bump

---

BOINC Wiki . . .

Science Status Page . . .

Black holes and the big bang don't have anything to do with each other. The only reason it sounds like they do is the use of the common word "singularity." I think the confusion stems from the fact that "singularity" is a mathematical term, not a physical one.

It's like in EE when you have a capacitor charge/discharge cycle. The equation is discontinuous in that it has a sharp spike at the final full charge, just before the discharge. In reality, the point of zero slope point of the charge/discharge cycle is continuous. The equation is not accurate but we choose to ingnore it because we really don't care about the continuity of reality or the discontinuity of the equations. We care about the total charge before discharge and the time it takes to get there and back, just like not dealing with the singularity. If we ignore that part, the equations can do a lot even though they are not the true equations. That's where multiple dimensions, complex notation, and breaking the equation into parts comes in. Just because the singularity exists in the equations that accurately describe known phyiscal processes does not mean that it actually is there.

If you really want to get picky about it, everything we do in electronics should be discontinuous, since charge is a discrete quantity. But, that's not really the point here. What happens in the electronics equations is not a singularity. If the variable you're measuring is the charge on one plate of the capacitor, you'll find that it's always finite. And, given that the voltage across the capacitor is proportional to that charge, it too is always finite. If we treat the charge as varying discontinuously (which absolutely no one does), we'll find infinities in the current.

Let me make two comments about this kind of infinity. First, it is actually real. Since current is defined as the rate of change of charge, if you a charged particle of finite charge and put in onto a capacitor plate, at the moment you put it there the rate at which the charge on the plate changes really is infinite, but it's only infinite for an infinitessimal period of time.

Second, this kind of infinity is not a singularity. In this case you have a quantity which dicretely jumps to infinity and then back (described by a Dirac delta function). Singularities are when a continuous variable is infinite valued at a point (things like 1/x at x=0).

With a black hole, the nasty infinities appear at a single point in space at all times; while the big bang singularity screws things up at a single point in time, but everywhere in space.

OIH! I'm not getting sucked into another debate on time where I beleive that time is only a construct of man! That's an interesting observation though. You mention nasty. Like my point in electronics, the infinities exist in the equations but are not actually observed but is ignored for convenience and the lack of the necessity of knowing what happens at that point.

That was sort of my point. When we find singularities, we usually assume there's more going on than our theory can describe. In the case of black holes and the big bang, it's because we're trying to decribe place where quantum gravity is relevant using a classical theory.

However, I should point out that in both cases, most of the defining properties that we think of actually don't arise at the singularity. In the case of the black hole, most such properties really have to do with the existance of the event horizon, which occurs the classical theory is still quite correct.

---

But if we found another "alternate" universe, we would immediately assume that our equations are not complete and that there is some underlying universal law that allows the alternate "governing laws" to be. Thus, it would become part of the universe. That might say more of human nature than definitions.

Unless the theories can account for the alternate state. But assuming the result is vastly different, with a sharp dividing line, it would be far easier (and no less correct IMO) to consider it another universe.

With all of the things here, where do the theories of alternate and mutiverse arise from? How are they born or contained separate?

The first question has many answers to pick from. Whether it is the same need that brought us Heaven, to have something else out there. Or a flight of fancy based off the "universal" laws that don't preclude their existance. How they're born and constained seperate, you've already shown a dislike for my answer, but it would account for the constainment.

---

Still looking for something profound or inspirational to place here.

That defination breaks down if an alternate universe has a different set of governing laws. If we define it slightly differently: the entire celestial cosmos in which the physical laws that govern are the same, IMO we have the same definition of the known universe today with the opening for other universes. Whats more we also have a dividing line, that makes sense if only to me.

But if we found another "alternate" universe, we would immediately assume that our equations are not complete and that there is some underlying universal law that allows the alternate "governing laws" to be. Thus, it would become part of the universe. That might say more of human nature than definitions.

I too have an easier time with the multiverse. If we consider the multiple dimentions, required for most attempts to unify GR and quantium physics, the question of why the 4 we readily accept (3 for space and 1 for time) are expanded large enough to observe becomes critical. How another combination of dimentions would react is unknown, but I cannot imagine the same physical laws would apply. By this, there may not be an accessable before, as the dimention that services time as we know it would be collapsed. A black hole may indeed be another "universe" one we are not be able to see, built out of dimentions that are real but collapsed in our universe.

