Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> If its not particles, then what? Energy? Oh, wait, energy is still some 
> sort of particle, as near as we can come up with.

  Energy is quantized in normal circumstances. However, at a singularity,
if they exist, all physics break up. There's nothing to say that energy
is still quantized at a singularity. (The *amount* of energy in a singularity
might be a multiple of an energy quantum, but that doesn't mean that the
energy is subdivided into quantized parts in there.)

> In any case, no, the problem here is that you have to present a 
> plausible thing to "be" there, if you don't have particles, given that 
> even breaking up something like an electron gives you... more particles. 

  Matter/energy degenerates under such enormous gravity, forming something
which doesn't happen normally elsewhere. It retains certain properties
(such as mass) because energy cannot be destroyed nor created, but its
physiology may be completely different than normally.

  It's the same as what happened in the first moments of the Big Bang.
There were no particles until later.

> Again, its presupposing what is there, based on what needs to be, for 
> the math to come out right. It doesn't prove that the math *is* right, 
> in those conditions, or there is some basic limit, just like with 
> distance and travel, over time. There is simply the assumption that 
> there isn't one.

  Well, as long as you can't present a plausible alternative, I'd say
the Occam's Razor applies...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message