"Negative Infinity"

[GoldEagle]

Whether or not you believe in Creation, Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, or any other explanation for why we are here, you must admit this: It all started somewhere. If Creation is true, then God created the world...but what was before that? What was happening 900 Quintillion years before that? What about before that?

So, infinity is a believable. Everyone knows that numbers go on and on. Well, numbers also go on and on in the negatives, correct? This is much like a "Negative Infinity" Theory. Time will go on forever, correct? Well, why couldn't time go on forever backwards? Or is the infinite past too impossible for the human mind to comprehend?

I tried to make this as clear as possible. Please tell me what you think.

-GE

 

[MrCynical]

The closest explanation, or at least the most helpful analogy I've seen for this, was from Stephen Hawking, who essentially said that asking what was before the Big Bang/Whatever creation story you like, was like asking what is north of the north pole. There was no time "before" the universe, and similarly there will probably be no time "after" it.

 

[newfangle]

MrCynical is probably correct.

It doesn't make sense to talk about time before a singularity.

That being said, there's no reason to believe that our universe is the only existent. Time might be a bit different for other neighbours in our multiverse.

 

[Elrohir]

The closest explanation, or at least the most helpful analogy I've seen for this, was from Stephen Hawking, who essentially said that asking what was before the Big Bang/Whatever creation story you like, was like asking what is north of the north pole. There was no time "before" the universe, and similarly there will probably be no time "after" it.

I'm afraid I don't understand. Are you saying that the matter that exploded in the Big Bang; along with all of space-time, just appeared right before the Big Bang? There was nothing before it happened? Not "We can't know what happened before", but "Absolutely nothing existed"? If not, then where did everything come from, to just pop into existence in time to explode and create the universe? (And how do you put time in a small ball of hydrogen that's about to explode, anyway?)

I'm not trying to start an argument; I'm genuinely curious. I've never managed to get a satisfactory answer about this.

 

[Cuivienen]

I'm afraid I don't understand. Are you saying that the matter that exploded in the Big Bang; along with all of space-time, just appeared right before the Big Bang? There was nothing before it happened? Not "We can't know what happened before", but "Absolutely nothing existed"? If not, then where did everything come from, to just pop into existence in time to explode and create the universe?

Right now, that's an unanswered question. Without the Universe, neither time nor space could exist, and without time or space to exist in, matter and energy could not exist. However, there is no satisfactory answer known right now as to how that could be true. Someday, someone will come with up with something revolutionary like Maxwell's Equations and all will become clear, but right now we don't know.

(And how do you put time in a small ball of hydrogen that's about to explode, anyway?)

Technically, there was no hydrogen at the start of the Universe. Everything existed in a super-heated soup of quarks and anti-quarks, leptons and anti-leptons, photons and anti-photons and various other larger particles. The matter outnumbered the anti-matter for some unknown reason, and, as the Universe expanded, things cooled down enough that matter and anti-matter came in contact with each for long enough to cancel each other out. Once all of the anti-matter was gone, then quarks settled down into protons and neutrons, and those in turn became atoms of hydrogen, helium and lithium.

With that aside. Time isn't really separate from the stuff of the Universe. The concept of time has only to due with an object's speed relative to the speed of light. Time moves at a certain speed for those objects at rest that is based on the speed of light, and, as those objects speed up, time slows down for them in order to allow the relative speed of light to remain constant. That's what the Theory of Relativity explains.

 

[Truronian]

I'm afraid I don't understand. Are you saying that the matter that exploded in the Big Bang; along with all of space-time, just appeared right before the Big Bang? There was nothing before it happened? Not "We can't know what happened before", but "Absolutely nothing existed"? If not, then where did everything come from, to just pop into existence in time to explode and create the universe? (And how do you put time in a small ball of hydrogen that's about to explode, anyway?)

I'm not trying to start an argument; I'm genuinely curious. I've never managed to get a satisfactory answer about this.

The big bang is the furthest point backwards in time to which we can trace. There is no way we can find out what was 'before' the big bang, and as such we treat it as irrelevent. "We can't know what happened before" would be the best statement.

 

[nihilistic]

Whether or not you believe in Creation, Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, or any other explanation for why we are here, you must admit this: It all started somewhere.

Not neccesarily. We don't know that a starting point definitely exists. Matter and time could have stretched infinitely into the past in one form or another.

 

[bathsheba666]

If there was nothing, then there was no rule to say you can't get spontaneous creation of mass/energy out of nothing.

So, no rules were violated.

Anarchy rules.

 

[Uiler]

The Big Bang occurred at a singularity. The laws of physics become ill-defined at a singularity. Could something have existed before the Big Bang? Sure. Can it in any way affect the current universe? No. Therefore to us it is as if it doesn't exist. It is a region completely closed off to us.

