Originally posted by KellyJay
Give me three items of evidence to back up that the singularity was
real, and we can touch upon them one at a time. Others here have
said there wasn't any, but maybe you know something they don't.

You believe in "t=0" was a reality, did I get that right?
You believe at one time "all" was in the singularity, did I get that right?

I'll start with tho ...[text shortened]... gue the point at this time how you view
things are differently than how I do.
Kelly

…Give me three items of evidence to back up that the singularity was
real, and we can touch upon them one at a time.
….

Why “three“ items in particular?

I searched the net for a site that specifically gives the evidence that there was a singularity then but couldn’t find one that was specifically about THAT.
However, there are no end of sites that speak of the evidence of the big bang.

Here is a site about the evidence for the big bang (but not specifically the singularity) and which also explains many of the common misconceptions about it -so I think you would do well to read it as I was!:

…http://www.big-bang-theory.com/...

One thing it clearly says is:

“….The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity….”

!!!

I think it is strange that I never heard of this before
-I always thought (and thus said) the singularity was in space but I stand corrected.

And, if you scroll halfway down and read what’s there, you will see it also explicitly gives FOUR pieces of evidence specifically for the big bang theory.

I guess the evidence for the singularity is a bit more implicit but it basically consists of this:


1, we know the big bang happened (from the said evidence in the above link)

2, if we extrapolate what the state of the universe was like further and further back in time in the big bang, we see the universe becoming smaller and smaller until, logically, it had to be so small as to be a singularity.


-the logic (of 2, above) is that simple! -I don’t think I can elaborate on that self-evident logical deduction much!

-so that’s all the evidence ( 1, and 2, above ) you need for that singularity -so, in you opinion, what’s wrong with 1, or/and 2, above?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Give me three items of evidence to back up that the singularity was
real, and we can touch upon them one at a time.
….

Why “three“ items in particular?

I searched the net for a site that specifically gives the evidence that there was a singularity then but couldn’t find one that was specifically about THAT.
However, there are no en ...[text shortened]... bove ) you need for that singularity -so, in you opinion, what’s wrong with 1, or/and 2, above?[/b]

Edit:
"I think it is strange that I never heard of this before
-I always thought (and thus said) the singularity was in space but I stand corrected."



Oh, I think that this happened to you simply because for some reason you kept the spacetime dimension separated. Even Anaximander pointed at his "arkhe" during the 5th century BC that the "beginning" (origin of our kosmos) must not be supposed as a mere point in time but rather as a source who then gave birth to everything, space included, and that will give birth too to whatever will be. I have the feeling that my ancestor would be quite satisfied with the point singularity approach😵

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
1, we know the big bang happened (from the said evidence in the above link)

2, if we extrapolate what the state of the universe was like further and further back in time in the big bang, we see the universe becoming smaller and smaller until, logically, it had to be so small as to be a singularity.

I must point out that 2 is only one of several alternative hypothesis, none of which currently have any evidence to support them. 1. However is as you rightly say supported by evidence.

However there is also no evidence contradicting 2, so the thread title remains a false dichotomy as it does not take 2 into account.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I must point out that 2 is only one of several alternative hypothesis, none of which currently have any evidence to support them. 1. However is as you rightly say supported by evidence.

However there is also no evidence contradicting 2, so the thread title remains a false dichotomy as it does not take 2 into account.

…I must point out that 2 is only one of several alternative hypothesis,
….

I wasn’t aware of any alternative to the ’singularity before the big bang’ hypothesis.

-does any one know of any web links explaining these alternatives?
-I would really like to know about them and the pros and cons of each alternative theory.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I wasn’t aware of any alternative to the ’singularity before the big bang’ hypothesis.

-does any one know of any web links explaining these alternatives?
-I would really like to know about them and the pros and cons of each alternative theory.

Here is one of them:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=big-bang-or-big-bounce

There was another variation that I haven't managed to find a link to yet.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Here is one of them:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=big-bang-or-big-bounce

There was another variation that I haven't managed to find a link to yet.

Thanks for that 🙂

It says:

…To figure out what really happened, physicists need a quantum theory of gravity. According to one candidate for such a theory, loop quantum gravity, space is subdivided into “atoms” of volume and has a finite capacity to store matter and energy, thereby preventing TRUE singularities from existing.
….(my emphasis)

If we cannot call it a “TRUE” singularity then, if this theory is correct, what technically should we call it?

It then continues;

…If so, time MAY have extended before the bang.
...(my emphasis)

So I presume not even this theory necessarily says there was no beginning of time.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Thanks for that 🙂

It says:

[b]…To figure out what really happened, physicists need a quantum theory of gravity. According to one candidate for such a theory, loop quantum gravity, space is subdivided into “atoms” of volume and has a finite capacity to store matter and energy, thereby preventing TRUE singularities from existing.
….(my emph ...[text shortened]... emphasis)

So I presume not even this theory necessarily says there was no beginning of time.[/b]

I checked not the site, but I think that the “point singularity” under big-bang theory is understood as an extremely dense and hot state that expands until today (gravitational singularity), and that this is the reason why is it not considered “true” singularity -ie identical to the singularity as perceived in mathematic terms (the agents which are used for the measurement of the gravitational field they become infinite an non depended on the coordinate system) or identical to a black hole singularity.

