/sci/ - Science & Math

When the previous universe died out, it collapsed into a singularity for a brief instant, and the energy released due to such an event caused the big bang.

I CANT STOP SCREAMING

>>3129246
Ok so apply my question to the previous universe

>>3129252
When the previous previous universe died out, it collapsed into a singularity for a brief instant, and the energy released due to such an event caused the big bang for the previous universe.

>>3129257
I knew that smart ass answer was coming

So where to the first particle of matter come from in the VERY FIRST universe?

>>3129260

So this is my first time on /sci/ so this question has probably been discussed way too much...does anybody maybe have a good website that discusses this?

>>3129260
>someone doesn't understand how infinitely repeating processes work

>>3129274
This might also seem like a smartass answer, but I don't intend it as such: http://www.google.com/search?q=before+the+big+bang

There are numerous sites out there that talk about this, so rather than list a few I'll let you peruse the ones you find interesting. But as what you're asking is purely theoretical and impossible to say for certain, don't expect any concrete answers. In fact, you'll probably read a lot of "time not existing before the universe and so the question is meaningless" type of responses.

>What made it?

>>3129281
I thought it has been proven that you cannot infinitely regress
>>3129284
So what created time

>>3129238
> What was before it? What made it?

No one knows, and anyone who claims otherwise is trolling. There are only theories, and I bet no one on /sci/ really understands those theories.

>>3129288
Wouldn't you call a chemical process or reaction or some unknown event a what?

>>3129292
What about that one about other universes bumping together and the energy from the impacts creating new universes like ours?

>>3129297
With all the matter in the Universe condensed into one singularity, there's bound to be some sort of chemical reaction. And as for your question "where did that matter come from", nobody knows, but our best guess is that it was always there (although again, "always there" has little meaning before time arose).

And don't think that nobody sees where this is going, by the way.

>>3129306

Yeah, what about it?

>Who made it?
Fixed

>>3129309
I promise I do not want God to be a part of this discussion.

I just want to know how matter as always existed? I cannot wrap my mind around something always excising be it matter or God

>>3129306
So if it takes 2 universes to make another universe what made the first universe?

>>3129318
>pockets are hanging below skirt

I have the weirdest feeling right now for some reason...

>>3129309

> some sort of chemical reaction

I believe the reaction is far from chemical.

>>3129325
Well I'm personally not a cosmologist or physicist or anything of that sort, so feel free to disregard this as psuedoscientific ramblings... But whereas we usually think of time as being linear, it's most likely more cyclic. So thinking in terms of "before the big bang" or "after the end of our universe" would be a bit misleading.

If I was on the surface of a sphere, I wouldn't ask "what do I see when I walk to the end of the sphere". I'd simply be back where I was.

>>3129354
yeah but where did the sphere come from?

>>3129361
Well in that particular example, the sphere would be time. As for where "time" comes from, that's akin to asking where "space" comes from.

Again, uneducated opinion coming in, but "space" itself doesn't really exist, just the perceived difference in position between pieces of matter. If you're at the origin and I move away from you, we'd say the space between us is increasing. But are you really adding anything? No, just the difference in our position is changing. There's nothing really "there" in that regard, it's just how we perceive our universe. I reckon time operates on very similarly.

Causality is merely what we call it when one kind of event tends to precede another sort of kind. Since the beginning of the Universe by definition has nothing before it, it would be meaningless to ask what caused it.

>>3129361

What form of answer are you searching for? Do you want us to say the universe came from a definite XYZ? There is no answer like that. I also can't tell you exactly where an electron is... Just because you posses the power to pose a question does not mean there must be a definite answer for it.

>>3129376
Basically I am interested in people's opinions I know there is no concrete answer.

I just can't wrap my head around matter always existing or coming from nothing

>>3129389

You honestly have to leave intuition at the door if you wish to delve into higher sciences that attempt to explain things like this. It isn't going to make "sense" if you try to understand it in terms of everyday experience.

>mfw this thread's theories defy the laws of thermodynamics

Hey fuckers, why must everything have a prior and latter?

Just because your existence has a prior and latter doesn't mean EVERYTHING does. Learn to think outside your fucking skulls, noobs.

>>3129421

as if thermodynamic laws aren't complete shit

learn2statisticalmechanics

>>3129427
How can matter come from nothing?

>>3129440

How can nothing exist?

>>3129448
it does....space exists right? or does it not?

