Quantum mechanics & cosmic space

[chandragupta]

Quantum mechanics gives the concept of singularity,the starting point of BIG BANG (which according to BIG BANG theory gives rise to universe) but it fails to explain where this SINGULARITY exists without cosmic space?

Your thoughts?

[derek w]

Nobody knows!

[Moop]

Infinite universes go through the Big Bang cycle in a space of nowhere(maybe). Little pops all over the place. Since neither space or time exist in their space of 'nothing', they could possibly make up the absolute smallest particles in our universe. It would make sense.. I thought of this a few months ago and am pretty proud of myself (:

 

If it were true, it would make it so infinite universes actually make up our own. And our own making up a very small part of another, or infinite others. It would make sense because coding for the particles to make molecules, for fetuses to grow(know how to grow), for bacteria to know how to eat.. It would all already make sense to them because, the whole multiverse has already happened in their smallest particles.

[timo]

Quantum mechanics gives the concept of singularity,the starting point of BIG BANG (which according to BIG BANG theory gives rise to universe) but it fails to explain where this SINGULARITY exists without cosmic space?

Your thoughts?

The Big Bang I learned about in university comes from relativity, not from quantum mechanics. It also defines the location as "everywhere". Big Bang means that the distance between all points in space becomes non-zero (if you want to see it "time forward") or alternatively the distance becomes zero (if you see it "time backwards" from today).

 

I feel that recently sfn experiences an increasing number of thread that invite physics discussion based on very dubious premises.

[chandragupta]

DOES THE SINGULARITY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE & THE SINGULARITY AT THE END OF THE UNIVERSE HAS A NON-SPATIAL EXISTENCE ? Your thoughts ?

[Scott82]

In a singularity there is space, it is just very small and extremely warped.

 

But we don't know if the universe will end in a singularity. If neutrinos turn out to have mass, it may be enough to pull everything back. Otherwise it will just keep on expanding long after the last star has gone out...

[IM Egdall]

As others on this forum have pointed out, "singularity" means we don't know. The so-called big bang singularity is where the mathematics of general relativity blows up -- it gives us infinity for a solution at time zero. The singularity is not real. Current physics can't tell us what happened at time zero. Again, we just don't know.

[Anders Hoveland]

DOES THE SINGULARITY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE & THE SINGULARITY AT THE END OF THE UNIVERSE HAS A NON-SPATIAL EXISTENCE ? Your thoughts ?

No, the singularity exists in space, it is just that the size of the space-time (assuming space is finite and closes back in on itself) has shrunk down to the same size also.

I suspect the size of such a singularity may have something to do with the Planck constant...

 

Remember, "empty" space is actually composed of energy too. If and when the entire universe collapses on itself, it will carry all that space with it.

 

There cannot actually be any true singularity, in the sense of an infinitesimally small point. Remember, when all the mass collapses onto itself, matter will be converted into energy - energy which is equal to, and will oppose, the gravitational force. Some physicists have the false idea that all the energy will be radiated out into infinity and the core of the universe will suffer death by entropy. But this just is not possible when space-time collapses as well, along with all that matter.

 

 

As for what form of energy "space" is actually composed of, I say just plain energy. It is in an equilibrium of course, and to understand why it can pervade matter with seemingly no irreversible interaction, I would suggest that the wave description - ultra long wavelength, ultra high intensity) of this vacuum energy gives it its defining characteristics. Even the portion of the energy in equilibrium with higher frequency energy (or even subatomic particle pairs) is still coupled to the rest of the energy, so these "vacuum particles" can only transiently interract with matter. By "vaccum" particles, I give as an example the W boson.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Anders Hoveland

[chandragupta]

Space is the ' SINE QUA NON' for any kind of existence , be that existence as it may, SINGULARITY or any thing else. If one accepts that SINGULARITY contains the space inside IT-SELF then question still remains who contains the SINGULARITY inside it-self ?

 

1350777932[/url]' post='709362']

As others on this forum have pointed out, "singularity" means we don't know. The so-called big bang singularity is where the mathematics of general relativity blows up -- it gives us infinity for a solution at time zero. The singularity is not real. Current physics can't tell us what happened at time zero. Again, we just don't know.