Black holes also contain singularities. However I believe all the theories about using black holes for time travel or what not involve *missing* the singularity somehow. Kindof swerving your way around it and emerging at the other end.

Of course this is with our current knowledge of physics. Maybe some completely new physics revelation that no-one has yet thought of will occur in the future that will mean that the laws of physics do not become ill-defined at a singularity. But with our *current* knowledge, time ends at a singularity. And we're not just talking about you being dead. *Time* ends.

The Big Bang is the opposite type of singularity I guess. It is where time begins.

And there were no atoms at the Big Bang. Particles didn't form until after the Big Bang.

 

[Sidhe]

I'm afraid I don't understand. Are you saying that the matter that exploded in the Big Bang; along with all of space-time, just appeared right before the Big Bang? There was nothing before it happened? Not "We can't know what happened before", but "Absolutely nothing existed"? If not, then where did everything come from, to just pop into existence in time to explode and create the universe? (And how do you put time in a small ball of hydrogen that's about to explode, anyway?)

I'm not trying to start an argument; I'm genuinely curious. I've never managed to get a satisfactory answer about this.

Nor will you as I've said before physicists cannot provide you with a decent answer only M-theory attempts to resolve that and that is as specualtive as saying with absolute certainty that before the singularity there was nothing. Frankly it is an unwillingness for phsysicists to look beyond their own equations, and frankly they don't need to provided the models they produce prove what we actually can prove or infer. It's a deeply unsatisfactory answer even when you know what they are talking about, and frankly I think it's just avoiding the issue by claiming to know something they have no evidence for, it's no different from someone claiming QM theory explains that at absolute 0 matter still has energy or elecetrons still have spin, utterly ilogical and devoid of proof to make such an assumption. Frankly not all physicists are satisfied with being told something arbitrary with no real proof except a mathematical equation, even grasping the maths leaves all the same questions, it just neatly sidesteps the issue with smoke and mirrors.

EDIT: Oh and no one has ever proven directly the existence of singularities, these are points of the universe where the distance between two points is infinitessimal and thus you cannot resolve newtons laws of gravitation, you end up with infinities in mass, of course it could just be that the equation is not suibtable to be applied to very small distances, but let's not steal their thunder, I'm not saying Black hole theory is wrong, but I'm not buying shares in it either untill I've seen the proof. Call me scientific if you like but that's just the way I am

Gravity(force)=g(f)
Gravitational constant=g(k)
m1=mass1
m2=mass2
r=radius or distance from one particle or mass from another.

g(f)=g(k) (m1.m2)/r^2 what do you get when you devide mass by 0?

Infinite gravity

 

[Bozo Erectus]

The Big Bang is the opposite type of singularity I guess. It is where time begins.

Nahhh. The Big Bang was when Time and Space collided.

 

[C~G]

Isn't singularity the very same as "negative infinity"?

Singularity is the point without clearly defined time, space, energy or matter and infinity is the opposite?

 

[Sidhe]

Precisely but what is the density of a mass in an infinitessimal area?

density= mass/area

mass/0 = infinite. Infinitessimals in classical theory throw up infinities, both are beyond the scope of physics and both unresolvable except with something called renormalisation, but that's another topic. Either that or you turn to black hole theory and try and postulate exactly what is going on? Which of course is basing suposition on suposition which some people don't like, now you use said suposition of supositions to explain a suposition, can anyone see the inherent problem of using theory to prove hypothesis to prove hypothesis?

 

[Uiler]

Nahhh. The Big Bang was when Time and Space collided.

?????????

Yeah...a singularity....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity (for reporting on some of the more notable speculation on this issue, see cosmogony).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony

In each case, where general relativity fails as the curvature of space-time invokes singularities from its equations at t=0, the statistically "grey" nature of quantum cosmology tends to allow a scientific rationale to account for each paradox, and in so doing allows for a scientific perspective on previously theistic terrain. For example, application of quantum "fuzziness" (per the Wheeler-DeWitt application of subatomic position and momentum equations to universal radius and expansion) avoids boundary issues, as developed in the Hawking-Hartle Wave Function.

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html

The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/011030b.html

Although the Big Bang also represents a spacetime singularity, it is not really a black hole. Actually, the Big Bang has more of a resemblance to the time-inverse of black holes: white holes (that may not actually exist in nature). But the Big Bang singularity is not really a white hole either -- there are technical differences in the natures of their event horizons and their connection to the rest of the universe and its constituents.

A singularity at t=0 is what general relativity predicts, just like it predicts a singularity at a black hole. A place where the laws of physics at least with respect to general relativity break down. The issue is that general relativity may not be complete close to a singularity and hence there are lots of attempts to better describe it.

 

[Uiler]

Isn't singularity the very same as "negative infinity"?

Singularity is the point without clearly defined time, space, energy or matter and infinity is the opposite?

You know in mathematics there are different types of infinity.

But I agree, negative infinity is not a good term to use for a singularity.

It's more of a badly behaved point. Where the laws of physics as we currently understand them break down.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

?????????

Time and Space are two seperate things. Sort of like a Reeses Peanut Butter Cup ( 'Hey, you got Time in my Space!' 'No, youve got Space in my Time!') Its my little theory. Way ahead of its time

 

[Uiler]

Call me scientific if you like but that's just the way I am

Actually, singularities in black holes have absolutely nothing to do with Newton's laws of gravity. The singularity in question refers to a singularity in the general theory of relativity.

Also at small distances quantum physics becomes dominate not the theory of relativity let alone Newton's laws. And that point the distance between two masses becomes not that well defined anyway considering everything is a wave...And masses are so small. In fact gravity at this point can be modelled using the exchange of particles known as gravitons. In fact gravity as it is known is completely at odds with quantum physics anyway. The smoothness assumed in gravitational theory (which assumes the manifolds are mathematically smooth) is anithetical to the discreteness inherent in quantum physics. A big field of study is trying to work out how to combine the general theory of relativity and quantum physics especially close to a singularity which I will emphasise is a singularity in current knowledge of general relativity. 200 years in the future we Civfanatics (for Civilization v100) may have an entirely different discussion.

 

[C~G]

But I agree, negative infinity is not a good term to use for a singularity.

But if I mean the original and the only singularity opposed to infinity?

It's more of a badly behaved point. Where the laws of physics as we currently understand them break down.

That is when used it in sense with black holes. Otherwise it's as easy to explain as infinity.

The Big Bang occurred at a singularity.

Black holes also contain singularities. However I believe all the theories about using black holes for time travel or what not involve *missing* the singularity somehow. Kindof swerving your way around it and emerging at the other end.

Or maybe the black holes don't have singularities after all?
Maybe "the original" singularity is the actul singularity while those in black holes are just cheap copies or "baby singularities"?

The Big Bang is the opposite type of singularity I guess. It is where time begins.

Isn't it where everything begins? Matter, time, energy, space?
What is left? Nothingness?

 

[Uiler]

But if I mean the original and the only singularity opposed to infinity?
That is when used it in sense with black holes. Otherwise it's as easy to explain as infinity.
Or maybe the black holes don't have singularities after all?
Maybe "the original" singularity is the actul singularity while those in black holes are just cheap copies or "baby singularities"?
Isn't it where everything begins? Matter, time, energy, space?
What is left? Nothingness?

Well, who knows. Seriously, the singularity may not even be a singularity. It is a singularity in the general theory of relativity which describes space time because this theory breaks down at those points where space-time is infinitely curved. I'm not too sure of the details but I suspect it has something to do with the smoothness of the manifolds not holding at an infinite point. Some people don't like this idea (I strongly suspect mathematical beauty plays a role in this. People tend to like mathematical beauty) and are trying to find ways that this singularity is not really a singularity. We just don't know enough to describe the physics in that region properly. That is the general theory of relativity needs modification just like Newton's Laws required modification. I can hold with that POV. As Einstein once said, "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" There's not much use in science if everything is known. I mean people look for answers, but if you don't know I guess you just don't know.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Of course this is with our current knowledge of physics. Maybe some completely new physics revelation that no-one has yet thought of will occur in the future that will mean that the laws of physics do not become ill-defined at a singularity.

Things go wrong at a singularity by definition. What might be achieved is a theory that's well-behaved at the points which have singularities in GR.

Whether or not you believe in Creation, Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, or any other explanation for why we are here, you must admit this: It all started somewhere.

As others have pointed out, this is a false premise. In fact, before Einstein the notion of a temporal beginning to the universe was hardly on the radar in science. The scientists who accepted the Judeo-Christian (science being essentially a Western business at this time) doctrine of a creation at a specific point in the past generally assumed that creation had left a "finished" universe, with no need for galactic evolution* and so on. So unexpected was the notion of cosmic-scale dynamism that Einstein introduced his (in)famous cosmological constant to avoid the conclusion.

ObSciHistTangent: The philosopho-scientific assumption of a universe of infinite temporal extent into both the past and future derives chiefly from Aristotle, for whom it was a philosophical necessity. Trying to combine this with the theistic notion of creation at a point in time drew certain medieval thinkers, notably Ibn Sina, to the most amazing intellectual contorsions.

* NB: This is evolution in the vernacular sense of change over time. Those who'd like to misreprensent this as a claim that Darwinian evolution applies to galaxies can kindly go to hell.