>>3129440

You only think that way because you were raised to believe everything must come from something. Only until you let go of that and have an ego death will you realize everything is eternal.

it didnt come from nothing, that one dimensional point though fucking small was something

"eternal cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed" kind of suggests that something can be eternal.

>>3129463
where did the one dimensional point come from?

quantum fluctuations in a perfect vacuum yo

perhaps darkness is more than the absence of light

>>312946we are know where near having the technology nor the understanding to find something that far back out. You could answer that with the big crunch theory if you have nothing wrong with the idea of eternity.

What is dark matter and why is there so much of it?

>lawrencekraussauniversefromnothing.jpg

>>3129479
cont. empty space is the origin

>>3129455

But you can't show me just space, can you? It's all in your head. Out here in the real world there are these electromagnetic fields and other forces at work in this "space", which has properties which set it apart from being nothing (Einstein field equations).

You see, the idea of nothing is a mathematical idealization. If you want to discuss the real world, you cannot fall back to such incredible idealizations. (I say this because we do make idealizations in science. We talk of two particle systems isolated from the world, but this will never be found in nature. By sheer luck we are able to use it as a tool and get meaningful predictions, even if it's not completely right in the end).

>>3129492
why should anyone show you "just space". perhaps you should consider the space you occupy. surely your imagination is capable of conceiving the space you occupy.

>>3129498

Your retreating into your mind and asking me to imagine the emptiness as if it's end all common knowledge.

The same thinking kept us on Euclidean geometry for describing space for a while - it was incorrect, even if imagining such a thing was beautifully easy. It doesn't coincide with the real world.

Do you see where I'm going...

>>3129511
yes, i see where you are going, i just thought empty space was end all common knowledge =(

Just check out what that guy said...i think Heisenberg it's his name.

>>3129238
>Where did the matter to create the Big Bang come from? What was before it? What made it? How did the Universe come from nothing?
Likely the result of quantum fluctuations. The total energy content of the universe is basically 0. Given the laws of quantum mechanics, something must come from nothing, where nothing means a quantum field. Something came from nothing.

Why are the laws of physics the way they are? Dunno.

(Introduction to modern cosmology) 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

In order to have something, you need nothing first or else there was already something before we are.


Look why would you even bother with such questions when you know the answer. We don't know the answer! These are just philosophical qeustions that have been asked throughout the ages.

Where do we come from? What was before us? blah blah all that bullshit.

Instead of focusing the questions that are yet unanswerable, go find answers to the questions that are answerable so we all, as one species, get closer to the question we are all hoping to know the answer of.

>>3129573
where did the quantum field come from?

>Where did the matter to create the Big Bang come from?
Singularity

>What was before it?
Before is both irrelevant and nonexistent

>What made it?
Depends on the definition, maybe singularity, quantum event or the laws of physics...

>How did the Universe come from nothing?
It didn't

Sage to troll threads

its possible the universe was created at a place where there was no time. this implies no reactions can take place. no vacuum no mass so time no reaction. Your perception of time is limited, you get to see and feel what you do and that is it. This is because your perception was created within the infinite span of space and cannot truly encompass the idea of existing WITHOUT existence. shut up and live your small life bro.

>>3129603
>troll thread
>everybody acting civil
>Not once did OP try to bring up God
>Not once was anybody called an idiot

i dunno, must be God

Quantum fluctuations, man.

Without gravity and space-time, all that is is an unstable void.

>>3129628
>gravity
something else that is so hard to comprehend

Is gravity fast than the speed of light meaning if the if the sun exploded would we drift off into space due to not being in the sun's gravitational pull anymore instantly or would it take 8 minutes to notice gravitational effects because that is how long it would take the light to reach us?

>>3129628
where did quantum fluctuations come from

>>3129613
the concept of time not existing struck me is interesting. there are symmetries that were broken during the big bang which might imply how the arrow of time was created. For example, the dominance of matter of anti matter could be due to CP symmetry violations in big bang (see Hot Quark Soup Produced at RHIC)? So time might exist because of a break of T symmetry (which does not exist in our universe)?/

probably 8 minutes as "nothing" can travel faster than the speed of light.

Let's skip a few steps to the obvious.

You'll think it came from some sort of infinite intelligence that conveniently has no cause.

Why is it so easy to accept an infinite God, but then turn around and pretend you "can't wrap your head around" an infinite universe?

