/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1287364
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

fucking sexy girl

Who is that girl? :(

tell the name and stop teasing us

>>1287364
If you can explain to me how this thing "God" can create a universe out of nothing, or create something and "anti-something" from nothing, I will become a theist right now.

>>1287410
Sorry I don't know. Not OP, I'd not seen that one before. Love it, though.

It's when all atoms change state.

>>1287364

It's like a mortgage.

Mortgages work like this: you start with no money...then suddenly you buy a house. And you also have this debt riding you, as well.

>>1287373

Is that the "nothingness is inherently unstable" bullshit?

>>1287373
>>1287373
>>1287373
>>1287373
>>1287373
>>1287373
>>1287373
>>1287373
>>1287373
>>1287373

It is simply the nature of the vacuum. Well .. according to quantum field theory, at least.

>>1287364

The big bang theory is just a theory, but instead of religions a lot of people have thought a lot about this and if you really occupied yourself with it, you would have to admit that it makes some sense.
We have come there over many iterations based on observations and if something contradicts the current model, the model is altered or rejected. That is the best you can do. But still it is a theory.

While in religion someone said something, others changed it as needed, wrote it down as a given fact and if you don't believe it you get punished or killed. The only reason you would believe that (and it does not really make sense if you think it through...), is that you have been indoctrinated with the idea since you were a little child. That of course makes it difficult for you, to open your mind for other possibilities.

>>1287546

I think you need to reshape your definition of 'just a theory'.

>>1287667
Seriously.

There are really fucking tiny shit you can't observe directly. It looks like there's nothing there, but there is.

>>1287476
>>1287373

WELL, IS IT?

"nothing" doesn't really mean nothing. There is never nothing.

If OP gets me that girl I will convert to whatever he wants right now

>>1287476
>bullshit
I'd like to see your theory regarding the big bang mr physics 101

>>1288100

It's people with degrees in physics trying to do undergraduate analytic philosophy. Do I need to say more? Nothingness can't be inherently stable, because then this "nothingness" have properties, something it by definition can't. It's metaphysical mumbo-jumbo that's self-contradicting.

That aside, you're making a logical fallacy if you believe in this just because "God made it" sounds like a bad idea.

>>1288141
Even worse than I thought.. it's a philosophy fag.

well, i call it checkmate then

/thread.

>>1287667

Ok, how would you call it instead of a theory?

A given fact? The truth? Then you are not any more reasonable than OP. You could also believe in the big bearded man in heaven, who created everything.

It is just a theory. A model that fits to the observations we made. At anytime someone could make an observation that prooves the whole model wrong. What would you do then? Destroy the proof, call him a heretic and burn him at the stake?

Thankfully nowadays there are more rational beings.

HAHA, foolish mortals and your "linear" time though processes. Here in the 4th dimension where all the cool people live we observe all time at once and I am here to say that your end is your beginning. A single point of existence that cannot be stopped or destroyed ,only mutate.

We cant explain it, we observe it.

>>1288141

Actually I don't think the posters here have physical degrees. For the first they have problems calling the big bang theory a theory. Guys, that's why it's called big bang THEORY.

For the second, if the big bang theory is true, we will never know what was before the big bang. That is part of the big bang theory itself. Maybe there was something else before, maybe there were completely different laws of nature...

There is no way to empirically research that. Using particle acceleratory we can get pretty close to that point, but we will never be able to get there.

BTW: I didn't watch the video yet. I'll do that later, when I have a better connection.

>>1288743
> we will never know what was before the big bang.

If the big bang was the beginning of time, it's just nonsense to talk about what was before it.

>>1288673

>At anytime someone could make an observation that prooves the whole model wrong. What would you do then? Destroy the proof, call him a heretic and burn him at the stake?

No because new observations must fit the old ones which have been re-observed beyond a shadow of doubt.

We have all the evidence in the world supporting the Big Bang and Evolution, you are going to need a lot of evidence to "disprove" them.

Sage for mildly religious bullshit.

>>1287364
YOU ARE TOO FUCKING STUPID TO COMPREHEND ADVANCED PHYSICS....GTFO ENGINEER (FAGGOT)!

>>1288728
This single point is infinitely large and small..at the same time.
From your point of view the visible universe is beyond huge but in reality it doesn't even fill up one spec of the total of empty space.
If you where to venture beyond the boundaries of all the stars in the universe, after you reach a certain distance you would see no stars at all.

>>1288728

Haha foolish fourth dimension being, I come from the sixth dimension. Not only can I see the whole time-dimension but also all possible choices and all combinations of time and choice.

>>1288753
Fucking this!!

The whole question of what was before the big bang is a moot question because whatever the hell we find will not make any sense to us, it is our beyond our realms of scientific reality.

>>1288753
Big Bang only describes the genesis of the Cosmos, not of empty space. Before the big bang there was only the black vacuum. I want to hear a theory of where that came from.

>>1288763

Why so angry, colonel?

There is nothing like evidence, only conclusions that we get from the observations. We get to these conclusions by correlating observations. Maybe all conclusions are wrong, maybe some of them are wrong. The problem is, that we never know if they are true. So there is no way to prove the model is true, we can only prove it wrong if something contradicts it.

There are actually a lot of examples for conclusions that were wrong. One of these was that the earth is a disk, because otherwise we would fall off the surface. Sounds ridiculous now, but in future we might also laugh at the stupid things we once thought to be true.

>>1288753

And yet this is what this thread is about.

>>1288795
this is the first cool thing I learned from /sci/

>>1288776
>Sixth dimensional

Are you the planet smasher?

>>1288795

From the given models there is nothing like empty space. You need a reference point to define something else relative to that.

>>1288848

Oh, now you got me ^^

>conclusions
>One of these was that the earth is a disk

Supported by no evidence.

>>1288856
Of course i did, actually ama go listen to Ziltoid just now.

And I think Ziltoid and the Planet Smasher exist in spatial dimensions not temporal dimension, or maybe that's just my subjective view of it.

>>1288795
>Big Bang only describes the genesis of the Cosmos, not of empty space. Before the big bang there was only the black vacuum. I want to hear a theory of where that came from.
>derp

Big Bang Theory describes the expansion of space-time, dumbass.

>>1288795

>>Big Bang only describes the genesis of the Cosmos, not of empty space. Before the big bang there was only the black vacuum. I want to hear a theory of where that came from.

The Big Bang was an expansion of space, energy and, eventually, matter. It was not a big ball of energy that expanded in an already existing vacuum. That's not how it works.

>>1288795
Nope. Vacuum didn't exist, because space didn't exist. Try wrapping your mind around that shit brother :D

Nothing does have properties, the same way vacuum has properties suck as insulation ability, these properties are just incredibly counter-intuitive and weird, allowing for a universal energy of zero due to anti matter/matter.

>>1288874
>>1288893

>>1288871

Supported by observations. What evidence do you have that any model we use is true? If you could prove even the tiniest part of a model true, you would get famous and win any price that is there.

But right - everything we believe to know is based on observations, not proofs.

>>1288923
Science IS observations

NOT proofs

You can be nearly 100% certain of something in science, but it ain't EVER proven.

We know about virtual particles, antimatter, space-time, and have been increasingly analyzing the early universe. We could be totally wrong, but it's VERY unlikely.

>>1288923
Gravity tends to draw shit into big spheres.

>>1287364
>>I will become an atheist right now.

So what you are saying is that you believe "religion" and "science" are opposites? That must be the most retarded thing I've ever heard.

If you believe in some imaginary grandpa sitting in the clouds being almighty while he is not being almighty, being surprised of something he knew would happen, etc., how is it so hard to believe that he also made the universe with a set of rules?

>>1288923
>>1288941
Oh shit, I misread your post, my apologies man, this OP has got me all irritated.

>>1288962
U MAD?

>>1287373
Boy videos like this really just make me rage. It's one thing to give a lecture on a certain aspect of theoretical physics, but why does it have to be associated with religious beliefs, or the opposition of said beliefs? Can I just watch a lecture in peace, where they present it as, "Hey, listen to this theory we have" and nothing else?

>>1288999

is an atheist convention you retard

>>1287364
whats to say "god" cant make everything out of nothing.

The first post should have been the last post
/thread

>>1288999

It's Lawrence Krauss talking at the Richard Dawkins Foundation.

Religion bashing was to be expected. And I didn't see much, besides old Dawkins with his coffee mug making a joke.

