Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Infinite Density ?
If the big bang started from a mass of near ' infinite ' density then the mass must have occupied a space. No matter how small that mass was it would still occupy a space. If that is the case then how can we say space did not exist .
If instead of mass could it be pure energy . Does energy require space ?
Can mass be created from pure energy alone ?
If instead of mass could it be pure energy . Does energy require space ?
Can mass be created from pure energy alone ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by modeller. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think there a big difference between infinite density and NEAR infinite density.Relativity theory teaches that as mass approaches infinite density, time approaches a stop. Therefore mass falling toward the center of a black hole approaches infinite density, time approaches a stop, and the mass never quite reaches the center of the black hole, infinite density is infinitely delayed.
Not to me, but there again I'm quite open minded about these sort of things.
I believe I read somewhere that the singularity isn't possible so the accepted rules must break down near to that state; so that would make the question moot surely ? But even if that is not so, if you can contemplate the infinitely dense what is the issue with the infinitely small volume anyway ?
Is this a query as to whether the infinitely small and nothing is the same thing ? i believe, yes it is.
i think we are in danger of muddled thinking here (happens to me all the time as I'm sure folk here have noticed). If space and energy and matter and time 'all arrive at once' then there is no confusion ? We had no matter for which we could claim we needed space, and then we did, but we had some space as well.
I believe I read somewhere that the singularity isn't possible so the accepted rules must break down near to that state; so that would make the question moot surely ? But even if that is not so, if you can contemplate the infinitely dense what is the issue with the infinitely small volume anyway ?
Is this a query as to whether the infinitely small and nothing is the same thing ? i believe, yes it is.
i think we are in danger of muddled thinking here (happens to me all the time as I'm sure folk here have noticed). If space and energy and matter and time 'all arrive at once' then there is no confusion ? We had no matter for which we could claim we needed space, and then we did, but we had some space as well.
Energy and mass are interchangeable E=mc²
There was no matter in the first part of the big bang it was too energetic. it is believed that matter formed only after about 1/100000 of a second
http://
There was no matter in the first part of the big bang it was too energetic. it is believed that matter formed only after about 1/100000 of a second
http://
Yes, mass cna be created from pure energy a la E = mc^2. No, I have no idea what happened at the beginning of the Universe, or "before" it, if that's evne a valid question. No-one does.
It has to be said that the idea of 300+ dimensions is frankly taking the Michael. String Theory insists on 10 (or 11 in M-Theory) and even that's open to debate as thus far it seems to be both untestable and unlikely to ever be testable, at least not for a long time. All other extra-dimensional theories that cna be tested have failed the test, but you never know.
It's expected that there is no such thing as infinite density, and that perhaps something odd happens at "Planck Length" scales of order 10^-35 metres.
It has to be said that the idea of 300+ dimensions is frankly taking the Michael. String Theory insists on 10 (or 11 in M-Theory) and even that's open to debate as thus far it seems to be both untestable and unlikely to ever be testable, at least not for a long time. All other extra-dimensional theories that cna be tested have failed the test, but you never know.
It's expected that there is no such thing as infinite density, and that perhaps something odd happens at "Planck Length" scales of order 10^-35 metres.
I think vascop that the contention there was not that Maths is a fantasy world but rather that infinite numbers purporting to represent real physical objects represent a breakdown in our physical models.
The plank length represents a limit for the smallest supportable size - *in our universe* that does not mean to say that the Universe itself could not have been smaller.
After all c is the fastest speed *in the Universe* yet the Universe itself is believed to have expanded much faster than this at one time.
Laws of physics derived from observations in the Universe cannot necesarilly be applied to the Universe itself
The plank length represents a limit for the smallest supportable size - *in our universe* that does not mean to say that the Universe itself could not have been smaller.
After all c is the fastest speed *in the Universe* yet the Universe itself is believed to have expanded much faster than this at one time.
Laws of physics derived from observations in the Universe cannot necesarilly be applied to the Universe itself
Vascop, it could be argued the numbers are a human mental construct so are indeed a fantasy. Although numbers are very useful to humans as an aid to understanding the universe, the universe doesn't depend upon those numbers, the numbers depend upon the universe. Perhaps one day when maths has reached it's limt the only way to get a better understanding of the universe will to abandon numbers and devise somthing else.
I think sometimes ideas in Maths were discovered...
No, let's not go down that line. In general infinity doesn't appear, or at least never has done, in any calculation that could be deemed "physical". So as soon as you get an answer of infinity either you have gone wrong or the equations you are using were "wrong" -- or at least, not the complete picture. I expect the same is true with conditions at the beginning of the Universe.
No, let's not go down that line. In general infinity doesn't appear, or at least never has done, in any calculation that could be deemed "physical". So as soon as you get an answer of infinity either you have gone wrong or the equations you are using were "wrong" -- or at least, not the complete picture. I expect the same is true with conditions at the beginning of the Universe.
Jomifl"Vascop, it could be argued the numbers are a human mental construct so are indeed a fantasy. Although numbers are very useful to humans as an aid to understanding the universe, the universe doesn't depend upon those numbers, the numbers depend upon the universe. Perhaps one day when maths has reached it's limt the only way to get a better understanding of the universe will to abandon numbers and devise somthing else."
Now that's what I call fantasy!
Now that's what I call fantasy!
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.