Nothingness, pre-Big Bang

[oscar1]

No, you can't say that if you wish to believe it all started from nothing, or no-thing. Afterall, the mere existence of God would contradict there being nothing in the beginning.

 

[oscar1]

No, I don't believe that. Personally, I think that Black Holes, if they do indeed exist, are, like stars, also subject to certain criteria and maxima. I think that when a Black Hole gets to be too massive, it explodes so viciously that the explosion is equal to the, or 'a' rather, Big Bang, starting a new (section of the?) universe. To my mind, such a happening could come about when two or more galaxies collide. In other words, I believe in a repetitive universe without a shrinking fase. Hence, in a universe that always is, albeit with death and birth incorporated, like nature on Earth also functions successfully that way, biologically and geographically.

 

[alokmohan]

Since spacetime is the reality,It is bound to happen.The preliminary thing is the is no absolute time and absolute space.This is well known to modern physics.As there is no absolute time.there is no zero time.Big bang is nothing but extreme warping of time.It is the beginning.

 

[oscar1]

But alokmohan, a beginning is an absolute, like from 0 to 1, from A to B, from black to white, and so on. I don't think one can negotiate about that.

 

[robina_williams]

Thank you for some wonderfully interesting postings. Newtonian, you suggested a possible interpretation of the multiverse:<br />Our universe (heaven) is one of many universes (heavens) that are within a much larger universe (heaven of the heavens).<br />Why do you apply the word 'heaven' to a universe -- surely 'heaven' is ethereal, not material? Also, you suggest that multiple universes (if they exist) would be contained within one great big universe -- would the math fit this and why would you call this all-containing universe 'heaven of the heavens'? I can't grasp the meaning of 'heaven of the heavens.'<br /><br />If one accepts the big bang theory, and one was, for present purposes, concerned with just our universe, one could presumably assume that the four dimensions we know about exploded into existence at the time of the big bang?<br />

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />I think that when a Black Hole gets to be too massive, it explodes so viciously that the explosion is equal to the, or 'a' rather, Big Bang, starting a new (section of the?) universe.</i><br /><br />Here's a good answer, from a profesional astronomer that distinguishes between matter falling into a black hole, and matter falling into a singularity:<br /><br />http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1355.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />Nothingness is a real conundrum in that many of us think this should be the expected or naturally occuring state of existence. We are mystified that anything should exist simply becase we strongly believe nothingness was the starting point. <br />Hence, I believe somethingness is what is. The mechanism behind it seems impossible to comprehend. What is that mechanism or "phenomenon?"</i><br /><br />Nothing, is actually one or more somethings. This is another semantics problem:<br /><br /> http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11831.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[oscar1]

Hmmm, as soon as one starts to claim that there are two kinds of singularity (singularities?), neither can be a singularity anylonger!

 

[alokmohan]

You are very correct.How can there be two singularities?Two black holes may have different singularities,altogether a different thing.

 

[oscar1]

The answers they give on this site are somewhat simplistic, and leaves one virtually none the wiser. <br /><br />Space for instance was described as the 'ether' in the past, representing something of some [extremely minute] substance, but this thought was done away with, to leave us with... 'nothing'. Here I am now being lead to believe that 'nothing' is not exactly 'nothing'. Other scientists are suggesting that 'space' itself is expanding, and that because of that the known universe is getting larger, with ultra great speed at that; that's also difficult to believe, for how can 'nothing' become larger?

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />Hmmm, as soon as one starts to claim that there are two kinds of singularity (singularities?), neither can be a singularity anylonger! </i><br /><br />I never claimed there were two singularities. I hope that you're not confusing the BB singularity, with a regular blackhole singularity. Their not the same! The BB singularity is a time like singularity with out going world lines. Regular blackholes have in going world lines. Regular blackholes are a part of the local geometry of space/time. The BB is part of the global geometry of our universe, and is not an embedded object in our 4 dimensional space/time.<br />A singularity as related to physics is a point or region in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density and zero volume; associated with black holes. A singularity is part of a blackhole, it's at the center of a blackholes mass.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />The answers they give on this site are somewhat simplistic, and leaves one virtually none the wiser. </i><br /><br />I hope that you're speaking for yourself. The man is a profesional astronomer, and IMO you're just showing your ignorance.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[oscar1]

A singularity must be a point where energy, matter and time are compressed such that only gravity remains; literally everything compressed into one single something/nothing. It could be that that can be, but then there is only one type of singularity, whereby the one singularity can only differ from the other in terms of mass as represented by gravity. If there would be more than one type, then the word 'singularity' is rather ill chosen.

 

[oscar1]

I am also a professional in my field (financial), but that does not mean that I expect everyone to just swallow what I dish up.

