relativity and the big bang, the big ZERO

rednet · Aug 17, 2005

I am having trouble understanding this: With special relativity you can predict Big Bang and Black holes, both singularities. BUT physics breaks down at both condensed masses. Now physics is thought to be true in all parts of the universe (except the two noted) so why then believe in something physics can't explain. Why not try to explain it in another way where physics works? Its like saying 1=0 when you already know zero is nothing. (Or are we misled by zero and there isn't such a thing?) Can anyone please explain this?

Saiph · Aug 17, 2005

It's not a matter of physics doesn't work. It's a matter of not providing a complete answer. It shows us there's a very dense region we've labled a singularity. That's it. it doesn't tell us all the properties and inner workings of it in any accurate detail. For instance, I ask you how photosynthesis works in plants. You'd probably repsond that the plants absorb sunlight using chlorophyl, and use the captured energy to power the plant. You may even go so far as to say it's used to start a chemical chain reaction that releases energy. Great, that may very well be completely correct. However, without further research and effort you won't understand how the light's energy is transfered, what the chemical reaction is in detail, how effective it is (why doesn't the plant just use light directly?) and a slew of other questions. But you'll still know, and be correct, that plants need sunlight to survive (as a simple experiment will demonstrate). So physics knows a singularity is in a BH...we just don't know the details. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

spayss · Aug 17, 2005

Not just 'condensed' masses. Mass, energy and time. It's not a question of Zero. It's 'zero' means to measure variables and make observations and thus conclusions.

rednet · Aug 18, 2005

Tigerbiten: I think that is an unrealistic explanation that puts the hole in black hole. I think your definition of "Universe" is not the same as mine. With GR anything goes and leaves open multiple dimensions, worm holes, multiple universes, time travel, a geocentric universe, etc. I refer to physics in the realistic physical universe, not one with endless possibilities. I guess I am not a supporter of SR or GR and want to understand why it is used to explain the unexplained when it is the cause of more unexplainable scenarios. Saiph: I can relate to your explanation better but physics doesn't predict the singularity, it just can't explain it. I am not questioning physics as I believe it "should" be true in any part of the Universe. What I am having trouble with is the process of coming up with an explanation that falls short of fully explaining the details. Why consider that this unexplainable explanation is the best one to describe what is going on when there may be others to peruse. It just seems like going down a dead end street. Spay: Time cannot be condensed, it is not a physical property. It is only "thought" to share emptiness where mass and energy can move through it. I don't quite understand what you mean by zero=conclusions. I think zero means nothingness, nothing to measure, nothing to see, nothing to conclude. We see an observation, i.e. A black hole, we try to measure it with what little data we can attain, we consult current accepted theory, then we develop a conclusion not fully explained. What went wrong in this scenario? Was it our perception of said event? Was it the data we extrapolated by our measuring techniques? Was it our current theory? If we come up empty handed in our conclusion then somewhere along the way one or two or all three things got distorted somehow. My question is why not try another way?

cuddlyrocket · Aug 18, 2005

If you can think of a better theory than General Relativity that explains things it cannot and yet doesn't contradict any known experimental and observational evidence, then you can expect your Nobel Prize at the next awards! (You can watch the chagrin on the face of all those theoretical physicists who, despite working on this professionally for years, couldn't come up with the idea themselves.) The flaw of General Relativity - that it cannot explain what happens at a singularity - is well known. It derives from the mathematics. It is suspected that the solution will be a theory that stops such singularities forming (there is no experimental or observational evidence of a singularity at the centre of a black hole.

Saiph · Aug 18, 2005

It's not really an "unexplained" answer, as an incomplete one. You say you're having problems comming up with a system that can produce such an incomplete answer, and I give you: Any work in progress ... A.K.A. Science We aren't done yet. So we don't know all the details. As relativity stands, it points to a very high density region. Mathematically it's a singularity, but that's a "physical impossibility" or improbability at best. As we do not have the tools to go further, we move on, and look back occassionally with our newfound knowledge, hoping to crack it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

contracommando · Aug 18, 2005

I am having trouble understanding this: With special relativity you can predict Big Bang and Black holes, both singularities. BUT physics breaks down at both condensed masses. Now physics is thought to be true in all parts of the universe (except the two noted) so why then believe in something physics can't explain. Why not try to explain it in another way where physics works? Its like saying 1=0 when you already know zero is nothing. (Or are we misled by zero and there isn't such a thing?) Can anyone please explain this? In “the elegant universe” it explains that string theory predicts that singularities don’t actually exist because strings can’t be compressed beyond a certain point without beginning to expand again. So the laws of physics don’t really break down.

le3119 · Aug 18, 2005

Physics explains the goings on outside of an event horizon of a black hole, and what must've occured from the second minute after the BB onward....but not the supposedly mirky quantum soup within the first 60 seconds. But physics explains the nucleosynthesis of H, He, Li and Be isotopes in the first three minutes quite well. Singularities may be described by other dimensions that got "left behind" during inflation (me?).

rednet · Aug 19, 2005

Hey now, I am not saying that I have it figured out.... or that I even want to. I am just trying to understand it all. All of you have very interesting points that I can agree with and that is for the most part that science is not complete... Thanks for all the replies as I do have a better understanding than from what I did before.

Search

relativity and the big bang, the big ZERO

rednet

Guest

Saiph

Guest

spayss

Guest

rednet

Guest

cuddlyrocket

Guest

Saiph

Guest

contracommando

Guest

le3119

Guest

rednet

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page