1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Why must singularities create an entire universe?

  1. Mar 6, 2015 #1
    I've been studying sciences since I was a child, and I'm fairly certain every mention of a singularity leads to the big bang and the creation of the universe. I don't understand why though? There is a black hole and potential singularity at the heart of every galaxy. So why have I never heard any postulation about galaxies being created and destroyed by black holes? It is always a star system that is lost and a universe that is gained. I may just need to read more, but I find it interesting that I have never come across this.

    The universe is expanding. We know this with certainty. If everything was created from a singularity and propelled outward by an unknown force for unknown reasons, (I believe the mass simply overcomes stability and pulls matter towards its gravity center and through itself. Stand in the middle of two carts on wheels and pull them toward you at the same time as hard as you can. They dont stop at the source of what pulled them. They continue through and past.), and this resulted in the universe, than how did the first singularity form? You have to assume it was created as we have observed them created, which means it began as a star. Stars are formed by clumped masses of gas and matter compressing and essentially combusting. Everything about the very concept of a singularity forming the entire universe is illogical.

    I don't think I have the answers but I do think we are all taking the wrong test.

    What would happen in a model of galaxies that form singularities which collapse and expand?

    Could "the mysterious force" that causes universal expansion be explained by galaxies exploding?

    Or how about the odd shape of expansion previously written off with gravitational bodies?
    For myself, gravitational bodies seems like a logical conclusion, just as, I can see water in my street right now. It would be completely logical to deduce that the water is coming from my neighbors sprinklers, however, looking past his property, I can see more water. Am I now to believe that his water went uphill? There is another force beyond what I see here. Most likely another neighbor. No real mystery, but I hope it helps to illustrate my point about universal expansion and the current explanation thereof.

    Was the big bang really that big? Maybe is was more like a medium bang?
    What if there have been trillions of these black hole emissions?
    What if celestial bodies and atoms behave similarly with the exception of celestial bodies being constantly subject to super massive waves of gas and matter as a result of a violent force? That's a huge stretch but I feel like physics is locked into a unidirectional thought process. We assume everything is absolute. If the universe is infinite, why do we bind ourselves to law. Mechanics that work in our star system may not hold true in others. So why limit our thinking to a very limited set of rules that are almost always broken with new discoveries?
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 6, 2015 #2

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    A singularity is not a thing. It is a mathematical breakdown in the theory.
  4. Mar 6, 2015 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The term "singularity" just means "the place where our models give unphysical answers". The Big Bang Theory, if extrapolated backwards to "t=0" results in unphysical answers, thus we call that time a "singularity" but the theory say nothing at all about how the universe was created, just that it expanded from a dense hot plasma (NOT at a point in space) to where we are today.

    The center of black holes, likewise, give rise to unphysical answers in the math from our models so we call it a singularity, just meaning that we really don't know what it is.
  5. Mar 6, 2015 #4
    Thank you for clarifying, singularity. I don't fully understand it but I will read into it.

    What about the expansion? Any suggested readings? Layman, please. I'm not papered. Only read.

    To reiterate, I believe that "dark energy" may be the result of many explosions happening through out the universe. I believe the explosions are a result of an object who's gravity has forced itself apart. While it may sound counter intuitive, I gave an incredibly generic description of the process above.

    I use the word believe because they are only thoughts at this point. I don't know to prove or disprove anything.
  6. Mar 6, 2015 #5
    As I read over your response again, I think I understand it. What do you mean they are unphysical? The model fails at 0? Why? What is being measured that results in the unphysical response?
  7. Mar 6, 2015 #6


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    @Cadillac Jack, could I ask you to please review the forum rules on personal theories and speculation? When you don't know what the current understanding is, asking "what if..." questions in an effort to improve that current understanding is seldom effective.
  8. Mar 6, 2015 #7


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Nothing is being measured. The equations are predicting absurdities (not just surprising or counter-intuitive results - those aren't a problem - but logically and/or mathematically inconsistent results) at certain points, so we conclude that it's a mistake to apply the equations at those points.

    This is actually fairly mundane stuff that you've been doing all your life without noticing. For example, you're probably familiar with Newton's classical law of gravitation ##F=Gm_1m_2/r^2## and Coulomb's electrical force law ##F=CQ_1Q_2/r^2##, you have no problem using them to solve problems, and you have a pretty good intuitive understanding of what they're saying. But have you noticed that they both commit the absurdity of dividing by zero at ##r=0##? That doesn't mean that they're wrong or that you can't trust them for non-zero values of ##r##, but it does mean that they are singular at ##r=0## so they don't work there.
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2015
  9. Mar 6, 2015 #8


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Not much left to say on the topic of singularities (not) creating entire universes, so this thread is closed.
  10. Mar 6, 2015 #9


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I know I'm creating my own singularity here by replying to a locked thread, but maybe this will help:

    In short, a "singularity" is what it is called when the math returns a divide-by-zero error or an unhelpful infinity (or related "misbehavior").
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook