The singularity moment at the beginning of the universe

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of singularities at the beginning of the universe and within black holes, particularly in relation to the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics. Participants explore theoretical implications, current research approaches, and the challenges of reconciling classical and quantum physics in extreme conditions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question how the concentration of the universe at a single point aligns with the uncertainty principle, suggesting a potential conflict.
  • Others argue that singularities indicate a need for a more comprehensive theory that integrates quantum mechanics with general relativity.
  • It is noted that current research in quantum cosmology is exploring various models that avoid singularity breakdown by using quantized equations.
  • Participants mention that gravity may behave differently at extreme densities, potentially acting repulsively rather than attractively.
  • Some models in quantum cosmology reportedly match observational data as well as classical models without leading to infinite density points.
  • There is a caution expressed regarding the acceptance of new models until they can predict observable phenomena that differ from classical models.
  • Resources such as the Stanford database of quantum cosmology papers and articles from Scientific American are suggested for further exploration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the implications of singularities and the validity of quantum cosmology models. There is no consensus on the resolution of these issues, and the discussion remains open with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding singularities and the dependence on evolving definitions and models in quantum cosmology. The complexities of integrating quantum mechanics with general relativity are acknowledged, with ongoing research still in its infancy.

  • #31
Chalnoth said:
Flatness? That was expected by most cosmologists, due to inflation. The recent accelerated expansion may indicate that we don't know how gravity behaves on very large scales. Or it may indicate that we don't know all of what makes up the universe. Currently there's not enough evidence to tell either way, and it would be foolish to jump too hard on one possibility.


Pair production is not something that falls under the purvey of GR. Why should it explain this?

Pair production is a 'side-effect' of a gravitational field (it is actually the cause of the gravitational field). If you knew the mechanism of gravity then this is easily explainable. GR can't explain it because it doesn't really have a 'mechanism' for gravity -- only a space-time warp. Its the association of this so called 'anti-matter cloud' and intense gravitational fields that indicates something missing in GR. (Note, I predicted this first as a graduate student in physics in 1975).
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
Rymer said:
Pair production is a 'side-effect' of a gravitational field (it is actually the cause of the gravitational field). If you knew the mechanism of gravity then this is easily explainable. GR can't explain it because it doesn't really have a 'mechanism' for gravity -- only a space-time warp. Its the association of this so called 'anti-matter cloud' and intense gravitational fields that indicates something missing in GR. (Note, I predicted this first as a graduate student in physics in 1975).
Seems like you've gone off the deep end there. There is no evidence for any such thing being an accurate description of how the world works.
 
  • #33
Chalnoth said:
Seems like you've gone off the deep end there. There is no evidence for any such thing being an accurate description of how the world works.

How do you know if you reject it out of hand. See other plots -- the theory line is based on this derivation. No data-fitting.

Last post on this thread.
 
  • #34
Rymer said:
How do you know if you reject it out of hand. See other plots -- the theory line is based on this derivation. No data-fitting.

Last post on this thread.
I'm not saying I'm rejecting it out of hand. I'm saying you're going much, much too far by saying, "This is how gravity works." I'm sorry, but that statement is completely and utterly unwarranted, given that currently we have no confirmed theory of gravity beyond General Relativity.
 
  • #35
Rymer said:
How does GR explain the clouds of pair production seen around/near extremely massive objects of the Milky Way galactic core areas?

What "clouds clouds of pair production seen around/near extremely massive objects of the Milky Way galactic core areas?" Give a reference published in a mainstream, reputable journal/text, as required by the Physics Forums rules.
 
  • #36
George Jones said:
What "clouds clouds of pair production seen around/near extremely massive objects of the Milky Way galactic core areas?" Give a reference published in a mainstream, reputable journal/text, as required by the Physics Forums rules.

Been several -- latest was is January 2008 -- http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/antimatter_binary.html

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Large-Antimatter-Cloud-Discovered-in-Galactic-Core-75831.shtml

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=1667

Still looking for the reported Nature article.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K