Is a stable singularity possible? Origin of universe.

[newtonian]

In many big bang models, including collision of branes models, our universe starts as a singularity.<br /><br />Could such a singularity stay a singularity?<br /><br />Obviously the one our universe may have started with did not.<br /><br />But why not? <br /><br />Is a truly stable singularity possible?<br /><br />I believe it is only possible with zero spin.<br /><br />In other words, this depends on the cause of the specific singularity.<br /><br />I suspect there is a limit to the matter/energy that can be contained in an infinitely small radius - and I suspect that limit may be zero.<br /><br />In which case even a zero spin singularity would not be stable if it contained energy - though perhaps it depends on how much energy such that the amount of energy, including that which was converted into matter, in our universe, is above the limit for a stable singularity.<br /><br />Could, in fact, the amount of matter/energy in our universe at its origin have been just above the upper limit for a stable singularity - and therefore be a cause of the big bang?<br /><br />Or was our universe actually slightly longer in radius than infinitely small at its origin, such that it exceeded the upper limit for energy/matter at that radius?<br /><br />I suspect that energy and matter cannot exist at zero dimensions, such that energy (which would precede matter) would cause dimensions to exist. <br /><br />Therefore, while an origin can involve a singularity, the effects of the cause of the origin would involve dimensions.<br /><br />For example, if two branes collide at an intersection point and release immense amounts of energy at that point - the point does indeed at the instant of collision, in primordial time not our universe specific space/time, exist as a true singularity with an infinitely small radius which, in fact, is truly and absolutely zero, that the energy thus released carries with it a set of properties in a specific space/time which immediately produce dimensions.<br /><br />If such a col

 

[SpeedFreek]

A singularity in our universe is "stable" due the phenomena known as an event horizon - the point where the devastating effects of the breakdown of the laws of physics in a black hole cease to affect the universe around it.<br /><br />A "naked" singularity, as one without an event horizon is known, would devastate the universe around it. This would be an unstable singularity.<br /><br />I have had a look around various scientific sites and can find no evidence for the universe having any "spin". Do you have any? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Time doesn't pass for a stable singularity so your conjecture is meaningless.<br /><br /> Time starts when it explodes.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Look up anything pertaining to Universal Spin and Kurt Godel. That is a good starting point. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

Sorry, I should have made myself clearer! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I have seen many scientific models for the universe which include universal spin, but I have yet to see anyone come up with any evidence for it! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

the contents of the universe, the various dust clouds, galaxies, etc., might have a net spin in some direction.<br /><br />It is theoretically possible we could discern this someday.<br /><br />Also, largish regions of the universe might have a net spin in comparison to other regions. This might be rather easier to demonstrate.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Oh. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />I have read some minor musings here and there on the matter over the last several years, but so far no, no real papers on this.<br /><br />Godel, of course, was about that there was no spin (why it was not possible), so he is in a different category. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[search]

Regarding spin<br /><br />From:<br />http://www.science.ca/askascientist/viewquestion.php?qID=45<br /><br />Rotation, like death and taxes, seems to be an essential part of the Universe. Since space itself is frictionless, there is, in general, no damping force to slow things down. So whatever rotary motion objects obtain or have, no matter how small, they generally keep.<br /><br />The one exception, curiously enough, seems to be the Universe itself, taken as a whole. We cannot measure any net rotation to the entire show, although this does not mean that such a motion does not exist. It's just below our level of detection. Ernst Mach, the German philosopher, asked an unusual question in the last century. He said: "Pretend one is floating in space amongst the stars and galaxies, eyes closed. Are we spinning?" How would we find out? Well, if we extend an arm and feel it tugged away, as someone would on a merry-go-round, then we know we are spinning. So we reach into a pocket and pull out a few rocks. We throw them against the spin to slow ourselves down. We keep doing this until we no longer feel any force on our arms when extended. So now we are not spinning, at least according to the space around us. Let's open our eyes. Is the universe spinning with respect to us? No. So there is a deep connection with what we find to be "spin-free" for ourselves, and spin-free for the universe.<br /><br />Why should this be? We don't really know. Einstein provided equations which tell us how the "spin-free" condition of reference must relate from here to there. But his equations permit the, admittedly bizarre, case where what is not spinning to us is spinning for someone else. But it seems that irregularities like this were smoothed out in the Universe at the very beginning. So the Universe as a whole probably doesn't have spin, at least in any even remotely significant way.<br /><br />So what about spin

 

[alokmohan]

