big Bang concept is...Big Bang Theory Dependent!

That is, time is movement dependent, so if the Planck singularity (as I have described above) cannot expand/inflate in a High Energy Density all at once, simultaneously, everywhere, THEN there is no way (Yet) to determine when 'movement' was initialized in our universe.

But, it is my firm contention, that the initial conditions of our universe, ie; describing how the initial conditions manefest themselves, where and how the movement takes place, at what velocity it is moving, and how that can be related specifically to SR and GR and then QFT (that maths can be fully applied to, of course).

[QUOTEdgavin]
If the Cyclic Universe theory is considered (even though untestable), then the laws and space time collapse from an old universe into BB singularity, which will eventually form a new universe, with slightly different (less) parameters of the laws of Physics then the first.[/QUOTE]

But, this assumes a FLRW beginning, and if Cosmic Censorship does apply, THEN the Planck Singularity cannot 'expand spherically' OR emit High Energy Gamma Radiation!

I think a lot of confusion comes from terming a collapsed star (Black Hole) as a singularity, when in truth it may have not collapsed to a Planck length singularity but instead have most likely collapsed into a Quantum Star which has size and mass still, although extremely small sizes, much larger then a singe Planck.

Yes, because there has been such difficulty in unifying GR and QFT, many people have written off the singular solution, and began exploring other non-singular ideas. HOWEVER, Gravistar, ECO/MECO, Quark stars, ETC, are just that, ideas born out of 'The Theory Blows Up at The Singularity" concepts, which when translated, simply means OUR Understanding Blows up.

Singularity, as I said in the OP, is just a 'placeholder' for 'what really happens there', SO, if as I am suggesting, the Planck Singualrity has never been able to do what has been hypothesized for the last 70+ years, then I am saying that must be doing something else. Simply put, since we need to be able to answer how Planck length/size non-baryonic matter gets here, it would simply follow that that is where it is coming from.

To form a true singularity would most likely require that all the energy, and space time itself be compressed into a finite size that would cause a Quantum Degeneracy like effect to occur to allow it to compress down to a single planck length.

SMBH's have become very tightly constrained, and with the Nuker Teams work, the rotation curves for the outer stars in spiral discs, have been VERY tightly and intimately tied to the BIRTH of the MBH's, and so as far as has ben determined, there is/should be a 'ring singularity' in the Depths of MBH's.

The question is......was the whole universe ever contained in a Planck Singularity that 'expanded spherically' and 'emitted High Energy Gamma Radiation??? I don't think so.

[RussT]

There is nothing exempt from the fundamental natural laws.

If you had evidence that the big bang occurred even once, then maybe you could argue that there is something special about it. The fact is, there is no evidence. If there was, believe me, it would form part of the standard model.

Anything that falls outside of physics ain't physics.


CC

Cold Creation, this thread is specifically about Cosmic Censorship, r=o /Planck singularities, Massive Black Holes and their Event Horizons, and the Progenitors of Black Holes, Massive or Stellar.

If you would like to contribute something specific to those topics, please feel free to do so.

If you want to start your own Anti-Big Bang thread, feel free to do that as well.

[Jim]

The simple fact remains, that the "ONLY" way to create a Planck singularity is for a gravitational collapse to take place for an event horizon to be created to cause a gravitational collapse down to r=0.

And I would submit, that that collapse MUST have angular momentum to be able to even happen. That is, it should be impossible for a straight radial infall>Schwarzschild< to be able to occur.

Well, the only way now may be gravitational collapse; and a singularity made now may require angular momentum.

That doesn't mean that the singularity that led to the BB (if it was a singularity) had to follow those rules. After all, the Universe that contains those rules didn't exist yet.

The question is......was the whole universe ever contained in a Planck Singularity that 'expanded spherically' and 'emitted High Energy Gamma Radiation??? I don't think so.

So, what do you think it was?

[Ari Jokimaki]

How many Big Bangs are we talking about?

If it's one, that seems fairly special.

If it's one every 100 billion years or so, that seems rather uncommon.

Now, if you have evidence that a Big Bang ocurs every Wednesday, or even once every billion years, then maybe you could argue that there's nothing special about it.

See here:

The next step forward came with the realization that there need not be anything special about the Planck- sized region of spacetime that expanded to become our Universe. If that was part of some larger region of spacetime in which all kinds of scalar fields were at work, then only the regions in which those fields produced inflation could lead to the emergence of a large universe like our own.

In effect, new universes bud off from our Universe, and our Universe may itself have budded off from another universe, in a process which had no beginning and will have no end.

So, to me it looks like the answer to your question is that according to currently favoured version of theory of inflation, amount of Big Bangs is infinite, and it indeed occurs at least every wednesday. Therefore Coldcreation was correct when he said that Big Bang is not a special condition.

For further information, see Andrei Linde's website.

[RussT]

See here:





So, to me it looks like the answer to your question is that according to currently favoured version of theory of inflation, amount of Big Bangs is infinite, and it indeed occurs at least every wednesday. Therefore Coldcreation was correct when he said that Big Bang is not a special condition.

For further information, see Andrei Linde's website.

NO There is ZERO evidence for Inflation!!! Inflation is just a mathematical "FIX" for a PLanck singularity THAT NEVER COULD DO WHAT THEY HAVE SAID IT CAN!!!

The Big Bang was in real jeopardy in the late 70's, not only because of the 'flatness' problem and the 'horizon' problem, but mainly because the Density was far to great, and everything 'should have' collapsed in on itself, right in the very beginning!

If Alan Guth had not come up with this in 1979/80, there would be a far greater 'willingness' on the part of mainstream scientists to look at other 'SINGULAR" alternatives!!!

Cosmic Censorhip shows that an Event Horizon MUST cover it! It can't 'expand'/Inflate period and certainly not spherically!

And a Planck singularity CANNOT produce High Energy Gamma Radiation! All of the Highest Energy Gamma Radiation the we "Observe" in our universe comes from 'jets'.

[RussT]

Well, the only way now may be gravitational collapse; and a singularity made now may require angular momentum.

That doesn't mean that the singularity that led to the BB (if it was a singularity) had to follow those rules. After all, the Universe that contains those rules didn't exist yet.

With all due respect here Jim, are you telling me that we should forego ALL of the known gravitational Black hole mechanics of Event Horizons and singularities, and postulate that somehow, something outside of our universe can work differently than everything we "Observe" (and yes, we certainly do 'observe' the directionality and the rotation of MBH's), and that we are going to base our entire concepts of how our universe is working on the "Possibility" that a Planck singularity 'could' start our universe and our 'time'(movement) of in a 'spherically expanding', High Energy Gamma Radiation event, when everything we "Observe" says differently?

So, what do you think it was?

I was somewhat explicit when I said this, in the last paragraph of the OP.

Now, I am not saying that the Planck singularity isn’t involved in the initial conditions for describing how our universe is working, quite the contrary, it is the key to the unification of GR and QFT, I am just showing, non-trivially and unambiguously, that the Planck singularity CANNOT emit High Energy Gamma Radiation or Expand Spherically. There is no ‘inside solution’ that exists. Massive Black Holes have one end (the progenitor that makes the event horizon) or the other end (down to the Planck ring singularity and through).

After all, the Universe that contains those rules didn't exist yet.

And I will say this about "Time" beginning and the Big Bang.

Time having a beginning that begins with a 'spherical expansion' in "High Energy Gamma Radiation", everywhere simultaneously, is Big Bang Theory Dependent!

Time is motion dependent, and although I firmly believe there is a way to show, for the initial singular conditions, where the motion began, where it is coming from, and even its velocity, if there is no way to tell "WHEN' it began, then we cannot give a definite 'starting of time' for our unievsre.

[Jim]

With all due respect here Jim, are you telling me that we should forego ALL of the known gravitational Black hole mechanics of Event Horizons and singularities...

Of course not.

... and postulate that somehow, something outside of our universe can work differently than everything we "Observe"...

Why not? If it is outside our Universe, how can we proclaim that it absolutely, positively must follow the same rules as inside?

... and that we are going to base our entire concepts of how our universe is working on the "Possibility" that a Planck singularity 'could' start our universe and our 'time'(movement) of in a 'spherically expanding', High Energy Gamma Radiation event, when everything we "Observe" says differently?

Hmmm. But, you apparently think it was a Planck singularity, right?

