time dilation???

[lesliedellow]

Exactly, this idea of a singularity is unprovable, similar to how God is unprovable. So essentially physicists are saying our universe came from an unprovable singularity and somehow they think they can get away with this claim simply because the mathematics point to it, but can't prove it. Just an interesting observation I've had when thinking about what physics is actually claiming about the origins of the universe.

Let us take a simple example. According to Newton, the strength of a gravitational field is given by the equation,

F = GMm / r^2

Now if you put r-0 into that, you get an infinite gravitational field. Does that mean that there is a physicist on the planet who believes that infinite gravitational fields actually exist, or that Newton himself believed that? No, the existence of a singularity just means that there is a limit on what the mathematics can (currently) tell us.

 

[Michael]

Let us take a simple example. According to Newton, the strength of a gravitational field is given by the equation,

F = GMm / r^2

Now if you put r-0 into that, you get an infinite gravitational field. Does that mean that there is a physicist on the planet who believes that infinite gravitational fields actually exist, or that Newton himself believed that? No, the existence of a singularity just means that there is a limit on what the mathematics can (currently) tell us.

FYI, I would argue that the Pauli exclusion principle precludes the existence of a singularity, and nothing of sort is necessary to explain observations from space. Even the heaviest objects in space have a finite mass and therefore a finite density.

 

[lesliedellow]

FYI, I would argue that the Pauli exclusion principle precludes the existence of a singularity, and nothing of sort is necessary to explain observations from space. Even the heaviest objects in space have a finite mass and therefore a finite density.

Like I said, a singularity is a mathematical concept, and it is there if the mathematics puts it there.

 

[Chriliman]

Well not really, no. If you extrapolate the physics back far enough, you reach a hypothetical singularity. You can't do physics with a singularity, so you start at the earliest point you can, and go from there. As far as I'm aware, most physicists who work in early universe cosmology don't think there really was a singularity - mainly because it's an invalid physical solution - and while most will say they just don't know what happened, there is a range of different ideas about what might have happened. See 'Did the Universe Begin with a Singularity?'

Thanks for the link. It just confirms what I already knew which is that the universe did not come from a singularity. So it seems physicist are still not sure what to believe in regards to origins of the universe, it's all very confusing, maybe it's time to take a step back from the hard mathematics and start rethinking things in a different more reasonable way.

 

[lesliedellow]

Thanks for the link. It just confirms what I already knew which is that the universe did not come from a singularity. So it seems physicist are still not sure what to believe in regards to origins of the universe, it's all very confusing, maybe it's time to take a step back from the hard mathematics and start rethinking things in a different more reasonable way.

Physics and mathematics are inextricably intertwined. If all the questions which remain unanswered had in fact been answered, physicists would be out of a job, but there is no sigh of that happening just yet.

 

[Michael]

Like I said, a singularity is a mathematical concept, and it is there if the mathematics puts it there.

The mathematics alone doesn't really explain away the particle physics aspects of the Pauli exclusion principle, or the finite properties of 'black holes'.

 

[lesliedellow]

The mathematics alone doesn't really explain away the particle physics aspects of the Pauli exclusion principle, or the finite properties of 'black holes'.

So physicists have some more work to do. As I said in response to another post, if all the questions which remain unanswered had already been answered, all the physicists would be out of a job, but there is no sign of that happening any time soon.

 

[Michael]

So physicists have some more work to do. As I said in response to another post, if all the questions which remain unanswered had already been answered, all the physicists would be out of a job, but there is no sign of that happening any time soon.

I agree. In the meantime I see no real need to believe in the concept of a singularity.

 

[Chriliman]

Let us take a simple example. According to Newton, the strength of a gravitational field is given by the equation,

F = GMm / r^2

Now if you put r-0 into that, you get an infinite gravitational field. Does that mean that there is a physicist on the planet who believes that infinite gravitational fields actually exist, or that Newton himself believed that? No, the existence of a singularity just means that there is a limit on what the mathematics can (currently) tell us.

