Objective Frame of Reference

[strontium]

Einstein viewed the Singularity merely as a mathematical curiosity and believed black holes would not occur in nature. He should have seen the Singularity as the heart of his theory. While some physicists view each occurrence of singularities in the context of Relativity as distinct and individualized phenomena, each instance of the Singularity should be understood as a manifestation of a singular, Universal phenomenon.
The Singularity at the heart of the Big Bang is essentially all the matter and energy in the Universe condensed into what can be described as a singular mathematical "point". The Singularity at the heart of a black hole is essentially localized matter and energy stretched towards a singular mathematical "point" of infinite density (in other words, the thermodynamic arrow of time can be described as expansion from infinite blueshift to infinite redshift. The Universe can be described as a spectrum from infinite energy to zero energy, observable in terms of Cosmic expansion from a singular point of infinite density. There is no discernible beginning or end of the Universe in discrete finite terms, rather this spectrum serves as the Objective Frame of Reference). While many seem to struggle with the idea of a so-called "point" of infinite density, it is important to understand that this is not the kind of discrete finite point you might be used to dealing with. These "points" are useful for reference, but do not culminate or conclude in the sense of our general understanding of cause and effect in discrete finite terms. Rather, the appearance of a singularity represents an infinite progression of physics. Infinity is endless, so what is infinitely dense or infinitely vast is simply a matter of perspective. 

These apparent phenomena should be understood not as individualized singularities occurring throughout space and time, but as the opposite poles of a singular phenomenon.
Properly understood, the Singularity should be recognized as a Universal phenomenon which collectively forms the Objective Frame of Reference for Relativity. It should be noted that Einstein believed there was no frame of reference for Relativity, but in this belief he was wrong again, and I would wager that with a comprehensive evaluation of modern experimentation and observation in physics, he would concede as much. Our failure to contend with the physics of the Singularity in mathematical terms is a result of our failure to understand that no Universal constant can be described with objective accuracy in discrete finite terms. In Einstein's gravitational constant for example, we have two constants that can only ever be approximated: Pi, and the speed of light. Pi as we know is an infinite nonrepeating decimal, and the speed of light is a metric relating the spacial experience of light to the temporal experience of light. In each case, when utilizing these constants, we stipulate to significant digits. In so doing, we embed error in all resulting conclusions. The speed of light should be described as 299,792,458 x/∞ meters per 1 x/∞ second, where every decimal place from .0 to .∞ is relevant in cosmic terms. In order to comprehensively quantify gravity in a cosmic context, you must be able to describe all relevant universal constants in terms of infinite digits. As this is relativistically impossible, the conclusion must be that objective accuracy can be endlessly pursued but never truly accomplished.

Edited March 2, 2022 by strontium
Error

[beecee]

Physicists and scientists today, mostly reject any singularity as defined by infinite densities and spacetime curvature. But a singularity is also defined more simply as where our laws of physics and GR break down or are not applicable.

[strontium]

20 minutes ago, beecee said:

Physicists and scientists today, mostly reject any singularity as defined by infinite densities and spacetime curvature. But a singularity is also defined more simply as where our laws of physics and GR break down or are not applicable.

Right, but there is no valid reason to reject the conception of a singularity defined by infinite density. "Infinite density" is a bit of a misnomer, as I explained, it is an infinite progression of physics. If you try to treat a point of infinite density like you would any other apparently discrete object of course it doesn't make sense. The laws of physics break down at the singularity precisely because physicists have stubbornly assumed that there are universal constants that can be described with objective accuracy in discrete finite terms, which is an errant assumption.

Edited March 2, 2022 by strontium

[beecee]

4 minutes ago, strontium said:

Right, but there is no valid reason to reject the conception of a singularity defined by infinite density. "Infinite density" is a bit of a misnomer, as I explained, it is an infinite progression of physics. If you try to treat a point of infinite density like you would any other apparently discrete object of course it doesn't make sense. The laws of physics break down at the singularity precisely because physicists have stubbornly assumed that there are universal constants that can be described with objective accuracy in discrete finite terms, which is an errant assumption.

The problem is infinity itself. Our laws of physics and GR break down at the quantum/Planck level, so theoretically in a BH for example, GR tells us that once the schwarzchild radius is reached, then further collapse of any matter is compulsory. But GR also breaks down at the quantum/Planck level, which may mean that the collapsed matter lays at or just below that quantum/planck level, in an unknown state.

[strontium]

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

The problem is infinity itself. Our laws of physics and GR break down at the quantum/Planck level, so theoretically in a BH for example, GR tells us that once the schwarzchild radius is reached, then further collapse of any matter is compulsory. But GR also breaks down at the quantum/Planck level, which may mean that the collapsed matter lays at or just below that quantum/planck level, in an unknown state.

