Radius of initial singularity?
Discussion
Not sure if its been asked before on PH Science! or not, but the theory of the big bang is well established although parts of it I still find hard to comprehend.
My question this time is what is the theoretical radius of the big bang singularity?
Now I think some may reply with a point that space-time, mass, physical laws of measurements etc. did not exist at the initial singularity so therefore I will amend my question.....
What would be the 'relative' radius of the big bang singularity if comparing to objects familiar with human knowledge?
(ie. similar to the size of a marble?, a grain of sand?, a football?, the earth?, the sun?)
My question this time is what is the theoretical radius of the big bang singularity?
Now I think some may reply with a point that space-time, mass, physical laws of measurements etc. did not exist at the initial singularity so therefore I will amend my question.....
What would be the 'relative' radius of the big bang singularity if comparing to objects familiar with human knowledge?
(ie. similar to the size of a marble?, a grain of sand?, a football?, the earth?, the sun?)
I can see why modern science is attempting to run away from the big bang theory and its singularity beginning.
I've just stumbled across this :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3MWRvLndzs&fea...
Suggesting that the big bang doesn't actually mean there was a point singularity.... interesting.
I've just stumbled across this :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3MWRvLndzs&fea...
Suggesting that the big bang doesn't actually mean there was a point singularity.... interesting.
Gandahar said:
A singularity wouldn't have any radius at all as space no longer exists.
So you cannot even ask the "relative" radius either I am afraid as it is like comparing something with a radius to something that is, well obviously smaller. Smaller than any radius you can imagine, because it does not have one.
Why are you wondering about this would be a more pertinent question?
Also modern science does not work on "trying to run away" from something if it is true, no matter how weird. That is the whole point of science, not running away or making things up or wanting to believe something because it looks right. Just ask a quantum physicist.
OK I guess I wondering how to imagine something so small containing all the energy in order to create the mass and dimensions we view/record in modern science today.So you cannot even ask the "relative" radius either I am afraid as it is like comparing something with a radius to something that is, well obviously smaller. Smaller than any radius you can imagine, because it does not have one.
Why are you wondering about this would be a more pertinent question?
Also modern science does not work on "trying to run away" from something if it is true, no matter how weird. That is the whole point of science, not running away or making things up or wanting to believe something because it looks right. Just ask a quantum physicist.
Edited by Gandahar on Wednesday 18th September 14:00
I know the maths and laws of physics break down and its 'just' a theory but if the 'singularity' was maybe not just an infinitesimally small point then I could maybe comprehend it a little easier.
The vid link I posted above that I found after posting the initial question has got me thinking a bit more about it. As it suggests the idea of it being a single point may be missleading? (Is this correct?)
I realise that the term 'run away' may not fall happily with science and it was intended to be used loosely
... but would it be correct to say that as modern maths and laws of physics break down at a certain point in the history of the universe it has lead to other theories such as membrane and multi-verse etc. (ie.moving away from the 'simplistic' big bang theory - in comparison of course) Interesting replies. Thanks guys.
I do struggle to visualize or comprehend the size differences and shear scale of things when looking at the big bang theory.
I understand that a huge amounts of energy are involved in 'mass' in that only 0.6 grams of mass where converted to energy in the first nuclear bomb dropped on Japan in WWII for example.
And that over 99% of an atom is just 'empty space'.
These two acknowledgements can allow my understanding that there is a huge amount of energy in the universe and also the matter that is in the universe can be compressed down to over 99% of its space before protons/neutrons are being forced to occupy the same place.
But then going back in time to when protons and neutrons were not in existence and 'stuff' was even closer together is where my understanding sort of breaks down.
I don't think I fully grasp the idea of what the big bang singularity is about. (Especially after watching that vid I linked earlier).
I do struggle to visualize or comprehend the size differences and shear scale of things when looking at the big bang theory.
I understand that a huge amounts of energy are involved in 'mass' in that only 0.6 grams of mass where converted to energy in the first nuclear bomb dropped on Japan in WWII for example.
And that over 99% of an atom is just 'empty space'.
These two acknowledgements can allow my understanding that there is a huge amount of energy in the universe and also the matter that is in the universe can be compressed down to over 99% of its space before protons/neutrons are being forced to occupy the same place.
But then going back in time to when protons and neutrons were not in existence and 'stuff' was even closer together is where my understanding sort of breaks down.
I don't think I fully grasp the idea of what the big bang singularity is about. (Especially after watching that vid I linked earlier).
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.
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.
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. 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.
To rule out infinity would also in my opinion be a good step forwards.
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.If you are outside; well you can't be outside because outside doesn't exist.
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?
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff