/sci/ - Science & Math

The big bang was the beginning of all space and time. So whatever was the cause cannot have been physical. It must have been a non spatial and timeless being. This could be an abstract object, since mathematicians believe numbers to exist. But abstract numbers are not causal agents. So the other option which is more plausible is that the cause of the universe was a non spatial, timeless, unembodied mind. This obviously sounds like what people would consider God to be.

>>12232720
>of all
nope
https://youtu.be/IcxptIJS7kQ?t=24m40s

>>12232731
too long to watch. What does he say?

>>12232739
A bunch of literal bullshit. Don't take it seriously unless you're a pseud.

>>12232741
gotcha

>>12232640
What exists north of north?

What is north of the north pole?

>>12232720
>The big bang was the beginning of all space and time.
False.

>>12232739
>t=24m40s
this was too tough for you to decode?
you won't make it

>>12233001
Beat me to it

>>12233001
>>12233013
this has been debunked

>>12232640
We don't know, pillock, and we're not going to find out here.

>>12232640
Another universe.

>>12232640
Riddle me this physicists:
The higher the gravitation force, the slower time pass by. Time dilates.
Rewinding back to a few moments after the Big bang, the whole universe was massively dense, gravitation force was massive as well, and so time must have been pretty slow.
If we keep going toward time 0, density actually approaches a singularity. It gets infinitely dense.
When that happens, does the time dilation also approaches a singularity?
If yes, doesn't that mean that time is actually infinite in that direction? And thus that there was no beginning?

I was never convinced by the arguments that "time just spontaneously existed at arbitrary time 0, and before there was nothing".
If what I said is true, then spacetime is just an infinite 4 dimensional object, without beginning nor end.
The 3 spatial dimensions are presumed infinite by many, why not time?

>>12232640
G-d

The big bang is weird as fuck and makes no sense, physics will probably never have a model to explain it

>>12233164
the more you look into the big bang, the more holes there are and awkward patchworks.

>>12232640
Infinite space compressed to an infinitesimally small point.

>>12232720
Absolute nonsense based on mad whims and zero science.

>>12232741
>.t literal pseud

>>12233394
Prophet Mohammed existed before all this

>>12233001
This, fucking science worshippers think that everything is within the boundaries of science and can be answered. The creation of the universe is paradoxical and trying to seek answers using science makes you a pseud who thinks that science can answer everything

>>12233870
Back to pol retard

>>12232640
The same thing that exists now- absolutely nothing.

>>12233876
Nice rebuttal retard, now go back to watching documentaries that make you appear smart you pseud

>>12233880
I fucked your dad poltard

>>12233855
so that's why it blew up

>>12233646
you can't tell me an astrophysical theory (or any other theory as well) which has no holes and patchworks in it

>>12232640
Even those at the time, all smart people knew the BIG bang theory was retarded.
Its a level of stupid only other stupid people would accept.

>>12235155
if things are moving apart in every direction, its logical that they had to start from the same place, isn't it?

>>12235272
No because every "thing" was created after big bang. Our measurement of time is a measure of movements of particles. All the particles are created AFTER the big bang. So there is no time before big bang as there is nothing to measure with/against.

>>12232731
Steinhardt is just salty AF because big dick chaddy daddy Guth came up with inflation and he didn't. Literally every single alternative to or criticism of inflation is founded on unteneble philosophical bullshit (muh measure problem) or conjecture (muh swampland constraints/muh transplanckian c o n j e c t u r e).

Our big bang was a black hole in a universe undergoing heat death, why the fuck do you think there is a SINGULARITY in every black hole? A fucking kid could guess this

>>12233164
>The higher the gravitation force, the slower time pass by. Time dilates.
Time dilation only makes sense when comparing two different observers.

>>12233164
>Rewinding back to a few moments after the Big bang, the whole universe was massively dense, gravitation force was massive as well, and so time must have been pretty slow.
"Time must have been pretty slow" - with respect to what? Cosmic time is just a coordinate which we use in some chart to parametrise the manifold we call spacetime, it cannot be "slow".

>If we keep going toward time 0, density actually approaches a singularity. It gets infinitely dense.
Precisely, which is why all bets are off at t_planck.

>If yes, doesn't that mean that time is actually infinite in that direction? And thus that there was no beginning?
It could be, but not because of the reason you think. Penrose is advocating for a conformal cyclic model which sort of approaches what you said: there was no beginning, but rather a series of universes that form a fractal in time.

>If what I said is true, then spacetime is just an infinite 4 dimensional object, without beginning nor end.
It already is like that, mathematically. There simply is a singularity everywhere (all spacepoints) at t=0 because of the metric. Topologically spacetime is just R^4 in standard cosmology. Even when equipped with the FLRW metric, that doesn't actually mean there isn't a region in which time is negative, it's just that we need to be very careful to have a transition when we cross from negatives to positives (ideally without going above Planck density). Bouncing cosmologies can do that.

