syedfaisal

November 2, 2007

ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE AND 0/0 SINGULARITY

Filed under: physics — Tags: , , , , , , , , — syedfaisal @ 2:19 pm

‘0/0’ to seems to be some value which has no significance in our lives or some may say its absurd to discuss or write something on it.BUT somebody who has some interest in finding the origin of the origins may find it interesting.

According to the most authentic and also most discussed theory the origin of the universe started with a massive explosion big bang and the initial condition which is mostly given is ‘zero volume infinite density’ or (infinite)density=mass/(zero)volume  (another singularity) , this theory is based on an assumption(which is quiet evident in normal life) that something has to originate from something and that something in the big bang case is mass and the fundamental forces associated with the process but the problem comes if this is so obvious then what about the origin of that something and so on…

( courtesy www.dkimages.com)

This leads to a question what if the origin started from nothingness which was present for nothing (0/0).  To understand the 0/0 singularity you can think “about something which is not there and you don’t need it” so it can be said that “no mass or force(in the sense of present physics) was there and it wasn’t required” then at some point in history of origin it originated from the absolute nothingness (0/0) and changed it to (m/0) and so the process of origination started…………..

further more: Origin of the universe ….search continues

(The article is incomplete I will write more on the topic IshaAllah)

Advertisements

10 Comments »

  1. This seems to be a nice article but it discontinued at the climax!

    If you keep posting not too lengthy and sensible articles, I think many people will visit it. Quantum physics, cosmology, nuclear physics are evergreen topics!

    Keep up the effort!

    Comment by EinsteinsGhost — November 2, 2007 @ 5:03 pm

  2. thanx sir,
    the article is not finished yet……….just taking time so that i can get questions on the topic…..

    Comment by SyedFaisal — November 2, 2007 @ 5:31 pm

  3. wtf ??
    a very nicely written piece on a very good topic … but dear, when i say “piece” .. it really is a little piece 😛

    try to put more pieces together … maybe they will start making more sense 🙂

    keep it up!

    Comment by uglyduckling — November 3, 2007 @ 12:02 am

  4. @uglyduckling

    actually i don’t want people to get bored by writing every thing at once……
    so i m writing it in pieces…….:)

    Comment by syedfaisal — November 3, 2007 @ 11:22 am

  5. Interesting Article … Looking forward to your next piece of work .. Good Lick

    Comment by Naveed Nazar Ali — November 3, 2007 @ 1:54 pm

  6. coming soon…..inshaAllah

    Comment by FAISAL — November 3, 2007 @ 9:36 pm

  7. “something has to originate from something”
    How obvious is this?

    Comment by hB — January 28, 2008 @ 9:31 pm

  8. this is not obvious its just something which is assumed by many people but i believe nothingness can produce something.

    Comment by syedfaisal — January 29, 2008 @ 12:37 pm

  9. The last post was a year ago so I’m not sure if this thread is still happening. And let me start off by saying I am not especially religious, but if one believes in the concept of god, if god exists at all, would not god have had to exist within the singularity that became the Universe. If not, then god certainly could not have come into existence later. He was there at the beginning, or not at all.
    Do you ever ponder this aspect of things?

