[Mohan.C]

is singularity necessary to explain TOE

[mkirkpatrick]

Welcome to the toe forum.Mohan C.
I have just came back from yourwonderful country after spending a month there
over the Christmas andnew year period,went to Rajistan and Japuir,also to Goa
and Mumbia,had a really great time,also sawthree wild tigers in Rathambore
national park.


kind regards michael.

[TinyTree]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C

is singularity necessary to explain TOE

I think a singularity is required to explain certain theories of everything. However, since we do not have a "final theory of everything" it comes down to your interpretation of what it might be like.

Typically, a singularity is similar to a divide by zero in an equation- a movement towards infinity.

Is infinity requried to explain the TOE? It seems likely- there are many aspects of our universe that indicate it may be infinite in one direction or another, even in the direction of a singularity.

However, like a singularity drawn on a piece of graph paper- there may be no way to truly know if it is ACTUALLY a singularity, or is just the appearance of one. Hopefully the TOE would clear up that distinction for us.

[Mohan.C]

isn't singularity where all the laws break down why formulate a law for that. and infinity as well, i think infinity is most non-sensical in math. infinity and zero they both in a sense mean the same. i think infinity is inconsistent. at infinity everything becomes unsuitable for study.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C

isn't singularity where all the laws break down why formulate a law for that. and infinity as well, i think infinity is most non-sensical in math. infinity and zero they both in a sense mean the same. i think infinity is inconsistent. at infinity everything becomes unsuitable for study.

We
need to understand the law,before we can know whether it is breaking down or
not?do you agree?


kind regards michael.

[baudrunner]

We need to establish the contextual relevance of zero and infinity. Zero means nothing, no quantity, therefore it cannot be used in a mathematical equation where multiplication or division is required of it, and since it can only be added or substracted it becomes superfluous in either of these two mathematical contexts. It can, however, represent result, so it is not non-sensical. Infinity implies non-ending progression, continuation without end, therefore it cannot be used in a mathematical expression requiring result. The words zero and infinity are words with meaning, so we should not discard them. Also, they are already absolutes, meaning that they cannot be ascribed the property of sign.

Defining a singularity as a place or event potential where all the laws of physics break down constitutes a construction of the theoretical. It could just as easily be described as a place or event potential where all the laws of physics are created. The thing is, we just don't know what a singularity is, since it is a word first used by Stephen Hawking to describe something which science does not yet have a clear explanation for, a black hole. All we really know about them is that they exist. Singularity then becomes just an adjective without clear definition. I have defined the singularity as a place where the Smolin limit of the volumetric occupation of space has been encountered, requiring space to create a whole new boundary of origin around it. That's just an interesting idea for which I have no empirical reference, but it beats waxing philosphical about singularities.

[Aiya-Oba]

Hi baudrunner;
Your explanation of the relevance and meanings of zero and infinity is grounding.Singularity is a pair of zero and infinity.Infinity and zero are
two sides of the same coin -Singularity.

Thus, Where Singularity=1, and Infinity=&

1^2 = 0 + & + 1 = 1 + (& ) = 1.

-Aiya-Oba

[PoPpAScience]

[quote=baudrunner] I have defined the singularity as a place where the Smolin limit of the volumetric occupation of space has been encountered, requiring space to create a whole new boundary of origin around it. QUOTE]

baudrunner could you say more about what you wrote in the above sentence. I like the way it is worded. Thanks.

[PoPpAScience]

Hypothetically, if the singularity of the Big Bang is looked at as a transition point, from one event to another, how can that be written mathematically? Can it?

[Guille]

Mathematically, I don't know. Graphically, just using a cartesian coordinate system, drawing a vector, and a point in the line of the vector, in that case the point would be such thing as a transition point. Or even if it's not a vector but a nonlinear equation drawn, still, the point will be a transition point. However this is strange, at it shows how the idea of 'curve' is a bit too complex.