Hadron collider CERN

[harry]

G'day Astrolabe

Which version of the BBT?

[astrolabe]

Hello Harry,

I don't know. Perhaps the version where everything occured at once. Does it matter?

[bystander]

Does it matter?

Everything matters.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

Hello Astrolabe

There are so many different versions about the BBT.

Please explain wht you mean:

At once?
One point?
Many points?


Its all about matter that matters.

[Rocky Planet]

It's mind over matter (if you don't mind, it doesn't matter).

[harry]

G'day

I wonder who can write the longets sentence with the word matter, if that matters at all.

[astrolabe]

Hello Harry,

Well, the reason I don't care for the singularity idea of the BBT is more because I can't get my brain around the infinite density/infinite mass concept than whether or not it's possible. I guess anything is possible before one plank time. But since fence sitting is something I try hard to avoid then I have to say the BBT version where everything occurred everywhere (many, many points/locations) simultaneously. And like I said before, I feel that it was an equal and opposite reaction to some kind of action, just don't ask me what it could have possibly been 'cause I haven't a clue!

[astrolabe]

Hello Bystander,

Thank you for the reminder.

[Chris Peterson]

But since fence sitting is something I try hard to avoid then I have to say the BBT version where everything occurred everywhere (many, many points/locations) simultaneously.

Do you have a reference describing that version? Because I've never encountered it. AFAIK, all versions of the BBT supported by observation start with a singularity. That's the same as saying it happened everywhere at once (because that point was the entire Universe), but it isn't the same as saying it happened simultaneously in many locations.

There are some off-beat theories like branes and multiverses, string theory explanations, and others that don't strictly require a singularity. But these are just mathematical curiosities at this point.

[apodman]

But since fence sitting is something I try hard to avoid then I have to say the BBT version where everything occurred everywhere (many, many points/locations) simultaneously.

I don't like that one much. I think the singularity is a point in space-time where/when certain physical properties have divergent values; it is not distributed over a number of points or over a range.

... I don't care for the singularity idea ... I guess anything is possible ... I haven't a clue!

The "anything is possible" and "haven't a clue" are fair, if casual, descriptions of our inability to describe what happens at and beyond ("before", in the case of BB) the singularity.

Because of divergent values at a singularity, our model is inadequate to describe what is happening there or beyond, so it is futile to try, and we don't try; we simply describe what's going on right up to the singularity, and when we get there we just say it's beyond our ability to say. We (officially) don't worry about it.

On the other hand, look at something like a logarithmic singularity in mathematics. Divergent values, inadequate model to describe, etc., until we introduce the world of complex variables. All of a sudden, our logarithmic singularity is a logarithmic branch point, and we have the model to describe what's going on.

Maybe when we get the right mathematical (and corresponding physically conceptual) language to describe the BB singularity, it will be a branch point (or something analogous) and we will be able to describe what is at and beyond it. Until and unless that happens, it's just plain unknown and unknowable.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

This link maybe of interest,,,,,not that I agree with it.

Maybe of interest to the BBT people

Misconceptions about the BBT
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~aes/AST ... igBang.pdf

How Can We See Galaxies 47 Billion Light Years Away When the Universe is Only 13 Billion Years Old?
http://www.astronomybuff.com/how-can-we ... years-old/

As for singularity, it does not exist.
If you have any evidence to show its existence, please post the links.

[apodman]

As for singularity, it does not exist.

What kind of singularity? It matters.

[harry]

G'day

Than define a singularity that is able to exist.

[Chris Peterson]

Than define a singularity that is able to exist.

A singularity in the physical context is nothing more than the result of some limiting condition. It is what you get when you extrapolate the Universe backwards to t=0, or when you extrapolate density upwards. We don't understand much about how to describe physics "inside" a singularity, although we understand quite well how it should behave on the outside. It is because what we observe on the outside is consistent with what the descriptive math requires- in the limit- to be a singularity, that we treat them as "real".

That things we call "singularities" exist is largely undisputed. We know too little about the physics required to describe them, however, to say whether physical singularities are actually analogous to mathematical singularities. Nobody can make that claim one way or the other; any such claim is purely non-scientific.

[apodman]

... define a singularity that is able to exist.

A vacuum does not exist in the same terms that matter exhibits. It is the lack of matter that makes the vacuum. So we can argue for the existence of a vacuum, but we can never show that it exists by showing that it acts like matter.

Singular points (mathematically, and physically if there are any) do not exist in the same terms that non-singular points exhibit. It is the breakdown or going off the scale of these terms that make the point singular. So we can argue for the existence of a physical singular point, but we can never show that it exists by showing that it accessibly exhibits quantifiable physical characteristics like a non-singular point.

[apodman]

(Accidental duplicate post removed. Blame it on phpBB or the internet. - apodman)

[apodman]

... define a singularity that is able to exist.

Once upon a time, we were engineering a rig that had a turntable steered by a computer-controlled servo motor.

One engineer wanted to program a series of s-turns as a sine wave. I (shouldn't have) suggested that the programming and back-end processing would be made easier by using joined semi-circular curves instead.

There appeared to be nothing wrong with my idea - direction was a smooth continuous function - so we expected smooth operation. We knew there was a discontinuity in turning rate where direction crossed from turning left to turning right (or right to left) that created a singularity in the derivative function, but it occurred when side force was zero and we thought this was only a mathematical singularity that would have no physical reality when it got to the rig.