    Comment by larryman — January 23, 2010 @ 11:09 am

  10. A CRITIQUE OF THE VOID

    A.Circular Reasoning

    In his article ‘The other side of time’ (2000) scientist Victor J. Stenger has written that as per the theory of quantum electrodynamics electron-positron (anti-electron) pairs can appear spontaneously for brief periods of time practically out of nothing, which clearly shows that anything that has a beginning need not have to have a cause of that beginning.
    From here he has concluded that our universe may also come literally out of nothing due to quantum fluctuation in the void, and therefore we need not have to imagine that God has done this job.
    But is it true that electron-positron (anti-electron) pairs are appearing literally out of “nothing”? Are scientists absolutely certain that the so-called void is a true void indeed? Because here there is a counter-claim also: God is there, and that God is everywhere. So actually nothing is coming out of “nothing”, only something is coming out of something. Here they will perhaps say: as there is no proof for God’s existence so far, so why should one have to believe that the void here is not a true void? But even if there is no proof for God’s existence, still then it can be shown that scientists’ claim that the universe has literally come out of nothing is a pure case of circular reasoning. If believers say that the void is not a true void at all, and if scientists still then hold that it is nothing but a void, then this is only because they are absolutely certain that God does not exist, and also because they think that God’s non-existence is so well-established a fact that it needs no further proof for substantiation. But if they are absolutely certain that God does not exist, then they are also absolutely certain that God is not the architect, designer, creator of our universe, because it is quite obvious that a non-existent God cannot be the architect, designer, etc. So their starting premise is this: God does not exist, and therefore our universe is definitely not the creation of a God. But if they start from the above premise, then will it be very difficult to reach to the same conclusion?
    But their approach here could have been somehow different. They could have said: well, regarding void, it is found that there is some controversy. Therefore we will not assume that it is a void, rather we will prove that it is such. Then they could have proceeded to give an alternate explanation for the origin of the universe, in which there will be neither any quantum fluctuation in the void, nor any hand of God to be seen anywhere. And their success here could have settled the matter for all time to come.
    By simply ignoring a rumour one cannot kill it, rather it will remain as it is. But if one takes some more trouble on him and exposes that it is nothing but a rumour, then it will die a natural death with no further chance of revival. Let us say that the saying that there is a God and that He is everywhere is nothing but a rumour persisting for thousands of years among mankind. What scientists have done here is this: they have simply ignored the rumour and thus kept it alive. But it would have been far better for them if they could have killed it, as suggested by me.

    B. “Circular Reasoning” Case Reexamined

    There can be basically two types of universe: (1) universe created by God, supposing that there is a God; (2) universe not created by God, supposing that there is no God. Again universe created by God can also be of three types:
    (1a) Universe in which God need not have to intervene at all after its creation. This is the best type of universe that can be created by God.
    (1b) Universe in which God has actually intervened from time to time, but his intervention is a bare minimum.
    (1c) Universe that cannot function at all without God’s very frequent intervention. This is the worst type of universe that can be created by God.
    Therefore we see that there can be four distinct types of universes, and our universe may be any one of the above four types: (1a), (1b), (1c), (2). In case of (1a), scientists will be able to give natural explanation for each and every physical event that has happened in the universe after its origin, because after its creation there is no intervention by God at any moment of its functioning. Only giving natural explanation for its coming into existence will be problematic. In case of (1b) also, most of the events will be easily explained away, without imagining that there is any hand of God behind these events. But for those events where God had actually intervened, scientists will never be able to give any natural explanation. Also explaining origin of the universe will be equally problematic. But in case of (1c), most of the events will remain unexplained, as in this case God had to intervene very frequently. This type of universe will be just like the one as envisaged by Newton: “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.” So we can with confidence say that our universe is not of this type, otherwise scientists could not have found natural explanation for most of the physical events. In case of type (2) universe, here also there will be natural explanation for each and every physical event, and there will be natural explanation for the origin of the universe also. So from the mere fact that scientists have so far been able to give natural explanation for each and every physical event, it cannot be concluded that our universe is a type (2) universe, because this can be a type (1a) universe as well. The only difference between type (1a) and type (2) universe is this: whereas in case of (1a) no natural explanation will ever be possible for the origin of the universe, it will not be so in case of (2). Therefore until and unless scientists can give a natural explanation for the origin of the universe, they cannot claim that it is a type (2) universe. And so, until and unless scientists can give this explanation, they can neither claim that the so-called void is a true void. So scientists cannot proceed to give a natural explanation for the origin of the universe with an a priori assumption that the void is a real void, because their failure or success in giving this explanation will only determine as to whether this is a real void or not.

    Comment by H.S.Pal — December 14, 2010 @ 8:29 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: