Shane Kennedy
- 52
- 12
Is there such a thing as pure, formless, energy ? If there is, could that have been what existed before the Big Bang ?
The discussion revolves around the nature of the big bang singularity, particularly questioning whether it is accurately described as "infinitely dense." Participants explore the implications of singularities in cosmology, the relationship between density and size, and the limitations of current theories, including General Relativity and quantum gravity.
Participants exhibit a range of views on the nature of singularities, with no consensus reached on whether they should be considered artifacts of mathematical models or significant features of cosmological theories. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of singularities and their role in the understanding of the universe's origins.
Limitations in the discussion include the dependence on current theoretical frameworks, the unresolved nature of quantum gravity, and the ambiguity surrounding the definitions of terms like "singularity" and "pre-universe."
No. Energy is a property, not something concrete that can exist by itself.Shane Kennedy said:Is there such a thing as pure, formless, energy ?
No, because again, such a thing doesn't exist.If there is, could that have been what existed before the Big Bang ?
According to current theory.phinds said:No. Energy is a property, not something concrete that can exist by itself. No, because again, such a thing doesn't exist.
Shane Kennedy said:According to current theory.
Shane Kennedy said:I suggest that mass is a property too.
What could have "seeded" the Big BangPeterDonis said:As well as all current evidence.
For some definitions of the term "mass", yes, this is correct.
What does any of this have to do with the topic of this thread?
Shane Kennedy said:What could have "seeded" the Big Bang