Singularity: Big bang Black hole.

Singularity: Big bang Black hole.
===…
Strong gravitational field gathered Strong gravitational field
all masses of the Universe into --------- collapsed and created
a very hot (!) singular point. --------- very cold (!) singular point.
This singular point must have This singular point has no volume
a volume (because it has masses) ---- (it means – doesn’t have masses)
BB singular point was expanded The fate of BH point is unknown.
The expanding of BB point The collapsing of BH point
is " beginning of the time" --------- is " end of the time"
There is evidence for big bang: There is evidence for black hole:
cosmic microwave radiation 2,7K ----- unseen object called Cygnus X
------- . ---- . -------- . ------ and a number of other objects in our galaxy.
My conclusions:
Let us consider that these two theories are correct. Then BB must begin
its way to hot singularity from “a temperature of only one ten-millionth
of a degree above absolute zero.” But in this region the gravity field
is very weak. So, which power was created hot singularity?
The answer can be only one: Electrodynamics.
“Is the electromagnetic force really strong?”
“It is very strong and this is surprising too because it can work over
an infinite range. To give you an idea, the electromagnetic force is
approximately 10^36 times stronger than the earth’s gravitational field!
That is (to put it in perspective)
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger
than gravity on Earth!”
http://emandpplabs.nscee.edu/cool/temporary/doors/forces/electromagforce/electromagnetic.htm
======…
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
=============…

Wish I had another couple standard deviations of IQ, so I might have a clue what you are saying.

“My story is much simpler”.
“Before the Beginning the meaning of Time is moot.
Therefore, we can say that there was only an infinitely small single instant of time (t=0) before the Beginning (t=1). Before then, there was only a meta physical timeless permissive condition, the “zero state” singularity, “One”. A totally permissive condition without any universal laws, as we know them today.
Before the Beginning, the meaning of Speed is moot.
Thus, the initial chaotic expansion was (permissible) @FTL (Inflationary Epoch), but only until the raw power of energy cooled enought to slow things down within the newly created space, the elements emerged from the chaotic soup and attendant universal laws emerged alongside.
In the absence of anything else, this “One” created it’s own (metaphysical) gravity field into which the One itself collapsed and compressed all the metaphysical potential for energy contained in the stable singularity into an infinitely small, unstable singularity.
Collapse of anything is a dynamic action inward (even in a metaphysical sense., compression results in a dynamic force outward, as expressed in our reality during the BB. A totally chaotic event (perhaps a mega quantum event), not restricted by the laws of nature. Those did not exists yet. That came later with the cooling of the chaos, when the first elements (matter) were formed from the chaotic state of pure energy.
Perhaps the only constant was some form of the law of E → M. As There was not yet any matter this law worked only one way, converting energy into matter, until sufficient matter had cooled and started acquiring gravitational forces themselves, and E = Mc^2 became a constant along with the other universal constants.”
“Amen.”
Let us sing:

What if the BB wasn’t a singular event, but the start of a process that still continues?

