pleaserecycle said:
I agree that there are people who accept ideas without understanding the details, but I wouldn't attribute that characterization to most researchers. This is an issue with the general population. The researchers themselves are not using faith or belief.
I'm sorry, but you're misinterpreting singularities. They do not break physics; they just mean that we need to update that specific part of our model. In the example with Newton's Laws, we needed to reconcile classical mechanics with classical electromagnetism in order to find a model that accurately represents objects moving at every day speeds and objects that move close to (or at) the speed of light. In the case of the Big Bang singularity, we need to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics. The model itself works well for what we can currently observe. A model that violates the conservation of energy would most likely break physics if it accurately represented physical observations. |
"The researchers themselves are not using faith or belief. "
i'm not trying to make this a general thing i believe of researchers but i do think that in terms of topics like the supporting evidence for singularities there is some degree of faith involved
faith in the idea that they eventually will come up with evidence that does not exist yet
"I'm sorry, but you're misinterpreting singularities. They do not break physics; they just mean that we need to update that specific part of our model."
the evidence required to update the model doesn't exist yet though
furthermore from what i gather they don't even know if they will be able to manifest the evidence... maybe its possible that the model they have has problems they are unaware of? maybe it needs to be reworked in a way that excludes their current theory for singularities? that's possible also
"In the example with Newton's Laws, we needed to reconcile classical mechanics with classical electromagnetism in order to find a model that accurately represents objects moving at every day speeds and objects that move close to (or at) the speed of light."
fair enough
"in the case of the Big Bang singularity, we need to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics. The model itself works well for what we can currently observe. "
but aren't we only able to see 3% of the universe around us anyway? don't they just call the rest dark matter? doesn't that imply that there's still a lot of work to be done?... i might be out of my depth here, i'll concede that
"A model that violates the conservation of energy would most likely break physics if it accurately represented physical observations."
singularities represent areas with infinite energy don't they? since mass is infinite... does that not break the law of conservation of energy?
again i'm not an astrophysicist so i'm just pitching a question as a layman in this field
