Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Size of singularity
Jerry
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 34 (113231)
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? Also, am I correct in believing that the creator of this theory also believes that that speck contained all of the matter of this universe?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 06-07-2004 6:57 AM Jerry has not replied
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 06-07-2004 7:26 AM Jerry has replied
 Message 10 by 1.61803, posted 06-07-2004 2:42 PM Jerry has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 2 of 34 (113234)
06-07-2004 6:57 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?
That's what the word "singularity" means - a point of no dimension.
It wasn't "decided" to be that small, that's the size that the evidence suggests. When you look back in time, the universe gets smaller and smaller. Why would we expect that trend to stop at any size but the logical extreme - no size at all?
Also, am I correct in believing that the creator of this theory also believes that that speck contained all of the matter of this universe?
Before you make an argument from incredulity, why don't you tell us the total amount of matter in the universe? Remember, you have to count the anti-matter against the matter. How do you know that there's not zero net matter in the universe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jerry, posted 06-07-2004 6:48 AM Jerry has not replied

Jerry
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 34 (113239)
06-07-2004 7:23 AM


Something from nothing
Well, I guess it all boils down to the same old thing. It seems that almost everyone I talk to believe that something and everything (matter and anti-matter) can be made from nothing. I one the other hand believe that everything is made out of something. It may be smaller (and small is a relative term) than man is capable of measuring or seeing but I believe it still exists. It is my uneducated opinion that when matter and antimatter come together they disintigrate each other but the smaller particles do not cease to exist. This is unprovable but I do know that matter exists and I don't know what nothing is so I guess I should stop worrying about what others think.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 06-07-2004 7:26 AM Jerry has not replied
 Message 9 by jar, posted 06-07-2004 11:52 AM Jerry has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 4 of 34 (113240)
06-07-2004 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Jerry
06-07-2004 7:23 AM


It seems that almost everyone I talk to believe that something and everything (matter and anti-matter) can be made from nothing.
Why do you suppose that is, exactly? Did you ever ask? I'm just curious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Jerry, posted 06-07-2004 7:23 AM Jerry has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


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

Jerry
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 34 (113256)
06-07-2004 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dr Jack
06-07-2004 7:26 AM


I was just reading an article about dark matter and it said "Possibilites for dark matter range from tiny subatomic particles weighing 1000,000 times less than an electron to black holes with masses millions of times that of the sun". That doesn't sound like a sigularity to me.
And yes I have been asking for a long time and it always boils down to the same thing. Almost everyone believes at one time there was no time, space or matter. I don't buy it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 06-07-2004 7:26 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Melchior, posted 06-07-2004 8:56 AM Jerry has not replied
 Message 8 by Dr Jack, posted 06-07-2004 9:05 AM Jerry has not replied
 Message 23 by Perdition, posted 06-09-2004 12:27 AM Jerry has not replied

Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 34 (113260)
06-07-2004 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jerry
06-07-2004 8:42 AM


I'm not sure what you mean. A black hole (regardless of it's mass, can be very high) is a type of singularity. Do not confuse the event horizon around a black hole with the actual singularity. It's a singularity in the same way a pelican is a bird.
We aren't currently exactly sure where 'everything' came from, though. We do now that the further back in time you go, the smaller the universe gets. Without any known reason to assume a lower limit, this results in a singularity at the 'start' of the universe.
We also know through experiments that matter and antimatter can 'come from nothing'. And it happens often, and more or less all over the place. Of course, usually not enough to fill up a whole universe.
There are also speculations and ideas of things such as branes which try to explain how the universe started. If you have some sort of science channel available (TV channel, that is) chances are big they'll have programs about that regularily. They try to explain just what you are asking; how did the universe start, what made it fill up with matter/antimatter/energy, and so on.

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: 8.7


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

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 9 of 34 (113302)
06-07-2004 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Jerry
06-07-2004 7:23 AM


Re: Something from nothing
Jerry
We know that something exits today. Do you agree with that statement?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Jerry, posted 06-07-2004 7:23 AM Jerry has not replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 10 of 34 (113334)
06-07-2004 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jerry
06-07-2004 6:48 AM


Jerry writes:
why it was decided that the prebig bang singularity was a speck smaller than a proton instead of maybe a speck the size of a pea...
Jerry...why it was decided?? Quantum Mechanics predicts singularitys. The math alludes to singularitys. The smallest something can physically be is Planke's size. There are no models that I am aware of available to pre BB phenomenon. The speck you speak of can not be described in terms of size or weight. Size and weight and newtonian physics does not apply when you get down to the quantum level. I have noticed since I have been a member on this board a fair amount of creationist / bible litteralist like to use the word: "speck". why?
It seems to be a common word in creationist circles to describe the big bang. Is there some big name creationist guru using that term? The speck can be better described as a quantum event rather than a size of something. Singularitys are where God divided by zero.IMO.

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jerry, posted 06-07-2004 6:48 AM Jerry has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 11 of 34 (113376)
06-07-2004 6:16 PM


i recall hearing at least one proponent of the thought that it has finite size, but that never made sense to me, in light of things like black holes.
although, since everything is relative, it was also precise size of the universe, which would make infinitally large as well as small. but viewed this way, does that make it differ from our current status in any significant way?
i dunno, just some terribly misguided thoughts.

Jerry
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 34 (113542)
06-08-2004 6:52 AM


Jar- Yes I absolutely know that something exists today and I don't believe there could have been a time when something didn't exist.
----------
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?
----------
I think I first heard the term "speck" in Discover magazine.
----------
TV and scientists can only explain theories and evidence that leads to conclusions that could be wrong.
----------
Can someone tell me where this singularity was located or am I correct in assuming that in most peoples opinion that it was nowhere, it had no location because there was no space or time or anything?

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2004 7:08 AM Jerry has not replied
 Message 14 by Dr Jack, posted 06-08-2004 7:10 AM Jerry has not replied
 Message 17 by jar, posted 06-08-2004 12:54 PM Jerry has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 13 of 34 (113543)
06-08-2004 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Jerry
06-08-2004 6:52 AM


Can someone tell me where this singularity was located
Obviously, it was located here.
Think about it for a minute.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2004 6:11 AM crashfrog has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


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

Jerry
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 34 (113547)
06-08-2004 7:35 AM


You are absolutely correct. I should not be discussing my views with people who believe that something can be made from nothing and put in a space where there was no space. And you know, if something can be made from nothing it's even possible that some Great Omnipotent Diety did it. I try to stay away from that one too. Thanks for straightening me out.

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by 1.61803, posted 06-08-2004 10:48 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