 

Thanks.I agree 100 percent with you. The main problem is : The evolution of present mathematics is still in infancy for it does not allow inclusion of observer in its equations. There is urgent need for invention of a new kind of mathematics by the observer which in future can allow the observer as well in his equations along with matter for universe has two components namely matter & observer.By ignoring observer from his mathematical equations,observer is going round & round in a circle.Your thoughts?

[michel123456]

Space is the ' SINE QUA NON' for any kind of existence , be that existence as it may, SINGULARITY or any thing else. If one accepts that SINGULARITY contains the space inside IT-SELF then question still remains who contains the SINGULARITY inside it-self ?

 

 

 

Thanks.I agree 100 percent with you. The main problem is : The evolution of present mathematics is still in infancy for it does not allow inclusion of observer in its equations. There is urgent need for invention of a new kind of mathematics by the observer which in future can allow the observer as well in his equations along with matter for universe has two components namely matter & observer.By ignoring observer from his mathematical equations,observer is going round & round in a circle.Your thoughts?

My thought is that Relativity is already a "kind of mathematics by the observer".

[chandragupta]

Michel 123456. What do you mean by saying: 'relativity is already a kind of mathematics by the observer'? Please explain!

[michel123456]

Relativity is about... relativity. That means "relative to something", that 'something" is an observer in most of the case.

 

From Wiki Special Relativity:, bolded mine

Special relativity is based on two postulates which are contradictory in classical mechanics:

 

1.The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another (principle of relativity).

2.The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light.

[chandragupta]

In this context OBSERVER is a mere slave of matter & is forced to swallow whatever crumbs matter throws at him from its table.Your thoughts?

[michel123456]

My thoughts are that it is not QT and what am I doing here?

[chandragupta]

1351458381[/url]' post='710845']

Relativity is about... relativity. That means "relative to something", that 'something" is an observer in most of the case.

 

From Wiki Special Relativity:, bolded mine

 

 

Here i.e. in relativity, the OBSERVER is a mere outsider passively perceiving the matter & trying to make sense of its structure & function,never for a moment thinking that IT IS HE WHO ALONE IS 'SELF-AWARE' & not the matter & IT IS HE ALONE WHO PROCLAIMS 'look,here is this character called matter. Let us make sense of it'.Your thoughts?

[chandragupta]

Space is the 'sine qua non' or an absolutely necessary thing for the existence of any entity, be that entity as it may the SINGULARITY or any other entity. In other words ANYTHING which has any kind of dimension cannot exist without the existence of space first.My question is:- Since SINGULARITY before the beginning of the universe as well as at the of the universe is conceived as containing the cosmic space time (as a potential) inside itself then how this thing called SINGULARITY itself exists outside any kind of space unless we conceive this SINGULARITY as a DIMENSIONLESS POINT OF EXISTENCE? Your thoughts?

[IM Egdall]

I think it is dangerous to attribute the necessity of humans to the notion of an observer. Take an electron for example. In quantum mechanics, the electron wave function collapses when it is "observed". I think it is better to say the "interaction" of the electron with the detector resulted in the collapse of the wave function. No human observer is necessary.

 

In relativity, the "observer" is a particular frame of reference. If you place a measurement device like an atomic clock in a particular reference frame -- say on a rocket moving with respect to the Earth-- it will register the passage of time differently than an identical clock on the Earth. Again no human observers are necessary.

 

The universe existed for some 13.7 billion years before humans first walked the Earth. So it seems to me humans are not needed for the laws of physics to play out.

 

Thoughts?

Edited November 4, 2012 by IM Egdall

[chandragupta]

1352056874[/url]' post='711593']

I think it is dangerous to attribute the necessity of humans to the notion of an observer. Take an electron for example. In quantum mechanics, the electron wave function collapses when it is "observed". I think it is better to say the "interaction" of the electron with the detector resulted in the collapse of the wave function. No human observer is necessary.

 

In relativity, the "observer" is a particular frame of reference. If you place a measurement device like an atomic clock in a particular reference frame -- say on a rocket moving with respect to the Earth-- it will register the passage of time differently than an identical clock on the Earth. Again no human observers are necessary.