What if the BB wasn't a singular event, but the start of a process that still continues?
If it was a single mega quantum event, the fact that we are still expanding shows how truly large this event must have been! To answer you question of a continuous process; This may also relate to Socrates' posit. I have always had a fondness for the (defunct) concept of a doughnut shaped universe, where the center is a BH sucking up and a WH spewing out at the opposite sides of the doughnut hole, which might be a a quantum tunnel.
Now, by simulating the conditions of space in a laboratory, scientists have found a possible explanation for how the reaction occurs: quantum tunneling. http://www.space.com/21843-quantum-tunneling-space-chemistry.html
Actually, this is an elegant idea and answers the question of a pulsating universe which is a infinite but bounded geometric construct. Such as a dougnut shaped universe which apparently presents contradiction in our concept of time. Matter spewing out from the center (WH) and expanding as it races toward the equator, then contracting as it passes the doughnut's equator and continues forward (in time) toward the BH at the opposite side of the starting point, a recycling of the universe if you will. But as I understand it, this has been discounted for lack of confirming wave frequencies. It is of course possible that we are still "outbound and (apparently) expanding at a faster rate, but once we cross the equator spacetime will begin to contract again. It makes for a great imaginary visual.
a very hot (!) singular point. --------- very cold (!) singular point.
What if the universe has infinite size? Then, it can't collapse to a point. An often overlooked detail by non-physicists who conversationally talk about the big bang.
a very hot (!) singular point. --------- very cold (!) singular point.
What if the universe has infinite size? Then, it can't collapse to a point. An often overlooked detail by non-physicists who conversationally talk about the big bang. Allow me a counter question: Can infinite size be dynamic? I believe the current measurement of the background waves of the BB (by any other name) show that the lowest (longest) frequencies are missing from the "noise". As musician you know that a wavelength cannot be longer than the size of the string or instrument. The absence of the longest wavelengths seems to confirm a finite size at the very beginning, but is currently measured all the way down to 7 Planck Hz., but none lower than that.
I believe the current measurement of the background waves of the BB (by any other name) show that the lowest (longest) frequencies are missing from the "noise".
The Cosmic Microwave Background is based on the universe's temperature when it was generated, not it's size.
I believe the current measurement of the background waves of the BB (by any other name) show that the lowest (longest) frequencies are missing from the "noise".
The Cosmic Microwave Background is based on the universe's temperature when it was generated, not it's size. That may be true, but as I understand it, nothing can generate a wavelength larger than the size of its origin. Wavelength restriction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rstu3nGdZLs&feature=related (see @5:30) This may be related also. Wave function of the universe (note the lengthening of the wave frequency as the universe expands): http://phys.org/news/2015-06-universe-crystal-glass.html#jCp

The Cosmic Microwave Background isn’t a measurement of the Big Bang directly; it’s a measurement light emitted at the first time the universe had expanded and cooled off enough to allow conditions where light could propagate and not be absorbed immediately by dust, somewhere about 380,000 years after the Big Bang.
You are talking about the Cosmic Microwave Background and not something else, yes?

The Cosmic Microwave Background isn't a measurement of the Big Bang directly; it's a measurement light emitted at the first time the universe had expanded and cooled off enough to allow conditions where light could propagate and not be absorbed immediately by dust, somewhere about 380,000 years after the Big Bang. You are talking about the Cosmic Microwave Background and not something else, yes?
I am talking about all waves. Microwave by definition have a high oscillation frequency and only represents a small portion of the the entire wave spectrum, the upper end of all possible frequencies. Did you watch the link? I find it fascinating and as an ex-musician myself (bass), I have had to retune (shorten or lengthen) the frequency of the strings, due to stretching or conrtraction from stress or temparature. I am talking about the "general properties of the wave function", regardless of the emitting source. As I understad it, the wave functions (of all things) can produce oscillating frequencies from ultra high frquencies to ultra low frequencies. These frequencies tell us about the size and nature of the emitting object and the speed it approaches or recedes from us, which (in relativity) affect the apparent freqency of the wavelength by the doppler effect, but I am talking about thw wave frequencies generated by the BB itself. Low frequency (long waves) travel farther than high frequecy waves, and should be observable, if they were present. But they aren't there. This has allowed us to "look" back 13.7 billon years to the emitting source. As I understand this, the BB was causal to the universal wave function. But as the wave function is dependent on the size and energy of the emitter, it is mathematically impossible that a small emitter is able to generate frequencies larger that what its size allows. We have evidence of an inconceivable violent and chaotic release of energy (inflation epoch), from a singularity, which created all the fundamental particles and their associated microwaves. But that does not say anything how large this singularity is. The ultra long wavelegths of large objects are missing from that measurement, they had not yet been created and emerged along with the formation of matter. Thus the proposition that in the absence of the longest wavelengths from the background (inflionary epoch), the emitter (baby universe) cannot have been larger than it's longest wavelength. Which would rule out an infintely large emitting source, but does point to an (infinitely) small singularity. I may be looking at this through colored glasses, but logically it makes sense to me.

I watched a bit of the Youtube video and turned it off - too much technobabble and not enough explanation for my taste. The 2nd link looks like some theoretical physicist had some fun and maybe has a good idea which needs to be fleshed out more through experiments and refinement. But still cool.
So, you’re talking about the “universe wave” which from that 2nd link looks to be effectively a wave through time instead of only 3D space, but time is a different dimension from the other 3. We of course know that time is not infinte going backwards, but space seems to be practically (if not actually) infinite looking out into it, otherwise we’d see non-uniform effects pop up as we near the effective “event horizon” of the universe from our perspective because light from beyond it hasn’t had time to reach us yet. Remember that waves do not necessarily travel across all dimensions in the same way, so I’m skeptical that an kind of “bell-ringing” that resulted from the Big Bang in the time dimension will also translate to 3D waves in the same way. If we have an infinitely large universe (in 3D) and we certainly won’t be able to observe an infinitely large wave anyway, the absence of a wave too big to see anyway really isn’t any kind of proof of anything.

I watched a bit of the Youtube video and turned it off - too much technobabble and not enough explanation for my taste. The 2nd link looks like some theoretical physicist had some fun and maybe has a good idea which needs to be fleshed out more through experiments and refinement. But still cool.
I am disappointed that you did not watch the entire YouTube presentation, IMO, there were some profound subjects discussed. Granted, the presentation was for the general audience, but lais the foundations for at least a basic understanding of how science discovers and tests the functions of the universe. If you feel that you are beyond that, sure. But I have shown this to several knowledgeable lay persons and received positive responses on some of the more advanced theories presented later in the presentation. Do we turn off a movie becuase it starts with a scene of a car travelling a deserted road? As to the second link: Obviously that was a real scientist who dumbed down the maths and used narrative language which could be understood by lay persons, such as myself. Personally I find this very informative, because a) it isn't woo, and b) it is presented (or backed up) with actual RW experiments which explain specific natural phenomena, without the "boring" endless maths, which are unintelligble unless you learn the language AND understand it. Of course that would make you a scientist, which few of us aspire to be as a career choice.
So, you're talking about the "universe wave" which from that 2nd link looks to be effectively a wave through time instf ead of only 3D space, but time is a different dimension from the other 3. We of course know that time is not infinte going backwards, but space seems to be practically (if not actually) infinite looking out into it, otherwise we'd see non-uniform effects pop up as we near the effective "event horizon" of the universe from our perspective because light from beyond it hasn't had time to reach us yet. Remember that waves do not necessarily travel across all dimensions in the same way, so I'm skeptical that an kind of "bell-ringing" that resulted from the Big Bang in the time dimension will also translate to 3D waves in the same way. If we have an infinitely large universe (in 3D) and we certainly won't be able to observe an infinitely large wave anyway, the absence of a wave too big to see anyway really isn't any kind of proof of anything.
Good argument if your accept an infinite universe which suddenly and violently exploded and caused an observable inflationaryt period. IMO, that is a contradiction in terms. An infinity is by definition already of infinite size, which is different from an original finite size unstable condition, theoretically capable of infinite expansion, depending on the geometrics of universal space, such as a theoretical doughnut. Moreover, you stipulated that time is not not going infinitely backward. If that is true how could our UNIVERSE be infinite? Unless you are talking about an infinite permittive condition (total void) in which the universe (spacetime) is nestled and is able to expand. From all the evidence our UNIVERSE (our spacetime) began as a relatively small singularity, certainly not an infinitely large singularity. First there was a non-universal "condition" which somehow allowed for the creation of our UNIVERSE. Two separate concepts. And this argument makes sense, IMO. if we can prove that the universe could actually have spontaneously emerged from nothing.
Insights from modern physics suggest that our wondrous universe may be the ultimate free lunch
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/ .
