A brand new flood thread

Originally posted by twhitehead
Infinitely small singularity would be more accurate.

big is for explosion. it is the biggest explosion. but you are right.


so i propose "Infinitely small singularity huge inflation theory"

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
big is for explosion. it is the biggest explosion. but you are right.


so i propose "Infinitely small singularity huge inflation theory"

How big the 'explosion' was depends on when you consider the 'big bang' to be over. If you take the 'big bang' to be on-going then yes it is the biggest explosion ever. If you take only the first few seconds then I would need to do some research first.

Originally posted by twhitehead
How big the 'explosion' was depends on when you consider the 'big bang' to be over. If you take the 'big bang' to be on-going then yes it is the biggest explosion ever. If you take only the first few seconds then I would need to do some research first.

if we got to the part where we make big bang jokes i would say this thread is pretty much dead.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Infinitely small singularity would be more accurate.

Infinitely small? Compared to what at the time?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Infinitely small? Compared to what at the time?
Kelly

well infinitely small represents no dimensions. all the matter of the universe compressed into a point of 0 volume. nothing existed in the "exterior" of that super singularity because that was everything there was.

well i imagine god playing with that 0-volume marble universe, and maybe with an infinity of other 0-volume marbles according to paralel universes theory but really that is outside science. science cannot look there because no information can ever come to us from there. god could very easily be replaced with a pink pony like being.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Infinitely small? Compared to what at the time?
Kelly

In any given frame of reference, the size of something can be defined as the amount of time it would take for a photon of light to go across it or, arguably a better alternative would be, the number of Planck lengths across (note however that in this particular context, “across“ would mean “across“ with 4-dimensional curvature). Note that the use of either of these two methods of defining the size of a universe/singularity implies something must exist outside that universe/singularity.

If something was infinitely small, that would simply mean it was zero Planck lengths across and, remember, Planck length is defined by non-arbitrary physical constants (I am personally sceptical that such an infinitely small thing can exist -I suspect that “singularities“ may simply be extremely small but not “infinitely“ small -but I could be wrong about that).

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
In any given frame of reference, the size of something can be defined as the amount of time it would take for a photon of light to go across it or, arguably a better alternative would be, the number of Planck lengths across (note however that in this particular context, “across“ would mean “across“ with 4-dimensional curvature). Note that the use of ...[text shortened]... ies“ may simply be extremely small but not “infinitely“ small -but I could be wrong about that).

how does your theory work in a singularity? if we cannot know what happens in a singularity with light how can you use it to measure the size of the singularity?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
how does your theory work in a singularity? if we cannot know what happens in a singularity with light how can you use it to measure the size of the singularity?

Isn't a singularity defined as a dimensionless point?
Personally I doubt that our Universe ever was a point.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Isn't a singularity defined as a dimensionless point?
Personally I doubt that our Universe ever was a point.

i believe he says that nothing really can reduce itself to nothing.

i can accept that, gravity becomes so strong that time is eliminated and with it spacial dimensions.

i also submit the idea that it doesn't have to be 0 really. if you compress a certain amount of matter into a small enough radius(Schwarzschild radius, correct me if i am wrong?), you might achieve black hole status. so inside that black hole there is 0 volume.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i believe he says that nothing really can reduce itself to nothing.

i can accept that, gravity becomes so strong that time is eliminated and with it spacial dimensions.

i also submit the idea that it doesn't have to be 0 really. if you compress a certain amount of matter into a small enough radius(Schwarzschild radius, correct me if i am wrong?), you might achieve black hole status. so inside that black hole there is 0 volume.

Sometimes I see expressions like 'infinitely small', which means that this is bigger than zero but yet nothing can be smaller, but by the writer it's used as 'very small'.
Also, 'singularity' is used sometimes as very small.
When I see the experession "a small singularity" I quiver.

Then, what's the difference between a singularity and a small, yet finit' sized start of BigBang? I would say, it means everything for the future of the universe, but even more for the preceeding of the Universe.

When we talk with people not fully grasping the concept of BigBang, yet using it in their own agenda, I think it's very important to use scientific terms corectly. Perhaps I'm nitty gritty...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Sometimes I see expressions like 'infinitely small', which means that this is bigger than zero but yet nothing can be smaller, but by the writer it's used as 'very small'.
Also, 'singularity' is used sometimes as very small.
When I see the experession "a small singularity" I quiver.

Then, what's the difference between a singularity and a small, yet ...[text shortened]... k it's very important to use scientific terms corectly. Perhaps I'm nitty gritty...

i don't believe singularity has anything to do with size. singularity(anyone correct me if i am wrong) means a "region" where there is no space-time. so the fact that is is 0-volume is a by product(better said we suppose so since we cannot "look" "inside" one) of the fact that there is no space-time dimensions.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i don't believe singularity has anything to do with size. singularity(anyone correct me if i am wrong) means a "region" where there is no space-time. so the fact that is is 0-volume is a by product(better said we suppose so since we cannot "look" "inside" one) of the fact that there is no space-time dimensions.

You are incorrect. I see wikipedia gets it wrong here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity

but is more accurate when you go to the actual page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

Essentially a singularity is a situation where certain quantities in the normal formulas of space time are infinite resulting in unusual phenomena which we cannot easily work out using standard physics.

I must also point out that your previous implication that a black hole has zero volume is also incorrect. Black holes have both volume and mass but are singularities because the curvature of spacetime (gravity) reaches a point where it is essentially vertical in the 4th dimension.

This causes straight lines as traced by light rays originating inside the black hole to curve so much that they bend back into the black hole thus no light can escape

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i don't believe singularity has anything to do with size. singularity(anyone correct me if i am wrong) means a "region" where there is no space-time. so the fact that is is 0-volume is a by product(better said we suppose so since we cannot "look" "inside" one) of the fact that there is no space-time dimensions.

As I see it the Earth has two singularity points. On at the North Pole, one at the South Pole. The coordinates for these *points* cannot be exactly determinable, more than they have a latitude of +/- 90 degrees. But what are their longitude? Undefined.
These two points are certainly look-in-able.
But again, nitty gritty of me.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are incorrect. I see wikipedia gets it wrong here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity

but is more accurate when you go to the actual page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

Essentially a singularity is a situation where certain quantities in the normal formulas of space time are infinite resulting in unusual phenomen ...[text shortened]... the black hole to curve so much that they bend back into the black hole thus no light can escape

you are correct, black holes indeed have mass and volume(that is the consensus anyway). however volume i believe refers to the diameter of the event horizon, does it not? we cannot know what happens inside the event horizon.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
how does your theory work in a singularity? if we cannot know what happens in a singularity with light how can you use it to measure the size of the singularity?

…if we cannot know what happens in a singularity with light how can you use it to measure the size of the singularity?....

You misunderstand me -I wasn't proposing a practical way to “measure” the size of something or even a way to “know” or “determine” the size of something but rather I was merely proposing a purely abstract way of defining the size of something -that is all! I was speaking on a purely theoretical level.

-having said that, although the way I suggested of purely abstractly defining the size of a singularity could not be used to “determine” the size of a singularity in practice, it could be used to help “determine” the size of a larger-scale object in practice where the conditions are not so extreme (albeit I would guess probably with considerable practical difficulty in most cases).