Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Bang/Crunch Revisited


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
121 replies to this topic

#35 enorbet2

enorbet2

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 308 posts

Posted 29 May 2009 - 01:59 AM

While there are any number of good solid scientists who are also religious ie mystics, they only remain good scientists when they keep the two separated, since Science, like Mathematics, is a tool, a construct, that depends on step-by-step precision. One pitfall for those mystics who have not had any scientific training is getting scientific nomenclature right. We have all seen how "theory" means something very different to the untrained than it does to the studied. Just because one is a pretty good golfer on weekends doesn't mean you're ready for Tiger Woods. You have to put in at least roughly the same training time he did to even get a match.

It never ceases to amaze me that mystics will berate Science in one breath and in the next seek it's verification. However here is a pertinent example of that and common pitfalls.

The Conscious Universe: Brahma's Dream

Please note that the author seems intelligent and reasonable and even quotes Carl Sagan (even if he likely blinks during "It is said that men may not be the dreams of gods, but rather that the gods are the dreams of men.") in his understandable appreciation that at least one ancient religion had people who dared think in terms of billions of years instead of thousands. However the author then begins to veer off track and hint at agenda when he claims that 4.2 Billion years is roughly equivalent to 15 Billion years (actually 13.7 iirc)

From his

" Here are the lengths of each of the 4 yugas in solar years:
Satya yuga: 1,728,000 years
Treta yuga: 1,296,000 years
Dwapar yuga: 864,000 years
Kali yuga: 432,000 years
The cycle repeats itself and there are 1000 mahayugas in one day in the life of Brahma (Hindu god)."


It would seem the author has at least spent some time researching Hindu, time that I contend would have been better spent researching Math and Science because he follows those terms and concludes with

If we take away all of the mythological nonsense from Hindu religion and replace it with mathematical nonsense, we come very close to the modern religion of cosmology. If you like, we are characters in Brahma's cosmic dream, and we are trying to understand his mind by analyzing and interpreting his dream.


So he equates mathematics and religion by declaring them both "nonsense", and directly that cosmology IS religion, only to conclude that Hindu really isn't nonsense "if you like" by reaching the exact opposite conclusion as Carl Sagan. Mr. Sagan rightly is fascinated by the idea that Bang and Crunch has any religious equivalency at all with a time scale orders of magnitude better than most, but he draws no conclusions from Hindu because it can't be tested and falsified. He doesn't even stoop to conclude within Science because of the lack of data. He only states that should there be sufficient Mass, there could be a Big Crunch and that should there not be sufficient Mass, the Universe may expand forever.

Mystics easily forget or ignore that mathematics is a construct, a tool, a language to replace words exactly because words are imprecise. Conceptually all math starts with the basest of fundamentals - 1 = 1, 1 =! 2, 1 + 1 = 2 and progresses from there. Furthermore, most mystics do not understand that as mathematics grew in complexity it first became possible to describe everything precisely. (pi x D is always a circle, never a triangle) and then it became possible to make predictions through math alone. Despite the popularity of the TV show "NUMB3RS" most people don't understand the full power and truth of Math. Probably, nobody does yet. Certainly I don't but I at least grasp it's precision and testability as well as it's infallibility given no "Garbage In". Logic ie. syllogism can compute nonsense as well as it can Truth. Mathematics ultimately cannot. HAL goes crazy and kills people :ideamaybenot:

Notice that here

As far as your challenge goes... to show evidence or shut up... envisioning is a legitimate part of science and certainly of cosmology.
If imaginary clashing membranes can be taken as serious cosmology... based on very esoteric math/metrics positing 11 or more "dimensions"....
Well, I could reasonably ask for some slack on "my evidence"... even tho I am not famous like the M-theory boys (with the scientific community hanging on their every word.


Michael falls into the same trap as the Conscious Universe Bang-Crunch guy. He dismisses Science to try to achieve parity begging for "slack on my evidence" when there is no empirical evidence and just because the math is "esoteric" (read "too advanced for the average Joe so I can dismiss it") does not imply it is altogether without substantiation. The M-Theory "boys" are not listened to and discussed (and controversial) among the scientific community because they are famous. They are famous because they are qualified mathematicians of the highest order. They are also vilified by many as destroying the fabric of Science. However, they are worthy of consideration, even vilification where others are just ignored, because the math is good progressive math. All that remains determining if the premises are correct, just how far observed and verified phenomena will go to substantiate individual points leading up to the whole. No math, no words, no person can argue against or for someone else's dream or "envisioning". Thus however elegant, however compelling, it is less than fog and of no consequence beyond a mildly interesting curiosity.

