/sci/ - Science & Math

I want to hear your arguments for this /sci/

wait, i'm writing an answer...

>>2857466

there is nothing
nothing is the empty set
empty set is empty
we have the empty set, thus it is one thing

therefore once there is the empty set then we have one thing, but we have two things now: one and the empty set

yet we have three things: one, the empty set and the set that contains one and the empty set

etc, forever

>>2857447
but something can come from nothing

dEdt≈ħ or dmdt≈ħ

l2HeisenburgPrinciple

>>2857481
uhhh the product of the derivatives has nothing to do with plancks constant idiot

>It's simply logically impossible.
You have two choices: either something can begin to exist through no external impetus, or something exists in perpetuity forever. Take your pick, it's unprovable either way.

>>2857477
>There is nothing
That premise is wrong. Nothing is not the presence of a thing called "nothing" but complete absence of anything.
Nothingness is complete absence.

>>2857491
Unprovable, exactly.
There is no way to know.
So how can proclaimed people of science claim to know the unknowable?

>>2857494

nothingness is the absence of something

therefore nothingness depends on the absence of X

therefore there has to exist a preventative force that negates X

therefore nothingness depends on the existence of a preventative force to negate all X's

but the preventative force is an X, hence contradiction

ergo nothingness is impossible

>>2857473
>>2857466
>>2857447
no one answered because you're a dumb troll. your premise is wrong, nothing effectively can't exist in our universe, lrn2QM, casimir force, etc.

>>2857492
wow you are an idiot, dx = the change in x

as in, the change in energy/mass multiplied by the change in time is approximately equal to the reduced Planck Constant

>>2857447
>How can something come from nothing?

It happens every fucking day, all the fucking time. We can actually observe and even predict, shit "popping into existance from nothing".

Welcome to modern physics bro! You have alot of catching up to do.

nothing is limitless
nothing limits it

nothing is the creative force from which everything appears

>>2857512
\thread

>>2857504
>therefore there has to exist a preventative force that negates X

DOES NOT FOLLOW

>>2857512
But they're not popping out of nothingness, since it's this universe they are "popping" into. I think the random particles are following an as yet unidentified law of the universe.

>>2857512
I don't accept that something can come from nothing.
It's logically impossible.

Effectively you're saying 0=1

>>2857512
This book is fantastic. Highly recommendable, even if you already have the books from Peskin&Schroeder and Itzykson&Zuber.

>We can actually observe and even predict, shit "popping into existance from nothing".

but that's wrong, it's impossible to observe something "coming from nothing" how do you know it didn't exist in some other place at some other time....

think about it, you can't say "nothing" was it's origin

if it's origin is undetectable, that doesn't mean it was from "nowhere" lo

>>2857519
>DOES NOT FOLLOW

but it does. something has to prevent a thing from existing, otherwise it would exist.
logic.

>>2857521
So, you think the Universe has always existed? Steady state theory has been blown out long ago, that candle is spent.

Or do you think that something before this universe is eternal?

Either way, show me the logic that allows for something to exist eternally, but doesn't allow for that something to come into being in the first place.

Oh .. just to the people who use arguments from quantum field theory: the vacuum and empty space are conceptually two different things.

Apart from that, "Nothing comes from nothing." and "It's simply logically impossible." doesn't make much sense either.

>>2857481
This is correct
/thread

>>2857528
>but it does. something has to prevent a thing from existing, otherwise it would exist.
>logic.

No, it doesn't follow, you dessicated pile of camel feces. Are you really that lacking in reasoning capabilities as to be ignorant to the fact that X may not exist not due to preventive forces, but to a lack of prerequisites?

>>2857512

Well you cant DIRECTLY observe the particles popping into existence as they pop back out before they can be observed to exist in the first place (see >>2857481)

we can only observe the effects of its existence on other particles

>>2857528
>something has to prevent something from existing otherwise it would exist
That is completely wrong
There is nothing logically or physically preventing pink elephants and flying pigs from existing, but they don't, as far as we can ever know.

>>2857536


lack of prereqs would exist due certain conditions

a lack of pre-reqs doesn't occur out of nothing

>>2857520
>>2857521
>>2857522
We can PHYSICALLY OBSERVE particles "poping" into
existance out of "nothingness"! WE DO THIS ALL THE TIME! It is well documented, and done by every nation on the face of the earth. There is no debate about this shit! We have a shit ton of math and physics developed to explain and predict this phenomina. IT IS FUCKING TRIVIAL BY NOW!

