When can true singularity take place? Was the big bang the only chance

[baywax]

When can true singularity take place? Was the big bang the only chance for this condition? Do black holes represent a singularity? I would doubt this because a black hole only exists because there is a contrasting environment with which to compare and identify the event.

 

[Maui]

'Singularity' is just an empty label. It's another way of saying "we don't know(yet)", or "we can't know".

Do black holes represent a singularity?

They contain 'something' that is labelled singularity, which has observable, real-world effects. What that 'something' is not known.

 

[baywax]

'Singularity' is just an empty label. It's another way of saying "we don't know(yet)", or "we can't know".





They contain 'something' that is labelled singularity, which has observable, real-world effects. What that 'something' is not known.

Philosophically I will define a "singularity" event as one that no one has observed and that has taken place without any interaction whatsoever with another element. This would mean an event takes place spontaneously and that is in no way part of a reaction or associated with another event or element. So, this would effectively suit your description where "we cannot and or will not know" (paraphrased) because if we observe it it is no longer a "singularity".

This reminds me of "free-associative thought" patterns. The cause of these thoughts are undetermined. They seem to be waiting in the wings whenever there is stimulus acting upon the conscious-awareness. A patient can be shown a picture of a dog and a freely associated thought will fire in their brain that has to do with Al Gore and several rainbows around a 90 ton crane. There are no apparent associations between Al Gore and the other imagery. These neuronal firings could almost be considered singularities but for the fact that they do not exist independent of any other elements and events.

 

[Noja888]

In my humble semi-educated opinion - A singularity requires a new 'teir' of understanding to explain it. Like trying to use classical mechanics to explain quantum mechanics - it just doesn't work!

I would think we need to understand what an 'observer' would see if they could 'view' the universe from the 'outside' to explain a singularity. A tricky prospect.

 

[petm1]

Big bang gives us an outside view of our visible universe, but none of our physical laws work outside, only inside. Big bang that little twist that started our time may have been small in space but because of the inverse nature of time and space still contained all of our time, present to future. A gravitational black hole may be small in space but can not be a true singularity because it does not contain but a small fraction of our visible universe's time.

 

[baywax]

Big bang gives us an outside view of our visible universe, but none of our physical laws work outside, only inside. Big bang that little twist that started our time may have been small in space but because of the inverse nature of time and space still contained all of our time, present to future. A gravitational black hole may be small in space but can not be a true singularity because it does not contain but a small fraction of our visible universe's time.

I guess I can see our whole universe being a singularity but, what the heck is a "whole universe"? I mean, generally speaking, the whole universe would include other universes etc... as in... the entire enchilada. But we have no clue as to whether there are other universes or what is going on beyond the scope of the Hubble. Everything else is speculation. We cannot rely on generalizations based on what we already know... so we don't know if there is a medium in which all the matter ,anti matter, dark matter, dark energy etc... is suspended... we don't know much about this place we call home... do we?

 

[petm1]

I guess I can see our whole universe being a singularity but, what the heck is a "whole universe"?

As an observer myself, I will never see the whole of anything that is something I need touch for.

 

[JaredJames]

They contain 'something' that is labelled singularity, which has observable, real-world effects. What that 'something' is not known.

A black hole is matter compressed into a very small volume. So to say we don't know what it is doesn't quite fit.

We have theories out there which explain black holes, based on observable evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

'Singularity' is just an empty label. It's another way of saying "we don't know(yet)", or "we can't know".

I strongly disagree. I think the definition of singularity is important here:

Definition:

1. singular quality: a singular, exceptional, or unusual quality

2. something unique or unusual: something that is unique, distinctive, or remarkable

3. characteristic: a distinguishing trait

4. astronomy hypothetical point in space: a hypothetical region in space in which gravitational forces cause matter to be infinitely compressed and space and time to become infinitely distorted

[URL]http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861734961/singularity.html[/url

Based on this definition, a black hole is a singularity. It is a point in space and a unique and very distinctive occurrence.

Or do you have a special philosophical definition of singularity that I should be aware of?

 

[Maui]

A black hole is matter compressed into a very small volume. So to say we don't know what it is doesn't quite fit.

I was speaking of singularities, NOT black holes. Singularities and black holes are not the same thing.

We have theories out there which explain black holes, based on observable evidence.

Too bad you haven't read them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

That's a good summery, you shoud read it before referencing it.

I strongly disagree. I think the definition of singularity is important here:


[URL]http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861734961/singularity.html[/url

Based on this definition, a black hole is a singularity. It is a point in space and a unique and very distinctive occurrence.