#36 Michael Mooney

Michael Mooney

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 629 posts

Posted 29 May 2009 - 01:29 PM

Enorbet2:

All that remains determining if the premises are correct, just how far observed and verified phenomena will go to substantiate individual points leading up to the whole.

A long tirade to get to this bottom line!
I do have a MA in philosophy (as well as psychology) and I can tell you that if the premise is false, all the internally, logically consistent math in the world will not make the cosmology correct. And no one will ever "observe" 'strings' or the imaginary membranes they weave which are supposed to clash and create cosmi lke ours.

On the other hand everyting in my cosmology above is consistent with what we can and do observe as cosmos.... tho we will probably never be able to see out of the "balloon rubber" which may be *way* thicker than the diameter of our visible event horizon.

Mentioning my visions always prejudices scientists against me. But it is just another way of seeing/knowing albeit outside the realm of science (for the present.)
Ed: Oopse! Just reviewed my last post.Had forgotten that I said:
"I'll be taking a break from the science section now until my last two posts in 'spacetime' are released from censorship. "
Sorry. Breaktime.
Michael

#37 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 29 May 2009 - 05:54 PM

modest:

That is not a "problem" if you understyand my model... Which you obviously still do not "see." *if* our visible cosmos is *within* the "rubber" of the big balloon and it is expanding and thinning in thickness... All galaxies and 'stuff' we can see are spreading apart exactly as we can observe just like rubber molecules in all directions. (laterally as the molecules of the balloon membrane and in the outer direction of expansion with the outer surface expanding faster than the inner surface... Neither of which is within our range of cosmic vision...the 'cosmic event horizon.' and we certainly can not "see" beyond the "rubber" in either the direction of expansion or the direction of origin... So there is no way to verify the 'empty space' beyond or within this maxi-cosmic ballon. Tough situation! Science can not verify all cosmological visions! That does not keep us from seeing... Or "envisioning" all possible cosmologies.


No, I'm not talking about anything beyond the rubber. That's not why I'm pointing out that the rubber is thinning. If the rubber molecules represent the things that we can see (galaxies and whatnot) then they will expand in two directions and contract in a third.

Here is a cutaway of the surface of a balloon with a sphere representing our observable universe embedded inside:

Posted Image

And here's what happens when the balloon expands (the material expands in the tangent direction and contracts in the radial direction):

Posted Image

What happened to the sphere there is not what happens with our observable universe, so I can only conclude that your idea is not a useful way of representing the universe. The only way around this problem (that I can think of) would be to say that the balloon is 4 dimensional. The sphere (the observable universe) would then expand isotropically in 3 dimensions.

Think of a person on the surface of a 3D sphere (like a person on a planet). It's not easy for that person to tell if they are on a sphere or on a large 2D disc by looking around themselves, and if the 3D sphere expands then it appears to the person as if the 2D disc is expanding. Likewise for someone on the surface of a 4D sphere, it's not easy for them to tell if they are on the surface of a 4D sphere or in the center of a 3D spherical volume. And, if the 4D sphere expands then it appears to them that the 3D volume expands (isotropically). But, you won't like that idea and you probably also won't recognize that there's a major flaw with your representation as it stands now :turtle:

~modest

#38 enorbet2

enorbet2

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 308 posts

Posted 30 May 2009 - 06:04 AM

First of all, Michael, I don't see how you can rightly characterize my post as a tirade when I did not use any personal attacks or inflammatory words. If any inflamed you I am only too glad to apologize for any misunderstanding but also forced to point out that 1) I did not attack you but rather your proposal. and 2) that is the reason Science is superior to Mysticism since Science welcomes criticism and individuals, especially those with pet visions, do not tend to welcome any manner of criticism or even questioning.

I made a mistake in not being clearer about the fallibility of Math in that I can see, since you pointed it out, that it is indeed possible to miss the caveat "given no Garbage In" as a qualifier possibly due to my overly long post. However even that mistake furthers one point that words are imprecise and numbers are not.