>>1288941
>>1288923
>Science IS observations
>NOT proofs

Computer "Science."

>>1289029
*grooooooooooooooan*

Isn't comp sci essentially math expressed via computers? because math does have proofs.

>>1288941
Exactly, you got it. Reality is very likely to be pretty close to the model. If not, we align the model. And it is VERY unlikely that everything we know is wrong. Yet it is possible.

I was just discussing with >>1287667 and Colonel Coffee Mug, who seem to take the models as given facts or truth or however you want to call it.

>>1288943
We know that now and the model was adjusted (or in this case a new one was made). Maybe in future we have to adjust our understanding of things.


In the end when we discuss with religous fags, we cannot prove each other wrong. It is our theory against theirs. We think our theory is more reliable because of common sense, they believe in their theory (god made everything...) because they were brainwashed their whole life.

>>1289013

There isn't nothing there if god's there

>>1289039

Math has proofs based on axioms that cannot be proved. I dare you to prove that 1 + 1 = 2. You can't because it was just defined. We need some point to start.

>>1289039
I was mostly trolling as I don't generally consider CS an actual science. However, it does fit the definition of science. It's just a formal science rather than a natural one.

>>1289041

>who seem to take the models as given facts or truth or however you want to call it.

It's possible that they are wrong, but that possibility is at the same level as Russel's Teapot actually existing. What I mean is, it's beyond reasonable doubt and we can take them as facts for all practical purposes, but nothing can ever be proven in every point of space and time. That's why Laws only exist in mathematics. Hell, even the laws of physics break down in black holes and such.

>It is our theory against theirs.

No, it's our theorysupported by facts against their untestable hypotheses.

>>1289013
Entropy

The true god.

>>1289052
This will end badly for me, but okay...

*holds up hand*
*extends one finger* One
*extends another finger* plus One
*now 2 fingers are up* equals Two

>>1289052
What? Proving that is certainly possible with the 5 current axioms.

>>1289052
>>1289052

oh hi there

>>1289052
The numbers 1 and 2 are just words; it's the concept behind them that are important, not what they are called.

>>1289052
You can have different self-consistent mathematics starting from different axioms you know. Math is about following a small set of rules and seeing what happens.

>>1289078
Better version of it, yours is just a bit blurry and hard to read.

Quantum fluctuations created the universe out of nothing because, by the anthropic principle, if they hadn't you wouldn't be here.

athiests - 1
christians - 0

>>1289061

You cannot argue with possibility here, because we don't know how possible or impossible it is. I also find things very likely to be the way we think they are, but that doesn't mean I ignore other ideas. That would be highly ignorant.

And that means, I also have to consider metaphysical or religous beliefs. It's just that the idea of the main religions are so abstruse, that these theories seem really weak.

But maybe everything is completely different from what we think. Welcome to the matrix ;-)

>>1289112
>begging the question

>>1289107

proof by intimidation.

I could probably understand the proof if they used better notation. (maybe it's because it isn't modern notation?)

>>1289128
It's about 100 years old so the notation is probably a bit outdated yeah.

>>1289112

thats not how the anthropic principle works...

its supposed to explain why, after said creation that there just happened to be a perfect planet for us, and perfect flow of space/time

>>1289157

because if there wasnt, we would not exist and be able to ask why there is...

bah, wiki it or something

>>1289078

Hehe, not bad, I underestimated you, anon. But that is based on the definition of arithmetical addition of ordered numbers. Plus, I don't get how someone can bother to do something like that.

All matter in the universe is being observed as moving outward, which suggests that there has been a blast of some sort in the universal center.
Are there any quantifiable observations (People have prophetic dreams or performing magic tricks don't count) of an omnipotent being's interaction with the physical universe?

You know what? I don't know why I'm even posting this. It's not my fucking job to convince the OP to believe in anything. You can suck a dick and die, OP.

>>1288990
Don't know how to use MS Paint?

>>1289157
>perfect

Entirely subjective in every way, perfect for us in our form , although if we were extremophiles that required higher temperatures then these conditions would not be suitable for us.

The whole idea of our world just happened to be perfect is bullshit, we have already found a few planets similar to earth.