A black hole is NOT a point in space but a region in space. You are wasting not only my time but everyone's with these sulky remarks.

Or do you have a special philosophical definition of singularity that I should be aware of?

Constant rebellion is part of the process of growing up.

 

[JaredJames]

I was speaking of singularities, NOT black holes. Singularities and black holes are not the same thing.

You said black holes contain singularities. You said we don't know what the singularity is. The singularity is the super compressed matter which creates the black hole.

A black hole is NOT a point in space but a region in space. You are wasting not only my time but everyone's with these sulky remarks.

Yes, a black hole is a region of space, I'm aware of that. The singularity is what creates the black hole region. My wording was out somewhat.

However, I would point out definition 4 of a singularity:

4. astronomy hypothetical point in space: a hypothetical region in space in which gravitational forces cause matter to be infinitely compressed and space and time to become infinitely distorted

 

[Maui]

You said black holes contain singularities. You said we don't know what the singularity is. The singularity is the super compressed matter which creates the black hole.

Yes, nobody at this point knows wat a singularity is. Some black holes are larger than the Milky Way and have larger mass than all the matter in our galaxy. Their singularities(the size of a proton or less) are where our laws and human logic break down. Hence, what they are is COMPLETELY unknown.

EDIT: For the record, a reasonable philosophical argument based on Bell's theorem can be made that the universe is a singularity.

 

[JaredJames]

Yes, nobody at this point knows wat a singularity is. Some black holes are larger than the Milky Way and have larger mass than all the matter in our galaxy. Their singularities are where our laws and human logic break down. Hence, what they are is COMPLETELY unknown.

Please do share a source for this one.

The largest black holes I'm aware of are the super-massive ones they say are at the centre of the galaxies.

 

[JaredJames]

Wow, just found it.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/03/18-billion-suns.html

Quite amazed.

Previous statement retracted.

Although I'm yet to find another source containing the actual size in comparison to a galaxy.

 

[Maui]

Please do share a source for this one.

The largest black holes I'm aware of are the super-massive ones they say are at the centre of the galaxies.

Here is the largest as of 2008 that weighs as much as a small galaxy( and our quest for super massive black holes is only just beginning):

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13166-biggest-black-hole-in-the-cosmos-discovered.html

 

[JaredJames]

Here is the largest as of 2008 that weighs as much as a small galaxy( and our quest for super massive black holes is only just beginning):

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13166-biggest-black-hole-in-the-cosmos-discovered.html

That's friggin' huge. I'm impressed.

 

[Maui]

Wow, just found it.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/03/18-billion-suns.html

Quite amazed.

Previous statement retracted.

Although I'm yet to find another source containing the actual size in comparison to a galaxy.

Yes, that's the one i had in mind. Black holes will potentially bring a more thourough understaning of matter, time and space one day.

A singularity is an "object" for quantum gravity, and as such is of particular interest to everyone.

 

[JaredJames]

Yes, that's the one i had in mind. Black holes will potentially bring a more thourough understaning of matter, time and space one day.

A singularity is an "object" for quantum gravity, and as such is of particular interest to everyone.

But you say we don't know what it is.

We have explanations of what it is and even in the case of this massive one, general relativity holds true and everything fits our descriptions.

I'm under the impression that the singularity is the actual mass object of the black hole. What do you mean by "Their singularities(the size of a proton or less)"? I've never heard of the matter of a black hole described as being that size.

 

[Maui]

But you say we don't know what it is.

We have explanations of what it is and even in the case of this massive one, general relativity holds true and everything fits our descriptions.

We have an operational explanation for black holes, not for singularities.

I'm under the impression that the singularity is the actual mass object of the black hole.

A 'singularity' denotes a mathematical condition in which Eintein's field equations show infinities. No human being understands infinities and as such the only hope is to avoid and if possible to remove them from physics. Hence, no human being understands singularities and the reason why i stated in my first post - 'Singularity' is just an empty label. It's another way of saying "we don't know(yet)", or "we can't know".

.

What do you mean by "Their singularities(the size of a proton or less)"? I've never heard of the matter of a black hole described as being that size.

We don't know this, nobody knows what and if a physical size can be attributed to a singularity. The "matter" of a black hole is of an infinite density and the concept of size makes as much sense as the concept of size for point particles. There can be, but there is no practical way to know or infer about it. For the record, the size of the 'singularity' can be 1 foot and the infinities we get might be a defect of the Theory(GR). GR is not a TOE and so fails at certain regimens(e.g. small scales).