Although it may be an exceedingly long time before we might be able to directly observe a string, let alone a membrane, as with many phenomena we can infer from the effect "invisible" things have on other observable things that they exist or not. As there are numerous posts even just here on Hypography establishing that fact, I will show you the respect of not rehashing something you may already know.

However I must point out that statements such as "Mentioning my visions always prejudices scientists against me." is not only imprecise but misguided, however revealing. While individual scientists are certainly subject to all human foibles, when confronted with an idea that has evidence behind it that idea is highly likely to be considered even if only to be disproved. Surely one who has an MA in philosophy as well as psychology is aware that there is a difference, however subtle, between "prejudice" and "discrimination". No scientist wishes to be prejudiced but all would like to be discriminating. The reason you may experience their behaviour as prejudice is that the first line of defense in discrimination is to not waste time where there is no evidence and that tends to upset those that may not require evidence nor certainly to be asked to give it. Furthermore Science has been so often and for so long hacked away at and chiseled in minutae of Mystics who hate it for not validating their "visions", bait it to attempt to destroy it, marginalize, imprison, hang and burn it's practitioners, that it is of little wonder that Mysticism, the antithesis of the scientific method, and the mystics who would be "God's visionaries" are so summarily dismissed when they offer no evidence.


BTW... excellent post, modest.

#39 Michael Mooney

Michael Mooney

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 629 posts

Posted 31 May 2009 - 09:16 PM

Modest,
Good graphics for a cosmic sphere in membrane barely thicker than our visible cosmos.
I was not very specific on how I see the proportion of our little sphere of cosmos within the thickness of the rubber. Mea culpa.

It would have to be more like atomic sized somewhere deep within the thickness of the rubber balloon membrane for my model to work. Then there is no way our observations would be other than they are as per the distortions of the sphere of visibility as you pictured it.

Your are right for the model you pictured.
But of course we will never know.

It would just be refreshing for a change if you didn't pretend to have all the answers. I certainly don't. But I "see" what I see and share it for what it is worth.
Obviously nothing in this forum. (insert "boo hoo" emoticon.)

BTW... did you ever make sense out of Doctordick's theory sans "spacetime." Seems like he had plenty of science and math to back it up... unlike my mere gnosis that it is an invention without ontological validity.
And others agreed with the absolute now transcending localization of "time."
Maybe we will never get resolution on that or the variability of distances with observational perspective.

Michael

#40 Michael Mooney

Michael Mooney

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 629 posts

Posted 31 May 2009 - 10:13 PM

Enorbet2:

However I must point out that statements such as "Mentioning my visions always prejudices scientists against me." is not only imprecise but misguided, however revealing. While individual scientists are certainly subject to all human foibles, when confronted with an idea that has evidence behind it that idea is highly likely to be considered even if only to be disproved. Surely one who has an MA in philosophy as well as psychology is aware that there is a difference, however subtle, between "prejudice" and "discrimination". No scientist wishes to be prejudiced but all would like to be discriminating. The reason you may experience their behaviour as prejudice is that the first line of defense in discrimination is to not waste time where there is no evidence and that tends to upset those that may not require evidence nor certainly to be asked to give it. Furthermore Science has been so often and for so long hacked away at and chiseled in minutae of Mystics who hate it for not validating their "visions", bait it to attempt to destroy it, marginalize, imprison, hang and burn it's practitioners, that it is of little wonder that Mysticism, the antithesis of the scientific method, and the mystics who would be "God's visionaries" are so summarily dismissed when they offer no evidence.


I should have said ""Mentioning my visions (almost )always prejudices scientists against me. Sorry. I did indeed overgeneralize.
(And characterizing your post as a "tirade" was meant to indicate a tirade against my way of knowing as a mystic rather that against me personally. But I am "half lay scientist" and a whole mystic... so that doesn't add up either in the mode of linear thinking!

I have as much respect for the scientific method as I have for mystic vision as a "gift" which differs from mere imagination or "envisioning." But I don't expect scientists who have never had a mystic vision to understand or "believe" that. Skepticism is healthy, and whoever has never hsd a "vision" should *not* believe they are valid.
That is way different than, conversely, believing they must be invalid for lack of ones direct experience in that way. The latter is prejudice .
I seek what is true about the universe, same as you and other scientists. It is just that I realize the value of empirical science and its evidential validation and what is called the "a-priori" branch of epistemology as well... which is the kind of "seeing" that mystics/gnostics experience as in *resonant identity with* the object of contemplation... on whatever scale. (*...*a subject for the transpersonal Psychology thread.)

