Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Size of singularity
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 5 of 34 (113241)
06-07-2004 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jerry
06-07-2004 6:48 AM


Can someone tell me why it was decided that the pre big bang singularity was a speck smaller than a proton instead of maybe a speck the size of a pea or a baseball or a black hole?
A black hole is also a singularity. It is smaller than the size of a proton.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jerry, posted 06-07-2004 6:48 AM Jerry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Jerry, posted 06-07-2004 8:42 AM Dr Jack has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 8 of 34 (113264)
06-07-2004 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jerry
06-07-2004 8:42 AM


Mass, and size, are not linked. A black hole is tiny (although as pointed out by the previous poster, the event horizon need not be), but has great mass, while the space between the earth and sun is vast, but has very little mass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jerry, posted 06-07-2004 8:42 AM Jerry has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 14 of 34 (113546)
06-08-2004 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Jerry
06-08-2004 6:52 AM


If there was something smaller than what is called the quantum level and therefore imposssible for man to see would that stuff be classified as nothing even though it might be the building blocks of matter and the building blocks of everything?
It's not a question of Quantum simply being the smallest we can see. The models based on that experimentally derived notion are ASTONISHINGLY accurate, like to twelve decimal places!
Scientists don't just make this shit up, you know. They have pretty solid reasons for thinking that things really are quantised at the subatomic level. I'm not going to even attempt to explain it all, it's way beyond my level of understanding and, it seems, way beyond yours. I suggest that if you're genuinely interested in all this stuff, you actually sit down and take the time, and study, to actually learn about how subatomic physics in general, and quantum mechanics specifically, works - because until you do you're just mouthing off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Jerry, posted 06-08-2004 6:52 AM Jerry has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 32 of 34 (113822)
06-09-2004 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Jerry
06-09-2004 8:12 AM


And back to where the sigularity was located. To answer my own question, it was not located "here" as Crashfrog put it, it wasn't located anywhere, because acording to science nothing existed before the big bang. There was no space for it to be located in so it created it's own space from nothing so it could created itself. And beyond the space that this universe occupies now there is more of this undescribable nothing. If this is rational I think somehow I made a wrong turn somewhere and ended up on the wrong planet. But I keep forgetting that Earth scientist say this is the way it is so it must be true no matter how illogical it sounds.
This is just wrong. Science doesn't say the big bang was created out of nothing, it doesn't say it created itself, it doesn't say there was nothing before it. It says, with some certainty, we don't know - these questions are ones to which we have no answer - we don't even really know that it became a singularity (both string theory and QLG would disagree). What we do know is that there was a big bang, and that it tracks back to a size of 10-23m - we know this because observations of the CBM prove it, not because some scientist says so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Jerry, posted 06-09-2004 8:12 AM Jerry has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024