 

[baywax]

A singularity is an "object" for quantum gravity, and as such is of particular interest to everyone.

I'm happy to see more definitions of singularity popping up here. That's helping me understand what the hell I'm talking about.

Here's another person's definition of singularity from Stanford U

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-singularities/"

Singularities and Black Holes
First published Mon Jun 29, 2009
A spacetime singularity is a breakdown in the geometrical structure of space and time. It is a topic of ongoing physical and philosophical research to clarify both the nature and significance of such pathologies. Because it is the fundamental geometry that is breaking down, spacetime singularities are often viewed as an end, or “edge,” of spacetime itself. However, numerous difficulties arise when one tries to make this notion more precise.

Our current theory of spacetime, general relativity, not only allows for singularities, but tells us that they are unavoidable in some real-life circumstances. Thus we apparently need to understand the ontology of singularities if we are to grasp the nature of space and time in the actual universe. The possibility of singularities also carries potentially important implications for the issues of physical determinism and the scope of physical laws.

So this is why considering the big bang or perhaps viewing the entire universe as "singularities" may be a correct view in that both conditions are at the end or beginning of space time itself.

However, I disagree with the conjunction of space/time because time is such a blatantly anthropocentric projection onto the nature of change and motion (work).

 

[ZapperZ]

When discussing something like this, especially in the Philosophy forum, is it common practice to totally and completely ignore the mathematical definition and treatment of singularity? I mean, there are whole books written on this, and anyone who has taken complex calculus knows this is dealt with all the time (example: Cauchy-Riemann, Residue theorem, etc.)

Furthermore, is it automatic that the word "singularity" always implies gravitational singularity? That's like saying "tissue paper" automatically means Kleenex. Is the van Hove singularity in condensed matter physics not a true singularity? Is the singularity in the BCS density of states not a true singularity?

Zz.

 

[petm1]

In my mind singularities are everywhere, at least what we see of them from the outside. Mass being the center connection of time to our common past, big bang. I do not see them as black holes, but as the massive dilating parts of the white hole that also started with big bang.

 

[ZapperZ]

In my mind singularities are everywhere, at least what we see of them from the outside.

You see singularities with your eyes, or better yet, with your mind? Wow! You have amazing powers!

Mass being the center connection of time to our common past, big bang.

This is word salad. It has no meaning.

I do not see them as black holes, but as the massive dilating parts of the white hole that also started with big bang.

And this one is pure garbage.

Zz.

 

[petm1]

Is a photon not singular in time?

 

[ZapperZ]

Is a photon not singular in time?

Look, a "singularity" is well defined only when there's a mathematical description. If I tell you that in the phonon density of states that you use in your semiconductor, there are several singularities, would you even have known, or noticed? If we do not have a quantitative description of black holes and gravitational objects, would you even have known that such-and-such is a singularity?

So how is a photon "singular in time"? Which part of Special Relativity did you pull this out from?

Zz.

 

[baywax]

When discussing something like this, especially in the Philosophy forum, is it common practice to totally and completely ignore the mathematical definition and treatment of singularity? I mean, there are whole books written on this, and anyone who has taken complex calculus knows this is dealt with all the time (example: Cauchy-Riemann, Residue theorem, etc.)

Furthermore, is it automatic that the word "singularity" always implies gravitational singularity? That's like saying "tissue paper" automatically means Kleenex. Is the van Hove singularity in condensed matter physics not a true singularity? Is the singularity in the BCS density of states not a true singularity?

Zz.

Thank you Zapper "Zed" (Canadian for "Zee") You have brought yet another one of my mistaken perceptions of physics terms to its knees... and I appreciate you doing so... because this corrects my mistake somewhat. I'll have to look further into the origin of the word "singularity" and its uses... thanks again! Bwax.

Here's a start:

From the Oxford English Dictionary

singularity |ˌsi ng gyəˈlaritē|
noun ( pl. -ties)
1 the state, fact, quality, or condition of being singular : he believed in the singularity of all cultures.
• a peculiarity or odd trait.
2 Physics & Mathematics a point at which a function takes an infinite value, esp. in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole.
3 ( the Singularity) a point in the future (often set at or around 2030 A.D.) beyond which overwhelming technical changes (especially the development of superhuman artificial intelligence) make reliable predictions impossible.
ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French singularite, from late Latin singularitas, from singularis ‘unique’ (see singular ).