Another thing that I don't personally believe in is extra dimensions. Spins and rotations within the known 3 are ok but literal extra dimensions are untestable and therefore not good for physical descriptions. The math may work but it's not a ligitimate use of math for the "physical" environment that we know. Case in point:

Black holes and the big bang don't have anything to do with each other. The only reason it sounds like they do is the use of the common word "singularity." I think the confusion stems from the fact that "singularity" is a mathematical term, not a physical one.

It's like in EE when you have a capacitor charge/discharge cycle. The equation is discontinuous in that it has a sharp spike at the final full charge, just before the discharge. In reality, the point of zero slope point of the charge/discharge cycle is continuous. The equation is not accurate but we choose to ingnore it because we really don't care about the continuity of reality or the discontinuity of the equations. We care about the total charge before discharge and the time it takes to get there and back, just like not dealing with the singularity. If we ignore that part, the equations can do a lot even though they are not the true equations. That's where multiple dimensions, complex notation, and breaking the equation into parts comes in. Just because the singularity exists in the equations that accurately describe known phyiscal processes does not mean that it actually is there.

With a black hole, the nasty infinities appear at a single point in space at all times; while the big bang singularity screws things up at a single point in time, but everywhere in space.

OIH! I'm not getting sucked into another debate on time where I beleive that time is only a construct of man! That's an interesting observation though. You mention nasty. Like my point in electronics, the infinities exist in the equations but are not actually observed but is ignored for convenience and the lack of the necessity of knowing what happens at that point.

With all of the things here, where do the theories of alternate and mutiverse arise from? How are they born or contained separate?

---

TEAM
LL

When you define the universe as: the entire celestial cosmos or the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated. The moment you postulate a multiverse of a parallel universe, then that becomes a part of the universe. Because of the structure that I believe in, I beleive in multigalaxies and cannot comprehend a multiverse system because I don't have a firm grasp on a single universe. I would consider a multiverse over a parallel universe. I see a galaxy as what I preceive most believe the universe to be. For example: If you beleive in the big bang (which I don't) then you believe in blackholes (which I don't) because that's where it would have come from: a singularity. Most people beleive that blackholes are at the center of galaxies and if that were true, it would be a possible begining to a new universe. With the definitions and mathematics aside, this is a complicated issue.

Black holes and the big bang don't have anything to do with each other. The only reason it sounds like they do is the use of the common word "singularity." I think the confusion stems from the fact that "singularity" is a mathematical term, not a physical one.

Basically, when a physicist says that something is a "singularity," all he means is that it's a place where the equations give us infinite results, which is something that just can't be physically correct. Generally, we take it to mean that it's a place where the theory (and, hence, the math) that we're using does not apply correctly to the world in the way that we're using it.

You've already cited the two familiar examples of singularities in General Relativity. But, there are singularities in other theories as well. For example, there are rather nasty ones in hydrodynamics (the study of fluid flow), which relate to places where a system cannot be correctly treated as a fluid. In this case, we know what the correct physics is, so the singularities pose no particular problem. In GR, however, we don't know of a more general theory that will let us study the actual physics occurring.

All of this is not, by any means, to say that black holes and the big bang don't exist. After all, most of what we talk about regarding either phenomenon actually happens away from the singularity.

As for black holes and the big bang being different things, we can see that by looking at where in spacetime they screw things up.

With a black hole, the nasty infinities appear at a single point in space at all times; while the big bang singularity screws things up at a single point in time, but everywhere in space.

---

This brings up something I have trouble with. We know the universe is around 14 billion years old, right? So what was here, in this space, before the universe was here? Or did Time itself begin when the universe began? What was here before Time? How can anything be "before" Time, since "before" indicates previous to on a timeline?

Did nothing at all exist, anywhere, 14 billion years ago? And if we travelled back in time 14 billion years, could we not exist? Because not only was there nothingness everywhere, but there was no "everywhere"... there was nowhere, not even space for one person?