1 second, no particle
next second, no particle
second after that, WOW A PARTICLE POPED INTO EXISTANCE!


\THREAD

Nothing comes from nothing.

But something can come from a state so devoid of physical definition that it is altogether something apart from nothing, and yet absolutely nothing at all.

For where nothing exists, even logic is lost, thus beautiful entropy is quickly born of what was before only the chaotic void.

>>2857530
I don't know. My claim is that it's impossible to Know.

>>2857540
No, a lack of prerequisites is a LACK of certain conditions.

>>2857535
>There is nothing logically or physically preventing pink elephants and flying pigs from existing

they don't exist because the conditions aren't right for them to exist

the conditions aren't right because something is preventing them from being right.

done and done

>>2857534
>pop back out

They don't always Pop-back out.
Stop trollin kid.

>>2857536
Call it what you will...

But going by what you said, not meeting prerequisites falls under the category of 'preventive'. So what allowed for the prerequisites to be met if there was absolutely nothing?

>>2857542
>1 second, no particle
next second, no particle

>im looking through a peep hole into my hallway
>one second a person appears out of nowhere
>next second they are gone

>people popping in and out of existence!

>>2857543
You're saying "something can come from nothing, because no rules apply to nothing". From your claim, I could say that it would be possible for a mecha with rockets and giant breasts and vaginas for eyes that rapes everyone to death would this minute pop into existence in front of me.

>>2857552
1) It is a contained enviornment
2) You suck at trollin

>>2857542

no one comes to that conclusion lol

it's an impossible conclusion to reach logically

we don't observe X's origin, therefore it came from "nowhere"

is fallacious, it appeals to ignorance

>>2857528
If you had bothered to take a second or third year university physics course then you would realize that particles are created from nothing and then destroyed soon afterwards (the time that the particle exists is proportional to its mass)

Theses particles are responsible for all the forces in the universe, pi mesons are responsible for holding the nucleus of an atom together, photons are responsible for electrostatic repulsion/attraction, etc

the particles are impossible to observe directly, but its effects are

>>2857550
Now you're conflating the terms, and also seeming to assume that I stated something could never come from nothing.

>>2857504
Tell Neumann that

OP DOESNT WANT ACTUAL ANSWER OR SCIENCE

FEED THE TROLL SCI!

FEED HIM MORE AND MORE AND MORE

LETS SHIT UP THE WHOLE BOARD! MAKE IT LIKE /NEW! /SCI/ WILL BE DELETED IN NO TIME!

>>2857562

except we have a universe, and they are coming from it

not from "nothing" lol

>>2857555
Entirely possible...yet infinitely unlikely.

>i open my eyes
>the world appears

>conclude it came from nothing.

well, your question came from nothing..

>>2857562
Please read a QFT book. You have no idea what you are talking about.

A virtual particle, can become physical. Energy-mass can be violated due to time being non homgenious on the quantum level.

>>2857447

>>2857548
Ok then, name 1 particle that appears from nowhere and doesn't obey the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

>>2857569
So unlikely... that it's impossible.

>>2857571
No it didn't, it came from a series of thoughts in my brain that led to my asking it.

>>2857559
>>2857563
It's fine if you guys dont' have answers to the BIG scientific question, the major driving force for exploration and explanation: why is there a here instead of nowhere and why are things instead of why aren't things?


I'm not OP by the way. It's just shocking to find such concrete beliefs on a topic that is still way up in the air.

>>2857520
>I think the random particles are following an as yet unidentified law of the universe.

No one gives a shit about what you think, identify said law or shut the fuck up.

>Effectively you're saying 0=1

No, he's not, but you're too dumb to even try to understand what he's saying. The point is that there is no 0 in the equation. Now go learn QFT and refute it or take your "I don't accept" shit somewhere else.

Saying "I don't accept this." to an empirically substantiated theory is just the same as saying "I'm wrong."

Holy shit /sci/, stop responding to obvious troll threads.

>>2857574
Do you even know how to derive the uncertianty princple from least action?

The uncertinaty princple (energy-time) is not always valid, as the conservation of energy is also not always valid. It depends on the configration of space-time and the homogenity of time itself. Look up Notherm theorem.

