Singularity

[einsteinium99]

What happens if, instead of considering the singularity as a "point", we consider it as a gravitational wave with no upwards limit to its frequency?

In this understanding although the Universe appears to expand from a point, the expansion of the Universe and thus the progression of time is explained in terms of a pervasive gravitational wave in spacetime with no upwards or downwards limit to its frequency.

At a certain frequency, this wave due to the limitations of human observation would be indistinguishable from a point, but nevertheless capable of increasing in frequency to no end.

The singularity is a wave of ultra-high frequency that underlies all of spacetime, but is only noticeable under certain conditions such as preceding the Big Bang or at the heart of a black hole.

The observable universe consists of spacetime within the visible spectrum of spacetime (commensurate with the visible spectrum of light).

Spacetime beyond the event horizon of a black hole would be ultra-low frequency spacetime as spacetime is stretched towards the ultra-high frequency singularity under conditions of massive amounts of gravity. I.e., spacetime "redshifts" towards the singularity, from the downwards limit in the visible spectrum of spacetime (in terms of frequency), which we call the "event horizon".

 

[StringJunky]

Quote

In this understanding although the Universe appears to expand from a point,....

If  the singularity were real, the whole universe is contained within it.  There is no 'outside'. If you conceive of an 'outside',  then what does that reside in? It's a "Turtles all the way down" infinite regression argument.

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by StringJunky

[Genady]

Singularity is a consequence of GR. Gravitational wave is a consequence of GR. In GR, singularity is NOT a gravitational wave.

If you want to consider a singularity as a gravitational wave, then either the singularity or the gravitational wave (or both) should be NOT what they are in GR, but something else. What are they?

[joigus]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

Singularity is a consequence of GR. Gravitational wave is a consequence of GR. In GR, singularity is NOT a gravitational wave.

If you want to consider a singularity as a gravitational wave, then either the singularity or the gravitational wave (or both) should be NOT what they are in GR, but something else. What are they?

GRate answer!

[einsteinium99]

On 6/20/2023 at 5:43 AM, StringJunky said:

If  the singularity were real, the whole universe is contained within it.  There is no 'outside'. If you conceive of an 'outside',  then what does that reside in? It's a "Turtles all the way down" infinite regression argument.

 

 

You do not seem to understand the distinction I am making when I say "observable universe".

 

On 6/20/2023 at 6:42 AM, Genady said:

Singularity is a consequence of GR. Gravitational wave is a consequence of GR. In GR, singularity is NOT a gravitational wave.

If you want to consider a singularity as a gravitational wave, then either the singularity or the gravitational wave (or both) should be NOT what they are in GR, but something else. What are they?

Relativity as formulated in terms of observable measurements demands the theoretical existence of points in space and time.

The resolution of the singularity as a point in Einstein's Relativity is a consequence of the intrinsic limitations of observable measurements.

Einstein could not make heads or tails of the singularity. This is why: to resolve the singularity as a point in spacetime is objectively incorrect.

The singularity is a wave in spacetime with no upwards limit to its frequency 

[StringJunky]

15 minutes ago, einsteinium99 said:

 

You do not seem to understand the distinction I am making when I say "observable universe".

"..In this understanding although the Universe appears to expand from a point,...". Whatever idea you concoct based on this is built on sand.

[einsteinium99]

15 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

"..In this understanding although the Universe appears to expand from a point,...". Whatever idea you concoct based on this is built on sand.

Does it or does it not appear according to modern scientific theory that the Universe emerged from a point in what we call "The Big Bang"?

What I am suggesting is that a wave in spacetime increasing indefinitely in frequency, would be virtually indistinguishable from a point due to the intrinsic limitations of human observation.

[StringJunky]

15 minutes ago, einsteinium99 said:

Does it or does it not appear according to modern scientific theory that the Universe emerged from a point in what we call "The Big Bang"?

What I am suggesting is that a wave in spacetime increasing indefinitely in frequency, would be virtually indistinguishable from a point due to the intrinsic limitations of human observation.

Where are we? In the universe. At what was called the Inflationary Period/Big Bang, distances increased exponentially between masses. The space increased in-between masses, they didn't eject from a singular point in the ring pattern of a typical explosion. It was a big expansion, not a big explosion.

Edited June 26, 2023 by StringJunky

[Genady]

4 hours ago, einsteinium99 said:

On 6/20/2023 at 6:42 AM, Genady said:

Singularity is a consequence of GR. Gravitational wave is a consequence of GR. In GR, singularity is NOT a gravitational wave.

If you want to consider a singularity as a gravitational wave, then either the singularity or the gravitational wave (or both) should be NOT what they are in GR, but something else. What are they?

Relativity as formulated in terms of observable measurements demands the theoretical existence of points in space and time.

The resolution of the singularity as a point in Einstein's Relativity is a consequence of the intrinsic limitations of observable measurements.

Einstein could not make heads or tails of the singularity. This is why: to resolve the singularity as a point in spacetime is objectively incorrect.

The singularity is a wave in spacetime with no upwards limit to its frequency 

You did not answer my question. You did not even relate to it in your reply. Did you understand my comment?