Originally Posted by UberCryxic
Well, pardon me for asking, but isn't the fact that the singularities appear in their theories tell you something, as opposed to them not wanting them to appear?
yeah, it tells you that their theories still don't work. that's why they're still working on them.
singularities come out of their math because they're trying to model something that is classically singular. for example, you might try to model the spacetime around a known singularity by a conifold singularity since the latter has a similar geometry. but the reason you try a conifold singularity is because you know you can resolve (remove) its singularity, so that if the model works the known singularity will likewise be resolved.
this is in direct contradistinction to your
position that string theorists are trying to put singularites into the theory because they believe the final theory must have
see the difference?
btw, i thought about why they would continue calling a sing a sing even after it's been resolved and i think it's prob the same reason we still call zeno's paradox a "paradox" even after it's been resolved. or the same reason we still speak of the "proofs of god's existence" even though those "proofs" have been refuted - ie, it's just a naming convention that's understood amongst experts.
Regardless of the Big Bang singularity specifically, these TOE candidates are, indeed, utilizing singularities as a part of their effort to explain all the materialistic interactions in the multiverse.
again, they have to model existing singularities by singularities they know they can resolve. otoh, the ones that have been resolved are the timelike sings that don't describe the big bang, which is the
problem in toe. so don't confuse the two.
After all, if the singularities are intrinsic to the theory,
but we don't know this. singularities show up in the classical descriptions, so theorists use singularities to model them, hoping they can resolve these models and create a theory that works - ie, is free of singularities.
and you should understand that they are SIMPLIFIED models. so it's not clear what form any of these things will have if and when they get to the real toe.
then they are a deeper reason for what happened at t=0, forget whether there was a singularity or not at that moment. My point is that they're being used and that they don't square up with your traditional conception, which up until now has taken the Hawking-Penrose line of argument.
my position has simply been to question your
assertion that even after
we have a toe, there has
to be a singularity at the big bang. i don't see why there has to be such a singularity. in fact, i can't see how such a singularity can be consistent with a theory that describes that event.