return to uniformity

[neutralino]

neutralino;
That’s the problem with the abstract nature of mathematics; zero and infinity are meaningless to a physical reality; they can’t be used as limits in the equations. (something from nothing does not work) We need to convert temperature into a type of absolute such as the degree of freedom in thermodynamics; then motion becomes an unknown absolute value. One degree of freedom will translate to the ultimate absolute zero. Nobody is asking what cannot be answered by the Standard Model: “What is the state of existence at time zero or before?” That may require a drastic revision of the standard model!

Whilst zero and infinity may be meaningless in most senses of the physical reality, I certainly see nothing wrong with time zero (afterall, time is a sliding scale unless of course it is created at the time of the big bang). You are correct that the question nobody is asking is beyond the scope of the standard model, but any new model must reduce to the standard model in the appropriate limit-- just like in the weak field limit of general relativity we recover newtonian gravitation. Thus, I see nothing wrong with looking at the asymptotics of the standard model to give us an idea of what the behaviour looks like at the singularities: afterall, it's all we have at the moment!

[N0B0DY]

Okay I'm back, and if it's at all possible maybe things could be kept somewhat simple. I appreciate the effort.

I agree it's a semi-stupid question, but I think it relevant in ascertaining exactly how your bonding occurs, Dave, and how the laws of thermodynamics and aerodynamics arose.

You have to understand, if you will, that the original proposal by Lemaitre is based on catholic theology and in effect an extension of "creatio ex nihilo" beliefs. It's a science based on space and time starting from nothing and being stretched out via inflationary era, etc., etc.

The point of my question is also relevant to your volumetric space surrounding the observable universe, which would have to be zero kelvin in the absolute sense of the temperature and term. I would like to know if we can match that with the absolute center of the big-bang model, both zero, but the exterior void at negative zero and the interior at positive zero.

[dleviwing]

neutralino;
Sorry but you can only have time zero if you are accepting the something from nothing scenario of the Standard Model (I don’t); all other time zero references are as you say, on a sliding scale; is the BB event time zero an absolute? I think not; it is only the best promoted one at this time. We just need a good reason to modify it!

Now as for singularities, they fall into the same category as strings and gods; all theory and no evidence.

The asymptotic nature of mathematics is why it is an abstract concept that can produce false observations and concepts. Scientists should not put their heads too far up their math and lose sight of reality; too many have done that already and caused unbelievable confusion.

[neutralino]

neutralino;
Sorry but you can only have time zero if you are accepting the something from nothing scenario of the Standard Model (I don’t); all other time zero references are as you say, on a sliding scale; is the BB event time zero an absolute? I think not; it is only the best promoted one at this time. We just need a good reason to modify it!

Well, I wouldn't say that I'm convinced with a theory that makes everything from nothing. Luckily, it doesn't really matter what happened at the actual time of the big bang in order to do cosmology!

Now as for singularities, they fall into the same category as strings and gods; all theory and no evidence.

I wouldn't even say they fell into that category. There is no evidence for singularities because they absolutely do not exist. No physical theory of nature can contain singularities, and in fact singularities are only used as a mathematical tool to show where a theory breaks down.

The asymptotic nature of mathematics is why it is an abstract concept that can produce false observations and concepts. Scientists should not put their heads too far up their math and lose sight of reality; too many have done that already and caused unbelievable confusion.

I still stand by my comment that asymptotics are a good way to determine behaviour of a system, even if one cannot solve the equations of motion at a particular point. What confusion do you mean here; confusion within the scientific world, or in the popular world (I can guess you're talking about string theory!)

[dleviwing]

I agree it's a semi-stupid question, but I think it relevant in ascertaining exactly how your bonding occurs, Dave, and how the laws of thermodynamics and aerodynamics arose.

Are you asking why a thermometer flies? Thermodynamics and Aerodynamics are two unrelated fields. If you have read my blog then you should understand that I view one of the fundamental properties of the fundamental substance of the universe as being self-affinity; it sticks to itself when contact is made. Chaotic type motions however tend to minimize this property and uniform motions tend to enhance it.

You have to understand, if you will, that the original proposal by Lemaitre is based on catholic theology and in effect an extension of "creatio ex nihilo" beliefs. It's a science based on space and time starting from nothing and being stretched out via inflationary era, etc., etc.

I think I have also mentioned this in my blog.

The point of my question is also relevant to your volumetric space surrounding the observable universe, which would have to be zero kelvin in the absolute sense of the temperature and term. I would like to know if we can match that with the absolute center of the big-bang model, both zero, but the exterior void at negative zero and the interior at positive zero.

If you are referring to the concept of an “Absolute Void” then you need to understand that temperature only applies to something with physical properties of motion; the “Absolute Void” is not PHYSICAL.

[Profpat]

Hi everyone;

Quote:
Now as for singularities, they fall into the same category as strings and gods; all theory and no evidence.
I wouldn't even say they fell into that category. There is no evidence for singularities because they absolutely do not exist. No physical theory of nature can contain singularities, and in fact singularities are only used as a mathematical tool to show where a theory breaks down.

I think I agree with David on this one Neutralino.
Granted there is no evidence and being a singularity it wouldn't be physical ( ie non 3 dimensional ) but merely because there is no evidence for there existence doesn't necessarily conclude THEREFORE they do not exist.

Best to all,

Pat

[neutralino]

I think I agree with David on this one Neutralino.
Granted there is no evidence and being a singularity it wouldn't be physical ( ie non 3 dimensional ) but merely because there is no evidence for there existence doesn't necessarily conclude THEREFORE they do not exist.

A singularity is a point in a theory where some laws of physics give infinite values. It follows from the above comments that infinity is not a physical reality, and thus there must be something going wrong with the theory at that point. In this sense, singularities are simply mathematical warning messages.

We should also note that any other theory in past that has produced singularities has been shown not to be entirely correct; that is, there have been ways to either rewrite the theory, or to look at that point from a different angle, and thus resolve the infinity. Thus, we expect that any singularities arising in current theories will disappear once we have a better theory that covers all spacetime.

[Profpat]

OK, I'll agree with that statement, but if you actually had PROOF that singularities DO NOT EXIST, then I would say you are well on your way to a Noble Prize in Physics.

Best ,

Pat

[N0B0DY]

Just a quick quid pro quo, Dave, about your blog. Yes, I've read it a few times, but ask that you allow the void to "exist" at the absolute center of the universe - the non-physical singularity - and at all quantified measurements.

It has been suggested the zpe exists at both ends of the energy spectrum, beyond which point the x-y axes render the same result of absolute zero - both the highest- and lowest-possible energy equals zero. Similarly, the point before the big bang which exists at the center would be in the identical state as the void you propose at the exterior - within which the infinite temperatures exist of which we observe a small part, just like the visible-light spectrum.

I'm not sure about your inference regarding aerodynamics. It doesn't only pertain to flying, but to gases. Aerostatics as well might be relevant to my position that the absolute substance cannot be considered layered or refinable whilst remaining absolute. When we think in terms of absolute speed, not relative velocity, both position and momentum are absolute - in the case of your reference to the stickiness of the FS, it would already be fully stuck together - whereby the relative quanta of whatever we wish to quantify, must then be considered as an abstraction, or if you prefer, a relative extraction from the absolute FS.

I don't think I have ever asked if you think absolute and relative are equal. Some have indicated that they are, but contextually - in the context of universal functioning - I have to consider them as being opposites.