>>12236019
The Swarzschild metric and the FLRW metric are not duals to each other. They're fundamentally different kinds of singularity. You might have a point if the universe was 1D, but it's not.

>>12236033
arent they basically time-inverted? if so it makes sense on a gut kind of level

I'm convinced that the big bang is a result of flaws in our theories and observations and will be disproven at some point. Same with "dark energy", which is basically the luminiferous aether of our time.

>>12233008
Truth.

>>12232720
Just another axiom stopping sign you can’t go past

>>12232640
quantum foam

>>12236117
what are these flaws in our theories?

>>12232640
Space-time is a toroidal sphere, what we perceive as the "big bang" is really just and infinite density white hole at the center of space-time. Eventually space time will curve back around into an infinite density black hole that consumes all matter and spews out the white hole again.

An interesting implication of this is that i've posted this comment infinite times in the "past," and will post it infinite times in the "future."

I am always posting this comment at the space time coordinate where I currently am, in fact.

>>12237052
first interesting post

>>12237052
This is my greatest fear (the eternal return part). The more I think about it, the more inevitable it seems.

>>12237052
Brainlet here
So does this mean when I die I get born again with no memory of anything and have to relive my shitty life an infinite number of times? If so then we are truly living in hell.

>>12237052
This is my greatest fear (the eternal return part). But the more I think about it, the more inevitable it seems.

>>12237052
So it's like the Late Phillip J. Fry then?

>>12237062
>retard is amused

>>12237052
I would rather literally die by scaphism than live my life again even just once let alone an infinite number of times.

>>12237558
no joke I really would

>>12237562
Don’t be a pussy. It’s not like you’d remember any of it or that it would affect your current life in the slightest beyond the pre-determinist mindset. Just YOLO

>>12232640
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as time, is in fact, spacetime, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, space plus time.
If the big bang had not yet occured then space and time did not yet exist. There was nothing before the big bang because there was no before.

>>12237080
That theory doesn't mean the universe happens exactly the same way over and over after each "reset." It does mean there is an infinite number of resets though.
With infinite attempts even the most remote odds become certain, so eventually one of the resets will result in a universe that unfolds exactly the same as ours has. Eventually it will happen again after that one resets too.
Of course that also means eventually a reset will result in a universe where everything is the same as ours except you're a rich chad that literally bangs every attractive woman on the planet.
There won't be any transfer of your consciousness between resets though, so really none of it matters.

>>12232640
>What existed before the big bang?
Nothing
>What caused the big bang?
See next answer
>How could so much matter fit into a tiny space?
It couldn't, hence the bang

>>12237081
you will never recur in the way you are now, only an idiot would believe this is groundhog day. You need to practice abstract thinking more.

>>12237080
no, elements get shuffled around and your exact brain will probably never get generated again, and even if it were, the circumstances of your life will be different. It is completely stupid to think that YOU will exist again, the concept of you and your identity is a high level abstract that the brain generates via the framework of consciousness. Forget the ego and think of your mind as a machine and this will become clear to you.

>>12238058
>Forget the ego and think of your mind as a machine and this will become clear to you.

Well see, this is what made me think that it would be an exact repeat because if a universe existed the exact same way as this one, all of the same genetic and environmental factors would form your brain again just as "before" in the exact same order.

>>12237665
Too late for YOLO I'm afraid...

>>12236029
Surprised you didn't mention boltzman brains, what are your thoughts on the matter

>>12237052
That shape does echo through a lot on nature, but regardless of the exact overall form, cyclic cosmology is a concept that the far east historically suggests in mythos

>>12237377
It hurts, man :(

>>12237052
i am always fucking your mother at the space time coordinate where i am right now

>>12237052
this, except Sir Roger Penrose's CCC theory to be more precise

Is there a universe where I spit flames to smite my enemies?

>>12232640
there is no "before", the Big Bang is eternal, trillion years in our time scale is like 1 planck second of next time scale and 1 planck second in our time scale is like trillion years in previous time scale

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation

>>12237052
Except the curve of space time is not this topology, it's Euclidean and does not have positive nor negative curvature so this is wrong.

>>12237052
I think that you would not have posted this comment an infinite amount of times, nor would Earth have existed an infinite amount of times either. During the time that matter/energy was in it's very hot dense state, quantum uncertainty would produce small imperfections in the distribution of matter that resulted in it no longer being perfectly homogenous and isotropic, just as we see today. Since these quantum fluctuations are probabilistic, no two big bangs would exactly a like.

As the universe expands, these small imperfections would become more pronounced, eventually leading to the formation of galaxies. Without these early quantum fluctuations the distribution of matter would likely be entirely homogenous and isotropic, meaning no galaxies would ever form.