No, Mysticism is not the antithesis of the scientific method.
There are 23 scientists whom I have quoted who also mystics...
but if you ask for verification, I will have to go into a thread of mine in Myspace over three years old. ...Please don't make me!...
Actually, it might be a good thing to share... but in a thread so labeled... another major project!)

Dinner time.
Michael

#41 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 01 June 2009 - 12:06 AM

"Mystical Visions" and things like "Deja Vu" are perfectly real.

But they are satisfactorily explained by science as being nothing more and nothing less than neurological malfunctions - so being a "lay scientist", you should know this and not attach too much value to any mysticism mumbo-jumbo.

Stick to the Science, and the Scientific Method, and stuff gets done.

#42 maddog

maddog

    Cybernetic Quantum Alchemist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1293 posts

Posted 01 June 2009 - 09:17 AM

A long tirade to get to this bottom line!

Like you don't behave like windbag at times.... :naughty: I have seem the length of some of you
posts. The point you were attempting to make not all that clear.

I do have a MA in philosophy (as well as psychology) and I can tell you that if the premise is false, all the internally, logically consistent math in the world will not make the cosmology correct. And no one will ever "observe" 'strings' or the imaginary membranes they weave which are supposed to clash and create cosmi lke ours.

So now the truth comes out... :shrug: You only have an MA [#2]. Even someone who claims
to be as "logical" as you can not keep your opinions (bolded orange above) from leaking
out into your conclusions. :eek_big: :umno:

maddog

#43 Michael Mooney

Michael Mooney

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 629 posts

Posted 24 June 2009 - 02:34 PM

Over a month ago, post 20, I asked my most fundamental cosmological question, and later, in post 30, Pluto shared some links on cyclical, "Bang'Crunch" models, but the subsequent discussion never really addressed my post's questions or his links.

So this is basically a "bump" of the above two posts.
From my #20:

...I would very much appreciate some feedback on what seems to me the most central and fundamental issue in cosmology:
If the cosmos is not cyclical (oscillating... Bang/Crunch wise) then how did all cosmic material/energy/plasma come into existence? If it is cyclical, then the answer is obvious. It all has always existed and will always exist (nothing created or destroyed but only changing form.) It goes "bang" and expands until gravity reverses it and brings it back to "crunch" and immediately go "bang" again... over and over perpetually.
Whether or not there exists enough mass for such gravitational reversal is still an open question.
Also See the "entropy..." takeoff from the "spacetime" thread for arguments pro and con on entropy as a spoiler for perpetual cycling.

Anyway a co-related question concerns the "linear thinking" alternative to a perpetually cyclic cosmology. Does anyone here believe that there was a "beginning of time" at the moment of the Bang (regardless of whether or not it eventually reverses and crunches again?)

And finally, how do advocates of an "everything out of nothing" cosmos and a "beginning of time" distinguish such a belief from Creationism as a miraculous creation of cosmos out of nothing?


(Last try/bump for this "origins" question.)
Michael

#44 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 24 June 2009 - 04:00 PM

So this is basically a "bump" of the above two posts.
From my #20:

...I would very much appreciate some feedback on what seems to me the most central and fundamental issue in cosmology:
If the cosmos is not cyclical (oscillating... Bang/Crunch wise) then how did all cosmic material/energy/plasma come into existence?


To answer a question regarding the early stages of the big bang or what came before the big bang requires some tool or some model of the universe. This is true because we cannot look through a telescope and see the early universe or 'before the early universe'. So, the answer to your question will depend on the model used.

Big bang cosmology is modeled with general relativity. Yet, general relativity breaks down at the point of a singularity. So, as we look further back in time (or, as we model the universe further back in time) we get to a point where matter is infinitely dense beyond which general relativity gives us no answers.

The only solution is to use some tool other than GR such as M theory or loop quantum gravity. Those theories have not yet given falsifiable results, so at the present time all we can say is that we don't know what came 'before' the big bang singularity. Astrophysicists have ideas, but no one really knows, yet.

