Something Strange Happens When You Follow Einstein's Math.

[ding]

How do you know this? More concrete: How do you know that the mathematical description of a "singularity" is not also basing on a real physical phenomenon which we also could call "singularity"?

Because it’s an artifact of math which shows the limit of the equations. But if you want to believe in a physical infinitely dense object, please don’t let me stop you from believing that.

 

[zaangalewa]

Because it’s an artifact of math

"artifact of math"? What is not an "artifact of math" in physics?

which shows the limit of the equations.

The normal interpretation I heard is it that a singularity in the theory of relativity shows the limits of this theory. Or with other words: In a singularity started the universe to exists. One moment before the universe started to exist time did not exist so this moment also did not exist. The theory of relativity is not able to say something about this situation. Perhaps we need another theory - perhaps a theory with no time or another form of time. I do not know. In case of a black hole we know nothing about the inside of a black hole. A black hole has gravitation, spin and charge. That's it.

But if you want to believe in a physical infinitely dense object, please don’t let me stop you from believing that.

An empty phrase - nevertheless thanks for your friendly fake-tolerance. Question: How big was the universe one plank time after it started to exist? In this very very very little thing (a nearly infinitely dense object) was once the energy of the whole universe. That is what we currently know as far as I know.

 

[ding]

"artifact of math"? What is not an "artifact of math" in physics?



The normal interpretation I heard is it that a singularity in the theory of relativity shows the limits of this theory. Or with other words: In a singularity started the universe to exists. One moment before the universe started to exist time did not exist so this moment also did not exist. The theory of relativity is not able to say something about this situation. Perhaps we need another theory - perhaps a theory with no time or another form of time. I do not know. In case of a black hole we know nothing about the inside of a black hole. A black hole has gravitation, spin and charge. That's it.



An empty phrase - nevertheless thanks for your friendly fake-tolerance. Question: How big was the universe one plank time after it started to exist? In this very very very little thing (a nearly infinitely dense object) was once the energy of the whole universe. That is what we currently know as far as I know.

I couldn't have been more clear. Don't believe what I wrote. I couldn't care less. I'm not going to argue with you about it. If you want to believe infinitely dense objects exist or have existed in actuality, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise.

 

[zaangalewa]

I couldn't have been more clear.

What's wrong. You say "singularities are not real" but you are not able to explain what's wrong with singularities and/or the use of mathematics in physics.

Don't believe what I wrote. I couldn't care less.

Aha.

I'm not going to argue with you about it. If you want to believe infinitely dense objects exist physically, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise.

To repeat something makes the repitition not more true. Why is it to see the world in this way important for you?

 

[zaangalewa]

ding

It is said for example that the sum of all positive and negative energies of the universe are exactly 0. So when the universe started (all positive and negative energies united) it had the energy 0. In this case your "infinitely dense objects are impossible"-paradigma plays no role at all for example - totally independent whether it is right or wrong to say so.

And when we define masses as points in the spacetime - what we do - then every of this masses has an infinetelly dense gravitation in this center point (division by zero) - but this drives no one nervous because we never fall into the middle of the earth. And even if we could do so - because we are only gravitation and nothing else - then inside of the earth the masses would tear us in many directions and in the middle they would tear us into all directions.

But you are not able to know whether you will not fall into the middle of a black hole and that there is indeed all gravitation of the black hole (="infinitely dense"). What should stop you to fall into the middle of a black hole?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

then inside of the earth the masses would tear us in many directions and in the middle they would tear us into all directions.

At the center of gravity of the earth, you would feel no gravitational forces from the earth's mass.

It's also worth saying, in keeping with what ding is saying, that this infinitely small point does not actually exist (center of gravity of the earth). It's a mathematical construct.

 

[ding]

What's wrong. You say "singularities are not real" but you are not able to explain what's wrong with singularities and/or the use of mathematics in physics.



Aha.



To repeat something makes the repitition not more true. Why is it to see the world in this way important for you?

I think you are just looking to argue. I already explained that singularities are where the solutions to the Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. It's literally the mathematical limit of the equations. Again, if you want to believe infinite density can exist ion actuality, be my guest. But as far as I'm concerned infinity density does not exist in actuality.

 

[ding]

ding

It is said for example that the sum of all positive and negative energies of the universe are exactly 0. So when the universe started (all positive and negative energies united) it had the energy 0. In this case your "infinitely dense objects are impossible"-paradigma plays no role at all for example - totally independent whether it is right or wrong to say so.

