/sci/ - Science & Math

>What do you make of it /sci/?
Well, i believe it suggests that the universe did not start as a singularity.

I believe that article is implying that the universe did not commence its existence as a singularity.

personally, what I'm taking out from it in general, is that this theory suggests that perhaps the universe wasn't originally a singularity

Seems like that a singularity is not where the universe came from.

If they're correct the universe did not begin as a singularity

woah ... I think this theory is suggesting that the universe didn't originally begin as a singularity?

>>1406661
>implying the universe wasn't a singularity

>[citation needed]

In point of fact, the theory suggests that that, in point of fact, the universe did not start as a singularity.

>>1406658

sｔＯp_aＴＴAＣｋInＧ aＮd fｕＣkIｎｇ_Ｗｉｔｈ ＷWＷ.aｎｏcARRoＴSTAＬK.Sｅ_rｅPｌＡＣe_cＡRＲｏtＳ WiＴH Ｎ
u uftdklbi lt mzup zakappcvkxak thc f

I make that the universe wasn't a singularity, according to the article

>sci complains about a lack of science and science news threads
>actual science news thread posted
>sci proceeds to post a dozen replies mocking the phrasing of the op

I dont even think gravity is real.

>>1406731
/v/ is not about video games.
/k/ is not about weapons.
/sci/ is not about science.

>>1406743

>>1406752
So if a science board would be nothing but religion threads... would a religion board be nothing but science threads?

>>1406731

/sci/ is just full of wannabe scientists.

>>1406793
wannabe scientists with degrees, sons of bitches i tell you

Same article on a religious website:
>GRAVITY AND BIG BANG DEBUNKED!!!

I honestly love that there are scientists out there looking at and trying to make all of these different theories about the unknown.

more evidence definitely needs to be found, but we are finding new evidence every day, like these physicists.

I think it is just as possible as any other theory and I'm anticipating the years ahead of us as we further our understanding of our world in both the quantum and astronomical levels.

kudos to an interesting science thread!

>>1406793

I'm sorry, /sci/

I read the article, and it seems you are right that it suggests that the universe did not start out as a singularity.

I would like more info on this, especially what it suggests about matter being added and it's special effects.

If gravity does not require matter, that might explain Dark Matter?

>>1406793
unfortunately you have to have faith that the person you are talking to knows anything, which is sad, since disbelieving without evidence is indicative of what it means to be a scientist.

did I use indicative correctly? heard it on archer and liked it. (not an english major because I actually like money)

>>1406882
>If gravity does not require matter, that might explain Dark Matter?

... there's a thought

>>1406882
I think what the theory is suggesting is that all of space is tied together with some sort of energy, like a blanket, a 3D blanket, and so what we consider a "vacuum" is actually just the same as anywhere else but not as dense. when this energy contracts enough it gets stuck like a knot in a rope and becomes more dense and forms matter.

at least, that is the direction I would take this new data in(even though I would remain skeptical, it is worth looking into yeah?), but the article gives very little info and I have been in australia the past month and have not been reading up on my science :(

>>1406924

Well, wanna do like /x/ and do some snooping? I'm interested in this theory too.

To google men!

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1006/1006.1769v1.pdf

Is this good?

>>1406964
No, its a pdf

>>1407033
All research papers are published electronically as .pdf or .ps (postscript) files, and occasionally with the TeX or LaTeX source..

There is stronger evidence for the existence of dark matter than an altered theory of gravity.

http://xstructure.inr.ac.ru/x-bin/theme2.py?arxiv=hep-th&level=2&index1=3228428

Hi all, I am an actual factual physicist. My undergraduate work was done @ Central CT State University and I obtained a PhD in theoretical astrophysics from UCONN. I've read the original papers on this by Eddington as well as pre-prints on arxiv and in PRL.

The theory, while unfinished and currently unable to produce any new verifiable predictions, presents some very interesting ideas. However I can't possibly explain this whole theory here because there is no way I'm going to try and teach differential geometry to people on 4chan.

>>1407075
Dark Matter/Energy - we can't observe it, we don't understand it, but it fixes every problem with gravitational theory.

>>1407081
c'monnnnn

i almost took a course on differential geometry this summer, but i decided to smoke weed instead

>>1407081

wow, you just showed why /sci/ doesn't work. People need at least some common knowledge in a specific field to lead a meaningful discussion. That's why /sci/ is full of threads whch show the least common denominator: trolling, religion, futurism/escapism,...

My first thought was, "Oh, the grapes theory again!"

I'm not familiar with the whole range of the current literature, but I think David Deutsch mentioned this and ... um, someone on the Dawkins YouTube lineup recently mentioned it.

The idea is that the entire universe is popping out "grapes" of little events. These smaller events are the likes of our own universe. So the event of "popping out another grape" creates a universe which is isolate and (perhaps) unique in its physics.

From the perspective of us (within our "grape") it appears to actually be a Big Bang that created our "grape". But the greater reality is that we are one of many universes, meaning many grapes.

I have not watched anything which described the mathematics behind these ideas. :(

>>1406761
yes
actually
that's exactly what would happen

>>1407153
>um, someone on the Dawkins YouTube lineup recently mentioned it.

Lawrence Krauss, maybe?

>>1407081
take a stab at it anyways, we might surprise you

>>1407153
I found the video I saw on the Dawkins Channel -- Brian Greene, The Search for Hidden Dimensions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB1B42HYvZg

Greene is not the first one I watched; I'm still looking for the David Deutsch video link.

look after 5 minutes for the grape-theory I referred to in that Brian Greene video

itt: sensationalist pop pseudoscience that kids think is real

>>1407190
Lawrence Krauss!!

I learned his name from one of the recent Symphony of Science videos .. "Scientists love mysteries! They love not knowing!"

Do you have any interesting video links? or anything else?

>>1407272
explain

>>1406660
STOＰ_ＡｔTacＫiＮG_aND FucｋInｇ_ｗｉＴＨ_wｗW.ＡＮｏＣArｒｏtsｔＡｌk.ｓe_ＲEＰlAcE CaRrｏｔs_ＷiTＨ_ｎ
bdk w eingqo xywh fq ysd phvhm k v nnzj vncxs pjb

The big bang was originally conceived by a christian scientist which I find dubious. We all know energy is infinite. There doesn't have to be a singularity in order to explain the Universe. With growing evidence supporting low energy nuclear reactions it may be the key to understanding how the elements were transmuted and distributed.

... too bad everyone left

Someone has the image with the ages of the universe?

>>1406658
ｓTOｐ ａＴＴＡCｋＩｎG AＮＤ ＦuｃＫＩnG_ＷｉＴH_wｗｗ.ＡNOｃARROＴSＴＡLｋ.Ｓｅ rＥｐＬａcｅ_cＡRROTｓ_wｉTh n
p mn zrmd ui ic x scvdosusewxxbdhiyu

>>1406660
StOP_ＡTtaCkＩｎg_ＡNd ｆＵｃＫＩng WｉｔＨ_ｗwＷ.ＡNｏcaＲRotSTａｌｋ.sｅ_ＲｅｐｌＡＣｅ ｃAＲＲＯＴＳ With Ｎ
cb z r aeplp a o i xju fku rqzujb qfq

>>1407514
For Fucks Sakes learn what the big bang is. It is the concept that the universe is expanding; the big bang is still happening and we're inside of it. What you're referring to is the moment the big bang began. You can't argue the big bang is not real without denying the universe is expanding.

There is no absolute proof of an expanding Universe. The method of measuring distance (redshift) has its own set of problems and therefore not reliable.