I understand. I'd propose that it's not mathematics that's keeping us from understanding but rather the limits of our imagination.

 

[Michael]

I understand. I'd propose that it's not mathematics that's keeping us from understanding but rather the limits of our imagination.

Keep in mind that physics dictates what actually happens inside of massive objects, not math or imagination.

 

[lesliedellow]

Keep in mind that physics dictates what actually happens inside of massive objects, not math or imagination.

Nature and/or God dictates what goes on in the universe. Physics only attempts to find out what that is.

 

[Chriliman]

Nature and/or God dictates what goes on in the universe. Physics only attempts to find out what that is.

Go tell an atheist physicist that and they'll throw some other unprovable concept at you which only complicates what's already been made quite simple

 

[Michael]

Nature and/or God dictates what goes on in the universe. Physics only attempts to find out what that is.

I'd agree with you on the God/nature aspect, but I'd say that there is also a physical reality aspect that defines what occurs in dense objects, and IMO it's specifically related to the Pauli exclusion principle. That's why all black holes have finite mass and therefore a finite density. If they actually could achieve infinite density, they'd also have infinite mass.

 

[lesliedellow]

Go tell an atheist physicist that and they'll throw some other unprovable concept at you which only complicates what's already been made quite simple

An atheist. physicist or otherwise, will almost by definition pooh pooh any idea of God.

There is no shortage of Christian physicists. Charles H Townes, Christopher Isham, John D Barrow, John Polkinghorne, William Phillips, to name just a few. But even they would say that their belief in God as the ultimate cause of the Big Bang was a philosophical interpretation of the big bang theory, and not part of the theory itself.

 

[Chriliman]

An atheist. physicist or otherwise, will almost by definition pooh pooh any idea of God.

There is no shortage of Christian physicists. Charles H Townes, Christopher Isham, John D Barrow, John Polkinghorne, William Phillips, to name just a few. But even they would say that their belief in God as the ultimate cause of the Big Bang was a philosophical interpretation of the big bang theory, and not part of the theory itself.

Amen! It pays to think critically about how and why the universe even exists. The why being the key in finding out what the true reason is for our existence.

 

[Chriliman]

I'd agree with you on the God/nature aspect, but I'd say that there is also a physical reality aspect that defines what occurs in dense objects, and IMO it's specifically related to the Pauli exclusion principle. That's why all black holes have finite mass and therefore a finite density. If they actually could achieve infinite density, they'd also have infinite mass.

Could a finite universe be condensed into an infinite singularity by an infinite God outside the finite universe? I'm thinking being stuck in an infinite singularity sounds a lot like hell. On the other hand being freed from the physical finite universe sounds like Heaven.

 

[Chriliman]

Sorry realizing I'm going off topic...

 

[Michael]

Could a finite universe be condensed into an infinite singularity by an infinite God outside the finite universe? I'm thinking being stuck in an infinite singularity sounds a lot like hell. On the other hand being freed from the physical finite universe sounds like Heaven.

Keep in mind that if you could travel to the center of Earth (or any body of mass), you'd be weightless because you'd be perfectly balanced between the mass of Earth. In short, your idea isn't as far fetched as it sounds.

 

[Michael]

Wrong thread

 

[Chriliman]

Keep in mind that if you could travel to the center of Earth (or any body of mass), you'd be weightless because you'd be perfectly balanced between the mass of Earth. In short, your idea isn't as far fetched as it sounds.

Also maybe to bring it back to the topic of time. It would also make sense that this infinite God would be able to control time, so maybe once he's freed what is of him from the physical he would then reverse time back to before the big bang and force time and space and whatever else isn't of God into an infinite singularity.

And maybe whatever is of God would be able to see all this happen from a non-physical/spiritual perspective.

Okay, maybe this isn't on topic, but still interesting to think about.