And reality is indifferent to your comfort. Whether or not a truth makes you uncomfortable or confused has no bearing on its truth. Right now we honestly don't know about the "ultimate origin", but things are pointing towards infinity. Can't accept it? Seriously, too fuckin' bad.

Try to wrap your head around anything quantum - simultaneous "a and not a" - a single particle literally being in multiple places at once. It's only Western tendencies of "a can not be not a" that have problems dealing with it. Sorry.

>>3129637
they... just are man. :/ that's the end. The last question of why.

the universe was never born nor will it ever die, it will always just transform its energy from one form to another.

you think everything must have a start and an end, because youre concious plopped in existence at some point of your life and is going to fade out when you die, and because your ego is huge you think everything must work just like you.

but actually you were never born, youre current stage of existence is just another transformation of the matter and energy that has been around since the big bang and before that, and if you die the matter that is making up your body and your consciusness will just transform to another form of existence.

>>3129371
Aye, it has been discovered recently that we perceive distance and size depending on our height. A midget experiences everything as bigger.

>>3129238

See, this is why the religion of atheism is the laughing stock of the world, it's madness, it's blind faith, faith in nothing...

What proof and evidence can you provide that proves atheism is accurate and correct?

>>3129966
Atheism is a simple lack of belief in God

Kindly prove God exists and I will cease being atheist

>>3129966
Atheism isn't a positive belief that there IS no god. It is a response to your belief.

Atheism says: I haven't seen evidence for that claim, so there's no reason for me to believe it.

>>3129979

No, the burden of proof is on you.

See, this is why more and more atheists are leaving the religion of atheism, there's no proof that atheism is accurate and correct.

>>3129985

see >>3129981

>>3129985
>shockofgod

ohboyherewego.jpg

>>3129985
Why would the burden of proof be on me to believe in something? There are an almost infinite amount of things I do not believe in do I have to prove each and every one doesn't exist?

Again kindly prove God exists and I will cease being a atheist.

Can you do that?

>>3129991

Thanks for proving my point.

Atheists don't seem to understand the burden of proof, the burden of proof is on the atheist since atheism asserts there is no God.

Notice how the atheist completely avoids the question, it's because of their cognitive dissonance, they realise they cannot prove that atheism is accurate and correct so they attempt (fallaciously) to shift the burden of proof, sad really, I honestly feel sad for kids with atheist parents since they will never know Jesus because of their atheistic indoctrination.

>Atheism says: I haven't seen evidence for that claim, so there's no reason for me to believe it.

Actually, it isn't, according to the Routledge Philosophical Dictionary, "Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief."

Also, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "Atheism, the critique or denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is the opposite of theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswered or unanswerable; for the atheist, the nonexistence of God is a certainty."

>for the atheist, the nonexistence of God is a certainty

I'm sorry, but your post proves the madness of atheism.

I'll be praying for you.

>>3129966
The reason why you're in here posting this? Because you doubt. You doubt your religion, and that nagging doubt, that nervous twitch that comes up every time you realize that of course you can't KNOW that your religion is true, and that you've never really HEARD god talk to you, and that all this stuff is so ephemeral, so easily explained by coincidence... it gnaws at you. So you make a big show, yammering on about the atheist "religion" (which has no sacred texts, no place to gather for worship, and which has never tried to organize, much less claim tax-exempt status), all in a desperate attempt to drown out that little voice in the back of your head that keeps saying "I'm going to die forever oh my god no please no i'm sorry please don't hurt me". But of course, as always, there's no one to answer that voice. It's just you, alone with your thoughts.

Enjoy it while you can.

>>3130015
So do I have to prove the near infinite amount of things I do not believe in also do not exist in order to not believe in them?

Looks like my day just got a whole lot busier.

Actually nah I will just continue not to believe in them until they are scientifically proven to be real I do have to work to feed myself today.

Ha ha ha, oh wow. Get a load of this fuckin' guy:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shockofgod

I guess he needed to find a new place to act the fool after getting laughed off of Youtube.

who gives a fuck, we are all dead when the answer is found anyways

>>3130015
no you fucker, the burden of proof is on the theist, as you require evidence for your claim,

atheism is the logical way of deducing since there is no evidence that there is no god.

10/10 im mad

>>3130002

>Because you doubt.

Not at all, the bible says we should always be ready to defend the faith. Nice ad hominem though, this is the second blatant fallacy that you atheists have commited, geesh, not a very good track record is it? (but then again, you guys have Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc)

>you've never really HEARD god talk to you

Actually, I have, once you accept Jesus Christ into your heart and mind, you will know the truth.

