/sci/ - Science & Math

What would you do if you knew it?

>>12188327
When the universe is engulfed by black holes and they all merge into one, it becomes a singularity and bursts out again repead ad infinitum.

Same thread, same reply in 10^781 years. Until then, Anon!

>>12188327
it's singularities all the way down?

>>12188327
its simple really

>>12188364
How can the black holes ever meet if space itself is expanding? Won't these black holes eventually evaporate due to Hawking Radiation???????

quantum fluctuations
>where did quantum fluctuations come from
no one knows, but for the sake of argument, it's probably something we don't know yet, but will know at some point
>where did this something we don't know yet, but will know at some point come from
no one knows, but for the sake of argument, the something probably came from something else that we also don't know yet, but that we will also know at some point
>where did this something that probably came from something else that we also don't know yet, but that we will also know at some point come from
no one knows, but for the sake of argument, the something probably came from ... etc, etc, etc

>>12188357
Knowledge is power. The person who discovered the electron declared it one of the most useless discoveries ever.

>>12188502
>quantum fluctuations
no, those happens after the singularity

>>12188327
From God. This was proven like a thousand years ago haven’t you ever read the Bible retard?

>>12188736
https://biblehub.com/ezekiel/4-12.htm

>>12188327
https://youtu.be/zO2vfYNaIbk?t=50s

>>12188327
Aristotle already solved this; the Unmoved mover

Also, the big bang model only describes what happened after initial expansion, everything before it is completely unknown
If you take the universe as infinitely expanding, you get infinitely nonsensical results like Boltzmann brains. These infinities point to the fact that the universe very much had a starting point

>>12188460
>Won't these black holes eventually evaporate
yes, around 10^60 years

>>12188460
>Won't these black holes eventually evaporate
yes, around 10^96 years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

>>12188327
Your mom lol

>>12188845
let's speed up the process by making more Hawking radiation.

>>12188364
Even if you could get all the black holes to merge, the repetition would not continue forever. Entropy cannot be overcome.

can a dark matter see a dark energy

>>12188327
One permutation within the 4 dimensional time solid.

>>12190883
[math] \displaystyle
\begin{align*}
\text{Mass} && M \\
\text{Radius} && R &= M \cdot \frac{2G}{c^2} \\
\text{Surface area} && A &= M^2 \cdot \frac{16 \pi G^2}{c^4} \\
\text{Surface gravity} && \kappa &= \frac{1}{M} \cdot \frac{c^4}{4G} \\
\text{Surface tides} && d \kappa_R &= \frac{1}{M^2} \cdot \frac{c^6}{4G^2} \\
\text{Entropy} && S &= M^2 \cdot \frac{4 \pi G }{ \hbar c \; ln10} \\
\text{Temperature} && T &= \frac{1}{M} \cdot \frac{ \hbar c^3 }{8k \pi G} \\
\text{Luminosity} && L &= \frac{1}{M^2} \cdot \frac{ \hbar c^6}{15360 \pi G^2} \\
\text{Lifetime} && t &= M^3 \cdot \frac{5120 \pi G^2}{ \hbar c^4} \\
\end{align*}
[/math]


G https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
c https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
ħ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant#Value
k https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant

>>12191099
can you put this in English? I'm just a shitposter.

>>12188736
>bible
>proof

>>12188502
>quantum fluctuations
Cringe take on QFT. If the field is infinite, then any ‘fluctuation’ in the field is an infinitesimal, meaning that it would have to be infinitesimally effective, meaning that you cannot create an ‘infinitely’ expanding Space-Time from such a fluctuation. ALSO, before the Big Bang, there would be no ‘time’ for such a fluctuation to take place, therefore removing the constraint on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and making it have one sure position: everywhere and nowhere, infinitely super-positioned while also being infinitely squished. That is known as a mathematical ‘singularity’, giving it it’s name.
>we don’t know
Quite a cop out. Not knowing something didn’t stop any other generation from trying to understand it. What’s beyond the Big Bang that just stops all thought?

>>12191133
luminosity = hawking radiation

>>12188364
Poincare recurrence time for our universe is estimated at 10^10^10^10^2.08. It's gonna be just a little while longer until we have this exact same thread again.

>>12188327
God's eternal brap.

>>12191099
thanks for the resumé anon

>>12188327
the force of the natural expansion of the universe became so strong on the fabric of space-time that it caused sub-fundamental particles within "empty", entropic space to tear, resulting in the big bang

>>12188460
the universe is a mobius, toroid shape; what we percieve as unexplainable expansion is actually the universe's gravitational force acting on itself over the length of the toroid.