Thesaurus
singularity
noun
1 the singularity of their concerns uniqueness, distinctiveness.
2 his singularities idiosyncrasy, quirk, foible, peculiarity, oddity, eccentricity.

• Has anyone been to the centre of a black hole? Was the matter there "infinitely dense" and if so how do you detect "infinite density"?

 

[ZapperZ]

Thank you Zapper "Zed" (Canadian for "Zee") You have brought yet another one of my mistaken perceptions of physics terms to its knees... and I appreciate you doing so... because this corrects my mistake somewhat. I'll have to look further into the origin of the word "singularity" and its uses... thanks again! Bwax.

Here's a start:

From the Oxford English Dictionary

And when, pray tell, will you start looking at the mathematical definition of such a thing. I believe we have exhausted the pedestrian understanding of singularity already. But somehow, the mathematical definition of it has been totally ignored!

Quoting from Oxford English Dictionary does nothing to rectify this. If you think physics and mathematics can be understood simply by reading definition in a "dictionary", it explained why you think physics can be discussed in a philosophy forum.

• Has anyone been to the centre of a black hole? Was the matter there "infinitely dense" and if so how do you detect "infinite density"?

Replace that with "electrons", and reformulate that question into how one could detect, say, superconductivity, and we can see how silly your question becomes. You equate your hand-waving understanding of physical phenomena as being the standard, full understanding of them, without resorting to the actual physical description which involves a mathematical description.

If you were to ask that question in, say, the Astrophysics forum, you would have been given two types of answers: (i) the actual physics of black holes and all the consequences of such physics and (ii) a request to do a search to see the numerous threads that have already tackled such questions. In other words, this has been answered already!

But you wouldn't know that, because you are looking for hand-waving discussion in the Philosophy forum.

Zz.

 

[baywax]

And when, pray tell, will you start looking at the mathematical definition of such a thing. I believe we have exhausted the pedestrian understanding of singularity already. But somehow, the mathematical definition of it has been totally ignored!

Quoting from Oxford English Dictionary does nothing to rectify this. If you think physics and mathematics can be understood simply by reading definition in a "dictionary", it explained why you think physics can be discussed in a philosophy forum.



Replace that with "electrons", and reformulate that question into how one could detect, say, superconductivity, and we can see how silly your question becomes. You equate your hand-waving understanding of physical phenomena as being the standard, full understanding of them, without resorting to the actual physical description which involves a mathematical description.

If you were to ask that question in, say, the Astrophysics forum, you would have been given two types of answers: (i) the actual physics of black holes and all the consequences of such physics and (ii) a request to do a search to see the numerous threads that have already tackled such questions. In other words, this has been answered already!

But you wouldn't know that, because you are looking for hand-waving discussion in the Philosophy forum.

Zz.

I am not looking for a "hand waving" discussion however, I seem to have gotten one anyway.

I have already posted a link to a sound philosophical discussion on singularity... it was absolutely amazing to see how this group has interwoven pure physics and math into their philosophical discussion... here some more of its content... very cool...

1.2 Boundary Constructions

We have seen that one runs into difficulties if one tries to define singularities as “things” that have “locations,” and how some of those difficulties can be avoided by defining singular spacetimes in terms of incomplete paths. However, it would be desirable for many reasons to have a characterization of a spacetime singularity in general relativity as, in some sense or other, a spatiotemporal “place.” If one had a precise characterization of a singularity in terms of points that are missing from spacetime, one might then be able to analyze the structure of the spacetime “locally at the singularity,” instead of taking troublesome, perhaps ill-defined limits along incomplete paths. Many discussions of singular structure in relativistic spacetimes, therefore, are premised on the idea that a singularity represents a point or set of points that in some sense or other is “missing” from the spacetime manifold, that spacetime has a “hole” or “tear” in it that we could fill in or patch by the appendage of a boundary to it.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-singularities/

But, Zapper... I totally agree that we need to have EVERY definition of a singularity to properly understand the philosophy and the existence of a singularity... so I'm posting this link to a definition of singularity with regards to the language of mathematics

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Singularity.html

 

[ZapperZ]

But, Zapper... I totally agree that we need to have EVERY definition of a singularity to properly understand the philosophy and the existence of a singularity... so I'm posting this link to a definition of singularity with regards to the language of mathematics

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Singularity.html

You posted the link, but do you (or the "philosophers" participating in this thread) actually UNDERSTOOD what the stuff covered in that link actually mean? What is covered in that page is covered in WHOLE BOOKS on complex calculus! People spend at least whole semester in college courses trying to understand such a topic. And yet, people here seem to think they've understood what a "singularity" means and gain the ability to talk about them freely, and based on what?

