Warning: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/helpmekim2dhsefl3pwmseak8ismo2/wwwroot/wp-content/plugins/ad-injection/ad-injection.php on line 824 Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/helpmekim2dhsefl3pwmseak8ismo2/wwwroot/wp-content/plugins/ad-injection/ad-injection.php on line 831

It seems that there is no such thing as “singularity potential energy” in the academic concept of theoretical physics, let alone the description of the constant transformation of energy into matter. If we are just science enthusiasts, we don’t need to invent some concepts, which will not do any good for understanding the problem. Let me guess, what we actually want to ask is what was before the singularity? What caused the Big Bang? This is an instinctive question that everyone asks. Can’t we just ask it openly? In my opinion, this is no longer a scientific problem. At least for now, the state before the singularity cannot be modeled by scientific methods. why? Because of the two legs of science, rationality and empirical research. Reason is expressed through rigorous mathematical language. Its essence is formal logic. The foundation of formal logic is concept classification. Classification is the relationship between concepts. Among the many relationships, the most important one is called causality, which is also the biggest goal of science. However, causality depends on the assumption that time passes uniformly. Without this premise, there would be no causation. Without it, formal logic would collapse. For example, we have already reached this boundary when we understand quantum properties, and the existing explanations can only think that the superposition state is an intrinsic property of quantum. What is intrinsic? It means that he is like that, there is no reason, this is the first cause, and there is no predecessor. Another example is that we can’t describe the inside of the black hole’s horizon. We can only say that time points to a singularity, and all physical laws are invalid. What about the empirical aspect? Our empirical ability is far behind and rational ability. In theory, empirical evidence must follow rationality. If rationality cannot be reached, we don’t need to think about empirical evidence. Since science cannot model, we are curious, what should we do? At this time, we will seek natural language, put aside rigorous formal logic, and use analogy to construct a vague hypothesis. For example, the theory of relativity assumes the bending of time and space, which is a hypothesis unearthed from natural language. What is space-time bending? In fact, no one has seen it before, we just take the object bending as an analogy. After digging out this hypothesis, we can apply mathematical models on this basis, so we have the general theory of relativity. So before the singularity, we might as well make some analogies. This is the process of making bold assumptions. Because there is no way to carefully verify it, we will listen to music and we will be over. For example, we can assume that all states of the singularity exist in a higher-dimensional space-time at the same time, and our universe is just one of many parallel universes. The reason why we are curious about this issue here is precisely because this universe has developed in this way, otherwise we would not appear. For example, in another parallel universe, there would be no human beings, and no one would be curious about the singularity. Does this assumption sound relatively easy to understand? Why does the singularity explode? The singularity does not necessarily explode. Explosion, non-explosion, and everything else may actually “have happened”. The singularity explosion in our universe is just because we live in the singularity explosion universe.

zhiwo

By zhiwo

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
11 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
helpmekim
7 months ago

The question says that “the big bang started from a singularity.” This is actually a popular scientific statement, but it is wrong to say so. Friedman’s equation tells us that in a universe dominated by conventional matter, whether it is relativistic or non-relativistic moving matter, there will be an earliest solution to the equation a(t) (cosmic scale as a function of time). The point in time, the cosmic scale and the density of matter at this point in time, are the origins of the concept of “cosmic singularity”. In other words, Friedman’s equation holds that the universe dominated by conventional matter was born from a singularity and began to evolve. However, this does not mean that there is a singularity in the actual very early universe. The existence of a singularity in a theory actually means that the theory cannot describe this point and the surrounding real situation, that is, the theory fails at this point. Therefore, the existence of the “singularity of the universe” in the aforementioned theory means that the combination of “Friedman’s equation + conventional matter” cannot describe the very early stage of the universe. So what kind of theory describes the very early universe? It is now generally accepted that inflation theory is a good choice. The inflation theory can solve a bunch of cosmological difficulties caused by the combination of “Friedman equation + conventional matter”, and it can also alleviate the problem of the singularity of the universe. At least in the inflation theory, the density of matter in the very early universe is no longer infinite. . But for the question of how the universe was born from nothing, the inflation theory is also powerless. The universe earlier than the period of inflation must be described by some unknown theory of quantum gravity. The question states that “the potential energy of the singularity is broken, causing the energy to continuously transform into matter and evolve into the universe”, which is not even wrong. First of all, I have never heard of “singularity potential” in the scope of what I have learned. Secondly, the relationship between energy and matter is not transformational, but the relationship that “matter has energy”. As for the relationship between energy and mass, I won’t go into details here. So how is matter produced in the universe? This is also a question that inflation theory can answer (part of). For details, please refer to this answer: The question says “singularity balance is broken”. I have never heard of “singularity balance” anyway. In the very early universe, there was a process of spontaneous symmetry breaking, but it has nothing to do with this problem.

heloword
7 months ago

Many non-professionals who have not taken advanced general relativity courses will mistakenly believe that singularities are part of time and space! Singularity is a word that makes it easy to make sense. It is not necessarily a point. A very typical example is the odd ring in the Kerr black hole. The most general definition of a singularity is the place where the non-space-like geodesic line breaks, which means that the concepts of time and space at the singularity are meaningless. The fields in physics are all functions of space-time coordinates, and because of the singularity It is not a part of time and space, so all laws of physics become invalid when they reach a singularity! Of course, physicists will not accept such a meaningless situation. They can only think that the general theory of relativity is invalid in this case, and it is necessary to use the unknown quantum gravity theory to modify the concept of time and space on the Planck scale. Let me explain to you the big bang singularity a little bit. We assume that the universe is a two-dimensional sphere, where the sphere is different from the plane, the sphere is curved. If there is a plane that is tangent to the sphere, the sphere is very close to the plane near the tangent point, and the farther the point on the sphere is from the tangent point, the greater the degree of deviation from the plane. If there is a family of spheres with different radii that are tangent to the plane at the same point, just look at a small area near the tangent point. The larger the sphere, the closer to the plane near the tangent point. On the contrary, the smaller the radius. The deviation of the spherical surface from the plane is more severe, so the radius of the spherical surface can measure the degree of curvature of the spherical surface. The smaller the radius of the spherical surface, the more severe the curvature. All points on the sphere have the same degree of curvature, and their curvature is. Assuming that the radius of the sphere keeps increasing over time, we have a model similar to the constant expansion of our universe. Then in turn, against the direction of time, the sphere will keep getting smaller. When the radius is, we create a singularity, its curvature. The reason why this model has a singularity is because we let the spherical radius, as long as the radius, this simple model will not encounter trouble! This is exactly the problem encountered by the Big Bang model.

helpyme
7 months ago

The reason why the singularity is singular is that ordinary physics rules cannot be calculated at this point. Your potential energy, sorry, there is no definition at the singularity. But the usual singularity can have boundary conditions. The mass, angular momentum, and electric charge of a black hole can be defined by the external field. However, the singularity of the Big Bang is not a black hole or a white hole. There is no boundary condition of space. Definable mass-energy, there is no balance as you call it, it is just a strange point, and the value of its physical properties is full of zero and infinity.

sina156
7 months ago

Newton had been thinking about researching a problem in his later years. This problem is called the “first impetus”. That is, the object never stands still, but always keeps moving at a constant speed without external force. So where does the force that makes the object move initially? This force is the “first driving force.” People who are interested in the history of physics know how much Newton was obsessed with theology in his later years and studied the existence of God. (In fact, Newton believed in God all his life, he was originally a theologian for his whole life.) In his later years, Newton was unable to find a reasonable scientific explanation for the “first driving force”, and in the end he could only think that God promoted the movement of matter and the entire universe. . The subject’s question is the same as Newton’s search back then, and it is also seeking the so-called “first impetus”. If you deny the existence of God, that is, deny that there is a big Other to “open up” time and space, then the Big Bang model is difficult to justify. From this perspective, the Big Bang theory itself has a theological flavor, or the influence of Christian culture makes it natural to imagine and design such a cosmological model. In fact, all theories about the origin of the universe have certain loopholes or contradictions that cannot be falsified. So there is no answer to the question asked by the subject, the question is made by God. But there is no need to dig into the horns, because the basic human theory is imperfect, so there is no answer. More should be questioning the rationality of the theory given by this scientific authority. Finding a self-justified new theory on your own may be much more reliable than getting dark on the Big Bang. Of course, this requires sufficient knowledge accumulation. If you don’t reach the level of knowledge that can explore this kind of problem, just keep silent. Silence is closer to truth than any language.

