Radius of initial singularity?
Discussion
Not sure if its been asked before on PH Science! or not, but the theory of the big bang is well established although parts of it I still find hard to comprehend.
My question this time is what is the theoretical radius of the big bang singularity?
Now I think some may reply with a point that space-time, mass, physical laws of measurements etc. did not exist at the initial singularity so therefore I will amend my question.....
What would be the 'relative' radius of the big bang singularity if comparing to objects familiar with human knowledge?
(ie. similar to the size of a marble?, a grain of sand?, a football?, the earth?, the sun?)
My question this time is what is the theoretical radius of the big bang singularity?
Now I think some may reply with a point that space-time, mass, physical laws of measurements etc. did not exist at the initial singularity so therefore I will amend my question.....
What would be the 'relative' radius of the big bang singularity if comparing to objects familiar with human knowledge?
(ie. similar to the size of a marble?, a grain of sand?, a football?, the earth?, the sun?)
All of space is within the singularity so it has no external dimensions. That is a really unsatisfying answer I know but I think its the correct one. Anyway, at t=0 there are no dimensions but at any time after there is, so the singularity was dimensionless for no time at all in fact.
This is one of the coolest things on the internet (if you're a nerd like me anyway):
http://htwins.net/scale2/
This is one of the coolest things on the internet (if you're a nerd like me anyway):
http://htwins.net/scale2/
Edited by MiseryStreak on Wednesday 18th September 11:01
MiseryStreak said:
All of space is within the singularity so it has no external dimensions. That is a really unsatisfying answer I know but I think its the correct one. Anyway, at t=0 there are no dimensions but at any time after there is, so the singularity was dimensionless for no time at all in fact.
This is one of the coolest things on the internet (if you're a nerd like me anyway):
http://htwins.net/scale2/
What about the internal dimensions? This is one of the coolest things on the internet (if you're a nerd like me anyway):
http://htwins.net/scale2/
Edited by MiseryStreak on Wednesday 18th September 11:01
I can see why modern science is attempting to run away from the big bang theory and its singularity beginning.
I've just stumbled across this :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3MWRvLndzs&fea...
Suggesting that the big bang doesn't actually mean there was a point singularity.... interesting.
I've just stumbled across this :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3MWRvLndzs&fea...
Suggesting that the big bang doesn't actually mean there was a point singularity.... interesting.
AJI said:
Not sure if its been asked before on PH Science! or not, but the theory of the big bang is well established although parts of it I still find hard to comprehend.
My question this time is what is the theoretical radius of the big bang singularity?
Now I think some may reply with a point that space-time, mass, physical laws of measurements etc. did not exist at the initial singularity so therefore I will amend my question.....
What would be the 'relative' radius of the big bang singularity if comparing to objects familiar with human knowledge?
(ie. similar to the size of a marble?, a grain of sand?, a football?, the earth?, the sun?)
A singularity wouldn't have any radius at all as space no longer exists.My question this time is what is the theoretical radius of the big bang singularity?
Now I think some may reply with a point that space-time, mass, physical laws of measurements etc. did not exist at the initial singularity so therefore I will amend my question.....
What would be the 'relative' radius of the big bang singularity if comparing to objects familiar with human knowledge?
(ie. similar to the size of a marble?, a grain of sand?, a football?, the earth?, the sun?)
So you cannot even ask the "relative" radius either I am afraid as it is like comparing something with a radius to something that is, well obviously smaller. Smaller than any radius you can imagine, because it does not have one.
Why are you wondering about this would be a more pertinent question?
Also modern science does not work on "trying to run away" from something if it is true, no matter how weird. That is the whole point of science, not running away or making things up or wanting to believe something because it looks right. Just ask a quantum physicist.
Edited by Gandahar on Wednesday 18th September 14:00
Gandahar said:
A singularity wouldn't have any radius at all as space no longer exists.
So you cannot even ask the "relative" radius either I am afraid as it is like comparing something with a radius to something that is, well obviously smaller. Smaller than any radius you can imagine, because it does not have one.