Just because you found a web link, and able to produce it here, tells me nothing about your ability to understand the content.

Also, and this is just a suggestion, whenever someone wants to talk about "Space time singularity", please mention that explicitly. It is freaking annoying that you think that "singularity" automatically implies that. It doesn't! That's like saying a fruit is automatically an apple, which is utterly silly.

Zz.

 

[ThomasT]

You posted the link, but do you (or the "philosophers" participating in this thread) actually UNDERSTOOD what the stuff covered in that link actually mean? What is covered in that page is covered in WHOLE BOOKS on complex calculus! People spend at least whole semester in college courses trying to understand such a topic. And yet, people here seem to think they've understood what a "singularity" means and gain the ability to talk about them freely, and based on what?

Just because you found a web link, and able to produce it here, tells me nothing about your ability to understand the content.

Also, and this is just a suggestion, whenever someone wants to talk about "Space time singularity", please mention that explicitly. It is freaking annoying that you think that "singularity" automatically implies that. It doesn't! That's like saying a fruit is automatically an apple, which is utterly silly.

Zz.

Is there a generic, scientific meaning associated with the word, 'singularity'?

 

[ZapperZ]

Is there a generic, scientific meaning associated with the word, 'singularity'?

It's a mathematical definition. That's why I keep asking why everything and the kitchen sink were discussed, yet the thing that DEFINES it, i.e. the mathematics, has been totally ignored. It is totally irrational to me to discuss about singularities, when the thing that defines what it is is not even mentioned!

Zz.

 

[ThomasT]

It's a mathematical definition. That's why I keep asking why everything and the kitchen sink were discussed, yet the thing that DEFINES it, i.e. the mathematics, has been totally ignored. It is totally irrational to me to discuss about singularities, when the thing that defines what it is is not even mentioned!

Zz.

Are you ok with the following general definition of the term 'singularity'?

"In mathematics, a singularity is in general a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined, or a point of an exceptional set where it fails to be well-behaved in some particular way, such as differentiability."

The way I've personally used the term is that it refers to the point beyond which mathematical extension or extrapolation can't be done. That is, the term 'singularity' is, necessarily, physically meaningless.

 

[ZapperZ]

Are you ok with the following general definition of the term 'singularity'?

"In mathematics, a singularity is in general a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined, or a point of an exceptional set where it fails to be well-behaved in some particular way, such as differentiability."

The way I've personally used the term is that it refers to the point beyond which mathematical extension or extrapolation can't be done. That is, the term 'singularity' is, necessarily, physically meaningless.

In complex calculus, it is defined as either a value, or a region, in which a function is no analytic.

For example, the function

f(x) = \frac{1}{x}

is analytic everywhere except at x=0.

Now, one would think that's the end of it. If there is all there is, then there's no reason for whole books to be devoted to complex function. In mathematics, 1/x is different than, say, 1/x^2, and different from, say, logarithmic singularity, etc.. etc., even though they all could have poles at x=0.

And not only that, we know how to handle such functions in many cases. We have Residue Theorem, for example, when we have to integrate across such poles.

These, and more, are necessary bits of information for anyone to understand what "singularities" are and their properties. You can't simply pull things out of thin air and start to make hand-waving argument about singularities, or using singularities, without understanding those things first! At some point, people need to pay attention to established knowledge, rather than making things up as one goes along based on some personal opinion! Personal opinion based on ignorance is a waste of time.

Zz.

 

[Maui]

In complex calculus, it is defined as either a value, or a region, in which a function is no analytic.

For example, the function

f(x) = \frac{1}{x}

is analytic everywhere except at x=0.

Now, one would think that's the end of it. If there is all there is, then there's no reason for whole books to be devoted to complex function. In mathematics, 1/x is different than, say, 1/x^2, and different from, say, logarithmic singularity, etc.. etc., even though they all could have poles at x=0.

And not only that, we know how to handle such functions in many cases. We have Residue Theorem, for example, when we have to integrate across such poles.

These, and more, are necessary bits of information for anyone to understand what "singularities" are and their properties.

So what is the physical meaning of a gravitational singularity at the center of a black hole? And what are its 'properties?' ?

Is there already a theory of quantum gravity or was your point entirely different?