>which has no sacred texts, no place to gather for worship, and which has never tried to organize, much less claim tax-exempt status

Oh, so Paganism isn't a religion? Right...

Thanks for proving for the third time in a row how ridiculous the religion of atheism truly is.

I'll be praying for you.

>>3130033
I never said I "doubted" anything. I said there are many things I don't believe in God is just one of them.

You know what I do believe in? Gravity. Can you prove God exists the way gravity is proven to exist?

>>3130033
paganism = atheism? many gods = no god? Really? Come on, no one's that stupid. Oh wait, forgot who I was talking to for a second.

Look dude, I know you'll never admit to the nagging doubt. But I know it's there. Just in the same way that you know the Bible is true, and that you weren't just hallucinating when you saw/heard the jewish zombie. See how much fun it is when we remove evidence from the equation?

>using concepts like before and when outside our universe

E=mc^2 fuckers

Consider quantum fluctuations in the space of "nothing".

Previous to the big bang, there was nothing but random fluctuations occurring in a certain space (infinite or finite?) Random chance allows for a huge summation of quantum fluctuations given an infinite amount of time i suppose..

So matter has been created from a fuck load of energy, from the fluctuations of empty space.

Just sayin...

>>3130033
shockofgod, please listen to what I have to say.

Atheism doesn't make any claims. It doesn't believe in god just as it doesn't believe in the monster under its bed. There is no evidence! Why would I believe in the monster under the bed? Do you believe in the monster under the bed? Of course you don't, because there is no evidence pointing to it.

In the same way, I don't believe in god because I haven't seen any evidence pointing to it. The disbelief I have for god isn't some mindless claim I plunge out there, it's just the lack of evidence.

>>3130050

Hmm, must have been the wrong post that I linked to, was refering to >>3130016

I still see no proof and evidence that prove atheism is accurate and correct though.

You guys have had 6000 years to prove he doesn't exist and you're still squirming around the question.

>>3130071
How was the energy created? Did the energy always exist? If so how?

Realist Atheist.
No gods observed in my universe.

>>3130081
see
>>3130075

Atheism isn't something that needs to be proven. I do not need to prove that Santa Claus isn't real to not believe in Santa Claus I simply lack the belief that Santa Claus exists.

If someone can prove to me the Santa Claus exists then I will believe in him. Until then I don't have to prove anything to hold my personal belief that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

>>3130065

>paganism = atheism? many gods = no god? Really? Come on, no one's that stupid.

>Oh wait, forgot who I was talking to for a second.

Oh the irony, I suggest you go back and finish your GED since you clearly lack any literacy and comprehension skills.

Perhaps you should read my post more closely, rather than committing yet another straw-man fallacy.

Just more proof that atheists are uneducated, obese (http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity)) and less appealing to women that Christian men (http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Atheism_appears_to_be_significantly_less_appealing_to_women).).

The ignorance of some atheists, thanks for proving my point though.

>>3130083
If the universe is flat (which they science studying it is saying it is) then the energies of the universe add up to zero at the big bang. Meaning that the universe could have come from nothing/something with no energy. it just might be a result of the instability of nothing

>>3130113

are you going to completely ignore my post because it doesn't suit you?

see >>3130075

>>3130075

>Atheism doesn't make any claims

"Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief." - Routledge Philosophical Dictionary

>>3130103

>Atheism isn't something that needs to be proven

Therein lies the madness of atheism. If atheists had their way, we could believe anything we wanted without evidence, this is why I find atheism unappealing on intellectual grounds, it's one of the most absurd religions ever created by MAN.

>>3130117

Because I have to devote 100% of my time to you and ignore everyone else.

Atheists are idiots.

>>3130115

This is a complete non-sequitur and a complete faith-based position.

>>3130123
>"Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief." - Routledge Philosophical Dictionary

Lol ok way to answer my post. Admit it, you can't because I spelled it out too clear for you.
Answer my post, don't try to dictionary your way out of here.

>>3130123
>If atheists had their way, we could believe anything we wanted without evidence

But me being atheist isn't a belief it is a lack of a believe. I ONLY believe in things that are proven to be true such as gravity and the speed of light and the fact that I have a penis and breath air. God does not fit into the real of things that have been proven to be true therefore I do not believe in God because it doesn't meet the criteria of porven to be true that my standards require for belief.

