1

I was wondering if there is any truth in the perspective that the singularity point at the beginning of our universe would be considered a boson.

I have heard it said that the universe at that one instant was essentially as much a "particle" as any other fundamental particle of the standard model.

If that were true, it makes me ask the question, "What kind of particle was it?" and since characteristics like charge and mass and spin were meaningless at that point in the evolution of the universe, that means it would have a spin equal to zero, making it a scalar boson, like the Higgs.

Is there any validity to a perspective like this?

blacktopshaman
  • 345

1 Answers1

2

No. Within our best theories, this is incorrect.

In general relativity, a singularity is a hole in spacetime (which is properly defined by means of geodesic incompleteness). It is not a particle and it does not behave like a particle. I can't see any way in which a singularity would resemble a particle in the sense of particle physics. The singularity is a way for us to understand that the spacetime is punctured. It does not live on the spacetime, and it is not an excitation of any field.

Caveat: the standard model and general relativity break down near singularities, because you can't make the assumptions we use to work with them. I am answering from the perspective of quantum field theory in curved spacetime, but this theory is expected to break down before one gets to the singularity. Nevertheless, it is the best possible option to answer this question, since no reliable current theory describes what happens near singularities (and most attempts at quantum gravity simply remove the singularity completely).

Níck Aguiar Alves
  • 24,192