 

[ThomasT]

In complex calculus, it is defined as either a value, or a region, in which a function is no analytic.

For example, the function

f(x) = \frac{1}{x}

is analytic everywhere except at x=0.

Now, one would think that's the end of it. If there is all there is, then there's no reason for whole books to be devoted to complex function. In mathematics, 1/x is different than, say, 1/x^2, and different from, say, logarithmic singularity, etc.. etc., even though they all could have poles at x=0.

And not only that, we know how to handle such functions in many cases. We have Residue Theorem, for example, when we have to integrate across such poles.

These, and more, are necessary bits of information for anyone to understand what "singularities" are and their properties. You can't simply pull things out of thin air and start to make hand-waving argument about singularities, or using singularities, without understanding those things first! At some point, people need to pay attention to established knowledge, rather than making things up as one goes along based on some personal opinion! Personal opinion based on ignorance is a waste of time.

Zz.

Ok, there are various mathematical forms which the term 'singularity' refers to. You've, to a large extent, helped answer the OPs question. And enlighted me wrt the scope of this subject as well. Thanks.

 

[ZapperZ]

So what is the physical meaning of a gravitational singularity at the center of a black hole? And what are its 'properties?' ?

Is there already a theory of quantum gravity or was your point entirely different?

What "physical meaning" are you looking for here? I mean, do you also ask for a physical meaning to, say, Coulomb's law?

Do you know the physics of black holes, i.e. beyond just what you read in popscience books? Have you tried asking for a clear understanding of the physics in the Astro forum? Shouldn't THAT be the first step before trying to find the "physical meaning" of something.

Zz.

 

[Maui]

What "physical meaning" are you looking for here? I mean, do you also ask for a physical meaning to, say, Coulomb's law?

Aha, so you do not understand in quantitive terms what a gravitational singularity at the center of a black hole is, but you feel compelled to push your instrumentalism in a philosophy thread?

Do you know the physics of black holes, i.e. beyond just what you read in popscience books? Have you tried asking for a clear understanding of the physics in the Astro forum?

Ad hominems are not a good way to argue. I don't think that at this time even Hawking "understands" the physics of black holes enough to claim so, and you certainly don't either.

I(and probably many others here) don't understand your hate towards poscience books. What's wrong with that? Most of them were written by people way more knowledgeable than you attempting to approach the big philosophical questions from a physicist's viewpoint(even if they don't always manage to get the point across to the whole audience), so why bash them here? Can you offer anything more substantial than instrumentalism?

Shouldn't THAT be the first step before trying to find the "physical meaning" of something.

Zz.

Instrumentalism has never been productive for philosophy or ontology. Would asking the question of gravitational singularities in the Astro forum get "better" personal opinions on this particular question?

 

[Evo]

Aha, so you do not understand in quantitive terms what a gravitational singularity at the center of a black hole is, but you feel compelled to push your instrumentalism in a philosophy thread?

Philosophy here is little more than hand waving by people that don't have a true understanding of the science.

Zz has an understanding of the science. You might want to listen and take advantage of his knowledge.

There will be new rules next month that will require an understanding of the science as well as more structured and defined opening arguments. This forum is way overdue for the new rules. Being a science forum, we will be raising the bar on discussions here.

I think people will appreciate the new higher standards. Stay tuned.

 

[ZapperZ]

Aha, so you do not understand in quantitive terms what a gravitational singularity at the center of a black hole is, but you feel compelled to push your instrumentalism in a philosophy thread?Ad hominems are not a good way to argue. I don't think that at this time even Hawking "understands" the physics of black holes enough to claim so, and you certainly don't either.

I(and probably many others here) don't understand your hate towards poscience books. What's wrong with that? Most of them were written by people way more knowledgeable than you attempting to approach the big philosophical questions from a physicist's viewpoint(even if they don't always manage to get the point across to the whole audience), so why bash them here? Can you offer anything more substantial than instrumentalism?
Instrumentalism has never been productive for philosophy or ontology. Would asking the question of gravitational singularities in the Astro forum get "better" personal opinions on this particular question?

When you talk about an apple, but you actually have NEVER seen one, do you think that is a rational discussion?

So when people talk about "singularity", but they never actually understood the MATHEMATICS of what a singularity is, do you think such a discussion is actually based on valid knowledge? Look at my first post in this thread. I pointed out that in all the discussion that had occurred, not once was there EVER a mention of the mathematical definition of what a singularity is! This is a glaring omission! You won't know what a singularity is without the mathematics, even if it comes up and bites you on the rear end!