Scwarzchild radius may give you hint.The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes inappropriately referred to as the gravitational radius[1]) is a characteristic radius associated with every mass. It is the radius for a given mass where, if that mass could be compressed to fit within that radius, no force could stop it from continuing to collapse into a gravitational singularity. The term is used in physics and astronomy, especially in the theory of gravitation, general relativity. It was found in 1916 by Karl Schwarzschild and results from his discovery of an exact solution for the gravitational field outside a non-rotating, spherically symmetric body (see Schwarzschild metric, which is a solution of the Einstein field equations).<br /><br />The Schwarzschild radius of an object is proportional to the mass. Accordingly, the Sun has a Schwarzschild radius of approximately 3 km, while the Earth's is only about 9 mm.<br /><br />An object smaller than its Schwarzschild radius is called a black hole. The surface at the Schwarzschild radius acts as an event horizon in a non-rotating body. (A rotating black hole operates slightly differently.) Neither light nor particles can escape through this surface from the region inside, hence the name "black hole". The Schwarzschild radius of the Supermassive black hole at our Galactic Center is approximately 7.8 million km. The Schwarzschild radius of a sphere with a uniform density equal to the critical density is equal to the radius of the visible universe.<br /><br />Connie Willis's hard science fiction short story "The Schwarzschild Radius" offers both an accessible and accurate explanation of the phenomenon which makes it surprisingly applicable to not-so-scientific pursuits.[ci<br /> <br />

 

[search]

Hello<br /><br />The spin post was refering to Newtonian comment:<br />"In many big bang models, including collision of branes models, our universe starts as a singularity. Could such a singularity stay a singularity? Obviously the one our universe may have started with did not. But why not? Is a truly stable singularity possible? I believe it is only possible with zero spin. In other words, this depends on the cause of the specific singularity." <br /><br />My main comment:<br /><br />If the Universe started in a singularity could not have spin zero.<br /><br />From my previous post:<br />"Equations of nature do tell us that in a gravity-bound system, things get lumpier over time, and motions and spins all become exaggerated. But this requires that motions and spins be non-zero to begin with, otherwise there is nothing to amplify. So the Universe must have had primordial motion or lumpiness. But almost infinitesimal amounts of this are sufficient to explain the motions and spins in the Universe today. It's like a bowling ball poised atop the sharpest pin -- the vaguest hint of a disturbance topples it."<br /><br />Further question:<br />Is the Universe spinning (presently)?

 

[alokmohan]

Is it consistent with big bang theory?

 

[search]

Are you asking about spin in the Big Bang moment or Universe now? <br /><br />If it is the first<br />From:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity<br />The simplest Big Bang cosmological model of the universe contains a causal singularity at the start of time (t=0), where all timelike geodesics have no extensions into the past. Extrapolating backward to this hypothetical time 0 results in a universe of size 0 in all spatial dimensions, infinite density, infinite temperature, and infinite space-time curvature. However, the basic Big Bang model does not include quantum effects, and its predictions are valid only up to a point. At that point in the calculations, we are down to an astonishingly small size, high density, high temperature, and high curvature, but they are all finite, and the distance from there to infinity is, well, infinite.<br />Other physics can open up the model to a time before the Big Bang, which then evolves from a very small region of spacetime with a complete past, rather than from a point. In such models, multiple Big Bangs can evolve from regions in a much larger space. No tests of such models have been identified.<br />A singularity certainly exists in the geometry of pure General Relativity for its model of a black hole. In a non-rotating black hole (with rotation rate mathematically, and unphysically, exactly 0), the singularity occurs at a single point in the model coordinates, and is called a "point singularity".<br /><br />If it is the second:<br />I do not think we would be able to know at present time and I doubt also in the future but you never know.

 

[newtonian]

SEARCH - Here is one link on universal spin, aka global rotation:<br /><br />AarXiv.org<br /><br />Dark energy and global rotation of the Universe [ Abstract, 5 Cites, , Cached PDF ]<br />5Godlowski, Wlodzimierz; Szydlowski, Marek (2003-03-12) In General Relativity and Gravitation 35 2171 (2003)<br />We discuss the problem of universe acceleration driven by global rotation. The redshift-magnitude relation is calculated and discussed in the context of SN Ia observation data. It is shown that the dynamics of considered problem is equivalent to the Friedmann model with additional non-interacting fluid ... Comment: RevTeX4, 12 pages, 7 figures<br /><br />universe spin abstract<br /><br />We analyze dynamics of the FRW models with global rotation in terms of dynamical system methods. We reduce dynamics of these models to the FRW models with some fictitious fluid which scales like radiation matter. This fluid mimics dynamically effects of global rotation. The significance of the global rotation of the Universe for the resolution of the acceleration and horizon problems in cosmology is investigated. It is found that dynamics of the Universe can be reduced to the two-dimensional Hamiltonian dynamical system. Then the construction of the Hamiltonian allows for full classification of evolution paths. On the phase portraits we find the domains of cosmic acceleration for the globally rotating universe as well as the trajectories for which the horizon problem is solved. We show that the FRW models with global rotation are structurally stable. This proves that the universe acceleration is due to the global rotation. It is also shown how global rotation gives a natural explanation of the empirical relation between angular momentum for clusters