It's pretty hard to grasp, but current thinking on the Big Bang is that space itself is expanding. Asking what was 'here' before the expansion becomes rather meaningless, because 'here' was still 'there'. ;) One can certainly ask the metaphysical question, "What is space surrounded by?" or "What lies outside/before the universe?" but science has no answers to offer: even assuming such questions to be physically meaningful, we have absolutely no data to provide evidence on the question—at least none we currently recognize as such.

All science can say for now is that at the earliest time anything was visible, when space cooled enough to become transparent, the universe was very small, and now it's very large and apparently still growing. Whether or not the universe is finite or bounded (two separate questions) is still a mystery; we don't even know whether or not there are more than the four dimensions of spacetime required by general relativity.

---

When you define the universe as: the entire celestial cosmos or the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated. The moment you postulate a multiverse of a parallel universe, then that becomes a part of the universe.

That defination breaks down if an alternate universe has a different set of governing laws. If we define it slightly differently: the entire celestial cosmos in which the physical laws that govern are the same, IMO we have the same definition of the known universe today with the opening for other universes. Whats more we also have a dividing line, that makes sense if only to me.

Because of the structure that I believe in, I beleive in multigalaxies and cannot comprehend a multiverse system because I don't have a firm grasp on a single universe. I would consider a multiverse over a parallel universe. I see a galaxy as what I preceive most believe the universe to be. For example: If you beleive in the big bang (which I don't) then you believe in blackholes (which I don't) because that's where it would have come from: a singularity. Most people beleive that blackholes are at the center of galaxies and if that were true, it would be a possible begining to a new universe. With the definitions and mathematics aside, this is a complicated issue.

I too have an easier time with the multiverse. If we consider the multiple dimentions, required for most attempts to unify GR and quantium physics, the question of why the 4 we readily accept (3 for space and 1 for time) are expanded large enough to observe becomes critical. How another combination of dimentions would react is unknown, but I cannot imagine the same physical laws would apply. By this, there may not be an accessable before, as the dimention that services time as we know it would be collapsed. A black hole may indeed be another "universe" one we are not be able to see, built out of dimentions that are real but collapsed in our universe.

Disclaimer- I am aware that this is totally unreadable. That it jumps around a lot, and offers next to nothing for supporting "evidence". I appologize for that, but at this moment it's the best I can do

---

Still looking for something profound or inspirational to place here.

No one knows what happened at the exact point when the universe was created, they only know that miliseconds after, time AND space were created, how?, what was before?, no one knows, not even the most genius scientist has the answer.

But if you consider Multiverses, this was just another creation, just like new stars, or new planets, there must be something else that we don't know, which "holds" these universes......I think.

But to believe in multiverses you have to think in a"finite" universe, otherwise this theory can´t work.

uf! there is so much to know!!!!

I would like to be an astronomer, or a physicist, he,he...

This brings up something I have trouble with. We know the universe is around 14 billion years old, right? So what was here, in this space, before the universe was here? Or did Time itself begin when the universe began? What was here before Time? How can anything be "before" Time, since "before" indicates previous to on a timeline?

Did nothing at all exist, anywhere, 14 billion years ago? And if we travelled back in time 14 billion years, could we not exist? Because not only was there nothingness everywhere, but there was no "everywhere"... there was nowhere, not even space for one person?

---

When you define the universe as: the entire celestial cosmos or the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated. The moment you postulate a multiverse of a parallel universe, then that becomes a part of the universe. Because of the structure that I believe in, I beleive in multigalaxies and cannot comprehend a multiverse system because I don't have a firm grasp on a single universe. I would consider a multiverse over a parallel universe. I see a galaxy as what I preceive most believe the universe to be. For example: If you beleive in the big bang (which I don't) then you believe in blackholes (which I don't) because that's where it would have come from: a singularity. Most people beleive that blackholes are at the center of galaxies and if that were true, it would be a possible begining to a new universe. With the definitions and mathematics aside, this is a complicated issue.

---

TEAM
LL

Here we have two subjects:

- First of all, Multiuniverses: Do you think our Universe is unique or just an ordinary universe, just like our ordinary galaxy and our common sun?

- And then we have Parallel Universes, is one of those universes having a planet like Earth with people having almost our same life?