I know you think you know shit, but seriously, you got alot of shit to learn kid. When you can derive everything from first princple, then we can talk.

>>2857584
Something cannot come from nothing.
According to QFT 0=1
Therefore quantum mechanics are wrong

There you go

>>2857584
>Holy shit /sci/, stop responding to obvious troll threads.
implying that this troll thread doesn't have more scientific discussion then all the other front page threads combined

>>2857542

Those are called Virtual Particles. They are apparently real, but are the result of real particles changing state. So they don't come from nothing but something.

>>2857588
0/10 try to be less fragrant /b/tard

>>2857589
there's no scientific discussion here, only trolled faggots explaining QFT to moronic trolls.

>>2857597
Why are you so angry? I'm trying to have a proper scientific discussion and you're raging like a toddler.
Really /sci/ grow up

Idiots who can't think for themselves.

Time is not linear in the newtonian sense. Its passage is dependent on the energy of a system. Were the singularity the end state for our universe it makes no sense to ask what came before that point. There is no requirement for a creator. Universe is self contained and governed by laws that arise from the matter itself.

>>>2857520
>>I think the random particles are following an as yet unidentified law of the universe.

>No one gives a shit about what you think, identify said law or shut the fuck up.

Such hostility. It's almost as if you're not here to educate or converse or engage in any way. Here I am, posing what I see as a problem, and you get hostile. Please check your emotions at the door so we (or I) can actually examine what makes this topic so troubling.

With that said, I'll restate the question about particles: how can you say that these particles are a product of 'nothing' when they occur inside 'something'? Would they be occurring without a something to occur in?

If this seems like a trivial question, then please provide some type of explanation besides 'you're dumb I'm smart my beliefs are fact and you're just trolling'.

>>2857520
There is a big difference between a random particles, and partciles "poping into existance".

Let me dumb it down for you:
You have a confined system. You empty it of particles (most of them). You know how many partciles are in your system, you make all sorts of fancy measurement about your system. You observe the boundary's of your system , as to detect particles entering or leaving it. This is all known infomation.

Suddenly, a electron "pops" into your system. You observe that it didn't come from the outside. It didn't just walk into your system. IT JUST POPED INTO EXISTANCE.

We see this behavior all the damm time.

>>2857447
YES!!!!!!!!!
LET'S TRY AND EXPLAIN QFT TO A KID WHO DOESN'T EVEN KNOW BASIC ALGEBRA.

KEEP UP THE GOOD TROLLIN KID!

>>2857609

Well an electron could have come from beta- decay from one of the particles in the system, especially if all the original particles were neutrons

or are you saying that the electron has no known origin?

>There is no requirement for a creator.

Maybe this is what got you all on the defensive, accuse everyone of trolling bandwagon. I, personally, am a skeptic and an atheist; a magical being willing it isn't an answer, and is in no way what I was implying.


>>2857609
>Let me dumb it down for you:
>You have a confined system.
Which itself exists within another system. Issue still not resolved.

>>2857609

It can be explained using determinism. The configuration was always set for the apparent 'popping into existence' of particles because it interacts with its counterpart from the future.

Time itself is not bounded by moving forwards exclusively. It already exists. Humans and life perceive moving only forward through time because of the way entropy works. There is no backwards evolution because the workings of an organism depend on gathering energy from a state of less entropy to overcome the challenge of a high entropic state.

>>2857622
>>no requirement for creator
actually, I'm not the person you think you were responding to.

>>2857598
>how can you say that these particles are a product of 'nothing' when they occur inside 'something'?

Because we don't define nothingness as the lack of the universe. We define nothing in the "came from nothing" bit of that as the lack of matter in any given place or as the lack of a cause of the effect, and no, we don't count the beginning of the universe as the first effect for causeless events.

>Would they be occurring without a something to occur in?

Not science.

>It's almost as if you're not here to educate or converse or engage in any way

Only because no one is here to learn or discuss. A troll thread is a worthless thread.

>>2857609
That doesn't happen.

On the EXTREMELY TINY SCALE, pairs of particles appear spontaneously. However the pair consists of one normal and its antiparticle, and they immediately annihalate one another, with the net result of no new particles.

You might get an electron or positron from certain types of decay, but its mass is matched by the mass lost from the decaying particle (as well as some energy release).

Another possibility is that the electron has 'tunneled' through the side of your theoretical container, if the walls were sufficiently thin.

Electrons do not simply come into being with no cause. To think they do is ludicrous.

I'm not saying OP's argument is right either - presuming he's talking about the cause of the big bang.

>>2857621
Nope, said was not the case. All the shit was already accounted for. The decay did not produce the electron, nor were there any other processes involving the partciles in the systems that "produced the electron".

Stop grasping at straws you dumbfuck.

>>2857627
But time began when the universe began. At one time, no time existed.

>>2857627
>It can be explained using determinism.

Ah-ha. Got any experiments we could use to try to prove your hypotheses? Until this kind of determinism can be tested, until you can make it distinguishable from randomness, it's an assumption that doesn't belong in science proper.


>>2857602
>a proper scientific discussion

>According to QFT 0=1
>Therefore quantum mechanics are wrong

IM REALLY LOVING ALL THESE SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION

>>2857643
The particles don't always annilate. You are a fuckin moron. Good day troll.

(Yes a positron would have appeared in the system as well)

>>2857658
The evidence for determinism is in its internal symmetry. It holds as a theory and as far as I know that's the very basis for proper science.

>>2857643
Yes I'm talking about the cause of the big bang
>>2857652
Time and space are the bounds of empirical reality, but that does not rule out existence outside of time and space

>>2857652
just admit you don't understand what time is. therefore you are not in a position to propose a point before time.

>>2857648
Well sorry if I seem to be grasping at straws, as I am genuinely interested in this unlike the large amount of troll in this thread

I was just asking the questions about something that seems to defy basic logic and even the crazy shit which I am learning at uni right now

Although I don't know why you attacked me personally for applying only what I know and not taking you seriously at first when you offered no explanation or proof of your knowledge level, and because of this I just thought you were trolling

>The evidence for determinism is in its internal symmetry
>evidence
>internal symmetry

LOL.

>It holds as a theory

except for the fact that you don't have any evidence for it, except "it's consistent with itself!"

>as far as I know that's the very basis for proper science.

It isn't. If it can't be tested, it's not a theory, and doesn't belong in science. They really do need to make a /phi/ board.

>>2857638
>We define nothing in the "came from nothing" bit of that as the lack of matter in any given place or as the lack of a cause of the effect, and no, we don't count the beginning of the universe as the first effect for causeless events.

That's just defining around the problem. You can show that particles can come into existence ex nihilo, but to think this applies to the universe as well doesn't necessarily follow from this fact.

I don't see the problem in saying that something could have always existed (something before the universe.) You don't see a problem with saying that something comes from nothing thus the universe.

So which is the safer bet? What else is there to explain the origin of this universe?

>>2857669

Time and space are related to matter and energy, which didn't exist before the beginning of the universe. DUH!! Maybe you didn't comprehend the meaning of the word NOTHING.

>>2857674


you not understanding != determinism has no proof
but enough of this. i always expect to talk to plebians on 4chan

>>2857676
>So which is the safer bet?

IMO, it's the one with less assumptions, and assuming "something that existed forever" that we can never measure or observe looks like it holds a lot less water than something coming from nothing.

>That's just defining around the problem.

It's not, I was just explaining why people say that something can come from nothing even if they're part of something-- it's because they don't share your definition of nothing.

>>2857680
That's because there was nothing before the singularity. It was boundless. You aren't understanding what I'm saying.

>>2857681
>implies he has an argument for untestable hypothesis
>doesn't post it
>calls people plebeians
>can't spell the word

I can't tell if you're a moron or a troll.

>>2857688
>doesn't know plebian has 2 spellings
>will now look up a dictionary
LOL

> How can something come from nothing?
Obviously a sky wizard did it.
> It's simply logically impossible.
Okay, welcome to atheism then?

You might also be surprised to know 0 = 1 + -1. Two somethings can come from nothing.

>>2857696
1 + -1 still make 0.

If our universe is a self contained system that is equally balanced that still doesn't explain how it got here.

Look at my flawless reasoning

Nothing can come from nothing, therefore god exists.

>>2857746
Who said anything about God?
It seems to me you're bringing up God out of nowhere yourself.
Are you angry since all your arguments have failed?

ITT we go back a thousand years or further and think zero is stupid

>>2857749

Thats questionable since that was my first post in the thread.

>>2857754
Is your rectum purturbed?

Nearly 100 posts I know you can do this guys

95 posts