I was somewhat explicit when I said this, in the last paragraph of the OP.
Originally Posted by RussT
Now, I am not saying that the Planck singularity isn’t involved in the initial conditions for describing how our universe is working, quite the contrary, it is the key to the unification of GR and QFT, I am just showing, non-trivially and unambiguously, that the Planck singularity CANNOT emit High Energy Gamma Radiation or Expand Spherically. There is no ‘inside solution’ that exists. Massive Black Holes have one end (the progenitor that makes the event horizon) or the other end (down to the Planck ring singularity and through).

[Ari Jokimaki]

NO There is ZERO evidence for Inflation!!! Inflation is just a mathematical "FIX" for a PLanck singularity THAT NEVER COULD DO WHAT THEY HAVE SAID IT CAN!!!

So? I was just pointing out what current theory says, that's all. There's no need to shout.

[RussT]

So? I was just pointing out what current theory says, that's all. There's no need to shout.

Yes, sorry Ari.......I definitely thought of changing that several times, but decided not, since it was my initial reaction, AND I wanted to emphasize that "Inflation" is the same 'invisible elf' arguement that is so oft used against alternative scenarios!

What I really should have emphasized, is that if Cosmic Censorship is as valid as shown in the OP, that Inflation is just as meaningless as the FLRW universe!

[RussT]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
With all due respect here Jim, are you telling me that we should forego ALL of the known gravitational Black hole mechanics of Event Horizons and singularities...

Of course not.

Good.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
... and postulate that somehow, something outside of our universe can work differently than everything we "Observe"...

Why not? If it is outside our Universe, how can we proclaim that it absolutely, positively must follow the same rules as inside?

For all the reasons listed in the OP, but let's consider this.

When Einstein included Lambda (Comological Constant), it was to keep the 'whole' universe from collapsing on itself, because he considered the universe to be static. SO, when Hubble determined that the galaxies were expanding away in all directions, he took it out (calling it the biggest blunder of his life), and LeMaitre and Friedmann came up with the concept that if the galaxies are all expanding away, that the universe must have been smaller at some point, and then came, shrinking the universe down to a point (forget the everywhere at once, for now, it is not germain here)... what has now become...The Planck Singularity.
NOW, there is obviously Vast amounts of Hydrogen and helium and 96% more than that of 'space' in our universe, so it certainly makes sense to think that it was all contained in that one point, and therefore there must have been a beginning that started 'time' and the whole universe there.
SO, I fully understand that this is a very reasonable thing to do! And everything has been 'fitted' into that basic FLRW universe ever since. SO, when we talk about how the universe might be, whether it is flat, open, or closed, we think we are really examining "ALL" the ways our universe could be, BUT that is only "IF" Cosmic Censorship does NOT apply.
Which basically means that we have developed an entire model of how our universe works, based on a Planck Singularity 'possibly' working 'in another universe' (before ours started according to the Big Bang) in a way that totally defies ALL known physics and observations of our universe!

And we wonder why GR and QFT cannot be Unified.

Hmmm. But, you apparently think it was a Planck singularity, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
I was somewhat explicit when I said this, in the last paragraph of the OP.
Originally Posted by RussT
Now, I am not saying that the Planck singularity isn’t involved in the initial conditions for describing how our universe is working, quite the contrary, it is the key to the unification of GR and QFT, I am just showing, non-trivially and unambiguously, that the Planck singularity CANNOT emit High Energy Gamma Radiation or Expand Spherically. There is no ‘inside solution’ that exists. Massive Black Holes have one end (the progenitor that makes the event horizon) or the other end (down to the Planck ring singularity and through).

Yes, obviously, and from the same New York Times article...[Astrophysicists regard the existence of singularities as a baffling but inevitable consequence of Einstein's theory of gravity.] MY Bold

SO, let me ask you this.

If Cosmic Censorship does apply, and Planck singularities cannot 'expand spherically' and cannot emit High Energy Gamma Radiation, then what do you think would be necessary to Unify GR and QFT?

[novaderrik]

If Cosmic Censorship does apply, and Planck singularities cannot 'expand spherically' and cannot emit High Energy Gamma Radiation, then what do you think would be necessary to Unify GR and QFT?

how about some nice warm apple pie, with some vanilla ice cream on top of it?
that would pretty much unify everything..