 

[newtonian]

alokmohan - I postulate that there is a force that can cause a contracting mass to avoid becoming a singularity: spin.<br /><br />But I do not actually know the math formula for increased rotation rate with decreased radius.<br /><br />Can anyone post that formula?<br /><br />Suffice it to say, whatever the rate of increase of spin with decreased radius, approaching infinitely small radius would cause approaching infinitely fast spin - googolplex times faster than light speed!<br /><br />Which is why I asked my opening question!<br /><br />If light speed rotation is an actual limit for mass, then there must be a lower limit for a black hole center radius which would be variable depending on the original stellar spin (the origin star's rotation rate) and contributions to spin by various accretions of mass.

 

[newtonian]

Yevaud - I'm curious why you discount Serak's links - or did you forget about them?

 

[newtonian]

vogon13 - As Serak's links noted, there may well be a way to detect universal global rotation - a cold atom gyro, if I remember correctly. See my question on its launch in the launch section of SDC message board.<br /><br />Note that spin would not be easy to detect at the current radius of the universe.<br /><br />However, one must remember that spin increases with descreased radius, and our universe's origin, according to big bang models, started with a very tiny radius!<br /><br />When I asked about this a long time ago on SDC, saiph had noted no spin had been detected - yet.<br /><br />I guess time will tell - as more refined data comes in.

 

[newtonian]

speedfreek - Curious which models you have seen which include universal spin.<br /><br />Can you link to any of them?<br /><br />Here is one from Serak:<br /><br />arXivhysics/9909038 v1 21 Sep 1999<br /><br />An excerpt:<br /><br />"Earlier it was argued[20, 21] that an electron could be modelled as a Kerr-Newman Black Hole with radius given by the Compton wavelength. It is interesting<br />to note that this is also true for the universe itself with the scaled Compton wavelength: Infact in the case of the electron, the spin was given by<br />SK = Z &#491;klmxlTm0d3x = h2<br />(12)<br />where the domain of integration was a sphere of radius given by the Compton<br />wavelength[20, 22]. If this is carried over to the case of the universe, with radius given by (5) or (11) and mass as in (9) we get from (12)<br />SU = N3/2h _ h1 (13)<br />3<br />where h1 is as in (6) and SU denotes the counterpart of electron spin.<br />Infact the origin of h1 is in (13): From this point of view, (6) is not mysterious. In this case h1 turns out to be the spin of the universe itself in broad agreement with Godel’s spin value for Einstein’s equations [23]. Incidentally this is also in agreement with the Kerr limit of the spin of the rotating Black Hole of mass given by (9). Further as pointed out by Kogut and others, the<br />angular momentum of the universe given in (13) is compatible with a rotation from the cosmic background radiation anisotropy[24]. Finally it is also<br />close to the observed rotation as deduced from anisotropy of cosmic electro-magnetic radiation as reported by Nodland and Ralston and others[25].<br />We next use (3), and the well known fact that GmG<br />l2 _ v2 [26], along with the relation,<br />mGvl2 = h2, (14)<br />which is the analogue of quantized angular momenta. It immediately follows that h2<br />2 = G2m3<br />Gl _ 1074, which gives equatio

 

[alokmohan]

There are many models about spin.Kerr model is one of them.Spin or no spin is the quetion.General theory of relativity is having so many meaning.(God)el knows.

 

[newtonian]

alokmohan - Yes, and I need to research those models more.<br /><br />I really do suspect, though, that there is some speed limit to spin as matter approaches a singularity that will stop it from having near zero radius if the spin is rapid enough.<br /><br />One might expect that tachyons could be formed with a no speed limit faster than light spin of matter!<br /><br />Have any experiments been done to try to induce FTL spin on the atomic scale?<br /><br />I would assume such experimental attempts would cause conversion to energy at light speed more likely than conversion to some sort of dark matter such as tachyons, or dark energy such as FTL energy.