5 ms·

What was the event that led the singularity to begin to expand?

by s_q_b 10y ago

Sammi 10y ago
As roywiggins said: "Further back, there's a singularity, which we can't reason well about because our math stops giving answers that seem physical" I sense that with your what you're trying to find a why. There is no why. There is only what. Science and math do not give meaning or intent to the universe. They just describe it. You are free to put intent or meaning into it, but that is you doing it.
- majewsky 10y ago
  > I sense that with your what you're trying to find a why. There is no why. A textbook case of the Münchhausen Trilemma.
- s_q_b 10y ago
  I am not looking for an answer. I just suspect the answer is "It's not currently known." And that's fine. By definition, the answer is probably unknowable. But that event did occur, and everything you see around you is a result of it. I must respectfully disagree with regard to the role of the question "Why?" in the scientific method. "Why" is very much a core part of science. Science almost always begins with the question of "Why?" Why is the sky blue? Why does an apple drop to the Earth? Why doesn't the movement of the Earth through the Ether deflect light? Why is there a spike in the cosmic microwave background radiation 2.725 Kelvin? Why are the laws of physics the way they are, instead of some completely different set of laws? Most importantly, what caused the universe expand rapidly from a single point? What was that event? This is the question I've posed. So far I've seen three answers: >>1. The math stops giving us answers that seem physical. >>2. That question can't be answered because it happened before the existence of the universe. >>3. That's not science because it's not falsifiable. --------------- To answer each of these in turn: 1. Math is not divine. (Gasp!) It is merely a human tool for the communication of ideas. "The math breaks down" usually means one of three things: >>a. It would be far easier to explain this with a more precise and efficient language for communicating these ideas. Can we switch to mathematics to discuss? >>b. The mathematics makes sense logically, and renders sound predictions, but doesn't correspond to any human experience of the physical world, so it can't be explained. >>c. I don't know, but that's what my [teacher, professor, Feynman's ghost] told me. In the case of (a.), sure, no problem. We're a fairly mathematical bunch around here. With regard to (b.), let's say I was constructing a theory of the universe in very precise German. Then one day, my German model started giving descriptions that didn't seem physical, I would assume the bug was in my German. If your mathematics stop giving answers that seem physical, maybe it's the math that's off, not the universe. So the question remains: what caused the universe to expand to its current size from a single point? What was that event? If you can't answer, or believe the answer to be extant but unknowable, then we're back to square one. 2. Math is hard, and while not all of us are Physics PhDs, this isn't exactly a lay audience either, so do your best to explain in English. Physicists use analogies all the time. Einstein was famous for his thought experiments, which communicated tremendously complex ideas with analogies so simple and elegant that someone with less than a secondary school education could grasp them. Einstein even wrote Relativity: The Special and General Theory as a "popular" science text, so that as many scientists in as many fields as possible could understand the implications of his theories. As has often been said on HN, "if you can't explain it, you probably don't really understand it." 3. What is your evidence that all possible hypotheses about the cause of the expansion of the universal singularity cannot be falsified? ---- It seems to me that you want to have an existential fight over the meaning of life, wherein mighty Physics slays the godly believer in the name of truth, justice, and the scientific method. All I want is an answer to a single simple physical question: What caused this singularity to suddenly expand?
  - Sammi 10y ago
    Now you're just spinning wheels. Going in circles. You seem to want an answer noone is able to give. Is it impossible for you to accept that some things are unknowable?
ysleepy 10y ago
Statements about it are (currently, probably generally) not falsifiable and therefore not science.
roywiggins 10y ago
Ah, so, that's another problem. There's no obvious way to describe the transition between "singularity" and "not a singularity." Look at the graph of 1/x. There's a singularity at x=0. You can't describe the slope between any part of the equation and the singularity, since the derivative is also singular at the origin. At x=0, you're actually outside the domain of the function and the slope between x=0 and x=a is undefined. So what I mean is, it's not even clear that "the singularity began to expand" is a meaningful statement at all. Spacetime came into existence (as far as we can tell) with the big bang, and ordinary ideas of an "event" require a before and after. So far as anyone can tell, there might not have been a before at all, so talking about an event happening at "time zero" is... tricky. The Big Bang theory concerns itself with all instants that the universe had some finite extent. The equations go singular if you look back far enough, but it's possible there wasn't even a singularity, and our math is wrong: the universe was very, very dense, but not infinitely dense, and then expanded. We don't know.
- s_q_b 10y ago
  Excellent explanation. I just came back and looked at this thread. This is the only answer I've heard that satisfies both "here's what we know," and "here's what we don't," topped with a great mathematical analogy. Your delivery was also welcome. Intelligent without being facetious, and elegant without being arrogant. Often it can be difficult for me to hear the merit of others' positions over the emotional noise. Very sincerely, thank you. If you don't mind, this is the answer I'll be using for a while.