>>3130128
>Atheists are idiots.
Actually those who have no belief in gods have a higher IQ than believers.

I don't believe in any gods due to low prior plausibility and lack of supporting evidence. Call this whatever you want.

>>3130131
>non-sequitur
because I was ignoring you and answering the OP? shove off wanker. please dont respond to this

>>3130133

>Lol ok way to answer my post. Admit it, you can't because I spelled it out too clear for you.

More proof of the cognitive dissonance of atheists, when presented with evidence that proves their position false, they go crazy and are unintelligible.

Atheism is madness, it's pure faith, faith, in nothing...

>>3130148
>presented with evidence that proves their position false
When did you prove God existed ITT?

>>3130148
Stop trying to take a moral high ground here. Stop talking down to atheists. You don't see me talking down to you.

Your post (the one I'm answering right now) contains no arguments. Please provide arguments for why this post >>3130075
is false, and not with a dictionary this time.

>>3130147

No, because your post was fallacious.

Geesh, how many times will you atheists prove me correct? I don't have to do anything, you guys just humiliated yourself for me. It's funny, but sad when you think about it, I mean, really, these guys are so closed and narrow minded, they just repeat the manta, "god doesn't exist, everyone else is wrong", they're hypocrites since that's what they claim Christians do (despite some of the most intelligent minds and the vast majority of scientists being Christian, such as Einstein, etc), I honestly feel sorry for them.

I'll be praying for you guys.

>everyone in this thread who isnt shockofgod
why are you guys letting yourselves be trolled?
hes not even trying

>>3130166
I don't think he's trolling. This guy has a youtube channel, notoriously known for being firm in his belief.

>>3130163
>Einstein
>Christian
0/10 but please pray for me my name is Brad Wood of The United States

>>3130083
Say you travel into outer space, far away from any significant masses of matter. Now you closely observe a small cube of space completely devoid of any matter.

What will you see?

You'd probably be inclined to think that you'd have to see nothing at all. It's completely "empty" space, after all.

But the reality of it is that you will see a plethora of particles "blipping" in and out of existence. In fact, there will be particles and anti-particles ("anti-matter") that appear in pairs and almost instantly cancel each other out.

All of the above is a matter of verified fact (or at least as close to it as anything can be).

Now, one _hypothesis_ (read: speculation) on the cause of the Big Bang is that at one point, when no matter existed in the traditional sense yet, these particle fluctuations happened to cause what's called the singularity event. In the chaotic release of energy that followed, some of the particles and anti-particles were separated and thus couldn't cancel each other out. Matter (and anti-matter) was born.

>>3130158
You claimed

>Atheism doesn't make any claims

I responded,

>"Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief." - Routledge Philosophical Dictionary

Therefore you have been disproved

Geesh, you guys are complete morons, I thought this was supposed to be the smart bored, guess I was wrong.

I'm sorry, but I can't waste my time on simple plebs such as you.

Since the atheists have failed to provide proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct, then I have won this debate.

Thanks for trying though, I'm sorry you guys can't understand the burden of proof.

Well, I'm off, I'll be praying for you guys.

Remember, JESUS IS LORD.

>>3130178
I don't think your god is real.

>>3130178
You're taking the first words of my post and putting them out of context. Please answer the remainings of the post, or elsewise I'll have to infer that you can't answer it. I have begun to suspect that already, as you contiuously dodge the post.

>>3130178
>I thought this was supposed to be the smart bored

>>3130178
It's a damn shame that you will never be able experience the grandeur of the universe without the inhibiting effects of viral social engineering.

And either you made that dictionary quote up, or that particular dictionary is wrong about that. In fact, the second sentence makes no sense whatsoever:

>It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.

If anything, that should read:

>It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of _belief_.

>>3130197

>>3130178
How do you know Jesus is the God and not Allah?

I love penis, please disregard all my arguments.

>>3130228
I lol'd

>>3129598
Man, you're annoying.

>>3130442
>saging a thread not on page 0 and 40 minutes after the last post

The only logical answer to OPs question is through God all things are possible

>>3130453
There is no God though

>>3129238

> Where did the matter to create the Big Bang come from?

We don't know

> What was before it?

We don't know

> What made it?

We don't know

> How did the Universe come from nothing?

We never claimed it to come from nothing

Yours sincerely,
a physicist

>>3130493
stupid science

>>3130499
A large part of science is knowing what you don't know. This is part of what separates it from religion.