And when we define masses as points in the spacetime - what we do - then every of this masses has an infinetelly dense gravitation in this center point (division by zero) - but this drives no one nervous because we never fall into the middle of the earth. And even if we could do so - because we are only gravitation and nothing else - then inside of the earth the masses would tear us in many directions and in the middle they would tear us into all directions.

But you are not able to know whether you will not fall into the middle of a black hole and that there is indeed all gravitation of the black hole (="infinitely dense"). What should stop you to fall into the middle of a black hole?

Again... artifacts of the math. Not physical realities. But you are correct that the net energy of the universe being zero plays no role in this discussion which is why it's odd you even brought it up.

Again.. if you want to believe that infinite density exists in actuality, be my guest. I don't believe that infinite density exists in actuality. I believe the equations yielding infinity density is showing you the limit of the equations. It's a mathematical artifact. Not a physical phenomenon that exists in actuality.

 

[zaangalewa]

I think

bad start

you are just looking to argue. I already explained that singularities are where the solutions to the Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. It's literally the mathematical limit of the equations. Again, if you want to believe infinite density can exist ion actuality, be my guest. But as far as I'm concerned infinity density does not exist in actuality.

Bye bye

By the way: I think nothing in this context. Not that singularities exist nor that they do not exist. I just simple do not know.

 

[zaangalewa]

At the center of gravity of the earth, you would feel no gravitational forces from the earth's mass.

Not really because the earth is not a perfect cube - it's more a kind of potatoe. But somewhere will be a point where the gravitation of all masses arund will be 0 fro us (if we are only gravitation on our own) so nothing will move us any longer (... except the speed we had before). But the earth is also turning around so this point will move. I guess it's very difficult to stay in a balance between all the moving masses around which are not perfectly balanced.

It's also worth saying, in keeping with what ding is saying, that this infinitely small point does not actually exist (center of gravity of the earth). It's a mathematical construct.

A point is a mathematical construct. Always. Or do you really like to say we should try to do physics without mathematics? Mathematics is our only way to do physics. Without philosophy and mathematics we are nearly blind in all sciences.

 

[Foxfyre]

Einstein was wrong about black holes, what else?

Or the guy in the video is wrong? I certainly do not have the advanced math to evaluate what Einstein theorized or what this guy is saying. But both are fallible human beings however much they may be blessed with brilliant intellect. And fallible human beings can err in their understanding and conclusions. I do envy what Einstein understood and this guy seems to understand though and know I never will.

 

[ding]

bad start



Bye bye

By the way: I think nothing in this context. Not that singularities exist nor that they do not exist. I just simple do not know.

Again... if you want to believe that objects with infinite density can exist in actuality then you can believe singularities are not mathematical artifacts of the limitation of the solutions to Einstein's field equations. But if you are like me and don't believe that objects with infinite density have existed before or can exist in actuality, then you must believe singularities are mathematical artifacts of the limitation of the solutions to Einstein's field equations.

Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.

 

[zaangalewa]

Again... if you want to believe that objects with infinite density can exist in actuality

I do not exclude this possibility. This has nothing to do with "belief".

then you can believe singularities are not mathematical artifacts

I have not any concrete idea what you call "artifact" in case of mathematics. Normally an artifact is a man-made object. Sure is mathematics not dog-made but is it really man-made? For sure no one "believes" what mathematicians say.

of the limitation of the solutions to Einstein's field equations.

"Begrenzung der Einsteinschen Feldgleichungen" is what exactly when you speak about?

But if you are like me

What is "like me" in your view to see the world?

and don't believe that objects with infinite density have existed before or can exist in actuality,

I do not exclude this possibility. Why should I? A black hole could only be a point. In this case in this point would be an infinite density of energy - the gravitation of the black hole. That's the most simple way to see a black hole. Why should I invest addtionally any other thought? No one has any possibility to find out what's really in a black hole.

then you must believe singularities are mathematical artifacts of the limitation of the solutions to Einstein's field equations.

Do you understand on your own what you say when you say so?

Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.

I have the feeling you overestimate your own possibilities. As far as I heard used Einstein for example also the concept of a Hilbertspace - a space with an infinite number of dimensions. My experience is: It exist only three dimensions - but if someone has to calculate in physics in a Hilbert space - why to say this Hilbert space is not real? Why should only be three dimensions real while the other dimensions are only bad ideas? Why to think in such twisted structures? Why to think more complicate as it needs to be thought? Complexity comes from alone also with most simple structures. The sum is always more than the parts.

