/sci/ - Science & Math

Bump because I'm also intrigued.

>>1115309
Can you say there is something outside the universe?

BUMP

Ah well, yes and no, it just doesn't make sense to think about it this way.
In general relativity, matter defines space. If you have nothing in a classical space, the space is empty; if you have nothing in GR, you really have nothing, that is, no space in which something could be in. GR isn't about the physics in spacetime, it's about spacetime itself.

>>1115350
But doesn't QM prove that nothing doesn't really mean nothing? there is always something even in nothing.

There is/was a finite amount of "stuff" if i can call it that.

It is demonstrated by conservation of energy.

>>1115363
Matter and antimatter?

>>1115350

Interesting, thanks.

>>1115362
That's where the problems are starting :)
You're right about quantum theory and vacuum fluctuations etc; if you take GR to quantum levels, those fluctuations will really mess up space and time. That's why we're currently searching for a theory of quantum gravity.

I guess it depends if our universe is really infinite. If it is, then a singularity would be infinity in an infinitely small space.

Also, time would be meaningless, but that doesn't mean we couldn't measure it using another dimension.

Whoops, disregard that OP title.

>>1115405

Ah. :p

>>1115397

...Why are you pretending to be the OP? Don't you have better things to do?

>>1115309
>In this case, can the singularity be described as infinite?

NO, you sound like an faggot (engineer), with a very very limited understanding of how shit works. Get back to your gay secks and leave the questions about the universe to real physicists!

GTFO!

>>1115397

How can something be infinitely small? This would mean it doesn't exist at all.

And I believe that the way we consider time is as another dimension, like we move through space in three dimensions and move through time in a fourth. Carl Sagan explains it like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9KT4M7kiSw

(I think that's the right video)

Well, we don't really know if there was any singularity, just that everything was "close together" in a state of high energy and low entropy. Then this state collapsed, the stuff got separated and entropy started to rise, something we percieve as time moving forward.

>>1115425

Go back to /b/

>>1115425
>how dare you ask questions, that isn't what Science is about. It is an elite club where we keep our information and call you an idiot for not knowing it.
>>>/b/

>>1115362
Why is it that retards think QM proves anything they want to be true true?

>>1115429
this video just blew my mind. carl sagan certainly had a way of dumbing things down expertly!

thanks for the link.

>>1115531

Yeah, there are some complaints in the comments about stuff like "bawww it takes him 5 minutes to start the explanation", but these idiots don't realise that without that explanation they wouldn't have understood the video.

>>1115567
yeah, it really takes an explanation of the view of lifeforms living in 2 dimensions, for us to realise what being able to see a 3rd dimension really means.

>>1115638

I agree, I always sort of understood what it meant, but it's one of those things which is nearly impossible to visualise, and therefore hard to properly understand.

Obviously it's more complex than going from 2 to 3 dimensions, at least in our minds, but Carl Sagan clarifies it brilliantly.

>>1115525
Somebody failed QM.

>>1115464
and there, you captured /sci/ence in it's essence.