/sci/ - Science & Math

cause the big bang

>>3653751
because this

my uneducated guess is Level IV Multiverse (every mathematical structure "exists" and that's what existence really is) or something along the lines of it all being a consequence of patterns within the rules of infinite-dimensional geometry (any finite number of dimensions "existing" feels WAY too arbitrary)

There will always be something rather than nothing

>>3653751

sometimes there is nothing.
and then there is something
and then nothing again.
you're probably asking this while there is something.
I think they call that the anthropic principle.
wait until there is nothing again, and then try asking the question.

>>3653751
if there was nothing, you would't be here to ask that question.

So it's not that special.

>>3653769
What caused the big bang? Why was there a big bang instead of no bang?

>>3653784
Link to article plox

>>3653817
Why is there a multiverse?

>>3653823
Sauce?

>>3653834
Selection effect. That's not causality

>>3653840
Handwaving

>>3653751
>there something

Where do you get such a fucked up idea? why do you think there is something?

ITT: no replies

Because all the universes that amounted to nothing seized to exist, and there could be no one to ask why there was nothing.

>>3653871
There was no cause for the big bang since there was no before for there to have been a cause.

>>3653912
>Abrogating causation

>>3653877
I know, I'm a tard for asking /sci/ a legit question

>>3653751
Call the nothingverse and ask them why they don't exist, and why there's nothing rather than something.
Oh wait, that's right. Not existing makes you not exist. It's the nothing that doesn't exist, and that's why there's something instead of nothing.

>>3653916
Can't go south of the south pole.
> Abrogating cartography.

>>3653916
Yes.

are you asking for a reason or are you asking for a cause?

1 - 1 = 0

Nothing exists.

Because quantum fluctuation

>>3653926
That's not an answer and you know it

>>3653940
A reason preferably, but I'd accept even a cause.

>>3653942
>Herp
>>3653949
>Derp

>>3653930
Let's not play games here

Because our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ created the universe in 6 days. Is that what you want to hear, OP?

>>3653751
The only honest answer is
WE DON'T KNOW

>>3653871

>1) What caused the big bang

Explain why you think the big bang needs a cause? Your reasoning is highschool bullshit kid, you need to stop whining and just go read some real physics if you want to understand shit. Also, causation is meaninglesss without time kid.....DURRRR. YOUR WHOLE QUESTION IS THEREFORE FUCKING NONSENSICAL!

3) There is no multiverse

anything else?

>>3653979
>god

>>3653912
close enough

>>3653986
>He can explain why the big bang happened

Why haven't you received a Nobel prize yet, genius?

>>3653969
reason for existence is not /sci/ related i guess .. maybe, if you count mythology as a science. anyhow you should just accept that there is no intelligible reason. (actually it feels great man) it's just an aporetic question and one does permanently come to it due to this "nihil fit sine ration" law of thinking.

>>3654004

Because it's common knowledge that you can't have a cause if there's no time for that cause to exist in

>>3654013
That's fucking idiot and you know it

>>3654013
>the big bang doesn't need a cause, that's why it happened

...

>>3654004
> Why haven't you received a Nobel prize yet, genius?
Because Stephen Hawking won it when he gave that answer first.

>>3654033
>implying hawking gave it first

>>3654033
be a dear and link us to the article where Hawking explains why the big bang occurred, would you?

>>3654004
It's Fucking common knowledge bro. They teach about that shit in plenty of physics courses. Aint my fault your outta the loop.

Also, your phrasing is fucking shit. "Why big bang happened" is a meaningless fucking statement without further clarifications. 1) Cause the whole no-time issue 2) You seek an answer that can be explained a huge number of ways, you would need to claifity in what context you are refering too.

>>3653751
ITT: underage fags not understanding the why the big bang happened

LMFAO.
Please GTFO and go read some physics.

>>3654057
you can explain the big bang as much as you want. There is still no explanation for why it would occur in the first place. Or why our physical constants are what they are.

Keep trolling.

>>3654078
Someone hasn't read the bible. Retard detected.

>>3654077

>Pretending that there is a definitive answer as to why the Big Bang happened

Are you fucking retarded?

>>3653751

That is a good rhetorical question.

There isn't nothing because nothing, by definition, isn't there.

>>3653751
Because humans like dichotomy.

>It's probably nothing.

So there is no answer then?

>>3657140
see
>>3655994

you can ask why all you want but it is useless to do so. physical properties are what they are.

Feynman magnets bro

How is claiming the big bang happened, with no causation, different from a religious belief?

Why do people start from the assumption that nothing more likely than something without supporting the claim?

>>3655994
That's not an answer, and you know it

>>3657190
Because the Big Bang makes testable predictions that have come true time and again.

>>3657172
>you can ask why all you want but it is useless to do so

Having a mind that wonders about the cause of physical phenomena is useless?

>>3657210
>Deist detected

>>3657209
That proves the big bang is a good theory, but believing it 'just happened' is different from religion how, exactly?

>>3657214
filename related

Why would you believe nothing should exist instead of something?
You believe that because you are used to the conservation of energy applying to everything. Matter and energy cannot flash into existence because that would violate the conservation of energy. However, the law of conservation of energy is a "something". Any such limitation on what is possible is "something". Therefore, a law prohibiting the existence of "everything" would be self-contradictory because it itself would be "something".

