Did the big bang occur from a singularity or something else?
Suppose the big bang erupted from a singularity. How does an infinitely or near infinitely hot and dense state (containing all mass in the universe) existing as a singularity actually explode? Everything we know about singularities says that they do not overcome the effects of quantum gravity and continue to exist as singularities until they evaporate. Why then would a singularity, in a pre-big bang universe, with nothing else to effect it suddenly inflate?
What if the big bang did not occur from a singularity?
Suppose the pre-big bang universe did not have pre-existing space for a singularity to inflate into and that the physical boundaries of space was the dimensions of a pre-big bang singularity. Theoretical 0 space.
If the universe began as a singularity then the universe's initial state was a singularity. Since there was only this singularity the universe was just this singularity. Because the singularity was all that existed and was infinitely dense, then in the perspective of the universe there was thermodynamic equilibrium because heat and mass are evenly distributed in a singularity. This means that the pre-big bang initial state was infinitely high entropy?
>>8043591
>explode
Bait
>>8043600
Supposing there is pre-existing space in the pre-big bang universe. With any amount of pre-existing space in comparison to the pre-big bang singularity there would be low entropy as all heat and mass is unevenly contained in one point.
>>8043602
It's not bait I'm using a common colloquialism.
>>8043591
If the big bang originated from a single point then why are all objects in our universe moving in the same direction? Instead of a spherical or cloud shaped spread of matter like a bomb bursting in air, the universe is spread out more like it was fired from a cannon and continues to move in that direction.
>>8043591
We don't know anything about singularities.
Singularities are paradoxes, like the "density" of [math]\frac{1}{0}[/math] at the center of a black hole.
The big bang was a "singularity", and this is why all physics and mathematics can say absolutely nothing about it.
The fact is that, as we look back in time, the density of the universe asymptotically approaches infinity about 13.77 billion years ago.
>>8043646
The big bang did not originate from a single point.
It happened "everywhere at once".
The big bang was when the universe paradoxically went from apparently infinite density to finite density.
Really, the "big bang" is just a placeholder for the vertical asymptote in density of the universe and causal connectedness that occurred, as we look back in time, about 13.77 billion years ago.
The answer is God.
>>8043591
1. Did the big bang occur from a singularity or something else?
The Big Bang occurred from a singularity. The Big Bang is a singularity.
2. How does an infinitely or near infinitely hot and dense state (containing all mass in the universe) existing as a singularity actually explode?
According to that idea the explosion is in the form of a diploid - so by the accumulation of heat.
Question 3 is the same as question 2.
3. What if the big bang did not occur from a singularity?
It certainly did. Otherwise, there would not be a singular space (the space) or a locatable area. If the big bang did not occur from a singularity then the universe would be at least two-sided.
>>8043600
I think I agree a little bit. I do think that "the Big Bang" is equivalent to the universe as it is. However, I don't think it is particularly singular, as in, that is from which the universe is from. I do think it is the case that there is precedent physics to the Big Bang. In other words, it could be a diploid-like item like: ><.
>>8043798
As an example:
Picture 1
Eternity >< Eternity (present), as x = time and y = the growth of space
I would like to clarify what may be a point of confusion:
singularity [math] \neq [/math] single point
>>8043591
I don't think you can make something from nothing, so either the universe always existed, or it created itself (circular space-time topology).
>>8043823
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity
"General relativity is used to predict that at the beginning of the Universe, a body containing all mass, energy, and spacetime in the Universe would be compressed to an infinitely dense point."
>>8043973
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite.[59] For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation.[60] In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.[61] The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density.
>>8043748
>>8043756
Is it possible the universe is older than 13.77 billion years? Do we rely on observing distance objects in order to determine the age of the universe? ..aside from using models on how long it takes for stars and galaxies to form correlated with observations of our surrounding,
Is there some kind of cosmological horizon which might be keeping us from observing further "back in time"?
>>8043973
Yes, a hypothetical body that contained all mass, energy, and spacetime in the universe would be compressed to an infinitely dense point.
But this does not mean that space itself was once a point.
Imagine that the universe is flat, as our best science seems to predict. This means that the universe is infinite, and has always been infinite.
The universe has always been infinite.
How could the universe go from being a single point with volume 0 to being infinite over the span of precisely 0 seconds?
The "singularity" at the beginning of time is a paradox to which no mathematical physics can stretch.
>>8043771
I wish I could believe sometimes, creationism sounds comfy and simple