Planck units are also a consequence of the fundamental assumption that there are universal constants that can be described with objective accuracy in discrete finite terms. Of course, no matter how accurate your measurements are in relative terms, your calculations will break down at a certain point. You can't describe infinity mathematically in discrete finite terms, obviously. So the question becomes, how do we make our measurements more accurate and modify our equations? In order to use Pi in Einstein's field equations, you must approximate it. The more accurate your approximation is, the more precise your calculations will be. But your approximation of Pi is not just dependent on how many significant digits you choose to use, but the precision of the measurements you use to calculate Pi. The same goes for the speed of light. Because all units are arbitrary in complexity and infinitely divisible, it is always possible to improve the precision of your measurements and your resulting conclusions.

Our measurements of the speed of light are more accurate than previous generations, but they are still an approximation, and the same goes for Pi. Future generations will be able to make more precise measurements, and in turn more precise calculations.

[SuperSlim]

What the field equations keep telling us is we haven't found the real solutions yet. All the solutions, so far, including what happened at a beginning, are still approximate somehow.

[beecee]

16 hours ago, strontium said:

Our measurements of the speed of light are more accurate than previous generations, but they are still an approximation, and the same goes for Pi. Future generations will be able to make more precise measurements, and in turn more precise calculations.

As long as they get the job done. We still find the 300 year old Newtonian mechanics as sufficiently accurate enough for most all space endeavours and of course we near exclusively use it on Earth. 

[strontium]

23 hours ago, SuperSlim said:

What the field equations keep telling us is we haven't found the real solutions yet. All the solutions, so far, including what happened at a beginning, are still approximate somehow.

What the field equations are telling us, is that the answer has been right in front of our face this whole time, but it is not a discrete finite answer.

The question "what happened at the beginning?" is an understandable but illegitimate question. All matter and energy in the Universe emanates from the source, and because the source is infinite and not finite, matter and energy never "began" they simply are. As matter and energy move away from a singular point of infinite energy and towards zero energy, the Universal energy disperses in relative terms and therefore the Universe appears to expand. This is why light redshifts as it moves through space, even though it doesn't slow down. Because the Universe "originates" (again to be clear, not in a sense of the discrete finite understanding of cause and effect, but rather in terms of reference) from infinite energy, the Universe expands forever.

Edited March 3, 2022 by strontium

[mistermack]

I'm not sure how a singularity in a black hole could define an objective frame of reference. After all, there are billions of black holes, all in different motion relative to each other. Will they all indicate just one unique frame of reference as real? 

[MigL]

A singular point cannot have any internal attributes that would cause it to become unstable, or inflate.
No vacuum fluctuations, no vacuum pressure or false zero energy levels, no Cosmological Constant, etc.
So what caused the original expansion/inflation of the Big Bang ?

[md65536]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

A singular point cannot have any internal attributes that would cause it to become unstable, or inflate.

Why not? Are you implying that a point particle can't decay?

[MigL]

3 hours ago, md65536 said:

Are you implying that a point particle can't decay?

That is essentially correct, and depends mostly on the model being applied.
A classical point particle has no expectation of decay.
A quantum particle, which can decay, cannot be localized to a point, because of e the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and the fact that, in QFT, the particle is simply a manifestation of its field.

But the OP was asking about a point at the beginning of the universe.
A point with no exterior as it encompasses the whole universe, and no internal structure or mechanism/process.
So what exactly would cause the transition to expansion/inflation ?

The actual universe is believed to have had a finite initial size, which was subject to quantum fluctuations, and may have initiated its expansion/inflation and subsequent structure.

Edited March 4, 2022 by MigL

[md65536]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

That is essentially correct, and depends mostly on the model being applied.
A classical point particle has no expectation of decay.
A quantum particle, which can decay, cannot be localized to a point, because of e the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and the fact that, in QFT, the particle is simply a manifestation of its field.

Based on context and the forum we're in, the model must be a relativistic one. The quantum argument sounds reasonable but you can't make that claim about a gravitational singularity without a theory of quantum gravity.

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

So what exactly would cause the transition to expansion/inflation ?

I don't see how lack of a clear cause is a useful argument. If you use that reasoning, you can claim that spontaneous particle decay can't happen at all.

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

The actual universe is believed to have had a finite initial size, which was subject to quantum fluctuations, and may have initiated its expansion/inflation and subsequent structure.

Yes, it seems accepted theory is moving away from the idea of an initial singularity. My limited understanding is that the singularity is considered speculative, shown to be not necessary in some theories, and not possible in others. However the issue isn't settled because to do so would require a theory of quantum gravity. Therefore making claims as if it's settled, is speculation only. I haven't followed OP's arguments, I'm only addressing yours.