reply to post by micpsi
How can some "thing" have no volume? This does not make sense even semantically. It's a piece of nonsensical sophistry. A word-game
masquerading as physics.
How can a thing have no mass? Yet
massless particles exist.
You imagine a point sitting in space and insist that it cannot be dimensionless. But the original singularity did not exist in
space; there was
none for it to exist in. Dimensions, as you know (you being a geometer an’ all
), are properties of space.
It makes no sense to use the words "for ever" if the singularity existed outside time. Infinite perpetuity is only meaningful in a universe in
which time exists.
I could just as easily have said ‘it existed for no time at all.’
Infinite perpetuity is not meaningful under any conditions whatsoever. The words ‘infinite’ and ‘nonexistent’ are synonyms, except in
mathematics. And even in maths, there is a unique and clearly-established relationship between the concepts zero and infinity (as you’d know, being
a mathematician an’ all
).
So you ‘don't regard self-contradictory use of words as amounting to a coherent explanation of why the equations of General Relativity fail at the
beginning of the physical universe.’ But the fault lies not in the words but in your grasp of the scope of their implications. You seem to regard
the fact that physical laws have limiting conditions as some sort of scandal – concerning what? GR? all physics? reality itself? – yet laws
without limiting cases cannot even be formulated.
There are NO infinities in the real universe.
Yes, I said that already. See my second post in this thread.
When electrons and quarks are squeezed together by their mutual gravitational attraction, the spin density of matter becomes so large that 4-d
space-time flips over from a Einstein-Riemann manifold with a symmetric curvature tensor to an Einstein-Cartan manifold with an asymmetric curvature
tensor that violates the Hawking-Penrose condition for the inevitability of naked singularities. A repulsive spin-spin interaction comes into replay
that stops the gravitational collapse of matter into a singularity of infinite density. This means that in a universe with quantum properties like
spin, black hole singularities do not exist. Nor do singularities occur at time t = 0. Energy always exists but gets recycled into matter at every
start of what is a perpetual cycle of expansion and contraction.
Oho! Now we come to the axe-grinding bit.
Maybe I should ask you to explain a little more clearly, but that would be cruel, wouldn’t it
? Still, I think a word or two of explanation for
the troops is in order. Nivver fash y'sel', laddie, I’ll supply it.
READER ADVISORY
Gentle readers, the above paragraph by mcipsi refers to an
old and
largely discredited ‘fix’ for that which does not require fixing, namely the theory of General Relativity. Einstein-Cartan ‘theory’ is
an attempt to wish away some of the scarier implications of GR, such as black holes, by switching geometries in midstream. This is fringe physics –
though it’s really more mathematics than physics – and most
real physicists would dismiss it as unwarranted by observation – black holes,
which are indeed dimensionless points, plainly do exist, and the breakdown of GR at quantum scales is not quite as easily disposed of as mcipsi seems
to think.
In the paragraph quoted above, our good friend is not just trying to impress the ignorant with his knowledge of physics
; he or she is trying to
smuggle an
off-topic fringe theory into the discussion, pretending it is kosher physics. Perhaps he or she thinks it is. If not, he is trying
to put one over us, a very naughty thing to do.
– ENDS –
Mcipsi, please be advised that I will
not debate fringe theories with you in this thread. Your post adds nothing to the present discussion, and
I would have ignored it if not for the sneaky little trick you pulled in it. If, however, you would like to explain in words comprehensible to most
ATS members what EC implies for a picture of the beginnings of the universe (and
en passant explain how all that matter cycles back to energy
again – does EC not imply a density limit after all?), you might be contributing something of value – an alternative point of view. So perhaps you
would like to redeem yourself that way.
You’ve been rumbled, mate; your little attempt to bamboozle us into thinking you the Voice of Scientific Authority has come a cropper. Now why not
throw away those false specs and lab coat – they don’t suit you, anyway — and come clean? We’ll forgive you. Well, some of us will, anyway.
edit on 21/6/11 by Astyanax because: there is no writing without editing.
