Universe started from a cosmic singularity

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cyhan721
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Singularity Universe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of the universe starting from a cosmic singularity, exploring questions about the nature of singularities, their existence in nature, and the implications of various cosmological models. Participants express curiosity about the origins of the singularity and the validity of the theories surrounding it, touching on both theoretical and conceptual aspects of cosmology.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the universe began from a cosmic singularity, questioning how such a singularity could exist and what preceded it.
  • Others argue that singularities may not exist in nature and that they represent breakdowns in mathematical models, suggesting that the concept of a singularity is not universally accepted among scientists.
  • A participant mentions that while General Relativity provides a model that breaks down at t=0, other models may extend beyond this point without encountering singularities.
  • Concerns are raised about the lack of conclusive evidence for the universe being infinitely dense at its beginning, with some suggesting that density does not necessarily imply smallness.
  • One participant challenges the assumption that the scientific community accepts the singularity concept, suggesting that it may be a misconception held by the public rather than a scientific consensus.
  • References to external sources are provided, including a suggestion to read "A Tale of Two Big Bangs" for further clarification on the topic.
  • An analogy is drawn to historical scientific challenges, such as the ultraviolet catastrophe, to illustrate the complexity of the current discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the existence and implications of cosmic singularities, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain without a clear consensus on the topic.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on various cosmological models and the unresolved nature of the assumptions regarding singularities and their implications in the context of the universe's origins.

cyhan721
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
It is a widely accepted theory that the universe started from a cosmic singularity and eventually through many years and processes gave us what we have today. But here's one question I ponder: how did the singularity get there in the first place? We know what the singularity caused, but what caused the singularity? Can something come from essentially nothing? I have been doing much reading lately, but am no expert on cosmology or physics. I am just curious about which physics or mathematical premise can explain this?? Thanks.
 
Space news on Phys.org


cyhan721 said:
It is a widely accepted theory that the universe started from a cosmic singularity...

What is a singularity? Do singularities actually exist in nature? Do you have any online source where a qualified scientist says that the universe started from a singularity?

I don't believe that this is actually a known fact, Cyhan. My understanding is that a singularity is a breakdown in a man-made theory. A place where a given mathematical model fails to compute. That is, it depends on what model you are using and does not necessarily exist in nature. One can use the breakdown point of a theory as a landmark or time-marker, however.

General Relativity gives us a classical math model of the universe called the Friedmann model (or by other names with Friedmann). This classical model breaks down at a certain point as you use it to work back. That breakdown point (call it t=0 if you like) is a good time-marker that people use a lot in discussing early universe stuff.

But there are other models that fit the data equally well (so far) and which don't break down. They run smoothly back to before t=0. In future we may, by making precise tests using more data, be able to eliminate some of these models and narrow down the possibilities. However for now we have no scientific reason to believe that the universe began at a point 13.7 billion years ago. Some models continue back further into the past.

Also there is no conclusive evidence that the state of the universe at the beginning of its current expansion was small. I doubt that any reputable scientist would claim that as a known fact. That state is generally assumed to be very dense, but not necessarily infinitely dense. And simply because it is very dense does not mean it has to be small.

So you may be laboring under some misconceptions about what the professional literature on cosmology actually says (as opposed to popular journalistic accounts.) Please tell us your sources so we can see where you get your ideas from.

I have some links to better-than-average popular accounts in my signature at the bottom of the post----if you wish, try the princeton.edu link and the einstein-online link. If you want links to professional research papers, ask.
 
Last edited:


cyhan721 said:
It is a widely accepted theory that the universe started from a cosmic singularity and eventually through many years and processes gave us what we have today. But here's one question I ponder: how did the singularity get there in the first place? ...

If the scientific community does not accept it, if it is only uninformed members of the public who accept it, then do we have to worry about it? My point is, you have no reason to believe there ever was such a thing as a cosmic singularity in nature, so the question of "how did it get there?" is vacuous. The short answer is "probably it didn't".

Have a look at the page called "A Tale of Two Big Bangs" at einstein-online. This may help clear up the problem. Here's the link:
http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlights/big_bangs/index.html

Sample quote:
"...Whether or not there really was a big bang singularity is a totally different question. Most cosmologists would be very surprised if it turned out that our universe really did have an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitely curved beginning. Commonly, the fact that a model predicts infinite values for some physical quantity indicates that the model is too simple and fails to include some crucial aspect of the real world. In fact, we already know what the usual cosmological models fail to include: At ultra-high densities,..."

Check it out. Easy to read and may clear up a lot for you!
 
Last edited:


An analogous situation in science arose a couple centuries ago. It was called the ultra violet catastrophe. That one was not easily solved either.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K