And this "understand the quantitative" aspect of a singularity, what is this if it isn't a mathematical description of it? What has been going on here is the hand-waving discussion of singularity based on some pop-science understanding of what it is. Do you think you can actually have a meaningful discussion of it while totally ignorant of the actual physics? Are you people THAT delusional that you think you can talk about something that you have no understanding of?

If you think that you have the ability to understand "in quantitative terms" what a gravitational singularity is WITHOUT invoking mathematics, then prove it! I'd like to see that.

Zz.

 

[JaredJames]

Are you people THAT delusional that you think you can talk about something that you have no understanding of?

Welcome to 99% of modern 'philosophy'.

I detest philosophy because of this. I'm all for an interesting thought debate, but some of the threads in this forum have ridiculous content.

 

[Pythagorean]

Philosophy here is little more than hand waving by people that don't have a true understanding of the science.

Zz has an understanding of the science. You might want to listen and take advantage of his knowledge.

There will be new rules next month that will require an understanding of the science as well as more structured and defined opening arguments. This forum is way overdue for the new rules. Being a science forum, we will be raising the bar on discussions here.

I think people will appreciate the new higher standards. Stay tuned.

OMG, we're going to approach a singularity?!?

(Q = 1/s)

where Q is quality of discussion in philosophy forums and s is the amount of rampant speculation.

 

[Maui]

When you talk about an apple, but you actually have NEVER seen one, do you think that is a rational discussion?

So when people talk about "singularity", but they never actually understood the MATHEMATICS of what a singularity is, do you think such a discussion is actually based on valid knowledge? Look at my first post in this thread. I pointed out that in all the discussion that had occurred, not once was there EVER a mention of the mathematical definition of what a singularity is!

I did state in this thread that Einstein's field equations lead to an infinite gravity and infinite density of matter. Since there is no practical difference between 0.999999(...)=1 and 0.0000000(...)=0, the volume of a spacetime singularity is considered to be zero. I did state earlier that some don't believe the volume of a gravitational singularity is zero because GR is not a theory of QG and what it says about singularities is likely either wrong or incomplete. All these points are factual and provide a basic understanding that the OP was seeking.

And this "understand the quantitative" aspect of a singularity, what is this if it isn't a mathematical description of it?

We understand in classical 'pictures', if i may borrow Einstein's ontological phrasing. At some point gravitational singularities will be described in better terms than infinite gravity and infinite densities.

What has been going on here is the hand-waving discussion of singularity based on some pop-science understanding of what it is. Do you think you can actually have a meaningful discussion of it while totally ignorant of the actual physics? Are you people THAT delusional that you think you can talk about something that you have no understanding of?

If you think that you have the ability to understand "in quantitative terms" what a gravitational singularity is WITHOUT invoking mathematics, then prove it! I'd like to see that.

Zz.

Prove to me how it's possible to 'understand'(whatever that means) the breakdown of mathematics at the center of a black hole. A description of its breakdown is by far not the same as understanding it.

 

[JaredJames]

Prove to me how it's possible to 'understand'(whatever that means) the breakdown of mathematics at the center of a black hole. A description of its breakdown is by far not the same as understanding it.

But to come up with a description you need to understand the mathematics. If no one here understands the maths then they cannot hope to come up with a valid description other than something purely speculative.

Simply repeating the descriptions of others without understanding the work behind them doesn't mean anything, especially when trying to debate the issue.

 

[Maui]

Welcome to 99% of modern 'philosophy'.

Now go post this message in the Quantum and Beyond the Standard Model forums as most of what you read there are opinions.

I detest philosophy because of this. I'm all for an interesting thought debate, but some of the threads in this forum have ridiculous content.

Sadly they do. But new regulations are coming, and you need to sort out the opinions from established facts in the other forums as well.

 

[Maui]

But to come up with a description you need to understand the mathematics. If no one here understands the maths then they cannot hope to come up with a valid description other than something purely speculative.

What are you talking about?

There is no math describing a gravitational singularity. Did you just pull that out of thin air like that?

And ironically you should detest philosophy, while making totally unsupported claims.

 

[ZapperZ]

When you talk about an apple, but you actually have NEVER seen one, do you think that is a rational discussion?

So when people talk about "singularity", but they never actually understood the PHYSICS of what a singularity is, do you think such a discussion is actually based on valid knowledge? Look at my first post in this thread. I pointed out that in all the discussion that had occurred, not once was there EVER a mention of the mathematical definition of what a singularity is!

I did state in this thread that Einstein's field equations lead to an infinite gravity and infinite density of matter. Since there is no practical difference between 0.999999(...)=1 and 0.0000000(...)=0, the volume of a spacetime singularity is considered to be zero. I did state earlier that some don't believe the volume of a gravitational singularity is zero because GR is not a theory of QG and what it says about singularities is likely either wrong or incomplete. All these points are factual and provide a basic understanding that the OP was seeking.

And you think the people who were doing all the discussion on here actually UNDERSTOOD what you just said? Really?!

We understand in classical 'pictures', if i may borrow Einstein's ontological phrasing. At some point gravitational singularities will be described in better terms than infinite gravity and infinite densities.

Prove to me how it's possible to 'understand'(whatever that means) the breakdown of mathematics at the center of a black hole. A description of its breakdown is by far not the same as understanding it.

I'm sorry, but you are barking up the wrong tree. You have completely misunderstood my intention in this thread.

I'm not here to discussion Einstein's field equation. If want to discuss that, the LAST place I would go is the philosophy forum. Discussing the validity of some aspect of physics here is a futile effort. But discussing physics with NO understanding of the actual physics, and then trying to get some "meaning" out of it, as an even greater waste of time. You keep coming back with some other rhetoric, but you have not been able to counter anything on this point, which is what I've been trying to get across. Talking about "singularity", without knowing what a singularity is, leads to a meaningless discussion. Now, which part of that did you have a problem with?

Zz.

 

[Pythagorean]

There is no math describing a gravitational singularity.

Whatever slippery way you try to defend that statement is not going to work.

There is bad philosophy and good philosophy... I think he meant he detested bad philosophy.

 

[JaredJames]

Now go post this message in the Quantum and Beyond the Standard Model forums as most of what you read there are opinions.

Opinion, or personal theory that can't be substantiated isn't allowed there as per every other part of the site. You are still discussing published (or to be published in this sub-forums case) papers. Read the guidelines, you can just spout a load of rubbish. It needs backing up.

Sadly they do. But new regulations are coming, and you need to sort out the opinions from established facts in the other forums.

Again, all claims need to be backed up, and most of the time you get called out if you are just making things up or giving opinion that isn't backed by fact. (Some good debates arise because of this).

The problem in philosophy is people do mainly give some form of opinion and when asked to back it up with fact they tell you "ah well this is philosophy and that doesn't apply", which is nonsense.

 

[JaredJames]

I think he meant he detested bad philosophy.

Correct.

 

[jackmell]

. . . I'd like to get mine in before the new rules apply:

Personally I believe this entire thread can be better approached from the perspective of Catastrophe Theory. This deals with "critical points" of phenomena when the dynamics changes qualitatively and often abruptly. Once these points are breached, descriptions describing the phenomena before the critical point are often insufficient to adequately explain the qualitatively new dynamics occurring beyond the critical point. I believe it is precisely these critical points that are being referred to as "singularities" in this thread. The Universe is filled with such dynamics at all scales from nuclear fission to collapsing stars. For example take dying. That is a critical point as the dynamics of life are suddenly replaced by qualitatively new dynamics of non-living. What happens to the concept of swimming in water at the critical point of freezing? Swimming reaches a singularity at that point as the phenomenon no longer applies to ice. Take conflicting nations. The peaceful conflict can escalates until the critical point of war is reached. Suddenly, a qualitatively new dynamics is reached at the nations reach this singular point in social contracts.

The dynamics of nature are not always smooth. There are points where it changes abruptly and qualitatively and often at these points new descriptions are needed to describe this new behavior. That is the case in my opinion to what we call the "singularity" at the Big Bang, and likewise, the singularity at the center of a black hole. Both of these represent a sudden and qualitative change in dynamics which renders our descriptions of the phenomena before the critical point, inadequate.

Also, I'm interested in Complex Analysis. We call discontinuities in complex analytic functions "singularities" because our descriptions of a finite derivative, suddenly and abruptly loose meaning at the point it becomes infinite, that is, it has no (finite) derivative at the singular point. At that point we use a qualitatively new description and say the derivative is "infinite".

 

[Maui]

Whatever slippery way you try to defend that statement is not going to work.

Meaning what?

There is bad philosophy and good philosophy... I think he meant he detested bad philosophy.

Then 99% is bad philosophy in his words, to which number he greatly contributed with his statement about mathematics describing spacetime singularities.