Why are you wondering about this would be a more pertinent question?
Also modern science does not work on "trying to run away" from something if it is true, no matter how weird. That is the whole point of science, not running away or making things up or wanting to believe something because it looks right. Just ask a quantum physicist.
OK I guess I wondering how to imagine something so small containing all the energy in order to create the mass and dimensions we view/record in modern science today.So you cannot even ask the "relative" radius either I am afraid as it is like comparing something with a radius to something that is, well obviously smaller. Smaller than any radius you can imagine, because it does not have one.
Why are you wondering about this would be a more pertinent question?
Also modern science does not work on "trying to run away" from something if it is true, no matter how weird. That is the whole point of science, not running away or making things up or wanting to believe something because it looks right. Just ask a quantum physicist.
Edited by Gandahar on Wednesday 18th September 14:00
I know the maths and laws of physics break down and its 'just' a theory but if the 'singularity' was maybe not just an infinitesimally small point then I could maybe comprehend it a little easier.
The vid link I posted above that I found after posting the initial question has got me thinking a bit more about it. As it suggests the idea of it being a single point may be missleading? (Is this correct?)
I realise that the term 'run away' may not fall happily with science and it was intended to be used loosely
... but would it be correct to say that as modern maths and laws of physics break down at a certain point in the history of the universe it has lead to other theories such as membrane and multi-verse etc. (ie.moving away from the 'simplistic' big bang theory - in comparison of course) AJI said:
OK I guess I wondering how to imagine something so small containing all the energy in order to create the mass and dimensions we view/record in modern science today.
I know the maths and laws of physics break down and its 'just' a theory but if the 'singularity' was maybe not just an infinitesimally small point then I could maybe comprehend it a little easier.
The vid link I posted above that I found after posting the initial question has got me thinking a bit more about it. As it suggests the idea of it being a single point may be missleading? (Is this correct?)
I realise that the term 'run away' may not fall happily with science and it was intended to be used loosely ... but would it be correct to say that as modern maths and laws of physics break down at a certain point in the history of the universe it has lead to other theories such as membrane and multi-verse etc. (ie.moving away from the 'simplistic' big bang theory - in comparison of course)
The point is that saying it was infinitesimally small is meaningless. There were no dimensions so ascribing it a size, small or otherwise, makes no sense.I know the maths and laws of physics break down and its 'just' a theory but if the 'singularity' was maybe not just an infinitesimally small point then I could maybe comprehend it a little easier.
The vid link I posted above that I found after posting the initial question has got me thinking a bit more about it. As it suggests the idea of it being a single point may be missleading? (Is this correct?)
I realise that the term 'run away' may not fall happily with science and it was intended to be used loosely
... but would it be correct to say that as modern maths and laws of physics break down at a certain point in the history of the universe it has lead to other theories such as membrane and multi-verse etc. (ie.moving away from the 'simplistic' big bang theory - in comparison of course) Interesting replies. Thanks guys.
I do struggle to visualize or comprehend the size differences and shear scale of things when looking at the big bang theory.
I understand that a huge amounts of energy are involved in 'mass' in that only 0.6 grams of mass where converted to energy in the first nuclear bomb dropped on Japan in WWII for example.
And that over 99% of an atom is just 'empty space'.
These two acknowledgements can allow my understanding that there is a huge amount of energy in the universe and also the matter that is in the universe can be compressed down to over 99% of its space before protons/neutrons are being forced to occupy the same place.
But then going back in time to when protons and neutrons were not in existence and 'stuff' was even closer together is where my understanding sort of breaks down.
I don't think I fully grasp the idea of what the big bang singularity is about. (Especially after watching that vid I linked earlier).
I do struggle to visualize or comprehend the size differences and shear scale of things when looking at the big bang theory.
I understand that a huge amounts of energy are involved in 'mass' in that only 0.6 grams of mass where converted to energy in the first nuclear bomb dropped on Japan in WWII for example.
