Dubbelosix

read what he said again, and tell me your question again, for clarity, please. Now I have looked back, you are not asking what it is, or what it means? But you are asking, (maybe) how the wavelength is created?

You know what a wavelength is right?

Indeed, strange brings up a good point, particle black holes take on different forms as well. For instance, a geon is particle so dense it's own gravitational waves cannot escape. But its an almost trivial difference, but felt I should mention that after strange's comments.

The laws of physics, a Planck particle is by definition, a particle black hole. So says Wheeler. Mind you, wheeler meant it in terms of a bubbling of the quantum vacuum that he called a geon. A geon is not much different to a Planck particle, that is, a particle so dense it is a black hole in all respects.

Yes a black hole can have a minimum size, its known as a Planck particle. Emmm... No. Gravity follows the same speed rules as general speed of light, which are made of photons. Gravity couldn't possible tug to rip apart the inside.

No, a black hole doesn't need to have a singularity. That's the whole point. In fact in my crucial years of learning, I came to understand if a singularity arises in a theory, it's probably the sign of a mistake somewhere.

Oh let's not get into singularities please lol... ask someone else. I have had enough in these days talking about singularities, especially recently within the concept of 'countable infinities' and the 'Hilbert Hotel' not really my taste When people ask me about singularities, I want them to think about ridiculously epic music like the following

Well, yes it does depend on size, when he asked, a small black hole, I have him a theoretical situation, based on computer simulations I have seen, from a black hole, about the eighth of the size of the earth.

I corrected the parsects comment, I was engaged in two conversations, inbetween, made a cup of tea and got confused lol.... I corrected it to 20 million km, that's about half the distance to mars if my memory serves correct?

Indeed! I actually corrected this before you posted, you see, I got entangled between two conversations I am having. I then came back and saw what I wrote, and I apologize for my mistake. well spotted by the way, I feel encouraged by this. That people are paying attention.

A small black hole, encountering the earth, is a similar problem... unless you mean a big black hole encountering another ... well... let's consider both. As a small black hole comes within the distance of our nearest neighbour, Mars, we will begin to feel tidal effects, there will be tsunamis over the face of the earth. As it comes to within half the distance of Mars, we will begin to experience terrible earth quakes... maybe volcanoes will become alive again. Tsunamis galore and in greater sizes and amounts. When it is about 20 million km, we will experience tremendous forces on the surface of the earth - these are tidal forces as they would work on the ocean. The human race will be almost completely wiped out by this point. As it approaches further, the earth's mantel will break and be dragged out into space, to cool in the dead of the vacuum and become like spaghetti. A small black hole and a large one, simply merge, giving off what is known as gravitational radiation, which is actually not radiation but a type of distortion in the fabric of spacetime. Sorry I got confused, I have edited my last post, i didn't mean parsects at all, I meant something entirely different. I wrote something else because I was engaged in another discussion lol.. corrected now.

Ok, thanks.

I love this old chestnut, because it seems to be the one question almost all novice and actual academics struggle with. The big bang may not be the (beginning to everything) in which the early models considered as resulting from a singularity. Does the universe, or any post existence of a universe, imply it can come from nothing? Well ... arguably, with the [right model] yes you can, in some ad hoc way show that a universe can arise from nothing, using only the dynamics of gravity. I have a really nice quote of Hawking in an unpublished work of mine on my computer I will search iit out for you. Found it: ''Because there is such a law as gravity, the universe can and will, create itself from nothing.'' Hawking I say ad hoc for a good reason, because in my own experience, it makes no philosophical sense to say something comes from nothing, and while philosophy is not generally trained into the scientist, logic should. ... For how can something come from nothing? It doesn't even make sense. Unless you define nothing as 1) nothing 2) absolute nothing But then, how does nothing and absolute nothing differ, unless nothing wasn't actually nothing? Though you know what side I am on I think of the big bang related to chaotic and non-conserved processes - I don't think I ever explained this to you, but when I think about big bang models incorporating singularities as involving the squeezing of the matter and energy into a condensed point, is unphysical for obvious reasons - it is akin to the problems of making a point in general relativity from a sphere, you will find its curvature inflate to infinity! The situation of the big bang though, is perfect for non-conserving dynamics. Curvature is the only interesting thing when a universe is young, and Wilczek has shown that it is possible that gravity has a ... complimentary existence, if you will, with the electromagnetic force. He shows it is entirely consistent that as gravity increases as you reduce the size of a universe, it's charge tends to zero. This makes sense for particles in the early cosmology without charge and before electroweak symmetry breaking.

What is the sciencemag, is it mainstream strange?

Mordred makes some very good points, but I would like to make some things absolutely clear. The big bang can be thought of as a black hole, but there are differences, the horizon for instance, is different, where a black holes horizon is a true boundary. The universe has no boundary. It is also true from the mathematics of a black hole that from inside, the universe would not appear very dense. This is also true from our perspective, since matter makes up about 1% of all of spacetime and then there is the space outside the observable horizon, which could be much larger and devoid of any matter or energy. Another problem, is that the big bang doesn;t quite match the physics of a black hole, since its easier to argue it makes better sense for its time reversed partner, a white hole. Some notable scientists have speculated this and even wrote papers on it. Mordred is like me, we entertain theories we may not even agree with. You should have been harsher, I think I know what you mean though We won't get to observe anything beyond the radiation phase of the universe. It would completely smear anything that existed with structure before it. Besides I guess it is hard to say anything with structure existed before the universe became transparent for light, but who cares really lol... I will ask though, what are your opinions on a quantum theory of gravity? I have not much confidence at all for the gauge theory of quantization. I was made aware by Mordred though that the spin-2 statistics should remain in the wave formulation. I think Mordred is intelligent, but not been terribly sure this should be the case. I can understand though why, because I know some background of that field and the spin -2 field does give rise naturally to an attractive field. But there are other ways that doesn't involve a concept of spin and are purely classical.