>>12188455
Why do I remember it this way originally on air but the fox logo is flipped here, as tho the whole image is

>>12188327
>initial singularity
implying there was one

>"where did my imaginary beginning of my imaginary universe model come form?"

Might as well ask where Flying Pink Unicorns go when they die

>>12193412
So what is the true cosmology?

>>12188736
proven , lol, faggot

>>12192512
close but really it's the polloidal rotation; we're on the inside of the donut, riding outwards; when we hit the apex in a quadrillion years, the universe will appear to start shrinking

If there was no past, it must have come from the future.

>>12188327
The Collector explains “before creation itself there were six singularities, then the Universe exploded into existence and the remnants of these systems were forged into concentrated ingots - infinity stones.”
A singularity is an object whose properties are so extreme we can’t describe them with our current knowledge of physics. The center of a black hole is considered a singularity for instance, since according to the laws we know, a black-hole’s center has an infinite amount of density and gravitational pull. Anything which predicts an infinite property cannot possibly be the right answer since the Universe is a finite system, therefore singularities are really a physicist’s word for “objects we can’t figure out yet” and any theory which predicts a singularity is not complete.
The origin of the Universe is just such a singularity. All we know is that 13.8 billion years ago, the entire Universe was condensed into a tiny speck which started expanding. We have no idea where this speck came from, what it was like, what made it start expanding or if anything came before it (assuming there was a ‘before’ since time may have ‘started’ with the Universe). We can explain the evolution of the Universe pretty well after a certain point, about a quadrillion quadrillion quadrillionth of a second, but anything before that is a total mystery.
According to The Collector, there were actually six singularity objects alongside ours 13.8 billion years ago and when our Universe began expanding, for whatever reason, these six singularity objects got absorbed into ours, rather than expanding themselves. These objects would therefore be like miniature Universes which somehow avoided the expansion. They stayed as ‘concentrated ingots’ and contain, it would appear, properties we would normally attribute to an entire universe.

>>12193603
>faggot
Why the homophobia?

>>12188327
i'll give you the scientifically honest answer: nobody knows

>>12193731
Now this anon is basedpilled.

>>12193794

>>12191496
>implying Hawking radiation is a real thing

>>12188357
>What would you do if you knew it?
Kill everyone.

>>12188327
god farted

I thought the mainstream theory on the big-bang origin was that 2 over lapping energy pools (d-branes) managed to generate enough energy density in a specific volume of space that it condensed into matter and then proceeded to expand.
If you consider that energy doesn't really require a substrate, time, or underlying mechanism to exists... it kinda checks out.

>>12188327
>the initial singularity
There wasn't one. This is a common misconception due to popsci bullshit. The Universe was incredibly small, but not a singularity.

>>12194248
>The Universe was incredibly small, but not a singularity.
Where did that incredible small universe come from? (from the arse of a catholic priest, who needed to tie science to religion to prevent the latter from falling. too bad it tilted the former)

>>12194231
>String Theory

Cringe. If you have a limit for the minimum length and energy density in the universe (which we do), then 1D strings that are one Planck length in length and one Planck mass in combined mass-energy would create an instant vacuum decay due to the breaking of these constants.

If there is one string, that has one Planck mass and one Planck length (call this 1 ‘Lp’) then that Lp cannot be split any further, whatsoever. However, if a string truly vibrates, then it couldn’t extend into other Lps, as any vibrating parts of a string that can ‘stretch’ into another Lp would make the actual string’s density get split into distinct Lps, violating the rule I just put in place.

OK, you may say; what if we just limit the strings to stay in one Lp all the time, never being able to cross into others?Well, you have another problem. Considering nothing can be smaller than one Lp, it will have to constantly be at one energy state to fill the whole Lp: however, strings oscillate in string theory, which determines the type of fundamental particle it makes up—electrons, quarks, ect.

If strings do oscillate, then any time it’s changing oscillation (such as when quarks change colors), it violates the law we just put down.

Therefore, strings could not exist in 3+1 dimensions. That’s why physicists put so many Unobservable dimensions to try to get around this problem. Even with Unobservable dimensions, it can’t be allowed. The information that would be needed to be sent through several Unobservable compartmentalized dimensions would, themselves, have to be limited to one Lp, which brings up the whole problem again.