Colonel coffee mug, you have repeatedly been quoting parts out of that anons posts and then agreeing with his whole post without realizing it. For someone who is obviously so knowledgeable you don't seem to know very much... I feel the need to point out that the "so knowledgeable" part was sarcasm, I doubt you would have got it on your own.

@ OP it's not sth and antisth from nothing. its sth and antisth from energy. take E = mc^2, meaning energy is mass and vice versa. now if your energy is greater than twice the object you want to create it can split up into a positively and a negatively charged object (electron and positron or myon and antimyon @ ~500kJ each if i remember it right). this is a must because you can't create charges. you need to be eletrical neutral in the end like you were in the start.
problem: as they are created in basically the same spot they attract each other and annihilate each other very soon and brcome energy (photons) again.

>>1289217

have you ever read the anthropic principle?
im not trying to say that it just happened to be perfect

the fact that the planet evolved how it did made it possible for humans such as ourselves to beg the question why

>>1289217
If we required higher temperatures then we would not exist because, by the anthropic principle, we are ourselves and not anyone else.

athiests - 1
christians - 0

>>1289231
so it's a stability issue.
What about a similar reaction on a grander scale?

>>1289256

there, thats more correct usage of the term

>>1287373
I thought that was a video of the girl.
My face.

>>1289246
No I haven't and i'm slightly drunk, not wasted but just unclear head.

Right, so if I have the idea correct it's that the chances were too, well, chancy to be chance and that something influenced the outcome.

If that is it, all I have to see is have a look across the universe, all the stars may hold planets, some suitable for life (maybe europa and mars at some points having liquid water before its atmosphere was stripped) and most are not.

Although if this isn't what you mean feel free to explain and we shall have a gentlemanly debate on the matter.

>>1289311

ah well im not one for debates but i appreciate your offer
im just trying to describe the anthropic principle correctly after the poster used it incorrectly

err... well you would best just read it instead of me trying to explain it to you

>>1289311

but its not that the chances where too "chancy"
its that those chances just happened, whereas if they didnt happen, we would not be here

just go read it lol

>>1289360
Well in that case i shall as to not make a boob of myself again, for some reason my memory improves when drinking.

For a short period of drunkenness .

>>1289372

:) ok
some people find it hard to understand but i hope you will have no problems wrapping your head around it

If God was real then we would not exist because, by the anthropic principle, we exist because we are ourselves.

athiests - 1
christians - 0

>>1289388

please go re read the anthropic principle then come back after you realize its proper use

>>1287360

ＳTＯp_ＤｄoｓinG_Ａnd ＣoPＹｉNg WWｗ.AｎｏｍｎTMaLＫ.ｓe ReｍＯvＥ aＬＬ_ｍ_ＩＮ_ＴｈAt Urｌ_fOOl
ilnzjh yhrjmn uey b ps l tkpeb jepfu qcs cop ur usp

>>1287364
This is how I understand it. Let's say that there is nothingness. In this nothingness, there is nothing (pretty obvious). That also means that in that nothingness there is nothing to verify that there is nothing. So there is a possibility that there is something. Which means that there is a possibility that there is something that is verifying that there is something. This chance grows and grows as more and more things would be created if there was a universe (nothing= matter+ antimatter), making more things that verify that there is a universe, etc. There would still be a small chance today that there isn't a universe, but it is INCREDIBLY small. This is how I understand it, and I hope it helps.

>>1289382
As long as there is no complex maths i think it should be fine

I wish i could do maths ;_; I love physics and wanted to do theoretical bat shit awesome stuff but I sucked so hard at maths in school and didn't care enough then :(

>>1289414
>Nothing = Matter + anti matter

Guy who's slightly tipsy here, that's still something dick breath.

ＳTＯp dＤｏsＩnｇ_aｎｄ ｃOPYＩng_ｗｗＷ.ＡnｏＭnTＭaｌｋ.ｓｅ_RＥMｏve_aLL_Ｍ_iＮ_TｈAT UrL_fOOl
sxknhyrop ndyficc y chnkz fimpsmskb

>>1289311
I'll try explain as simply as I can, using the earth as an example.
We all know that despite what some atheists may claim, I am an atheist too not supporting religion, earth is pretty suitable for life to develop. Now if earth was not suitable for life, no life would evolve and no people would have evolved. So you see for people to evolve in the first place and wonder why their planet is so good for life, the planet has to have been good for life anyway.

