singularities

[marnix]

the maths can handle singularities, so why don't physicists like them, and do everything to avoid them in their description of the universe, be it the big bang or black holes ?

[marnix]

in a way the abhorrence of singularities and infinity seems to have a parallel in some of Zeno's paradoxes - of course Achilles will overtake the tortoise, hence the framing of how motion proceeds (by first covering half of the full distance, or getting to the point where the other moving object has been) must be wrong

i think it's the fact that each smaller increment in space is only smaller because it is viewed from a smaller time span - this leads to the false impression of an endless approach, whereas real limits show an asymptotic approach against a constant time step, not an ever decreasing one

[cypress]

I find that many physicists wish to avoid singularities generally because of the implications that singularities require, namely solutions that often transcend space/time.

[marnix]

which is another way of saying that there are limits to what physics can do, and if you attempt something that doesn't fall inside its domain, there are only 2 options : either you extend the limits of what physics can explain (the einsteins of this world) or you step outside physics (the rest of us)

[cypress]

Perhaps, but that was not the only meaning intended.  Many people, physicists included, don't wish to question their absolutes;  these presuppositions that make up their worldview.   Those who are uncomfortable with the possibility of transcending causes tend to want to avoid situations that would imply them.  Singularities are an example.

[marnix]

that's as may be, still it remains a fact that when looked at objectively, implication physics is not good at dealing with singularities - the suspicion is that they may be a mathematical construct without a physical reality behind it

and since physics is a science aimed at describing reality, anything suspected of not being real is referred to the purgatory of physics, pending a better understanding of its physical reality

this does not necessarily reflect on the world view of a physicist as a person, but more on the self-imposed restriction of any science, which deals with the observable world

[cypress]

that's as may be, still it remains a fact that when looked at objectively, implication physics is not good at dealing with singularities - the suspicion is that they may be a mathematical construct without a physical reality behind it

Yes, math is tricky that way, particularly in this case.  I had not considered this before, I suppose my bias prevented it.

and since physics is a science aimed at describing reality, anything suspected of not being real is referred to the purgatory of physics, pending a better understanding of its physical reality

LOL, that's not true.  String Theory and Superstring Theory and any multiverse models are all far, far more speculative than singularities.   The natural world is full of examples of singularities, though perhaps somewhat different from the mathematical singularities predicted by Special Relativity.

this does not necessarily reflect on the world view of a physicist as a person, but more on the self-imposed restriction of any science, which deals with the observable world

I find it telling though that it seems to apply only in one direction, namely the direction that favors that particular scientists presumptions.  The naturalist appeals to infinite time, or multi-verses or string theory or some combination, none of which fit the strict definition of science.

[marnix]

The naturalist appeals to infinite time, or multi-verses or string theory or some combination, none of which fit the strict definition of science.

let's say these ideas reside in limbo - they don't make the grade of a proper scientific theory
it has to be hoped that over time, things will become clearer and a decision can be made as to whether they become properly established scientific theories or end up in the waste bin of failed candidates

[cypress]

We can say they reside wherever, but they are favored because of prior a commitment to what they imply and not because they have any better future chance of conforming to the scientific method.  The double standard gives away the motive.  Personally I don't have an issue with this kind of speculation, but let's call a spade a spade.

[marnix]

i'd rather call a string a sting