>>12193736
This.

Even if you have qualms with string theory, wouldn't E=Mc2 still validate the idea that some rando energy fields in some prior to meaningless space could have peaked in some highly localized volume and condensed into a dense point of matter? I'm under the impression energy is free to just "exists" no creation, medium, etc... required.

Also... I don't get the hate for string theory desu. It's not like human observational capabilities being limited to 4 dimensions neccesarily dictates that dimensions aside from those are fraudulent or built from convenience. It's just a bunch of dudes trying to model shit accurately and that's where the numbers led them. I can hardly blame them given the weird ass symmetries you run into when looking at base fermion/bosons.

>>12193794
What/who the hell is the "Collector?

The amount of cope ITT is sad

>>12193794
i know you mean well, but please dont use media references to explain science

>>12188327
>initial singularity
Who said anything about a singularity?

>>12194220
Why?

>>12188460
Because it is only expanding over large distances. Gravity is still far stronger than any possible dark energy. A galaxy has enough gravity to hold itself together. Andromeda is still barreling towards us because it's gravitationally bound.

>>12192460
Let’s make it worth the wait.

>>12195524
One of the first living creatures in the universe like the beyonder, the watcher, the celestials, galactus, etc.

>>12194284
Who knows. The big bang theory isn't describing the origin of the universe, just the initial rapid expansion that the lambda cdm model predicts must have happened.
Kind of hard to talk about what happened before the big bang until you can either
A) unify physics
Or
B) prove all of physics wrong

>>12196384
>not knowing the Marvel series is actually a non-fiction documentary of the nine realms.

>>12196538
>The big bang theory isn't describing the origin of the universe
But it is marketed as such. and was from the very beginning
> prove all of physics wrong
no, just this retarded part
(and maybe copenhagen interpretation too)

>>12196682
Copenhagen interpretation literally has nothing to do with any of this.

>>12188327
From the collapse of the previous "universe" that occupied the same position on the underlying pure geometric space we live on

>>12196692
it doesn't, but it's also retarded (and probably on purpose)

>>12196698
religious people (those who tend to believe explanations without coming to them as to conclusions of their own mental processes) should stay the fuck away from science.

>>12196738
What are you talking about bitch?
Do you even understand basic pure math?

>>12188327
Nobody knows and everyone is guessing. There's no reason to think it was ever not in existence.

>>12193736
What if it came sideways?

>>12196756
I'm talking about you, bitch.
There is much more to physics than just your basic math.
>>12196887
duh, guessing. that's the only thing we do in scinece.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebqAH5mLZNk
Did you hear of the universe expanding faster than speed of light? Any guessings about why they needed that baseless assumption?
Any guessings why would a catholic priest need to impose his retarded theory on the creation?
Any guessings about why (((the media))) feels like praising that theory as the only one possible?

>>12192460
>I've already written this exact post over a literal eternity ago
It never ends does it?

>>12188327
The trumpet meme is basically just replacing one of the 3 spacial dimensions with time right?
Does the different shape somehow prove, that time is fundamentally different from the other dimensions?

>>12196514
What would you do if you knew it?

>>12188327
NOBODY KNOWS

>>12197692
Tell them why they are wrong, probably.

>>12192512
prove it faggot

>>12188327
The singularity is basically the universe rebooting itself in a different configuration, each time trying to find out what it is. It has to do this in an attempt to optimize it's information processing, as the process of understanding itself requires more and more information, making the whole system more and more complex. Caught in this feedback loop, all it can do is collapse the whole thing and start from scratch.
>t. trust me dude, I'm on acid right now

>>12188327
please refrain from religion opinions and threads in /sci/ go to /x/ with that shit, thanks

>>12188327
It was/is/will be perma-there. Math is ultimate reality is GOD. Creation ex-nihilo is possible with math (see Von-Neumann approach to bootstrap N from nothingness) and information (see Vlatko Vedral's approach or even Wolfram's).

>>12196682
>But it is marketed as such.
A long line of plebs misunderstanding a painfully over simplified pop-sci explanation isn't the theory's fault.

>>12191007
>Entropy cannot be overcome
Shiva is the entropy.
But Vishnu will reset the entropy. However, it will only happen after a kalpa.

Do you guys never opened a book?!

>>12198408
You cannot type BELIEVE without LIE, neh?

>>12197984
Pretty sure that’s the plot of No Man’s Sky

>>12188327
Me