There's some really cool things though, with large implementation on the cosmic scale. For instance, can we really use gravitational corrections as a negative energy density to prevent singularities? In my own model, they are prevented by a non-trivial sign change between the Gibbs Helmholtz phase change - negative sign on pressure prevents a Friedmann equation from collapsing. The LQG generalizes the correction to [math]\rho ( 1 - \frac{\rho}{\rho_C})[/math] And then you introduce the corrections which act like a negative gravity. This is how you create quark stars! So assume we find quark star in nature, then we have evidence on the cosmological scale these corrections exist in nature. I am skeptical though. Yup both of them are working on different things... Penrose appears to be working on cyclic universes while Hawking constantly changes his mind. First of all he likes fluctuation theory, then he changes his mind into string theory development, especially the M-theory. As Penrose says though... ''we are allowed to change our minds.''

The beautiful thing, and not without a sense of bias, is that our universe is inexorably the product of the second phase, we live in the radiation phase of the universe. I haven't published this, only referred back to academics who do know fully what they are talking about. But let's just say, nothing actually prevents my model, it just comes down to a matter of opinion, without the evidence. You're still not quite getting this - it doesnt matter if the singularity tells us anything about a beginning, successfully good mathematical theories encounter singularities all the time and people do not explain them away, unless they use a renormalization process. The actual point is that a singularity has no concept of space, and so if it expands, space and time have to emerge and an origin theory is implied, which is the point.

Yes I admitted this very early on so that no one took my statement as absolute - the problem with alternative models is lack of evidence and certainly not one of lack of imagination For instance, I have become a sucker for my own model now... forget a big hot bang and start thinking in condensate terms. You can find a model which predicts a super cool pre big bang phase described as a Gibbs-Helmholtz thermodynamic phase change from an all-liquid condensed degenerate phase into a radiation vapor.

I certainly believe that when rotation decays significantly that any residual torsion of the galaxies in a common direction in such a slow motion much be a statement about the weakness of the coupling of the systems to the rotation of the body itself. The galaxies are treated like dust - observable CMB radiation background disturbance would be so if the universe was significantly coupled to both matter and radiation - then when you consider the size of a single quanta of photon next to the weakly rotating dark flow phenomenon, associated in this case, to the motion of the dust in the form of galaxies, then I personally feel there are good reasons to think the CMB coupling decays before the galactic couplings totally decay.

Who cares if we know nothing about the beginning?? What I said before was, that the universe has an origin found from the big bang. This was challenged by someone who said it wasn't. You then came in and said they were right. Then later you said no one was saying the universe doesn't have an origin at the big bang. Throwing insults at people is not the way, I had a temporary lack of judgement and I apologise. However, look at this above, and can you take into consideration, how I feel, and what its like being told you are wrong about something, when you know technically speaking, you are right? Listen, I am very knowledgeable in my physics, don't take me as someone you can easily take as fool here. Ironic, I was just apologising myself for my own attitude, apology accepted.

Also, I agree, it is changing all the time. I predict singularity theorems to soon become a thing of the true past. It's still a popular way of thinking, even though scientists have demonstrated, many times, that singularities can be avoided, in very nice, dynamical ways. It seems likely this will be the case, we will find either the universe is cyclic or there is a pre-phase to the universe, something I myself have written on and speculated with some interesting results. The big bang though, is still just a phase - questions about what happened before becomes a semantic fodder for trolls trying to argue whether a big bang speaks about a beginning to time. The thing people don't realise, is that singularity theorems have to talk about a beginning to time and if there is a beginning of time, space has to very shortly follow according to the rules of relativity - and even in the advent of finding evidence some day for any phases before the big bang - the big bang still remains as the origin of what the phase of this observable universe has had to undergo. So you think matter energy and time and space just appeared... wham! Just like that, in its configuration? It doesn't require singularities, or anything before it? Whatever, I am done wasting time with you. The big bang was not a theory in absence of origin... its almost a blinding fact that somewhere an origin theory has to be accounted within the standard model - this was seen as a singularity very early on, fluctuations later, cyclic theories... and blah blah blah.

Well, personally speaking, I know of only of the old, original investigations into the big bang - which in its most infant stages involves the singularity theorems, proposed by Hawking and Penrose. It has been suggested maybe, that the singularity is not a part of the big bang and so doesn't explain the origin, but this is of course, nonsense. A theory, a perfectly good mathematical theory may otherwise present a singularity. You don't need to know what it is, or why it is, only that it is there within the theory. Everything is proposed in the singularity theorems, as extending from the point we call the singularity, proposing that everything has a causal history. Also, it seems like semantic nonsense to say the big bang doesn't imply an origin - unless something is cyclic in nature, then the big bang will always be the origin of everything we see today; questions like what happened before a big bang, is just again proposing a semantic argument, because again, everything still has to come from the big bang phase, regardless of what came before it. Again, you actually don't know enough about the theory or you wouldn't be saying this. The original big bang model was adapted to take into consideraton general relativity which found an origin point called a singularity. I will put you on ignore if you don't catch on, I have only a little patience these days.

No you said ''no one was saying'' that the universe had an origin at the big bang. I said there was, try again.

Maybe you will have time to think about how you said no one was saying the big bang was not the origin of the universe and then ask yourself why I should actually waste time on you, since I see the likes of you on forums all the time.

Maybe when I start taking it easy, I'll have time to respond. Right now, not feeling up to it.