[RussT]

how about some nice warm apple pie, with some vanilla ice cream on top of it?
that would pretty much unify everything..

Cute! I'm sure the end product would be Unified

[ETA} Actually that's exactly what I am talking about...what goes in, must come out as a unified product...Thanks!

[Jim]

If Cosmic Censorship does apply, and Planck singularities cannot 'expand spherically' and cannot emit High Energy Gamma Radiation, then what do you think would be necessary to Unify GR and QFT?

Hey, it's not my thread. You tell me.

[Cougar]

...LeMaitre and Friedmann came up with the concept that if the galaxies are all expanding away, that the universe must have been smaller at some point, and then came, shrinking the universe down to a point... what has now become...The Planck Singularity.
NOW, there is obviously Vast amounts of Hydrogen and helium and 96% more than that of 'space' in our universe, so it certainly makes sense to think that it was all contained in that one point...

What do you mean? That doesn't make sense at all. We can run the film of the hot big bang back so far - particle accelerators can reproduce extremely hot environments - but beyond that, we're left with unsupported extrapolation and speculation. We just don't know.

Which basically means that we have developed an entire model of how our universe works, based on a Planck Singularity 'possibly' working 'in another universe' (before ours started according to the Big Bang) in a way that totally defies ALL known physics and observations of our universe!

No, the model is not based on that at all. It's based on a number of independent observations, one of which is the observed behavior of particles at exceedingly high temperatures, the way they can combine, and the way they cannot.

Yes, obviously, and from the same New York Times article...[Astrophysicists regard the existence of singularities as a baffling but inevitable consequence of Einstein's theory of gravity.]

This just points to the applicable limit of Einstein's theory. As Harvard GR prof Tony Rothman says:

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.

[RussT]

Hey, it's not my thread. You tell me.

LOL...Out of everything I responded to and that is the only thing that comes to mind? But, I understand, it is very difficult and potentially dangerous to go against current thinking.

Which basically means that we have developed an entire model of how our universe works, based on a Planck Singularity 'possibly' working 'in another universe' (before ours started according to the Big Bang) in a way that totally defies ALL known physics and observations of our universe!

And we wonder why GR and QFT cannot be Unified.

But this was my main point to go along with the OP anyway.

More will be developed below though.

[RussT]

What do you mean? That doesn't make sense at all. We can run the film of the hot big bang back so far - particle accelerators can reproduce extremely hot environments - but beyond that, we're left with unsupported extrapolation and speculation. We just don't know.

Originally Posted by RussT
Which basically means that we have developed an entire model of how our universe works, based on a Planck Singularity 'possibly' working 'in another universe' (before ours started according to the Big Bang) in a way that totally defies ALL known physics and observations of our universe!

And we wonder why GR and QFT cannot be Unified.

So, when you say... [We just don't know]

That is precisely the point of the OP.

For 70+ years it has been assume that 'shrinking the universe down to a point'
was the reasonable thing to do, and then develope a story, a mathematical construct, fit as much evidence/math for that story as possible, and keep going until someone can 'prove' it wrong. BUT, that doesn't make it right.

BUT, when you really look at the 'observational' evidence of the black hole mechanics in the OP, which has never been done in that way, it definitely puts a different light on the subject.

No, the model is not based on that at all. It's based on a number of independent observations, one of which is the observed behavior of particles at exceedingly high temperatures, the way they can combine, and the way they cannot.

Did you even read the OP?

Originally Posted by RussT
Yes, obviously, and from the same New York Times article...[Astrophysicists regard the existence of singularities as a baffling but inevitable consequence of Einstein's theory of gravity.]

This just points to the applicable limit of Einstein's theory. As Harvard GR prof Tony Rothman says:
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.

[We mentioned that the FLRW cosmology begins with a singularity.]

See. he even says this himself!!!

Now, 'singularity' is just a 'placeholder' for 'what really happens there'!!!

SO, because they cannot Unify GR and QFT, they want to give up, declare it physically impossible, and what? Start from T=10^-43, T=10^-35 an Inflating Hot almost beginning?

If they actually get away with doing this, science will be lost for a lot longer than just 400 years!!!

So, The only thing that is really "BLOWING UP" at the singularity is their understanding of "what really happens there"!