From all the evidence our UNIVERSE (our spacetime) began as a relatively small singularity, certainly not an infinitely large singularity.
Remember that in mathematical terms, a singularity is not a point. It is division by zero, undefined.
From all the evidence our UNIVERSE (our spacetime) began as a relatively small singularity, certainly not an infinitely large singularity.
Remember that in mathematical terms, a singularity is not a point. It is division by zero, undefined. Yes, but is has many other definitions, depending on it's uses. It seems to also have application as an abstract identification of a "singular (unique) condition", which could have existed before the BB and the creation of THIS universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity
From all the evidence our UNIVERSE (our spacetime) began as a relatively small singularity, certainly not an infinitely large singularity.
Remember that in mathematical terms, a singularity is not a point. It is division by zero, undefined. Yes, but is has many other definitions, depending on it's uses. It seems to also have application as an abstract identification of a "singular (unique) condition", which could have existed before the BB and the creation of THIS universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity Note that I'm not saying specifically that the beginning singularity was infinite, but that we simply can't define the initial condition of the universe yet. Hence, referring to the singularity at the ultimate beginning as a point (or any kind of size at all) isn't a reflection of current physics knowledge. It's a blind guess, putting something defined into the undefined.
From all the evidence our UNIVERSE (our spacetime) began as a relatively small singularity, certainly not an infinitely large singularity.
Remember that in mathematical terms, a singularity is not a point. It is division by zero, undefined. Yes, but is has many other definitions, depending on it's uses. It seems to also have application as an abstract identification of a "singular (unique) condition", which could have existed before the BB and the creation of THIS universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity Note that I'm not saying specifically that the beginning singularity was infinite, but that we simply can't define the initial condition of the universe yet. Hence, referring to the singularity at the ultimate beginning as a point (or any kind of size at all) isn't a reflection of current physics knowledge. It's a blind guess, putting something defined into the undefined. I agree, but I hope we are able to speculate a "little" in this thread. When we speak about an abstract "NOTHING", we must realize that a timeless absence of everything does not forbid the potential for SOMETHING, NOW. A singularity that has broken the symmetry of nothingness. Symmetry breaking is a causal potential, IMO. The very expression of "Zero State", implies a balance of two opposing abstractions. IMO, the assumption of a singularity with an instability seems reasonable to me.. In my musings, I visualize an abstract duality of stable positive and negative potentials, resulting in a zero state singularity. A fundamental Entanglement of the "false vacuum" (an apt phrase?). This would not exclude the notion of a cold infinitely small BH, with infinite energetic potential (permittivity) for a mega quantum event that created this universe. I read somewhere that at Planck level attractive forces switch into repulsive forces and if inflation is true, there has to have been something that unbalanced a stable singularity and started some kind of chain reaction. This might not initially require something BIG, it might easiliy start as an unbalanced potential. An instability in the dual singularity (mirror image of itself). No longer a zero state, starting a "causal" chain of positive and negative forces, electro-magnetism. Something simple like that. This is why intuitively I see this event as a mega-quantum event, where one of the properties of the singular duality becomes unstable and some form of Implosion (compression) occurred before any subsequent violent explosion of physically causal energy, instantly inflating in a quantum chain reaction which is no longer compressed in a small singularity but now is able to expand, apparently in a wavelike manner. Occasionally we see glimpses of the beginning (physical expressions) in Super Novae, a collapsed singularity which switched states and created an outward explosion. But none of that nova is lost, it's all still here in our universe which is slowly coming to rest in the permittivity of Nothingness. But the star itself may perhaps live on as a Quasar or something, until it reaches stasis. Theism uses the phrase "I am the Alpha and the Omega". As an atheist, IMO, it is still valid as an equation; "from Nothingness we came and to Nothingness we will return".