yahoo898
7 months ago

Many scientists have also thought about your question. There is a series of books called “The First Motivation”, which talks about this aspect. “The First Promotion Series” is a series of popular science books published by Hunan Science and Technology Press. With Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time” as the first work of “The First Promotion Series”, it has sold well for 28 years and has been reprinted more than 20 times. It has become a banner of popular science books in China. This series is divided into 4 series: Physics, Universe, Synthesis, and Life. They are all written by contemporary world-class scientists, and 7 of them are Nobel laureates. It is said that since the publication of “A Brief History of Time”, the sales volume has exceeded 300 million, with an average of more than 20 people buying one; it is said to be second only to the “Bible”. Perhaps the question will have an answer after reading it.

leexin
7 months ago

Some scientists believe that the cause of the explosion of the singularity is a phase change.
Phase transition generally refers to the transformation of gas, liquid, and solid. These scientists mean that the singularity is equivalent to a super-concentrated solid. Before the explosion, it is subjected to a certain cosmic force, and then the condition of maintaining the solid state becomes the gaseous condition, so it blows up. Opened, and we will be there a long time later, everyone sits down and talks about it!

greatword
7 months ago

do not know. The current theory cannot explain this. Sometimes, very unbelievable things may be easy to understand, but I don’t know yet. Just as people thought the earth was flat before, would there be a cliff on the edge of the flat earth? Until we know that the earth is a circle, it seems that there is no edge.

loveyou
7 months ago

Roger Penrose’s research between 1965 and 1970 pointed out that according to general relativity, there must be infinite density and space-time curvature singularities in black holes. Density is equal to the mass of the object divided by the volume. Infinite density cannot be composed of infinite mass, so the volume can only be 0. This is an infinite density, infinite curvature of space and time, infinite heat, and infinite volume. A small “point”, a singularity with zero space. In quantum mechanics, a quantum can only be in a certain position with a certain uncertainty, and at the same time can only have a certain speed with a certain uncertainty. These uncertainties can be limited to the smallest range, but this range cannot be equal to zero. △x△p≥ħ/2 here is a contradiction. According to general relativity, the light quantum can be determined to be in the certain position of the singularity. Because the volume of the singularity is zero, this is a certain position. However, according to quantum mechanics, light quanta can only be in a certain position with a certain degree of uncertainty, but cannot be in a certain position of the singularity. Is the space length of this singularity not less than the Planck length? Or is the energy too high when approaching the Planck length, which leads to the Big Bang of the Singularity, which can only be told by future science.

strongman
7 months ago

The theory of singularity in space, the theory of the big bang, and the theory of cosmic swelling are not based on matter, physics, matter and physics, time and distance, space and region, it is impossible, impossible, and nonexistent! The origin, formation, extinction and rebirth of the Milky Way nebula system all infer that the origin, formation, extinction and rebirth of all nebula systems in space belong to the same category; the existence of the Milky Way nebula system indicates the existence of the universe is the same. “The Source” will answer them one by one.

stockin
7 months ago

The big bang is just an argument. The reason is that many people think that many things are from scratch, and from scratch is more in line with most people’s logical reasoning thinking. They couldn’t figure out the fact that the universe has always existed in their minds, and couldn’t turn it around. They had to start from nothing, so they arranged a big bang to come out. But look at all the new things in the earth, they are the evolution of another or multiple things, so the universe is more likely to exist all the time, without beginning and end, eternal existence.

11
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x