NOW, since they have figured out that the planck singularity is starting 'something' from another universe, that can define the initial conditions of our universe, when it is understood correctly, 'what really happens there' will be known. AND, that can be done using what we already know about singularities, event horizons, and MBH's in "Our Universe". Yes, the known physics in our universe can actually answer this once some of the preconceived ideas are erased and understood, which is how science has progressed throughout time!

Why not? If it is outside our Universe, how can we proclaim that it absolutely, positively must follow the same rules as inside?

I have heard this arguement numerous times, and it is certainly reasonable.

But, actually it is one of the keys to beginning to understand because it is saying that a Planck singularity(s), which as said in the quoted statement above, is "Inevitable" in GR, could be shown to have cause and effect in our universe.

AND, it can, once understood correctly!!!

In fact, the very term, Cosmic Censorship, leads directly to the answer, once you understand that Planck Singularities MUST have an Event Horizon covering
them, and therefore they cannot do what is currently being hypothesized.

SO, where do we see the expansion, AND where would the Planck Singularity HAVE to be manefesting itself, AND what would be produced there?

Answer those 3 and you have the Unification of GR and QFT.

[RussT]

What good is it to have 30 days if the 'Pro's' won't even engage because the subject is 'supposedly' ?
Impossible? Woo-Woo? contains "Little Green/Pink/Blue Elves", Etc, ETC.

And, Nereid, the OP is in question form, so why haven't you suggested that it should be in Q&A???

[RussT]

Originally Posted by GOURDHEAD
By way of elaboration, the answer to such a question is constrained more by the imperfection of language, imprecise definitions, and our tendency to switch, sometimes unknowingly, both contexts and premises in mid-sentence. If your definition of universe is: "all that is", then you must employ adequate adjectives to modify its various portions about which you wish to speculate or discuss hypothetically. If you posit that there is a domain beyond where mass, charge, space, time and "nothing" exist, or where some other form of the manifestations of existence do exist, and you wish to communicate that idea to the rest of us, you must choose your adjectives carefully. Ambiguity is a formidable adversary.

Some definitions that I find comforting:

Universe--All that is.

Observable universe--The portion of the universe that instruments detect. Different for each observer-especially those in different galaxies.

Physical Universe--The observable universe plus the part we cannot observe because of the displacement of our location from objects that our instruments would otherwise detect/record.

Hyper-dimensional universe--(aka set of multiverses) Terms used by others that are usually poorly defined, of little use, and avoided by me.

Quasi-verse--A term I employ hypothetically to define a region of the universe of three spatial dimensions with expansion characteristics peculiar to itself due to as yet unobserved features of the Higgs Field (Shmoo Field) operating in a Euclidean geometry of infinite volume. My mind has trouble with the first 10^-35 seconds after the postulated big bang, so I have postulated something that offends my mind less.

[Ambiguity is a formidable adversary.]

Indeed it is. As are defiitions which are based on misconceptions and preconceived ideas!

Allow me to expound on this.

When GR was introduced, Einstein postulated that there must be a Cosmological Constant (Lambda) holding back the universe from collapsing in on itself, in what he and most people of the time considered a Static universe. When Hubble found the galaxies to be expanding away from us in 'all' directions, LeMaitre and Friedmann postulated that the universe MUST have been smaller and smaller in the past, and so 'shrank the universe down to a point' (GR lookback/time reversal), and the virtually inevitable singular solution (since Gravitational Collapse is inherent in GR*), for the initial conditions for the universe was born...the Planck singularity (more about actually getting all the way back to T=0 below*)

This postulate actually did 2 very important things for cosmology. First, it demonstrated that a singular solution was inherent for describing the initial conditions of how our universe is working, and Secondly, it required/demanded, that 'something' outside our universe must be at work, if we were to be able to describe how our universe is working.

SO, inherent in the Big Bang Paradigms, is a Fractal universe structure, where there is 'something' outside to have a cause/effect for the initial singular solution. BUT, right here, the postulate closes the door on ANY other interpretation of 'what is really happening at the singularity', BECAUSE the postulate says that TIME and the Universe starts right here, so ANY talk of any 'other' postulate is moot, because the universe didn't even exist before this. SO Time starting here is purely Big Bang Theory Dependent!!! In other words, if 'something' else is 'what is really happening at the singularity(s), then Time doesn't necessarily start, all at once, here!