And that over 99% of an atom is just 'empty space'.
These two acknowledgements can allow my understanding that there is a huge amount of energy in the universe and also the matter that is in the universe can be compressed down to over 99% of its space before protons/neutrons are being forced to occupy the same place.
But then going back in time to when protons and neutrons were not in existence and 'stuff' was even closer together is where my understanding sort of breaks down.
I don't think I fully grasp the idea of what the big bang singularity is about. (Especially after watching that vid I linked earlier).
ash73 said:
The universe is quantised; at the smallest scale everything is reduced to irreducible counting units, or natural numbers. A singularity can be no smaller than the Planck length, which in metres is a decimal point followed by 34 zeros and then a one. It's equivalent to a single pixel in the context of the cosmos.
Nobody knows if spacetime is quantised. AJI said:
Gandahar said:
A singularity wouldn't have any radius at all as space no longer exists.
So you cannot even ask the "relative" radius either I am afraid as it is like comparing something with a radius to something that is, well obviously smaller. Smaller than any radius you can imagine, because it does not have one.
Why are you wondering about this would be a more pertinent question?
Also modern science does not work on "trying to run away" from something if it is true, no matter how weird. That is the whole point of science, not running away or making things up or wanting to believe something because it looks right. Just ask a quantum physicist.
OK I guess I wondering how to imagine something so small containing all the energy in order to create the mass and dimensions we view/record in modern science today.So you cannot even ask the "relative" radius either I am afraid as it is like comparing something with a radius to something that is, well obviously smaller. Smaller than any radius you can imagine, because it does not have one.
Why are you wondering about this would be a more pertinent question?
Also modern science does not work on "trying to run away" from something if it is true, no matter how weird. That is the whole point of science, not running away or making things up or wanting to believe something because it looks right. Just ask a quantum physicist.
Edited by Gandahar on Wednesday 18th September 14:00
I know the maths and laws of physics break down and its 'just' a theory but if the 'singularity' was maybe not just an infinitesimally small point then I could maybe comprehend it a little easier.
The vid link I posted above that I found after posting the initial question has got me thinking a bit more about it. As it suggests the idea of it being a single point may be missleading? (Is this correct?)
I realise that the term 'run away' may not fall happily with science and it was intended to be used loosely
... but would it be correct to say that as modern maths and laws of physics break down at a certain point in the history of the universe it has lead to other theories such as membrane and multi-verse etc. (ie.moving away from the 'simplistic' big bang theory - in comparison of course) I still cannot even imagine how big the Universe is now, on an experience point of view, so trying to imagine it at the very beginning might be just completely impossible.
It seems to me that you have to start with maths rather than English. How good is your maths? If it is poor like mine I doubt you will ever get a good descriptive sentence in English to put it in your mind. You would need to "read" the maths and understand it to see if it is a "beautiful" description that makes sense.
The trouble with untrained minds trying to understand ununderstandable theories is we can't get to the root.
Seems to me a visionary thinker formulates a fantastic (in the true sense) guess and then spends years devising a mathematical "proof" (which of course it isn't). It is then necessary to imagine (invent) parallel guesses/explanations to support the original idea.
Given the Scientific establishment requires rigorous experiment to accept development, it is surprising how many luminaries support these theories, the veracity of which is unprovable. The benefits of such ponderings are of course the resulting expansion of the brain, maybe ultimately to understand considerably more than we do. For me, fascinating.
Seems to me a visionary thinker formulates a fantastic (in the true sense) guess and then spends years devising a mathematical "proof" (which of course it isn't). It is then necessary to imagine (invent) parallel guesses/explanations to support the original idea.
Given the Scientific establishment requires rigorous experiment to accept development, it is surprising how many luminaries support these theories, the veracity of which is unprovable. The benefits of such ponderings are of course the resulting expansion of the brain, maybe ultimately to understand considerably more than we do. For me, fascinating.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff