# Quantum Singularities?

1. Jan 26, 2005

### !Live_4Ever!

Well as you guys may know, I watch a lot of Star Trek. In the shows, it often referres a Black Hole as a Quantum Singularity. Are these phenomenons actually true and exist or did the Star Trek proudcers use that terminology to make an extra "nerdy" feeling into the show?

Well, I so far know that Singularity means a center or a vortex in a Black hole with infinite mass but 0 volume. but I Have no idea with Quantum Singularities..

Any ideas?

2. Jan 26, 2005

### Grogs

Actually, I would define a singularity as an object with mass, but no volume. The mass won't be infinite, just the sum of whatever has fallen into the black hole. A black hole with the mass of the sun would have no more gravitational pull than the sun does now. Only if you got very, very close to it (within a few tens of kilometers) would it affect you any differently (gravitationally) than the sun does.

3. Jan 26, 2005

### JesseM

The Big Bang singularity in a flat or open universe would have an undefined volume rather than zero volume, I think. Maybe "infinite density" is the best way of thinking about it.

And "quantum singularity" is just technobabble, I think. To deal with singularities using quantum physics you'd need a theory of quantum gravity, and besides the fact that we don't have one yet, I think all the candidates for a future theory of quantum gravity, like string theory and loop quantum gravity, would predict that there are no singularities in the first place (or at least seem to lean in that direction, if they aren't developed enough to make a definite 'prediction' about this yet).

4. Jan 26, 2005

### mtong

A mathematical singularity is predicted by General Relativity, which may account for/ predict a black hole. There are also observation of galaxies orbiting apparently nothing......which may be a black hole.

PS: A mathematical singularity would be something like 1/0

5. Jan 27, 2005

### marley.wannabee

or E=x ?
where x is a real number

6. Dec 3, 2010

### MoonlitFractl

O_O~!!!

If you imagine a quantum feild, the dots and rings of percived existance all focalizing from a center dot, much like a puddle and use that as your "plane of observation", and if the whole universe was that quantum puddle, for example, gravity, all events of the gravitational result are quantum, than wouldn't mean that singularity be the finite infinty of existance in your perception?

the "E=x" wouldn't that mean energy equals "x", and "x" being all that is unknown, than the fact time is relitive to the observer, saying like, if you and your friend are standing side by side in a hallway, and a THIRD such is occuring, at the end of the hallway, some one is lifting a hat and the first person from the two of you to correctly state what that thing is "the winner" yet, since all the way down the hall, you and your friend cannot move, only see, (and say you both had perfect vison etc, lighting was perfect,etc, you and your friend had identical intelegence, and both of you can speak at identical speeds and think at identical speeds and both of your brain waves are so well insycronate you can't effect each other) if the "x" is the object, than, due to the faintest property of time disorting who sees and says the object first will feel the pereptionary singularity. yet only for an instant, as soon as the object is in clear view, the friend will state it as such as well.

Where in perception, it would feel quite honestly "E=x" but ONLY FOR THE INSTANT. For as the next instant, the friend would state the same.

This would also apply at the atomic level, and the famous "F=MA" simply that, you cannot see the electrons moving and they react constantly. And "the energy equals unknown". yet, from the perciver of the quantum enviorment, it appears the ball rolled, or the apple fell from tree. So,

as to the quantum singularities, weather pecrvived in the quantum feild, or the perception that we state to exist, means that, the quantum singularity would be the constant, logicly. And all the way back to the puddle, the constant that the droplet that went into the puddle, is already the constant. leaving to say that every reaction is possibly the reaction of a wormhole, and or, time itself?

7. Dec 5, 2010

### julianC

Hello

If we look at ultra dense nuclear matter. Compaction is how many atoms can fit into one.

Neutron matter having compaction of 10^17

Quark matter composites ranging from 10^18 to 10 ^25

Than a range of basic particles up to axion/anion particles with 10^35.

The finite compaction of what ever particle gives us a finite volumn and mass.

From this we can try to understand the dynamics of the mass particularly scalar field theory.

8. Dec 6, 2010

### MoonlitFractl

wait, so like "how many atoms can fit into a single atom.....? are you saying in the obvious sense that an atom is a 4D object and and only a finite such can fit into another atom and by going over that amount you might have an unstable 5D particle??, in other words, a radioactive element by human perception?" Because I don't know about scalar theory and what I just described in the "E=x" is completely observable from any point in reality. Basically, it's an expansion of "F=ma" and a deeper unwinding inside of the black holes and the nature of their destruction. Quite literally, it's like the magnifying glass of a fluxing perception.

9. Dec 7, 2010

### julianC

Hello

If you could imagine our solar system, the size of the sun and the size of Pluto.

How many Sun's can fit in to our solar system? and you would have compaction for Neutron matter and thus a Neutron Star.

Go one step further how many Plutos can fit?

Ultra dense Nuclear matter is not a new concept. Mainstream science has several theories to the outcome.

Please do not take my word for it, research a bit on NASA ADS or arXiv, thats what I was advised to do and I found it to be informative.

As for 3D, 4D; 5D ,,,,,,12D and so on that is a bit complicated and missunderstood.

10. Dec 7, 2010

### MoonlitFractl

Uh, well, I was just saying about the f=ma expansion, (or in other words the "simplification" of it) and the dimensions described are stated like "L,W,H, (1-3), T, (4), and fifth dimensional just being the perceived movement of the first four. (understandably, if you were looking at a source, it may appear radioactive)

But as to the "how many sun's can fit into our solar system" does that reference Pluto's orbit as a "wall" to how many sun's can fit inside of it's orbit? Are you referencing to the extension of the ort cloud? Kinda like "how many marbles can fit into a sack?" Because that's what it seems to sound like. And such very ratio, is perfectly equivalent to something else. Much like describing a contained fractal. Which in actuality, is bound by perception.

11. Dec 8, 2010

### julianC

I'm trying to understand your point.

12. Dec 8, 2010

### MoonlitFractl

I mean, well for the 5D thing, lets say I had a piece of uranium, and it let go of an alpha particle. If the alpha particle leaving the uranium came from a specific point, than if you address the dimensions perceived, and 5D being the movement of a 4D such, than that alpha particle would behave as the 5D such.

But as to the "how many suns can fit into the solar system" what are the described bounds of the solar system you describe?? Is it Pluto's orbit?? (which needs to be taken into account as a differential due of Neptune's gravity) and then is it the oort cloud described at the edges the edges of the solar system? And then itself is bound the perceptional limits of the oort cloud and or, the orbit of pluto.

13. Dec 8, 2010

### julianC

Hello

The bounds are not as important as the concept, you could take it to the outer limits of the solar system if you wish. Do the maths and let me know how many times a Sun can fit into what ever.

14. Dec 8, 2010

### MoonlitFractl

ohhhk. Now I see what you're getting at. (sorry for the mass confusion, it's just I have an intense mental thought process with the physical universe and taking relativity into account.)
So, try to find out how many of our star's, our sun's, in a relativistic distance of itself and see how many can fit into the solar system. (nods hopefully) Also being deterministic of the area chosen. (sorry again, but I have a really fluxing mind, I just try to get all my facts as clear as possible down b4 anything else). Got it, I'll look for relativistic ratios.

