The Universe Was Never a Singularity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-03-2013, 11:36 AM
The Universe Was Never a Singularity
Often theists have made the argument that the universe comes from a singularity (BBT) and claim that only God could have created that singularity. I made my arguments that the universe was never a singularity, here: http://soi.blogspot.com/
Comments?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes zaybu's post
14-03-2013, 12:02 PM
RE: The Universe Was Never a Singularity
Can't black holes explode?

They're not really "holes", you know; they're full of stuff.


Maybe we don't know enough. Maybe little tiny ones, like the one at the center of our galaxy, are too small to go bang, but maybe really big ones, such as a black hole that has all the matter of the entire universe, maybe that one's big enough to pop?

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2013, 12:10 PM
RE: The Universe Was Never a Singularity
(14-03-2013 11:36 AM)zaybu Wrote:  Often theists have made the argument that the universe comes from a singularity (BBT) and claim that only God could have created that singularity. I made my arguments that the universe was never a singularity, here: http://soi.blogspot.com/
Comments?
Actually the total energy/mass of the universe may very well have been and still could be a total of zero. As Hawking would say, "the ultimate free lunch."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Superluminal's post
14-03-2013, 12:23 PM
RE: The Universe Was Never a Singularity
I read an essay once trying to explain how the universe may* have formed from "nothing**."

*not my hypothesis, and I am no expert on such matters either.


**language is always a limiting factor when discussing such things. I mean, if nothing exists, then it exists and is therefore something. You know what I mean, but the language confuses it


Anyways, the basic outline of the argument was that the law of conservation of mass says that matter (or energy since they are interchangeable) can neither be created nor destroyed. This all happens in a closed system of course. A simpler way of saying it though is that the net mass/energy content of the universe does not change. So, I can in fact create matter and not violate any condition of the law, as long as for every particle of matter created, there is a particle of anitmatter generated too. Thus, the net change in the amount of matter/energy of the universe is 0.


This could potentially mean that before the origin of the universe existed nothing (also hard to talk about "before the Big Bang" since time would not have existed, so forgive my casual use of that word here since language is once again our barrier to overcome). In this period of nothing, there was neither matter, energy, or antimatter. But, it is hypothetically possible for matter to come into existence, as long as an equal amount of antimatter comes into existence at the same "time" (keeping a neutral balance). When matter and antimatter are near one another, they annihilate in a fantastically powerful explosion (powerful for their size). If this "nothing" that existed had some boundary to it, then perhaps the constant appearance and annihilation of matter and antimatter caused it to swell and then burst, generating more matter and antimatter that then expanded into the universe as we know it.


The issue with this is that if matter and antimatter should have generated the universe, then equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been generated at the Big Bang. Resulting in the eventual complete annihilation of the universe instead of what we have today. So, the hypothesis goes that for some reason, slightly more matter than antimatter is produced during these moments, meaning that the antimatter is all gone (or there is a lot less of it somewhere) and the rest of the matter is safe. To date, the LHC has seen some support for this argument in experiments where ~1% more matter is produced than antimatter in the collisions. But most of these have been within the margin of error and therefore not statistically significant, only one I know of has hinted towards more matter than antimatter outside of the margin of error.


So, I suppose this is possible and our experiments with the LHC may help shed light on it. Or perhaps we live in a multiverse and in that case, I give up trying to find out.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2013, 01:17 PM
RE: The Universe Was Never a Singularity
(14-03-2013 12:10 PM)Superluminal Wrote:  
(14-03-2013 11:36 AM)zaybu Wrote:  Often theists have made the argument that the universe comes from a singularity (BBT) and claim that only God could have created that singularity. I made my arguments that the universe was never a singularity, here: http://soi.blogspot.com/
Comments?
Actually the total energy/mass of the universe may very well have been and still could be a total of zero. As Hawking would say, "the ultimate free lunch."
I was under the impression that it was 0.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2013, 02:00 PM
RE: The Universe Was Never a Singularity
(14-03-2013 01:17 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(14-03-2013 12:10 PM)Superluminal Wrote:  Actually the total energy/mass of the universe may very well have been and still could be a total of zero. As Hawking would say, "the ultimate free lunch."
I was under the impression that it was 0.

Gravity can have a negative energy. It is zero. See Krauss' "A Universe From Nothing".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein (That's a JOKE, ya idiot)
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2013, 02:05 PM
RE: The Universe Was Never a Singularity
(14-03-2013 02:00 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(14-03-2013 01:17 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I was under the impression that it was 0.

Gravity can have a negative energy. It is zero. See Krauss' "A Universe From Nothing".
One of several on my reading list.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2013, 02:42 PM
RE: The Universe Was Never a Singularity
I think as conscious human beings we see things change. We see things begin and also end, we see life born and we see life end. This experience we probably transfer to the universe but who's to say it actually had a beginning? Why does it have to have one? It may just have always been here but simply changes over infinite amounts of time.

Our universe is expanding right? My theory, backed up by no scientific knowledge whatsoever is that we (our universe) are in one infinitly massive black hole and our expansion is being fueled by matter being sucked into us by an outside universe.

So all black holes create more universes Drinking Beverage

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like bemore's post
14-03-2013, 03:04 PM
RE: The Universe Was Never a Singularity
Nice blog.

I wish I understood the maths.

(my education stopped at calculus Sad )

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2013, 07:23 PM (This post was last modified: 14-03-2013 07:29 PM by Adenosis.)
RE: The Universe Was Never a Singularity
(14-03-2013 12:02 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  Can't black holes explode?

They're not really "holes", you know; they're full of stuff.


Maybe we don't know enough. Maybe little tiny ones, like the one at the center of our galaxy, are too small to go bang, but maybe really big ones, such as a black hole that has all the matter of the entire universe, maybe that one's big enough to pop?

Right, it's a LOT of matter/energy packed into a VERY small space, which causes high magnitude of deformation of the spacetime. I once wondered if black holes (so long as they are sufficiently large) could explode, forming their own baby universe. Meaning our big bang 13.77 billion years ago could have been the result of a supermassive black hole from the our 'mother' universe that exploded. Potentially giving particles specific vibrations (or shuffles the folds of the dimensions) which cause different constants.

Also heard before a theory that on the 'other side' of a black hole is a white hole, which is essentially another universe. When a black hole forms another big bang occurs. I find these unlikely but interesting nonetheless. The multiverse hypothesis is what I find most likely to explain the big bang.

Just to point out, these are completely speculative.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Adenosis's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: