Radius of initial singularity?

[MiseryStreak]

I think he got pissed off with all the wieners trying to argue with him on subjects they knew nothing about. I don't really bother with the Science! forum anymore, he made it fascinating for me and taught me things I hadn't read in books or online elsewhere. I liked his candid manner and didn't care if he was occasionally rude.

Mathematical proofs are proofs by the way. That's why they're named so, if they don't demonstrate that a statement is true in all cases they are a conjecture. There are currently no proofs concerning singularities. It's science that's all theories.

This was written on April 1st:
http://www.singularityweblog.com/a-mathematical-pr...

[hairykrishna]

MiseryStreak said:

I think he got pissed off with all the wieners trying to argue with him on subjects they knew nothing about.

Maybe he got bored of arguing with people who knew that he was often talking bks? The "over complication of science thread" sticks in my mind.

[davepoth]

hairykrishna said:

MiseryStreak said:

I think he got pissed off with all the wieners trying to argue with him on subjects they knew nothing about.

Maybe he got bored of arguing with people who knew that he was often talking bks? The "over complication of science thread" sticks in my mind.

His opinion that "We know pretty much everything there is to know" was particularly...interesting.

[AJI]

As a theoretical mathmetician he was able though, I thought, to be able to prove his opinion and counter other's comments if they were on the wrong path, so to speak.

I think science should always be open to allow different angles of approach on the multitude complex nature of the universe. If of course said angles can be displayed to have substantial demonstration of accuracy through maths or other credible evidence.

[Simpo Two]

Programme on the singularity on Quest (Freeview 38) now.

[Catatafish]

AJI said:

As a theoretical mathmetician he was able though, I thought, to be able to prove his opinion and counter other's comments if they were on the wrong path, so to speak.

I think science should always be open to allow different angles of approach on the multitude complex nature of the universe. If of course said angles can be displayed to have substantial demonstration of accuracy through maths or other credible evidence.

That maybe the case, but when he waded into other topics, there were more than a couple of mistakes which he paraded as facts.

There was an article in NS recently proposing that our mathematics could be fundamentally flawed, in that we persist in considering infinity to be a real thing. If you assume that infinities don't occur in nature, then singularities need to be booted out and perhaps some progress can be made defining black holes, quantum gravity, spacetime etc.

[AJI]

Catatafish said:

That maybe the case, but when he waded into other topics, there were more than a couple of mistakes which he paraded as facts.

There was an article in NS recently proposing that our mathematics could be fundamentally flawed, in that we persist in considering infinity to be a real thing. If you assume that infinities don't occur in nature, then singularities need to be booted out and perhaps some progress can be made defining black holes, quantum gravity, spacetime etc.

That is a good point about the concept of infinity....my degree background was in engineering and therefore heavy on mathematics, so I have a general interest in maths and science as a whole. I have always wondered why infinity is so often used and then the resultant maths not being 100% 'clear' in definition.
To rule out infinity would also in my opinion be a good step forwards.

[d0ntp4n1c]

The thing is that there's no reason to think that the universe is necessarily comprehendable (if that's a word) by us. So just because you can't imagine something it doesn't mean it can't be true. Just ask quantum physicists - you have to "do the math" and not melt your brain trying to make it meaningful.

The universe might be infinite, which would give rise to all kinds of weird stuff, like there being an infinite number of planets with an infinite number of me's typing this same response but slightly differently. Or it might not be infinite, but that's kind of weird too, because how did the size get fixed in the first place if it came out of an infinitesimally small singularity?

So to have a go at answering the original question, as far as I understand it, a singularity is where known physics breaks and we can't calculate anything any more (because we get infinities). So it's not a description of anything in particular, and we need some new physics beyond the standard model and relativity to actually work out what is going on.

[Moonhawk]

mu0n said:

Big Bang is just a theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

"Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative."

[Dr John]

If you are inside then it has infinite size; it is, after all, the totality of all existence.
If you are outside; well you can't be outside because outside doesn't exist.

[otolith]

d0ntp4n1c said:

The thing is that there's no reason to think that the universe is necessarily comprehendable (if that's a word) by us.

Breathtakingly arrogant to assume that it is (and amazing that we have accidentally evolved a brain capable of understanding as much as we do).

[AJI]

Dr John said:

If you are inside then it has infinite size; it is, after all, the totality of all existence.
If you are outside; well you can't be outside because outside doesn't exist.

The terminology used when its said the universe is expanding becomes very misleading when used with your statement.
For something to expand (and/or inflate) one would normally imagine something becoming 'bigger' than what it was.
For something to be 'infinite' and then become 'bigger' would render the term 'infinite' useless/meaningless would it not?

[Thorodin]

Infinity is merely a term used to put a name to where knowledge ends. To a fish, the surface of the lake is infinity, although of course it doesn't know it.

[mu0n]

Moonhawk said:

mu0n said:

Big Bang is just a theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

"Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative."

It is still a theory.

[CommanderJameson]

mu0n said:

It is still a theory.

Do you mean "hypothesis"?