We ran the rig, it pointed where we told it, it steered smoothly as we told it from left to right and back again, and every time it got to the singular point the servo motor banged so loudly it sounded like an explosion. So we used sine waves where the derivatives are continuous and singular-point-free ad infinitum (to the very last turtle), and the rig ran silently.

I won't revisit the mathematics and physics that produced the effect, but I will swear on a stack of engineering handbooks that a physical singularity existed. We created it ourselves by mistake and heard it with our own ears. And this was all with classical physics in a block-walled metal-roofed factory on planet Earth. So it's not hard for me to accept that other physical singularities may exist even though I can't see them.

[astrolabe]

Hello Chris and Harry,

Just about everything I know about astronomy I've learned here with a little personal logic thrown in which, (I'll be the first to actually say it) could be flawed. Maybe this will help:

"by harry on Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:16 am

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

The BBT sates that the galaxies (matter) popped up everywhere at the same time. Meaning that some form of compact matter was distributed evenly throughout the known universe and at some specific time they all communicated together and popped. Think about it for a sec. Is this science, are we lead like sheep to think as if Santa is true.

Not only that, deep field images show over 100 Billion galaxies at 13.2 Billion light years away and we are told that these formed in just 500 million years and we are expected to believe this theory. God have mercy or fare crack of whip, someone with a bit of science should over see this. Man on earth took 4 billion years to evolve. Now we have to believe that 100 Billion galaxies formed in just 500 million years.

Than again if you are a BBT person nothing will move the mountain."

Now me-astrolabe
I realized a while ago in life that making stuff up doesn't fly very far and I try not to stray to far from what is generally accepted theory but in this case I see I kinda missed an important point in Harry's post. That being that "some form of compact matter was evenly distrubted throughout the known universe and at some specific time they all communicated together and popped."

This is really what I was trying to say but it got scrambled 'cause I didn't read the post carefully enough. My error but he stated it best IMO.

[Chris Peterson]

Just about everything I know about astronomy I've learned here with a little personal logic thrown in which, (I'll be the first to actually say it) could be flawed. Maybe this will help:

"by harry on Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:16 am
The BBT sates that the galaxies (matter) popped up everywhere at the same time. Meaning that some form of compact matter was distributed evenly throughout the known universe and at some specific time they all communicated together and popped.

I realized a while ago in life that making stuff up doesn't fly very far and I try not to stray to far from what is generally accepted theory but in this case I see I kinda missed an important point in Harry's post. That being that "some form of compact matter was evenly distrubted throughout the known universe and at some specific time they all communicated together and popped."

Well, if you were basing your thinking on Harry's comments, I can see why you would get confused. His description of the BBT is not remotely accurate. Galaxies didn't pop into existence "everywhere at the same time"; there's no need for some hypothetical compact matter; there's no need for some sort of special communication between parts of the Universe.

The BBT, in all its variations, states that the Universe began as a small (possibly infinitely small) "point" of energy. This was the entire Universe. Its volume increased, and matter began forming (matter, of course, is just a form of energy). The BBT describes in detail the evolution of this process, as energy converted to specific types of matter (ordinary particles, actually, no exotic "compact matter"), how gravity brought matter together, how early stars formed, then galaxies. Outside the first fraction of a second, everything can be understood using ordinary classical physics. No compact matter, nothing "popping" at some particular time. A purely evolutionary process, driven by simple mechanisms.

[apodman]

... some form of compact matter was distributed evenly throughout the known universe and at some specific time they all communicated together and popped.

I can't tell whether one or both of you believe this to be true or if you are offering this as an example of a preposterous theory. I can't tell whether one or both of you think that this is what a BBT says or if you are offering this as an example of a misinterpretation. To me it looks like something between science fiction and Mother Goose.

[astrolabe]

Hello apodman,

Mother who? The Universe has no center right? So what am I supposed to think? Or it used to have a center but doesn't have one anymore is that it? I guess I'll look it up then get back to you. For all I know the universe this world and everyone in it including the membership of this Forum has been generated by an essence within and unbeknown to me for my own enjoyment. Mother Goose indeed!

Or more simply- I've lost track of the versions

[Chris Peterson]

Mother who? The Universe has no center right? So what am I supposed to think? Or it used to have a center but doesn't have one anymore is that it? I guess I'll look it up then get back to you. For all I know the universe this world and everyone in it including the membership of this Forum has been generated by an essence within and unbeknown to me for my own enjoyment. Mother Goose indeed!

The Universe has a center in spacetime, the 4D manifold it's embedded in. But it has no 3D center; didn't at the start, still doesn't.

[astrolabe]

Hello Chris,

Thank you. I did read that after a fashion but forgot about the 4D piece of the puzzle. Still though, singularity is a tough one and I try to squirm my way out of it but to no avail. Mainly because the questions are hard to formulate and the answers are even harder if one exists at all. Like for instance: At what point does a singularity arrive at the point of not being a singularity and why. Is our Universe a form of singularity? So on and so on.......................

Anyway, thank you and apodman for helping out.

[apodman]

At what point does a singularity arrive at the point of not being a singularity and why. Is our Universe a form of singularity?

Keeping in mind that I'm playing fast and sloppy with this answer, a singularity is a point where the rules don't work, so it ceases to be one as soon as we move off the point to where the rules do work. I would think of the universe more as an eigenvalue (a point that does work), kinda the reverse of a singularity.

[apodman]

... at some specific time they all communicated together ...

... Mother Goose.

Mother who?

I just meant that the part about "communicated" sounds like magic, or at least like no science I know so far.