What was the event that led the singularity to begin to expand?

by s_q_b 10y ago

What was the event that led the singularity to begin to expand?

Sammi 10y ago

As roywiggins said: "Further back, there's a singularity, which we can't reason well about because our math stops giving answers that seem physical" I sense that with your what you're trying to find a why. There is no why. There is only what. Science and math do not give meaning or intent to the universe. They just describe it. You are free to put intent or meaning into it, but that is you doing it.

majewsky 10y ago
> I sense that with your what you're trying to find a why. There is no why. A textbook case of the Münchhausen Trilemma.
s_q_b 10y ago
I am not looking for an answer. I just suspect the answer is "It's not currently known." And that's fine. By definition, the answer is probably unknowable. But that event did occur, and everything you see around you is a result of it. I must respectfully disagree with regard to the role of the question "Why?" in the scientific method. "Why" is very much a core part of science. Science almost always begins with the question of "Why?" Why is the sky blue? Why does an apple drop to the Earth? Why doesn't the movement of the Earth through the Ether deflect light? Why is there a spike in the cosmic microwave background radiation 2.725 Kelvin? Why are the laws of physics the way they are, instead of some completely different set of laws? Most importantly, what caused the universe expand rapidly from a single point? What was that event? This is the question I've posed. So far I've seen three answers: >>1. The math stops giving us answers that seem physical. >>2. That question can't be answered because it happened before the existence of the universe. >>3. That's not science because it's not falsifiable. --------------- To answer each of these in turn: 1. Math is not divine. (Gasp!) It is merely a human tool for the communication of ideas. "The math breaks down" usually means one of three things: >>a. It would be far easier to explain this with a more precise and efficient language for communicating these ideas. Can we switch to mathematics to discuss? >>b. The mathematics makes sense logically, and renders sound predictions, but doesn't correspond to any human experience of the physical world, so it can't be explained. >>c. I don't know, but that's what my [teacher, professor, Feynman's ghost] told me. In the case of (a.), sure, no problem. We're a fairly mathematical bunch around here. With regard to (b.), let's say I was constructing a theory of the universe in very precise German. Then one day, my German model started giving descriptions that didn't seem physical, I would assume the bug was in my German. If your mathematics stop giving answers that seem physical, maybe it's the math that's off, not the universe. So the question remains: what caused the universe to expand to its current size from a single point? What was that event? If you can't answer, or believe the answer to be extant but unknowable, then we're back to square one. 2. Math is hard, and while not all of us are Physics PhDs, this isn't exactly a lay audience either, so do your best to explain in English. Physicists use analogies all the time. Einstein was famous for his thought experiments, which communicated tremendously complex ideas with analogies so simple and elegant that someone with less than a secondary school education could grasp them. Einstein even wrote Relativity: The Special and General Theory as a "popular" science text, so that as many scientists in as many fields as possible could understand the implications of his theories. As has often been said on HN, "if you can't explain it, you probably don't really understand it." 3. What is your evidence that all possible hypotheses about the cause of the expansion of the universal singularity cannot be falsified? ---- It seems to me that you want to have an existential fight over the meaning of life, wherein mighty Physics slays the godly believer in the name of truth, justice, and the scientific method. All I want is an answer to a single simple physical question: What caused this singularity to suddenly expand?
- Sammi 10y ago
  Now you're just spinning wheels. Going in circles. You seem to want an answer noone is able to give. Is it impossible for you to accept that some things are unknowable?

ysleepy 10y ago

Statements about it are (currently, probably generally) not falsifiable and therefore not science.

roywiggins 10y ago

Ah, so, that's another problem. There's no obvious way to describe the transition between "singularity" and "not a singularity." Look at the graph of 1/x. There's a singularity at x=0. You can't describe the slope between any part of the equation and the singularity, since the derivative is also singular at the origin. At x=0, you're actually outside the domain of the function and the slope between x=0 and x=a is undefined. So what I mean is, it's not even clear that "the singularity began to expand" is a meaningful statement at all. Spacetime came into existence (as far as we can tell) with the big bang, and ordinary ideas of an "event" require a before and after. So far as anyone can tell, there might not have been a before at all, so talking about an event happening at "time zero" is... tricky. The Big Bang theory concerns itself with all instants that the universe had some finite extent. The equations go singular if you look back far enough, but it's possible there wasn't even a singularity, and our math is wrong: the universe was very, very dense, but not infinitely dense, and then expanded. We don't know.

s_q_b 10y ago
Excellent explanation. I just came back and looked at this thread. This is the only answer I've heard that satisfies both "here's what we know," and "here's what we don't," topped with a great mathematical analogy. Your delivery was also welcome. Intelligent without being facetious, and elegant without being arrogant. Often it can be difficult for me to hear the merit of others' positions over the emotional noise. Very sincerely, thank you. If you don't mind, this is the answer I'll be using for a while.