 

The universe existed for some 13.7 billion years before humans first walked the Earth. So it seems to me humans are not needed for the laws of physics to play out.

 

Thoughts?

 

Thank you. You have given me a good insight into the nature of the term 'OBSERVER' in the realm of quanta.

 

Thank you. You have given me a good insight into the nature of the term 'OBSERVER' in the realm of quanta.

 

1352056874[/url]' post='711593']

I think it is dangerous to attribute the necessity of humans to the notion of an observer. Take an electron for example. In quantum mechanics, the electron wave function collapses when it is "observed". I think it is better to say the "interaction" of the electron with the detector resulted in the collapse of the wave function. No human observer is necessary.

 

In relativity, the "observer" is a particular frame of reference. If you place a measurement device like an atomic clock in a particular reference frame -- say on a rocket moving with respect to the Earth-- it will register the passage of time differently than an identical clock on the Earth. Again no human observers are necessary.

 

The universe existed for some 13.7 billion years before humans first walked the Earth. So it seems to me humans are not needed for the laws of physics to play out.

 

Thoughts?

You mentioned quite correctly that the term 'OBSERVER' cannot be limited entirely to humans & an atomic clock could act as an 'OBSERVER' aboard a rocket etc. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT HERE. My only comment here at this moment will be that when the time comes to read the atomic clock in question, then only a HUMAN OBSERVER will meet the requirement. Your thoughts?

[IM Egdall]

I guess I would say the atomic clock has a certain reading whether a human looks at it or not. Say we somehow connect the clock to a bomb so it goes off when the clock reaches a certain reading. The bomb will still explode at that time, even if there is no one to observe it.

[chandragupta]

1352140419[/url]' post='711739']

I guess I would say the atomic clock has a certain reading whether a human looks at it or not. Say we somehow connect the clock to a bomb so it goes off when the clock reaches a certain reading. The bomb will still explode at that time, even if there is no one to observe it.

 

Thanks. It is really getting very interesting. We need some light- hearted discourse now , a little away from tough seriousness of quantum mechanics. You see ,unless there is a human observer to say ' Hey, look ,a bomb has exploded at such a time directed by an atomic clock' this fact will remain unknown for ever. Your thoughts?

 

1352033501[/url]' post='711550']

Space is the 'sine qua non' or an absolutely necessary thing for the existence of any entity, be that entity as it may the SINGULARITY or any other entity. In other words ANYTHING which has any kind of dimension cannot exist without the existence of space first.My question is:- Since SINGULARITY before the beginning of the universe as well as at the of the universe is conceived as containing the cosmic space time (as a potential) inside itself then how this thing called SINGULARITY itself exists outside any kind of space unless we conceive this SINGULARITY as a DIMENSIONLESS POINT OF EXISTENCE? Your thoughts?

 

Will some one come forward to take this thread forward ?

[chandragupta]

1352146147[/url]' post='711745']

Thanks. It is really getting very interesting. We need some light- hearted discourse now , a little away from tough seriousness of quantum mechanics. You see ,unless there is a human observer to say ' Hey, look ,a bomb has exploded at such a time directed by an atomic clock' this fact will remain unknown for ever. Your thoughts?

 

 

 

Will some one come forward to take this thread forward ?

 

Since no one is comming forward to take this thread forward, let me break the ice. I would attempt to move it a little further in the hope some will join me to make it a 'POLY-DIALOGUE' & not leave it as a monologue. The question I have posed is a serious one because the present difficulty with STANDARD MODEL I.e. it having infinities & being so big & ugly, not withstanding it's virtue that it is the best we have at present. So come on why not have ago?

 

1352033501[/url]' post='711550']

Space is the 'sine qua non' or an absolutely necessary thing for the existence of any entity, be that entity as it may the SINGULARITY or any other entity. In other words ANYTHING which has any kind of dimension cannot exist without the existence of space first.My question is:- Since SINGULARITY before the beginning of the universe as well as at the of the universe is conceived as containing the cosmic space time (as a potential) inside itself then how this thing called SINGULARITY itself exists outside any kind of space unless we conceive this SINGULARITY as a DIMENSIONLESS POINT OF EXISTENCE? Your thoughts?