I Big Bang Singularity: Was It As "Infinitely Dense" As We Think?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the nature of the Big Bang singularity, questioning whether it truly represents an "infinitely dense" state or if this concept is a byproduct of our current understanding of the universe. Participants explore the implications of density and size, noting that density does not necessarily equate to a small volume and that the universe's expansion does not imply a finite origin point. The singularity is described as a mathematical artifact of General Relativity, which does not incorporate quantum mechanics, leading to the belief that a complete theory of quantum gravity should eliminate singularities. The conversation also touches on the philosophical implications of an infinite universe, debating whether it can change in size or density, ultimately concluding that while density can vary in finite volumes, the concept of size does not apply to an infinite universe. The complexities of these ideas highlight the ongoing challenges in cosmology and the limits of current theoretical frameworks.
  • #31
Is there such a thing as pure, formless, energy ? If there is, could that have been what existed before the Big Bang ?
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
Shane Kennedy said:
Is there such a thing as pure, formless, energy ?
No. Energy is a property, not something concrete that can exist by itself.
If there is, could that have been what existed before the Big Bang ?
No, because again, such a thing doesn't exist.
 
  • #33
phinds said:
No. Energy is a property, not something concrete that can exist by itself. No, because again, such a thing doesn't exist.
According to current theory.

I suggest that mass is a property too.
 
  • #34
Shane Kennedy said:
According to current theory.

As well as all current evidence.

Shane Kennedy said:
I suggest that mass is a property too.

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?
 
  • #35
PeterDonis 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?
What could have "seeded" the Big Bang
 
  • #36
Shane Kennedy said:
What could have "seeded" the Big Bang

Our best current model is that the Big Bang happened at the end of a previous inflation era. But this is still an open topic of research.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
7K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K