15. Dec 8, 2010

### MoonlitFractl

GAH... SO A SCALAR IN A PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT IS BASICALLY AN INFINXFLUXTRIX IN PERCEPTION?! (infinite-x-flux-matrix) GAHH.. IF I'M CORRECT, I'VE BEEN THEORIZING THAT AND SCHIZOPHRENIA IN PERCEPTION FOR ABOUT A WEEK NOW, IT'S WHERE I DERIVED E=X...
o_o.... it's basically like drawing a bunch of wavy lines and and another set of wavy lines to create a "fluxed" matrix. And the "x" is derived from the fact all the points are unknown but known as well yet the fact they are known is due to the fact they go on forever. And the fact they have a differential value to a matrix due to the fact there are lines and a select value of the number of lines in perception. It's almost stupid. An artist can tell you the same thing usually but in all circumstances, it would seem better to analyze the out cult realms of science to use it. Really, if I'm correct, than this theory seems to be calling to FMA, the use of circles for "portals" and the extensive descriptions in "supernatural" events. Futher, things like this seem to be able to prove ghosts and such, really, it's like a "firecracker theory" if I'm right..

Last edited: Dec 8, 2010
16. Dec 9, 2010

### julianC

The following link is meant to be as informative and that resarch is at its early phases.

Regarless the science behind it has merit.

The definition of a soliton wave goes back over 120 years. A stable wave that goes unchanged until a phase change occurs.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.1068
BPS solitons in Lifgarbagez field theories

Authors: Archil Kobakhidze, Jayne E. Thompson, Raymond R. Volkas
(Submitted on 6 Oct 2010 (v1), last revised 15 Oct 2010 (this version, v2))

BPS solitons in Lifgarbagez field theories
Authors: Archil Kobakhidze, Jayne E. Thompson, Raymond R. Volkas
(Submitted on 6 Oct 2010 (v1), last revised 15 Oct 2010 (this version, v2))
Abstract: Lorentz-invariant scalar field theories in d+1 dimensions with second-order derivative terms are unable to support static soliton solutions that are both finite in energy and stable for d>2, a result known as Derrick's theorem. Lifgarbagez theories, which introduce higher-order spatial derivatives, need not obey Derrick's theorem. We construct stable, finite-energy, static soliton solutions in Lifgarbagez scalar field theories in 3+1 dimensions with dynamical critical exponent z=2. We exhibit three generic types: non-topological point defects, topological point defects, and topological strings. We focus mainly on Lifgarbagez theories that are defined through a superpotential and admit BPS solutions. These kinds of theories are the bosonic sectors of supersymmetric theories derived from the stochastic dynamics of a scalar field theory in one higher dimension. If nature obeys a Lifgarbagez field theory in the ultraviolet, then the novel topological defects discussed here may exist as relics from the early universe. Their discovery would prove that standard field theory breaks down at short distance scales.

Last edited: Dec 9, 2010
17. Dec 9, 2010

### MoonlitFractl

0_0...... "Their discovery would prove that standard field theory breaks down at short distance scales."

the "how" matter can become light in the physical extent, I think... it would complete enstien's e=mc sq.

shiza... it begins to remind me of Doc's theoretical flux capacitor as a tangible object.... o_o.......

Last edited: Dec 9, 2010
18. Dec 10, 2010

### julianC

Hello

If the papers that I'm posting are of no interest to you, please let me know and I will stop posting the links.

On the topic of compaction, this link may be of interest.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.4952
Self-Compactifying Gravity

Authors: Beyhan Pulice, Sukru Hanif Tanyildizi
(Submitted on 24 Sep 2010 (v1), last revised 1 Oct 2010 (this version, v2))

Abstract: We study the self-compactification of extra dimensions via higher curvature gravity, f(R), where f(R) is the generic function of the Ricci scalar R. First, we reduce f(R) theory to a scalar-tensor theory by a conformal transformation. Then we show that, by a second conformal transformation, this scalar-tensor theory turns out to a nonminimal scalar-tensor theory. We find non-vanishing scalar field configurations that satisfy the conditions on the partially vanishing energy-momentum tensor and the equations of motion of the nonminimal scalar-tensor theory. The minimum of the potential changes according to the value of the coupling constant of the scalar field to the curvature scalar. When the minimum is at zero for a vanishing scalar field, the entire spacetime is flat. When the minimum is at a nonzero value for a non-vanishing scalar field value, the extra space is compactified. We thus show that a given f(R) theory can self-compactify the extra dimensions.