~modest

#45 enorbet2

enorbet2

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 308 posts

Posted 25 June 2009 - 10:06 AM

Fortunately for all of us we live in a time of fantastic growth in scientific quest to understand such huge and fundamental issues. IIRC there are good models of high energy states in only tiny fractions of a second (by our frame of reference) after the Big Bang and there exists numerous leaps of well-designed experiments now and for the very near future.

The Large Hadron Collider has everyone's "fingers crossed" that it will soon be up and running since it is bound to deliver new answers as well as formulate better questions. Presently Particle Physics probably holds the key to the most productive gains in Cosmology. If that seems like a contradiction, get this:
http://scipp.ucsc.ed...se_big_bang.ppt

The ESA is just on fire! with great exploratory tools with the Herschel and Planck telescopes already launched and on the way
ESA - Herschel and Planck
Planck - Home Page

As mentioned by Lee Smolin in the above powerpoint presentation, while particle physics is in the sharpest tool for now, ultimately a better understanding of gravity with special consideration to QM will be essential. This is underway also in missions including one with ESA in the LISA mission (in two parts beginning with LISA Pathfinder) which eventually will be three satellites at the 1.5 Million kilometers from Earth Lagrange Point forming an immense array for mapping gravity waves. It was awarded the most scientific mission currently planned.
ESA - Space Science - LISA Pathfinder overview
ESA Science & Technology: LISA

If you're interested in digging deeper into studies of Gravity this website is a massive source, although some articles are for pay only, but even the highlights are often wonderful. Incidentally for those who don't already know if you can't find a "Home" button just "walk backwards" with your "backspace" key to see more general pages and the scope of this awesome site.

Classical and Quantum Gravity

The above are only samples of what lies ahead for the next decade predicting considerable grist for the discussion mills here at Hypography.

Cheers
  • Boerseun likes this

#46 Michael Mooney

Michael Mooney

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 629 posts

Posted 25 June 2009 - 02:37 PM

Modest:

Big bang cosmology is modeled with general relativity. Yet, general relativity breaks down at the point of a singularity. So, as we look further back in time (or, as we model the universe further back in time) we get to a point where matter is infinitely dense beyond which general relativity gives us no answers.


The "infinite density" of matter is a bogus concept. I debunked Hawking's "Infinite matter density in a point of zero volume*" (at Myspace) several months before he abandoned his "singularity" theory of cosmic origin and joined the M-theory camp.

(...still bogus whether "infinite density" is posited as contained in a point of zero volume (the height of absurdity!) or in a ball of matter of whatever size.)
I think the Schwarzschild radius for black holes of all sizes is the limit to how much matter can be compacted by gravity into a given sphere's volume. I could be wrong, but it is both intuitive and reasonable to me.

And if the laws of physics break down in a singularity (or the averge black hole, for that *matter*... then those "laws" are not universal and are therefore not science, as I see science.
Could be the assumptions about "singularities" are wrong after all.

And saying that what was before the Bang is beyond the realm of science (as many scientists do) is a major cop out. If the Bang/crunch (as I have modeled it) is ruled out and the fantasy physics of imaginary membrane "universes" takes over... pseudo-science will have taken over and science will be the poorer for it.

The only reasonable explanation for cosmic "origin" is that *all of it* has always existed and will always exist. So then the question becomes what was it all doing and where did it all come from before the Bang?
Out of nothing, from nowhere will not cut it any better than creationism does.

Michael

#47 enorbet2

enorbet2

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 308 posts

Posted 25 June 2009 - 07:56 PM

The "infinite density" of matter is a bogus concept. I debunked Hawking's "Infinite matter density in a point of zero volume*" (at Myspace) several months before he abandoned his "singularity" theory of cosmic origin and joined the M-theory camp.


Michael, since you are trained in Philosopy, you should be familiar with Plato's concept of "Right Opinion" the one place Plato seems to hedge his bets leaning ever so slightly closer to the more scientifically based Aristotle. So do you mean the above statement to simply imply "right opinion" or are you actually comparing yourself, even suggesting superiority over, Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose and Ed Witten? Are your math skills on that level?

(...still bogus whether "infinite density" is posited as contained in a point of zero volume (the height of absurdity!) or in a ball of matter of whatever size.)
I think the Schwarzschild radius for black holes of all sizes is the limit to how much matter can be compacted by gravity into a given sphere's volume. I could be wrong, but it is both intuitive and reasonable to me.