 

[killium]

Is empty space nothing ? It can occupy a certain volume, it can be measured, it can be filled with something, so it exist, so it's not nothing. The real nothing have no matter, no energy AND no dimensions. As soon as you get a dimension, even only one, you get something. The real nothing cannot exist. The real nothing is what doesn't exist.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[oscar1]

The trouble with your view is that if space isn't quite nothing, space couldn't expand faster than the speed of light, yet apparently in some cases space does.

 

[killium]

What constitute space itself may not be submitted to the speed of light barrier as regular matter or energy is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[oscar1]

Could be, but then we'd have to re-introduce the 'ether'.

 

[six_strings]

Reply to: <font color="yellow">"A singularity must be a point where energy, matter and time are compressed such that only gravity remains; literally everything compressed into one single something/nothing. It could be that that can be, but then there is only one type of singularity, whereby the one singularity can only differ from the other in terms of mass as represented by gravity. If there would be more than one type, then the word 'singularity' is rather ill chosen."</font><br /><br />Maybe try thinking of it as something science has no other way to describe... Such as, the big bang singularity, and a black hole singularity... <br /><br />Here's a simple explaination that might help? <b><i> Maybe </i></b> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><font color="yellow"><i><b>"a point at which the derivative of a given function of a complex variable does not exist but every neighborhood of which contains points for which the derivative does exist"</b></i></font>/i> <--- Big Bang<br /><br /><font color="yellow"><i><b>"a point or region of infinite mass density at which space and time are infinitely distorted by gravitational forces and which is held to be the final state of matter falling into a black hole"</b></i></font>/b> <--- Black Hole<br /><br /><br />Reference: Merriam-Webster Online <br /><br />I personally don't see the problem with having two definitions for one word, or two <b><i>types</i></b> of singularity.. *shrug* <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[robina_williams]

I don't see any problem, either: one can envisage (well, perhaps envisage is the wrong word) a big bang singularity, and a black hole singularity. Two different types of singularity.

 

[oscar1]

Well, we think that we know from Black Holes that in them everything becomes one [single thing], hence 'singularity'. This 'single thing', we reckon, manifests itself through gravity. We know that laws of nature cannot be broken; our understanding of these laws may change, i.e. be adapted from time to time, but the laws themselves are 100 percent strict. From that angle therefore, it is hard to imagine one singularity one way, and another another way. The only difference, as I see it, that there can be, is that the laws of nature rule that a singularity has a maximum. When this maximum is reached, it seeks another stable state. Perhaps it does so extremely violently, as in what we imagine to be a/the Big Bang. If that be so, than there is only one type of singularity up until it reaches its maximum.

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />Well, we think that we know from Black Holes that in them everything becomes one [single thing], hence 'singularity'. This 'single thing', we reckon, manifests itself through gravity.</i><br /><br />And gravity manifests itself thru mass or matter. The mass or matter then accumulates , and has it's own gravitational field.<br /><br />I don't quite follow your reasoning as to a singularity being a single thing. It's just a location within a blackhole or BB event.<br /><i><br /> The only difference, as I see it, that there can be, is that the laws of nature rule that a singularity has a maximum. When this maximum is reached, it seeks another stable state. Perhaps it does so extremely violently, as in what we imagine to be a/the Big Bang. If that be so, than there is only one type of singularity up until it reaches its maximum. </i><br /><br />Ok, that's your theory. But I'm afraid that it's just wishful thinking on your part. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[six_strings]

<font color="yellow">"The only difference, as I see it, that there can be, is that the laws of nature rule that a singularity has a maximum. When this maximum is reached, it seeks another stable state. Perhaps it does so extremely violently, as in what we imagine to be a/the Big Bang. If that be so, than there is only one type of singularity up until it reaches its maximum." </font><br /><br />Where are you getting this? Please share your source... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[oscar1]

"And gravity manifests itself thru mass or matter. The mass or matter then accumulates , and has it's own gravitational field."<br /><br />Here on Earth we can only harvest energy through gravity, not from it. In space however, we can accelerate space vehicles by indirectly harvesting energy from gravity. This shows that gravity can turn mass of matter into energy. In fact, there likely being no physical mass present in a Black Hole, the gravity there, which equates to the Black Hole itself, must be pure [attractive] energy, which we refer to as a singulatiry. So, as I see it, gravity is probably both mass and/or energy. <br /><br />"I don't quite follow your reasoning as to a singularity being a single thing. It's just a location within a blackhole or BB event."<br /><br />A location indeed, and as we know, that location is the centre of gravity, not neccesarily at the core of a mass when two or more masses are in eachother's vicinity. <br /><br />"Ok, that's your theory. But I'm afraid that it's just wishful thinking on your part."<br /><br />Yes, that is my theory. Call it wishful thinking if you like; I don't call it anything, but it does make perfect sense to me. <br />

 

[oscar1]

A personal deduction from the fair number of books I read.