Are there any hypotheses saying we live in a singularity?

[keith]

Hi , Ive had a hypothesis for years about the start of the universe, nice and simple. Recently I found out about the cosmological redshift and speculation in the press about whether the antihydrogen produced at Cern ? had negative gravity [ too small a quantity to check, apparently] . Both those things come out in my hypothesis and this also becomes obvious that the Universe is a singularity .

As Bohr stated , 'its crazy , but is it crazy enough to be true?' , has it ever been thought of and what was the conclusion?

[ajb]

The Universe is a singularity...means what?

[Endy0816]

It has rattled around in my mind at least, probably others.

 

The Universe appearing as a point at a higher level.

 

Main issue is how you could ever prove or disprove such a state.

 

Big assumption but if physics work the same then the Universe would have to deal with the addition of matter and eventual decay. This could be considered evidence against the theory.

[Strange]

To put it another way, what is a singularity?

[keith]

Yes Strange . My thoughts are that when positive/negative are created [ there must be a better phrase for the maelstrom of creation/destruction of matter? ] at some point these fail totally to destruct and fly off to create 2 new particles. These units have 4 dimensions , x,y,z,t which are larger than the particulate itself and the positives enlarge the universe . the negatives decrease the size , thus maintaining the Universe size that was at the 'big bang' , hence it remains to an outside observer still a singularity . Time works the same way .

Having opposite gravitational energy , one of these will concentrate towards the centre of course .

A postulated VERY strange Singularity

[Strange]

Good grief.

 

My thoughts are that when positive/negative are created [ there must be a better phrase for the maelstrom of creation/destruction of matter? ]

 

There may be a better phrase but I don't know what it might be as it isn't clear what you are trying to describe.

 

What are the "positive/negative" you refer to? When and where are they created? What does this have to do with the creation and/or destruction of matter?

 

 

at some point these fail totally to destruct and fly off to create 2 new particles.

Why do they fail to destruct (sic)? And how do they create 2 new particles? And what are these particles?

 

 

These units have 4 dimensions , x,y,z,t which are larger than the particulate itself

How can their dimensions (size?) be larger than the particles themselves are?

 

 

and the positives enlarge the universe . the negatives decrease the size

Why? Or, even, how?

 

 

, thus maintaining the Universe size that was at the 'big bang' , hence it remains to an outside observer still a singularity .

1. The universe is observed to be of non-zero size and therefore not a singularity.

2. The big bang describes the expansion of the universe so, again, it cannot be of zero size.

3. The big bang theory does not say the universe was ever zero size.

 

But apart from all that ... it really makes no sense.

[ajb]

Er, what?

 

You have made no sense at all. What is a singularity to you?

Edited September 6, 2013 by ajb

[keith]

erm , it seems that there are no current hypotheses as to this . A singularity to me is a position in space with no size and indeterminate properties . in this special case , it encompasses the universe we are present in .

1. The universe is observed to be of non-zero size and therefore not a singularity.

yes , crazy .... as I said ... we can see it isnt as you rightly say. Current mainstream physics suggest that space consists of matter being created/destroyed in a maelstrom via positive/negative units. my thoughts are that sometimes they survive long enough , the negative units having negative gravity , they are sprung apart and create 2 equal oand opposite quantum particles which have universal dimensions which are greater than the actual size of the particles , one negative 'size' the other positive 'size' . The terminology doesnt seem to exist in english [ it gets MUCH worse when talking about the time dimension] . thus the size of the universe remains the same , which is effectively zero , although there are local variations which is where we can observe . The negative parts of the universe being at the edge of the universe . If true try thinking of where the 2 volumes start to interact ..

2. The big bang describes the expansion of the universe so, again, it cannot be of zero size.

Granted . This hypothesis requires a universe equal to a diameter of a minimum of 2 fundamental particles to be produced to start and is its weak point . However if you accept that is more possible than other theories [ a darn sight less than the entire universe starts as a blip ? ] . Take the instant of creation : just before that point time was zero,in fact everything was zero . then 2 particles appeared and split . one has positive dimensions and time , the other negative. The universe has 2 quantum dimensions equal and opposite , and both will fly apart . time is VERY VERY slow , as this is literally the 'tick of the universe' . Imagine the entire universe flying apart , albeit just 2 particles into the space allowed by the fact that each particle has dimensions which are beyond itself . This would create more space to allow this process to accelerate and thius the universe would grow . At the start though , this would have phenominel energy , and tail off , rather like standard models as new particles came into being .

3. The big bang theory does not say the universe was ever zero size.

See above , this is my weak point and I cant get a theory below 2 equal and opposite fundamental particles in a universe of almost zero size . this gets very close . Maybe tyhe blane theory is correct ?

As a matter of interest: as time is postulated as a particulate property; in fact it doesnt work without it properly , the universe should appear to accelerate when looking at distant stars as time is slower when the light is emitted . The comological redshift shouldnt be constant unless the universe is static . Dark matter : um half the universe is stopping galaxies expanding ...

[Strange]

erm , it seems that there are no current hypotheses as to this .

 

If by "this" you mean "singularity" then you are wrong. It is a well defined, mathematical concept.

 

A singularity to me is a position in space with no size and indeterminate properties .

And that isn't it.

 

 

Current mainstream physics suggest that space consists of matter being created/destroyed in a maelstrom via positive/negative units.

Citation required.

 

The terminology doesnt seem to exist in english

I suspect that is because we don't have words to describe things that don't make any sense.

 

The rest is meaningless. You don't have a theory. You don't even have a coherent idea. Sometimes I feel able to congratulate people for their imagination but in this case it seems like just a jumble of words.

[ajb]

erm , it seems that there are no current hypotheses as to this .

We have a mathematics that alows us to describe what we mean by a singularity. It depends on the context, but when we talk about space-time we mean points (maybe a region) on space-time where we no longer have the structure of a smooth Riemannian manifold.

 

In general relativity, this is usually means a curvature singularity. That is (being loose here) the local geometry of space-time becomes so curved that at this point (or region) the curvature is infinite. We loose the nice strutures we have at these points.

 

A singularity to me is a position in space with no size..

That is really just a point in space, not generically a singularity.

 

So back to the drawing board methinks...