Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,947
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: − + − + − + − + Line 42:
Line 42: − + + + Line 61:
Line 63: − + −
misc fixes
|author=John C. Lennox
|author=John C. Lennox
|title=God's undertaker. Has science buried God?
|title=God's undertaker. Has science buried God?
|publisher=
|publisher=Lion Hudson
|location=
|location=Oxford, England
|year=
|year=2009
|pages=204
|pages=204
|url=
|url=
|isbn=978-0-7459-5371-7
|isbn=978-0-7459-5371-7
|quote=Apart from the obvious fact that no one observed [the origin of the universe], scientist of the Big Bang as a singularity in the past, an unrepeatable event...}}</ref> and that has no ''natural'' explanation. Most frequently the term is used in connection with origin of [[universe]]. When scientific principles were first being developed into the [[scientific method]], scientists like [[Francis Bacon]], [[Johannes Kepler]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[Lord Kelvin|William Kelvin]] distinguished between primary and secondary (''natural'') causes. A ''primary cause'' was a ''first cause'' to explain singularities.<ref name="skeptics">{{Cite book
|quote=Apart from the obvious fact that no one observed [the origin of the universe], scientist of the Big Bang as a singularity in the past, an unrepeatable event...}}</ref> and that has no ''natural'' explanation. Most frequently the term is used in connection with the origin of the [[universe]]. When scientific principles were first being developed into the [[scientific method]], scientists like [[Francis Bacon]], [[Johannes Kepler]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[Lord Kelvin|William Kelvin]] distinguished between primary and secondary (''natural'') causes. A ''primary cause'' was a ''first cause'' to explain singularities.<ref name="skeptics">{{Cite book
| author = Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks
| author = Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks
| year=1990
| year=1990
|title=What is singularity and why do all laws of physics break down at singularity?
|title=What is singularity and why do all laws of physics break down at singularity?
|publisher=PhysLink.com
|publisher=PhysLink.com
|url=http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae251.cfm}}}</ref>
|url=http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae251.cfm
|quote=Most people worry about singularities involving general relativity: two examples being a black hole and the singularity that classical general relativity predicts was our universe at the moment it began. If you try to apply the laws of general relativity in these situations you will inevitably find the same 1/x singularities I've been talking about. How are we going to resolve these singularities? We expect quantum mechanics to do the job, since it is the theory that correctly describes physics at small distance scales. Unfortunately, while we have good theories of atomic physics, we don't real have a good theory of quantum gravity. Many of us think string theory will ultimately provide the resolution to these problems.
In short then, a singularity represents an infinity and we generally don't think nature is infinite. The problem arises from not having some kind of 'floor' built into a theory that keeps you from taking the limit of 1/x as x goes to zero. The way out is to apply a new theory that has such a floor, such as quantum mechanics or string theory (quantum gravity).}}}</ref>
==The big bang singularity==
==The big bang singularity==
'''The big bang singularity''' refers to a conjectured state at the beginning of universe in which material particles were at no distance from one another and the temperature, density, and curvature of the universe were infinite. The inference to this state is based on the evidence that the universe is expanding and thus it has established a clear path into the past. If expanding things (the large scale structure of the universe) are now far apart, they must at one point have been close together. At the singularity itself, a great many physical parameters zoom to infinity. This posts however a great problem for attempts for naturalistic explanations of the beginning of the universe since as the astronomer Joseph Silk observed, an indefinitely dense universe is where the laws of physics, and even space and time, break down.<ref name="Devils">{{Cite book
'''The big bang singularity''' refers to a conjectured state at the beginning of universe in which material particles were at no distance from one another and the temperature, density, and curvature of the universe were infinite. The inference to this state is based on the evidence that the universe is expanding and thus it has established a clear path into the past. If expanding things (the large scale structure of the universe) are now far apart, they must at one point have been close together. At the singularity itself, a great many physical parameters zoom to infinity. This posts however a great problem for attempts for naturalistic explanations of the beginning of the universe since as the astronomer Joseph Silk observed, an indefinitely dense universe is where the laws of physics, and even space and time, break down.<ref name="Devils">{{Cite book
|url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=naked-singularities
|url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=naked-singularities
|access date=08.03.2012
|access date=08.03.2012
|quote=A black hole has two parts. At its core is a singularity, the infinitesimal point into which all the matter of the star gets crushed. Surrounding the singularity is the region of space from which escape is impossible, the perimeter of which is called the event horizon. Once something enters the event horizon, it loses all hope of exiting. Whatever light the falling body gives off is trapped, too, so an outside observer never sees it again. It ultimately crashes into the singularity. Conventional wisdom has it that a large star eventually collapses to a black hole, but some theoretical models suggest it might instead become a so-called naked singularity. Sorting out what happens is one of the most important unresolved problems in astrophysics.The discovery of naked singularities would transform the search for a unified theory of physics, not least by providing direct observational tests of such a theory.
|quote=A black hole has two parts. At its core is a singularity, the infinitesimal point into which all the matter of the star gets crushed. Surrounding the singularity is the region of space from which escape is impossible, the perimeter of which is called the event horizon. Once something enters the event horizon, it loses all hope of exiting. Whatever light the falling body gives off is trapped, too, so an outside observer never sees it again. It ultimately crashes into the singularity. Conventional wisdom has it that a large star eventually collapses to a black hole, but some theoretical models suggest it might instead become a so-called naked singularity. Sorting out what happens is one of the most important unresolved problems in astrophysics.The discovery of naked singularities would transform the search for a unified theory of physics, not least by providing direct observational tests of such a theory.}}</ref>
}}</ref>
== References ==
== References ==
{{Reflist}}
{{Reflist}}