Singularity Vs. Multi-Universe?

[iGuest 3]

Although I agree with Steven Hawking with respect to God and Science, he has not sold me on the concept of singularity. Most people understand that the universe is the totality of all the galaxies in space. However, even if we group all of that we know to exist and place it in a bucket while noting that no other galaxies can be seen for billions or even trillions of light years from our most distant galaxy, this does not mean that we have conclusively identified all of the elements of our universe...given that space is infinite. I argue that there exist more universes beyond our abilities to see at this time. I also am slightly confused on how we can state that an object X trillion light years ago was at a single point given that any explosion or bang gives everything within the bang a momentum of force and speed causing each projectile to move at different values. I can easily understand how we can measure their current distances, but not their starting point. It seems to me that given space is infinite while suggesting that other universes exist, is it reasonable to conclude that two universes given a large mass collided into one another? Because we are dealing with the term infinite, my impression is that our universe, like our galaxies, and our home planet are nothing more than a speck of dust in an endless sky. Further these questions also challenge time itself. If singularity is a fact, then all things in this universe are one age, and yet the materials that make up our galaxies are of different ages. It is easy for me to comprehend a collision or creating new elements from gathered elements but not from a single element as suggested. A simple experiment that I can envision is assembling a glass sphere in space free from our gravity and placing a single element while observing the affects over time. I would suggest that nothing would happen. Further if a soda can were lowered into the black hole, would a person with sufficient distance be able to reel it back out or would it have been consumed? Although I don?t have the answers, I believe that we have placed limits on our understanding of space.

[linekill 1]

First, I see no point in comparison of Singularity and Multi-Universe. Singularity is like a needle-hole while Multi-Universe is the cloth.

Most people understand that the universe is the totality of all the galaxies in space. However, even if we group all of that we know to exist and place it in a bucket while noting that no other galaxies can be seen for billions or even trillions of light years from our most distant galaxy, this does not mean that we have conclusively identified all of the elements of our universe...given that space is infinite.

I don't think the universe can be seen as the totality of the galaxies, rather it's the totality of everything that exists. (wiki) With the current understanding that we have and the laws and principles that were observed on our universe, we can say that the elements (if you were referring to H, He, C, Ni, etc..) available in the universe has been 99.99% identified.

It seems to me that given space is infinite while suggesting that other universes exist, is it reasonable to conclude that two universes given a large mass collided into one another?

This is a valid point and has already been discussed by the minds behind the M-Theory. M-theory suggests a presence of an infinite number of other universes guided by different laws of physics. Collision of 2 universes triggers a massive ripple, in the membrane, from a single point. (Sounds familiar? The Big Bang theory).

If singularity is a fact, then all things in this universe are one age, and yet the materials that make up our galaxies are of different ages. It is easy for me to comprehend a collision or creating new elements from gathered elements but not from a single element as suggested.

I have a hard time understanding the point of the 2nd statement.

A simple experiment that I can envision is assembling a glass sphere in space free from our gravity and placing a single element while observing the affects over time. I would suggest that nothing would happen. Further if a soda can were lowered into the black hole, would a person with sufficient distance be able to reel it back out or would it have been consumed? Although I dont have the answers, I believe that we have placed limits on our understanding of space.

If such "close" and independent system is just that easy to achieve, the greatest minds of our time would have solved most of greatest mysteries of the universe. It's all about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, You can't predict or know everything. As for the glass experiment, that single element is still subject to Sun's gravity, radiation, temperature of the space, et...

From my understanding of the black hole, once it's lowered into the black hole's center, it will stripped into it very basic components (What ever that very basic components might be).

[shadowx 0]

I dont think you quite understand the theories...

Firstly:

It is easy for me to comprehend a collision or creating new elements from gathered elements but not from a single element as suggested.

Are you referring to the idea that in the beginning there was only one particle of one type and from that all other elements (iron, oxygen etc...) were created?

If so then you are referring to nuclear fusion whereby two hydrogen atoms are crushed with IMMENSE forces and temperatures at the core of a star like our sun and the protons, neutrons and electrons are mushed together creating a molecule with two electrons, two protons and some neutrons. hence two become one. In time two helium atoms will come together to form a heavier element, and so on.

with your analogy it wouldnt work, with one glass ball you cant merge another glass ball with it and form a different type of glass, but in physics that is what happens since the properties of an element, hydrogen for example, are dictated by the nubver and position of electrons. Hydrogen has one electron and it *desperately* wants two which is why it is flammable, the act of burning it gives it extra electrons, in this case sharing with oxygen and a second hydrogen molecule to form H20, or water.

Anyway...

By definition the universe isnt everything we can see. If i put you in an enormous warehouse 10 miles long and wide, make it pitch black dark and then use a little torch to light the area around you feet, you are suggesting that the universe is that patch of light at your feet (everything *you* can see) but in this analogy the universe is the warehouse. it is EVERYTHIHNG. The only thing that can exist outside of a universe would be part of an omniverse (theoreitcal super universe type thing, sort of like a warehouse within an infinite warehouse) or another universe.

The universe is the container with no boundaries. You cant have another universe that we can see with a telescope, or fly to. You can have other galaxies and clusters etc.. (like other spots of light in the dark warehouse) but not another universe. To go to a different universe you first need to create some sort of space-time/dimensional "rift" or "portal" much like opening the warehouse door and teleporting to the door of another warehouse. Nothing exists outside of that warehouse so you cant walk there, you just teleport.

an object X trillion light years ago was at a single point

I Agree it isnt an exact science but we can be rough by noting the trajectory of the object we can trace it back through time and space. This doesnt account for collisions but if enough objects trace back to the same point (like shrapnel from a bomb) then we can guess where the explosion was.

I am assuming this is relation to the big bang?


With relevance to the soda can... I would guess one of two things would happen.

Either the can would cease to exist due to the fact that in a singularity time and space are so warped literally anything could happen, perhaps time itself is twisted so that the can vanishes from existence, or perhaps space is so warped that it teleports elsewhere.

OR it would just be crushed and "evaporate" into a soup of subatomic particles.

Of course, the rope would snap LONG before any of this happened, no matter the strength of the rope it would either break or drag the anchor into the black hole, even if you tethered it to a planet the rope would pull the planet into the blackhole.