>>3130499

At least scientists try to figure out the answers in a logical way.

>>3129238
>Where did the matter to create the Big Bang come from?

Nothing

>What was before it?

Nothing

>What made it?

Quantum Fluxuations

> How did the Universe come from nothing?

It called physics. Shit gets made from nothing all the time.

Anything else?

>>3130539
where do the materials to make the shit come from?

>>3130539

You's trolling!

>>3130551

don't fall for the troll

it rhymes, so it must be true

>>3130551
There is shit that can just "pop" into existence. This is a known fact, that has been verified countless times.

>>3130578
>>3130575
>>3130551
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuations

>>3130579

what is esrb?

>>3130596
>>3130579

>>3130598
Entertainment Software Rating Board

>>3130596
>>3130606

> implying that's related

troll

>>3130596

> implying quantum fluctuations suddenly make things exist

if you really think so, you must be retarded

>>3130616
I think you need to do some reading son

Or you just trollin?

>>3130635

What the fuck are you talking about?

quantum fluctuation = virtual positron - electron pairs forming then annihilating again. No matter created.

Are you seriously that retarded?

Go read the wiki article you quoted yourself, moron.

>>3129257
I lol'd. Thank you for that.

>>3130648
>>3130648
>implying annihilating always occurs

LMFAO, virtual particles often become real dipshit. Example: Hadronic Cascade.

You sound as dumb as a christian.

>>3130667

> implying hadronic cascades come form nothing

Can you even read asshole?

You said particles come from nothing according to uncertainty. Now you put something that was created by beams of particles as evidence for your assumption?

Moron.

>>3130667

> Example: Hadronic Cascade.

You just failed hard.

>>3130676
>Doesn't understand the mechanics of hadronic cascade.

Initially, most of the quarks pairs involved are created from nothing. They start off as virtual q-antiq pairs, but become real. I really don't feel like explaining the whole fucking thing to you kid.

>>3130680
>>3130676
This is why we can't have nice things /sci/.

>>3130680

>>3130676

>>3130690

No. Proton beams collide, then other particles are formed through excess momentum/energy.

NOT nothing -> particles.

Fucking idiot.

>>3130690
>>3130695
>>3130711
>>3130717

Look, it's samefag friday.

You are still wrong though. Why aren't there black holes everywhere if particles are created from nothing?
It's bullshit. particles are created "from nothing" if you collide something, charged particles with air molecules (like in the atmosphere) or particles with other particles (collider experiments), not just because they want to.

>>3130690
>>3130735
The main point here is energy is conserved on long time scales. Quark-antiquark pairs don't come from "nothing" - there was energy consumed in their creation.

>>3130690

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle#Pair_production

In order to conserve the total fermion number of the universe, a fermion cannot be created without also creating its antiparticle; thus many physical processes lead to pair creation. The need for the normal ordering of particle fields in the vacuum can be interpreted by the idea that a pair of virtual particles may briefly "pop into existence", and then annihilate each other a short while later.
Thus, virtual particles are often popularly described as coming in pairs, a particle and antiparticle, which can be of any kind. These pairs exist for an extremely short time, and mutually annihilate in short order. In some cases, however, it is possible to boost the pair apart using external energy so that they avoid annihilation and become real particles.

> using external energy
> external energy is not nothing

>>3130755

Energy is always conserved.

The energy-time uncertainty has a different meaning than what you apparently think it has.

>>3130763
>The energy-time uncertainty has a different meaning than what you apparently think it has.
No u. Vacuum fluctuations have real effects. They're not just an artifact of the mathematics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

>>3130735

>>3130767

Give me one fucking experiment where particles popped out of nothing without using external energy.

>>3130766

i did not say that.

Still, there are no particles created. Do you even read the posts you criticise?

>>3130763
>Energy is always conserved

Nope. Energy conservation is only a consequence of a system having homogenious time. You can have systems, where this is not true (Lagragian depend on time). In such cases energy is not conserved.

Are you 12? 14?

>>3130766

He means that energy-time uncertainty does not mean that energy conservation is violated for that amount of time. It's a common misconception, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Energy-time_uncertainty_principle

> Another common misconception is that the energy-time uncertainty principle says that the conservation of energy can be temporarily violated – energy can be "borrowed" from the Universe as long as it is "returned" within a short amount of time.[20] Although this agrees with the spirit of relativistic quantum mechanics, it is based on the false axiom that the energy of the Universe is an exactly known parameter at all times.

