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? 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. After all, if the singularities are intrinsic to the theory, 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.

histoman

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 singularities.

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.


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.


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.


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.

UberCryxic

My position is not that String theorists are necessarily trying to put singularities into a TOE, but merely that they are, in fact, just using them. This idea that singularities have been thrown out is kind of silly. TOE candidates don't "have to have" singularities, but currently they do. It's not really that shocking a claim.

Certainly part of what you state regarding why singularities have retained their name is true, but not all. For example, conifold singularities are important in forming the Calabi-Yau manifolds purported to comprise the extra dimensions of the multiverse. This article talks about some of that: http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/ITP/...s/Morrison.pdf. Again, they're trying to "resolve" them, but they're still there. That's the point; singularities keep popping up over and over. Also, they're no so much "resolving" these singularities as they are showing that the laws of physics can keep working in the context of singularities.

You keep mischaracterizing my position, which basically states that any TOE will still have to explain how this universe came to be in the context of some sort of singularity, even though singularities themselves may not be responsible for anything.

Pericles

In an effort to consolidate this debate in one place, I have merged in the relevant posts from the "Evolution vs Intelligent Design" and "You Kant do this" threads. All posts appear in the date order in which they were originally posted, regardless of their thread of origin.

To reaffirm what I said before, we don't want this to drag on forever, so hopefully UberCryxic will be in a position to post his final comprehensive reply some time in the coming week.

Louise Smith

Do you happen to have a theory on what consciousness is, how and why it exists and how it fits into scientific thought that excludes intelligent design ( I am not referring to God or a higher power, just an 'intelligent design' beyond our present capacity for logical understanding)? Any responses welcome, but particularly interested in what UberCryxic has to say.