This is exactly the point here. Human intuition and "reasonable", other than through math at least until the technology catches up sufficiently to do observation and experimentation where we yet have zero frame of reference, has no place at extreme scales of energy, size (in either direction) or even SpaceTime. I'm not as hardcore Science as some here, perhaps because I am also a musician and have seen the value of "getting out of the way" given sufficient programming and just let the program run, let instinct take over. That however has no place in discovering the nature of reality on extreme levels since we just don't live there and likely could make little sense of any data other than through higher cerebral functions. There are no short cuts to the Truth that I have ever witnessed.

<snip>

And saying that what was before the Bang is beyond the realm of science (as many scientists do) is a major cop out. If the Bang/crunch (as I have modeled it) is ruled out and the fantasy physics of imaginary membrane "universes" takes over... pseudo-science will have taken over and science will be the poorer for it.


So please tell me how you avoid the "background independent" issue. Lee Smolin, Brian Greene, Ed Witten and others are dying to know.

The only reasonable explanation for cosmic "origin" is that *all of it* has always existed and will always exist. So then the question becomes what was it all doing and where did it all come from before the Bang?
Out of nothing, from nowhere will not cut it any better than creationism does.


That is a non sequitur just like the ones you deny. Just because you conclude something different when saying in effect "I don't know what it is therefore it must be A, B or C" No one letter of the alphabet, no concept is any better than another since it simply does not follow, whether it is reasonable and intuitive to you or anyone else.

We are all here trying to make sense of it all but for such an important job shouldn't we use the sharpest tools in the shed? I think it is safe to assume that when all we have is nails, everything starts looking like a hammer, but it is best to hold out till we actually have a hammer rather than destroy a screwdriver handle.... if you get my drift.
Regards

#48 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 26 June 2009 - 12:56 AM

The "infinite density" of matter is a bogus concept.

Why? Do we even know enough of matter to assume this? For instance, if you were to scale an atom up to where the proton is the size of a pea, then an electron will be smaller than a gnat, orbiting at a distance (to scale) of more than fifty kilometers. Imagine, now, that the force that keeps the electron orbiting (instead of electrically falling straight into the proton) can be switched off, and all atoms can now fall together to fill up the void existing in the shell between electron and proton. How many peas and gnats can you fill in to a sphere with a fifty kilometer radius? That is how little we know and understand of matter in our everyday experience. And you cannot presume to apply your everyday experience to these extreme conditions as stated in the post above. It's just plain and simply wrong.

There is no place for intuition in Science. It spoils your samples.

I debunked Hawking's "Infinite matter density in a point of zero volume*" (at Myspace) several months before he abandoned his "singularity" theory of cosmic origin and joined the M-theory camp.

Sorry to pop your bubble, Mike, but I'm sure Hawkings' changing his mind about the matter has very much to do with coming to new insights based on new data, new models, new interpretations, and very little to do with what you, in particular, had to say about the matter for wholly different reasons.

...still bogus whether "infinite density" is posited as contained in a point of zero volume (the height of absurdity!

You still don't get it, do you? Space itself was inside that "point of zero volume". There was no "zero volume", because space (the unit we measure volume in) did not exist. It's just a problem for you, because you deny the existence of "spacetime" which is plaible and bendable by gravity because you either think its counterintuitive or it simply makes no sense to you. Well, if the former, I told you intuition has no place here. If the latter, well - sorry.

I think the Schwarzschild radius for black holes of all sizes is the limit to how much matter can be compacted by gravity into a given sphere's volume. I could be wrong, but it is both intuitive and reasonable to me.

That "given sphere's volume" is only determinable in the presence of space, with which to measure that sphere. The Big Bang was a different kettle of fish in that there was no space to begin with. "Intuition" and "Reasonability" I think we've sufficiently dealt with. It's only up to you now to start understanding this.

And if the laws of physics break down in a singularity (or the averge black hole, for that *matter*... then those "laws" are not universal and are therefore not science, as I see science.

Nobody on this planet have ever seen a Black Hole first-hand. You won't find one in the corner shop for a buck-fifteen. Black Holes have been predicted by following those very same laws of physics to their natural conclusion under extreme conditions. They are predicted by the laws of physics. If you're presented with the laws of physics and have no prior knowledge of anything even remotely qualifying as a black hole, you will figure it out very quickly - because the laws of physics will tell you that under certain conditions, the formation of a black hole will be inevitable.

Could be the assumptions about "singularities" are wrong after all.

Nope. Our predictions as to their behavious and actions are merely more of the same - following physics to its natural conclusion. The point where the laws break down, is the physical analogue to dividing by zero. Take a calculator and try to divide by zero. You will get a big, fat Error on the screen. Is maths wrong, too? Or could it be that you merely misunderstand what you're trying to disprove? What would Occam have to say about the latter?

And saying that what was before the Bang is beyond the realm of science (as many scientists do) is a major cop out. If the Bang/crunch (as I have modeled it) is ruled out and the fantasy physics of imaginary membrane "universes" takes over... pseudo-science will have taken over and science will be the poorer for it.

The Big Bang is a cusp of information annihilation. Nothing from before it, can come through it. There is no way for us to speculate with any certainty what came before. It's not a cop-out, however unfortunate it might be that we can't get to peek past it.

It's just amazingly ironical that you can hold any concerns about pseudo-science getting the better of science, what with your Pyramid Prophesy and all...:) I really don't think you're the best qualified here to call anything pseudo-science.

The only reasonable explanation for cosmic "origin" is that *all of it* has always existed and will always exist. So then the question becomes what was it all doing and where did it all come from before the Bang?
Out of nothing, from nowhere will not cut it any better than creationism does.

However much we might want to attach any value to what explanations make sense to us, the plain and simple truth is that we don't know. Like it or not, Mike, them's the breaks. We Do Not Know. Now you can latch on to any particular theory that cheeses your melon, but you cannot exclude the posibility of any other theory. Myself, I'm still rather partial to the intergalactic rubber duckie exploding.

#49 Michael Mooney

Michael Mooney

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 629 posts

Posted 26 June 2009 - 02:54 PM

I invite everyone here capable of rational thinking to think about a geometric point (no volume) "containing" *anything.* Then think about what the phrase "infinit density of matter" might mean.

It would mean that there is absolutely no space between the smallest particles of matter. Even then it would require volume to contain this absolute matter.

We do know that the mass of Earth if compressed enough to become a black hole, would be about pea sized. The sun as a black hole would be about 3KM in radius, and the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy has a radius of about 8 million KM... and we can "see" matter orbiting it and then disappearing.
Saying that there is a "point of zero volume and infinite density of matter" (direct quote of Hawking) at the center of each black hole is based on totally irrational thinking.
As I said, I raised this criticism several months before Hawking "recanted" and abandoned his singularity-as-source-of-cosmos theory. Whether or not he or his staff saw it (at Myspace) or not is entirely beside the **point**.
Michael

#50 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 27 June 2009 - 12:18 AM

I invite everyone here capable of rational thinking to think about a geometric point (no volume) "containing" *anything.* Then think about what the phrase "infinit density of matter" might mean.

It would mean that there is absolutely no space between the smallest particles of matter. Even then it would require volume to contain this absolute matter.

Michael, as I've explained in my previous post, we know too little of matter to say that it's impossible. That's besides the initial couple of hundred thousand years after the Big Bang there not being any matter present at all, only energy in a very dense plasma. It took a long time for even Hydrogen to condense out of this plasma. So I really don't see your point being valid at all. Once again, you're trying to fit cosmology into your everyday experience of matter - which is plain and simply wrong, given the nature of matter and energy under the extreme conditions under discussion.

#51 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3058 posts

Posted 27 June 2009 - 06:29 AM

There is a way to get the mass singularity to expand, without using anything new. It only requires looking at what we know, in a slightly different way. If you look at photons they exist as a particle and wave duality. Mass particles also exist within such a duality, but are much more slanted to the particle side.

The double slit experiment helped to demonstrate the wave nature of photons because a particle should not be in two places at once. Another way to interpret this experiment is the wave aspect of the wave-particle duality has more entropy than the particle aspect because it can be in two places at once.

Let us get back to the singularity. All that needs to happen to the mass singularity is for it change the ratio of wave to particle, within its wave-particle nature so we can increase entropy. The singularity begins to inflate because now the higher wave ratio allows it to be in two places at once like in the double slit.