 

[ding]

I do not exclude this possibility. This has nothing to do with "belief".



I have not any concrete idea what you call "artifact" in case of mathematics. Normally an artifact is a man-made object. Sure is mathematics not dog-made but is it really man-made? For sure no one "believes" what mathematicians say.



"Begrenzung der Einsteinschen Feldgleichungen" is what exactly when you speak about?



What is "like me" in your view to see the world?



I do not exclude this possibility. Why should I? A black hole could only be a point. In this case in this point would be an infinite density of energy - the gravitation of the black hole. That's the most simple way to see a black hole. Why should I invest addtionally any other thought? No one has any possibility to find out what's really in a black hole.



Do you understand on your own what you say when you say so?



I have the feeling you overestimate your own possibilities. As far as I heard used Einstein for example also the concept of a Hilbertspace - a space with an infinite number of dimensions. My experience is: It exist only three dimensions - but if someone has to calculate in physics in a Hilbert space - why to say this Hilbert space is not real? Why should only be three dimensions real while the other dimensions are only ideas? Why to think in twisted structures? Why to think more complicate as it needs to be thought? Complexity comes from alone also with most simple structures. The sum is always more than the parts.

No such thing as infinite density. I understand that. Do you?

 

[zaangalewa]

No such thing as infinite density. I understand that. Do you?

No. I do not understand this. I also do not understand the opposite. I was just a moment ago for example astonished when I tried to find out what's a so called "naked singularity" (which we could perhaps really 'see') that physicists (or physic teachers) seem to think the event horizon of a black hole rotates because the black hole has a spin. Why should the event horizon rotate?

 

[ding]

No. I do not understand this.

I can't help you then. If you can't comprehend the limitations of the equations, then you are doomed to believe that infinite density is a reality when it isn't.

Evolution of Matter

• Radiation Era
  • (The radiation era lasted for about 50,000 years)
  • Planck Epoch
    • First 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang
    • No current theory of physics (quantum gravity) exists

 

[scruffy]

I can't help you then. If you can't comprehend the limitations of the equations, then you are doomed to believe that infinite density is a reality when it isn't.

Evolution of Matter

• Radiation Era
  • (The radiation era lasted for about 50,000 years)
  • Planck Epoch
    • First 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang
    • No current theory of physics (quantum gravity) exists

We don't know much about anything yet.

For instance -

DNA as a perfect quantum computer based on the quantum physics principles - Scientific Reports

DNA is a complex multi-resolution molecule whose theoretical study is a challenge. Its intrinsic multiscale nature requires chemistry and quantum physics to understand the structure and quantum informatics to explain its operation as a perfect quantum computer. Here, we present theoretical...

www.nature.com

 

[ding]

We don't know much about anything yet.

For instance -

DNA as a perfect quantum computer based on the quantum physics principles - Scientific Reports

DNA is a complex multi-resolution molecule whose theoretical study is a challenge. Its intrinsic multiscale nature requires chemistry and quantum physics to understand the structure and quantum informatics to explain its operation as a perfect quantum computer. Here, we present theoretical...

www.nature.com

Is that really a fair statement though? I get that we don't know everything but there are many things we know a great deal about. Take the universe for example, we know an awful lot about what happened after the first
10 ^-43 seconds. So would it be fair to say we don't know much about how the universe evolved? Or if we run the equations backwards in time wouldn't it be fair to say we know a great deal about how energy behaves until the equations reach their limit of validity?

 

[scruffy]

Is that really a fair statement though? I get that we don't know everything but there are many things we know a great deal about. Take the universe for example, we know an awful lot about what happened after the first
10 ^-43 seconds. So would it be fair to say we don't know much about how the universe evolved? Or if we run the equations backwards in time wouldn't it be fair to say we know a great deal about how energy behaves until the equations reach their limit of validity?

You are an optimist.

We don't yet know much of anything about quantum entanglement or tunneling, both of which occur faster than the speed of light.

We live in Flatland. Haven't found a way to stick our heads up out of the paper yet.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You are an optimist.

We don't yet know much of anything about quantum entanglement or tunneling, both of which occur faster than the speed of light.

We live in Flatland. Haven't found a way to stick our heads up out of the paper yet.

This is a fascinating topic!

We are indeed Flatlanders with an arrogance and Ego that is infinitely dense and insists that the Universe MUST conform to it.

Maybe a point of infinite density spawns Infinite Big Bang(s) that we are physically incapable of experiencing or accessing