Therefore I believe that we are in front of semantics, but I could be wrong thus I would like to know what you and twhitead think about that;

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Thanks for that 🙂

It says:

[b]…To figure out what really happened, physicists need a quantum theory of gravity. According to one candidate for such a theory, loop quantum gravity, space is subdivided into “atoms” of volume and has a finite capacity to store matter and energy, thereby preventing TRUE singularities from existing.
….(my emph ...[text shortened]... emphasis)

So I presume not even this theory necessarily says there was no beginning of time.[/b]

Now I remembered the famous joke offered by Barbara Gamow, the wife of George Gamow, when her husband admitted about 1954 the failure of big bang theory in building up elements heavier than boron:

===
NEW GENESIS
In the beginning God created radiation and ylem. And ylem was without shape or number, and the nucleons were rushing madly over the face of the deep.
And God said: “Let there be mass two”. And there was mass two. And God saw that deuterium was good.
And God said: “Let there be mass three” And there was mass three. And God saw tritium and tralphium, and they were good. And God continued to call number after number until He came to transuranium elements. But when He looked back on His work He found that it was not good. In the excitement of counting, he missed calling for mass five and so, naturally, no heavier elements could have been formed.”

Well good ole George Gamow blinked a bit and then he coolly stated:
-- “I would agree that the lion’s share of the heavy elements may well have been formed later in the hot interior of stars.”
===


I first read about that incident at Helghe Kragh’s “Cosmology & Controversy”
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I checked not the site, but I think that the “point singularity” under big-bang theory is understood as an extremely dense and hot state that expands until today (gravitational singularity), and that this is the reason why is it not considered “true” singularity -ie identical to the singularity as perceived in mathematic terms (the agents which are used ...[text shortened]... emantics, but I could be wrong thus I would like to know what you and twhitead think about that;

I wasn’t implying that it would still be a “true” singularity if that theory is correct (and if the theory is correct then I assume it would NOT be a “true” singularity).
I was merely asking , if this theory is correct and if it is not a “true” singularity then what technically should we call it because I honestly don’t know the answer to this question.
-I wasn’t implying anything from that question if that is what you thought.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I wasn’t implying that it would still be a “true” singularity if that theory is correct (and if the theory is correct then I assume it would NOT be a “true” singularity).
I was merely asking , if this theory is correct and if it is not a “true” singularity then what technically should we call it because I honestly don’t know the answer to this question.
-I wasn’t implying anything from that question if that is what you thought.

rgr that;

Originally posted by black beetle
I checked not the site, but I think that the “point singularity” under big-bang theory is understood as an extremely dense and hot state that expands until today (gravitational singularity), and that this is the reason why is it not considered “true” singularity -ie identical to the singularity as perceived in mathematic terms (the agents which are used ...[text shortened]... emantics, but I could be wrong thus I would like to know what you and twhitead think about that;

I think you are correct that the term 'singularity' refers to a situation where the normal laws of physics 'break down' (a phrase we should be careful with- it really means 'poorly understood' or 'very different'😉 due to infinities in the mathematics.
However, if the universe did start from a single point at the big bang then it would be a 'true singularity'. If it did not start from a point as proposed in the article I linked to, then it may never have reached singularity status but may have stopped short of being a point and had a history prior to the projected point.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I was merely asking , if this theory is correct and if it is not a “true” singularity then what technically should we call it because I honestly don’t know the answer to this question.

I presume we would make up a name. Something like 'universal minimum', or 'bounce'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think you are correct that the term 'singularity' refers to a situation where the normal laws of physics 'break down' (a phrase we should be careful with- it really means 'poorly understood' or 'very different'😉 due to infinities in the mathematics.
However, if the universe did start from a single point at the big bang then it would be a 'true singular ...[text shortened]... ay have stopped short of being a point and had a history prior to the projected point.

Agreed;

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think you are correct that the term 'singularity' refers to a situation where the normal laws of physics 'break down' (a phrase we should be careful with- it really means 'poorly understood' or 'very different'😉 due to infinities in the mathematics.
However, if the universe did start from a single point at the big bang then it would be a 'true singular ...[text shortened]... ay have stopped short of being a point and had a history prior to the projected point.

I brought this up and was blown off for saying it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I brought this up and was blown off for saying it.
Kelly

You were NOT criticised for saying there may be a ’before’ the singularity for none of us (as far as I am aware and including myself) would totally rule out that possibility.
You were criticised for implying that there is some kind of logical contradiction in saying there was NO ’before’ the singularity.
You have yet to state exactly what any such logical contradiction would be so your implied suggestion is apparently totally without any foundation.