>>1289515

yes, which is what is stated in the anthropic principle
really, everyone should have read it by now lol

>>1289415

nah theres no hardcore math or anything
its all reasoning

>>1288776
>>1288728
HAHAHA You guys are square compared to me! Once you get to the 11th dimention then you can talk!

Atheists cannot answer OP's question
atheists status:
TOLD

This thread just frustrates the shit out of me. I can't believe that people who have NOT studied the physics behind this argument would have the gumption to contradict those who have.

Instead of knowledge, you go on what you were raised on/fictional books/circular arguments. You lean on these things because you don't understand -- but until you've studied this topic from something other than an ancient storybook your stance is no more than a colorful opinion.

And in any debate, I'll take the rigorously tested/constructed theory over the colorful opinion.

>>1289537
I know... I was trying to help the drunk guy understand it...

>>1287373

>open video
>see dawkins
>facepalm

Without quantum fluctuations, the entire universe would have expanded as a perfectly uniformly distributed ball of matter (Mostly hydrogen, some helium, traces of lithium). No collapsing gas clouds to form stars and shit since there'd be no local density differences.

>>1289658

i know, my apologies for seeming harsh?
it wasnt aimed at you

>>1289515
I see what you mean.

For us, the literal us our minds and the like to be capable of observing "wow this seems awfully suitable for us to be here, it can't just be chance" the planet has to be suitable.

I see what it means in my tipsy state, but it doesn't accommodate for why we observe (yeah I know philosophy but here me out)

If the anthropic principle is held true, why are we intelligent, why are we intelligent and why do we observe, the anthropic principle only states that we are observing because where we exists allows observation.

But that means there could be multiple planets out in the universe that allows for the same.

I lost my train of thought half way so it probably gets really retarded, If I'm wrong feel free to correct me.

>>1289699


of course there could be multiple planets which sustain life
but it refers to this one, and to US (the humans of this planet) who are asking said questions

but youre sort of getting it

>>1289681
Except at the edges...
;)

>>1289717
Too bad there are no edges.

>>1289712
Okay I'm gonna take one last stab at it, then you explain it in dumb ass terms for me.

WE would not exist as us, if our planet was different in any way, but life may still exist, just not as us.

If so that's kinda obvious by the fact that there are multiple people.

Wait I'll stop there I can sense the retard flowing in my hands.

>>1289699
Yeah you seem to understand it. There could quite possibly be other planets capable of life, the fact we are here instead of another planet that would also support life is down to chance and in reality earth is not in any unique position that is any more favourable than any other life supporting planet.

This principle equally applies to intelligence, if we were not intelligent we would not wonder why we weren't because we wouldn't know any different.

>>1289767
Are you implying the universe is and always has been infinite in size? Even though "before" the big bang it was tiny?

>>1289767
Drunkfag here with a vague vague overview of Quantum fluctuations.

Now if QF can create matter what's to stop it just cancelling matter from existence.

If this happened it would create a disturbance in the previously uniform ball of matter, this would cause particles to move and allow for the condensing of matter into clumps like stars galaxies etc.

>>1289829
Me? Hell no. I didn't spontaneously figure out that the universe has no edge. Some scientist I don't know did.

>>1289845
Well surprise surprise, that pretty much is the consensus on what happened.

>>1289858
Well source please or it may as well be some idiotic rambling.

>>1289871
I made a smart?

Pic mother fucking related.

>>1289879
Wait, hold on. You've never encountered the concept that the universe has no edge?

Well, to come BTT and sum up, we won't be able to cure OP from his/her (rather his, I think) archaic, supersticious and biased belief, that he was indoctrinated into since early childhood. That may sound negative, but since many of these facts contradict each other, were partially recalled (especially in Christian belief) and were only seen/hallucinated by few enlightened men, but not confirmed by the majority of men, they made as well be made up to take advantage of the gullibility of the others.

On the other hand we cannot be sure that the common theories, that we think to be real, are actually true. In fact, many many smart people researched physical processeses and created consistent (as far as we know right now) theories of how things could work. These theories are wrapped in models that can not only describe what we know, but also predict a lot of things that afterwards turn out to really happen as predicted (as far as we can see). But still we can't be 100% sure.