So let's say there is 3, 5, 7 room/level high building and we exist in the middle level (could be any level).

Then here is our preconceived idea> corrected. The Universe is the "Building" and we exist in one level of that building. Now there is 'some' singular connection between each of the levels of that building, BUT how many levels up or down will always remain an unknown, so "all That Is" will always remain out of the reach of science, and will always leave the possibility of GOD in the mix!

BUT, what the Big Bang Paradigms have effectively done, is "CLOSED" the level we exist in and made it impossible, for ANY other interpretations of 'what is really happening there'...at the singularity, and made it absolutely WOO-WOO to even talk about or suggest any 'other' solutions...and we all know what it means to GO AGAINST MAINSTREAM! The FLRW 'inside solution' for a 'spherically expanding' universe DOES NOT match any Black Hole mechanics, theory, or observations in our level/universe...and to this they say...so, why would you expect it to, it's in 'that other universe' where the rules could be anything!
There is a way to see the 'singular solution' where the solution 'matches' exactly with the known Black Hole mechanics, theory, and observations, and we even have the master himself that supplied the solution, BUT they have MADE that solution pure WOO-WOO!

SO, what does all this mean? The current paradigms have absolutely 'closed the door' on the only solution to the dilema of unifying GR and QFT, by effectively eliminating ANY Fractal solution, and reduced the possibilities for String/"M" theory and all the rest to "Parallel universes", or Linde like Inflationary multi-veres, and least likely, now that the accelerating universe is afoot, Cyclical Bang/Crunch universes.

SO, in effect, mainstream, in their very defintions of rigorous, have become totally lost, BECAUSE they have only allowed ONE way of looking at the universe>>>CLOSED, and anything else is just WOO-WOO!!!

How can that possibly be considered "Good Science"?


*If the singularity cannot 'spherically expand' OR release High Energy Gamma Radiation, THEN "any" evidence that they think they have; IE, CMBR, Inflation, ETC, is NOT justification for starting at T=10^-43, T=10^-35 or any other time, as the 'inside solution' for the FLRW equations is absolutely MOOT

* I understand that ECO/MECO, Gravistar, ETC, have been postulated, but IMHO, that is a direct result of NOT understanding what is really going on at the singularity, which is just a 'placeholder' for; 'what really happens there', which is a direct result of the initial FLRW equations of a 'spherically expanding' naked singularity in the first place. In other words, not being able to unfy GR and QFT.

[RussT]

It is important that this thread stay on the topic of Cosmic Censorship.

I realize that I was the one that included the 'high energy gamma radiation comes from 'jets'/'beaming', and am more than willing to respond to those questions and topics.

BUT;

I would really appreciate it if a Moderator could split out the responses by dgavin and cbacba, and my responses to GRB related 'stuff', probably into the Astronomy Section would be best.

Thanks

[antoniseb]

I would really appreciate it if a Moderator could split out the responses by dgavin and cbacba, and my responses to GRB related 'stuff', probably into the Astronomy Section would be best.

Done.

[BigDon]

I know the big people are talking and all, but what the heck is a "naked singularity" you all are getting on about?

[Tensor]

I know the big people are talking and all, but what the heck is a "naked singularity" you all are getting on about?

A singularity is simply a place where the equations (in this instance, those of GR), break down. All singularities in GR, that form after the big bang, form an event horizon around the singularity during the creation of the singularity. Thus, a naked singularity is one where an event horizon does not form. Now, there may be some extreme circumstances where a horizon does not form. But, those are mostly theoretical and perhaps cannot form in an actual physical universe. The only current example of a naked singularity is the one at the beginning of the universe, the Big Bang singularity. It can be thought of, non-mathematically as we are inside that singularity. The problem with this thread is that all these nice words are being thrown around with none of the math. It doesn't seem that anyone, pushing the idea in this thread, has the actual ability to understand the math involved. As a result, the words with this idea have no connection to any of the actual math involved. This renders the idea presented here as basically useless. Which is probably why no one is bothering with it.

If you want a general idea of a singularity, think of the equation 1/x. If x=0, then you have a singularity as you would be dividing by zero and the equation is not defined or not allowed in mathematics. One reason is if you allow division by zero, you can show any number is equal to any other number.