>>3130787

we are talking about reality here, you know?

Please troll elsewhere.

>>3130787

> Posting image replies that don't fit
> Be wrong and deny it
> calls other 12-yo

Would you please leave my internets?

>>3130790
Hm. How does this account for the Casimir force, then?

At any rate, this does mean that "energy" is only definite and "conserved" at macroscopic time and length scales, doesn't it?

>>3130779
The LHC, the Tevatron, etc. A hadronic cascade will turn virtual quarks into real quarks. The energy of these quarks did not come from the original beam energy.

saging cause you are a troll, or a fucking retard.

>>3130810

> The energy of these quarks did not come from the original beam energy.

You are truly a fucking idiot. You think these particles would pop up the exact same way if there weren't proton beams colliding? Seriously?

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of quantum mechanics in general.

>>3130794
>>3130797
>don't understand lagragian mechanics
>attempts to talk about physics

Confirmed for troll

>>3130810
>The energy of these quarks did not come from the original beam energy.
You had a decent run, troll. 8/10

>>3130818
Good day troll

>>3130798

Not at all. Virtual particles are "created" everywhere, but not due to a violation of conservation of energy. The possible selection of particles that can be created between the two plates is smaller than the amount of possible particle pairs outside the metal plates, which leads to a net pressure.

>>3130821

I do know my lagrangian systems and i, contrary to you, know, that in closed systems energy is always conserved, which is not the case if your lagrangian depends explicitly on time.

> talk bullshit
> call others trolls
> 12yo detected

>>3130827

> doesn't even have coutner-arguments

That's all you got ?

babbies first troll.

ITT: Someone posts actual science, then little kids have a trollfest cause they don't understand.

Never change /sci/

>>3130579

For example?

>>3130828
I think my main problem is that virtual particles aren't so virtual once they're exerting a net force. But then again, in QED the electric force is mediated by virtual photons, so perhaps I just need to reconcile my concepts of "virtual".

>>3130849

You could think of these virtual particles having a deBroglie wavelength. The metal plates close to each other forbid them to have a wavelength that does not fit between the plates, while there's not restriction to the wavelengths of virtual particles outside the plates.
So there are "more" particles outside the plates than are inside. Like known from classical mechanics, this difference causes a pressure that can be measured.

This is not at all accurate but helped me understand what roughly happened.

>>3130797
>>3130818
>>3130826
>>3130831
>>3130837

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadronization

"hadronization is the process of the formation of hadrons out of quarks and gluons. This occurs after high-energy collisions in a particle collider in which free quarks or gluons are created. Due to postulated colour confinement, these cannot exist individually. In the Standard Model they combine with quarks and antiquarks spontaneously created from the vacuum to form hadrons."

SPONTANEOULY CREATED FROM THE VACUUM! Hence the virtual quarks do not fucking annilate in this case, they become real!

>>3130937

> This occurs after high-energy collisions in a particle collider

What part can't you read you fucking retard?

>>3130937

lame troll is lame

The portion you quoted even says it does not come from vacuum itself but is induced by the energy of the collision.

You fail hard.

>>3130937

Look, i'll explain it to you one more time:

Putting a fuckton of energy into a very small space is not "particles from nothing".

You claimed the following:

nothing -> sudedenly, particles

i said:

nothing -> external energy -> particles

Now you just posted proof for my version and still claim you are the one who's right?

7/10

>>3130951
>>3130951
>>3130951
SPONTANEOULY CREATED FROM THE VACUUM!

Sure are tons of summerfags here

Why do we exist /sci/?

>>3130982

Next time try not putting things out of context:

> they combine with quarks and antiquarks spontaneously created from the vacuum to form hadrons
> they

they = free quarks or gluons that are created _by a collision_.

It is right there in the text you quoted.

> can't read
> 12yo confirmed

>>3130982

> embarass yourself
> persist persist persist either way

butthurt detected

>>3131010
Why have I never seen this picture before? Would've come in handy a few times

>>3130972
>>3131010
>>3131020
Nice trollin son. Let's shit up /sci/!

>>3131010
>>3130989
>>3130972
>>3130951
>>3130946
Summertrolls

>>3131073
protip: capitalizing sage bumps the thread summerfriend

>>3131035
>>3131073

> implying your point hasn't been refuted ages ago

Look, if you got told you better admit it. This way you just embarass yourself further and further.