Sometimes I try and think about what it would be like if there was nothing. It's so hard. I try to just conceive of nothing ever existing, but in the back of my head I still would be thinking "but then there would be existance also" or something to the effect that I don't fully accept the concept of nothing ever existing ever. It's a really weird sort of experience to try and fight back that feeling of rejection of the imagining of this "reality", if it can be called that. I try to imagine, then catch my self not fully accepting, then imagine harder that there really is nothing; that existence itself doesn't exist. And I try again, and again, and again. Maybe our brains just can't handle that concept, but it's interesting to think about nonetheless.

>>3657226
The big bang never happened. Since there was no "before" the big bang, there could have been no cause, thus it never happened.

None of you saw this video? You should all watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

>>3657250
Then what did happen?

>>3653751
Because even utter nothingness is still a something.

>>3657250

the inflaton field doesn't require space or time to exist, a quantum fluctuation on that could have started the big bang

>>3657388
I have seen the video already and could someone explain to me how a universe can be created or how a big bang can be caused by virtual particals appearing and disappearing

I think it's a bit premature and pretentious to say we do know what's going on, when our intellect is barely above monkeys' and other primates. We're totally retarded and we don't know what's going on, and we can't know until we achieve transhumanism. You all seem to assume we have the capabilities to grasp things like that, even if it has an answer. That it can even be put into words. But we evolved to survive, all we know is counting stuff and farming crops, we are primitive and one-dimensional. Our vocabulary and minds is focused on survival and day-to-day stuff. We're like ants.

>>3658946
inflaton field
if it happens to fall, the potential energy is converted into energy energy which spews out space and time
just think of a graph with a steady line, a little bump then it plummets down into a troff
a quantum fluctuation pushed the field past that little bump and as is the nature of potentials the field starts to drop to the troff, this in turn pushes out energy creating the universe

this makes a very dense region of space
then fluctuations in that region of space cause some patches to cool quicker than other patches which leads to clumps of solid matter to form, which clusted together via the various forces working on them

Well if you look at the tendency for things that exist to want to continue existing, its fairly easy to assume that everything, like the individual things, wanted to exist. So it did.

>>3658987
wrong, we have maths
maths is a tool that allows us to derive these things you say we cannot known from things we do know
we may not be able to write it in words without being misleading but you can write it in maths

also, a lot is already known about the big bang, speciffically what is possible and what isn't it's just a matter of whittling it down to the point where we only have one option left

>>3659004
maths is man made assumptions. it says almost nothing.

>>3659007
yet it is completely consistent with reality
it allows us to prove truths within or without reality

>>3659013
>>3659013
> completely consistent with reality
Gödel would like to have a word with you.

>>3659003
Things want to exist because of natural selection.
'Everything' is unique, and thus not the result of an evolutionary process.

>>3659013
> it allows us to prove truths within or without reality
No. It allows us to derive conclusions (that may be correct or incorrect) based on a few statements that we must first consider without proof.

>>3659029
godel has nothing to do with it's consistency with nature
>>3659034
these facts we accept without proof are verified by the results of experiments

>>3659028
>Things want to exist because of natural selection
There is no way that statement can be anything other than an assumption. Did you witness the suicidal things that strove to kill themselves off leaving only the ones that like being left?

No, it is an inherent property of things to want to exist. Not just things we call alive either. Stars exist because they want to keep on exploding. Planets want light. Gravity is just the expression of that longing.

The greeks were right, things fall because they long to be with the earth.

>>3659046

Mathematics is INCOMPLETE. or we can settle it with dueling pistols

>>3659046
> these facts we accept without proof are verified by the results of experiments

> The axiom of infinity is one of the axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. It guarantees the existence of at least one infinite set.

> The axiom of constructibility is a possible axiom for set theory in mathematics that asserts that every set is constructable.

> verified by experimentation.....lol

>>3659061
yet again, I said consistecy with NATURE

>>3659071
Yeah, I didn't forget that you said that.

Verify an axiom with nature for me, using experiment.

>>3659072
go look up axiomatic foundations of classical mechanics or quantum mechanics yourself

>>3659096
> math
not
> mechanics

>>3659096
when did I say anything about veifiying axioms of pure math?
since when is pure maths nature?

You: > maths is a tool that allows us to derive these things you say we cannot known from things we do know

> maths is man made assumptions. it says almost nothing.

You: > yet it is completely consistent with reality it allows us to prove truths within or without reality

> It allows us to derive conclusions based on a few statements that we must first consider without proof.

You: > these facts we accept without proof are verified by the results of experiments

<span class="math">\raise{40ex}{\;}[/spoiler]

MATHS AXIOMS WITHOUT PROOF DEMONSTRATED BY EXPERIMENT NOW OR YOU FAIL SIR.

Everything has it's anti-everything thus there is nothing.

>>3659129
[citation needed]

>>3659122
sry, the use of maths to model nature
the maths we use to model nature is indeed consistent with nature, the axioms of classical and quantum mechanics can be verified by experimentation and prediction, which they have been, regardless of the axioms of mathematics that cannot be proven via nature

>>3659147
I'm okay with this.

wat

Think of it this way, there's stuff that doesn't exist not asking the question you are asking.

It's a quite pointless question and very hard to answer. (not as in explain, rather change your mindset)

>>3653871
>That's not causality
it wasn't suggested that it was causality
someone wants to pick a fight

Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXliM19h6YI

Then watch its follow up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ8rd7AkMmY

GO DO IT

They're an hour each but really good.