/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3727041
Uhh..your mom?

Another random question:
How do I hack /b/?

Standard big bang theory postulates that linear time as we know it began at the moment of the big bang, thus any concept of "before" the beginning of time is undefinable by our present understanding of the universe.

There is speculation -- not hard scientific theory -- that the big bang may have come about as the result of a collision between energy states in different spatial dimensions, or is the result of a preceeding "big crunch" from a past iteration of universe.

Bogdanov's time happend

There was no time before the big bang. It was a singularity and we all know time does not exist in a singularity. We can postulate that there have been many big bangs and big crunches though.

bump

It seems idiotic to assert that the universe just sprang into existence from nothing, in an instant, for no reason.

Isn't it much more likely to assume that the universe arose from a rich history of previous causal events, rather than a single event or none at all?

>>3727164
We have no evidence by which to make such an assertion.

>>3727041

Define "before the Big Bang".

I'm serious, that term isn't defined by any currently accepted model of the physical universe. So, feel free to provide a definition so we can even know what the fuck you're talking about.

Two galactic construction workers were standing around eating their lunch, discussing how awesome this next demolition job is going to be.

>>3727182

OK, well, that's no different than creationism really.

I can't see over the horizon, therefor nothing exists beyond it.

>>3727215

But it isn't saying "NOTHING", it's saying "we don't know (yet)".

>>3727041
What is north to the north pole?

>>3727202
What happened previously before the accounts of the Big Bang. There must be something.

>>3727236
See
>>3727234

>>3727237
So a huge ass explosion that created time, space and everything else happened out of nothing....makes total sense.

Maybe if i think hard enough, 1 million dollars will pop out of nothing into my room.

>physicists in charge of circular logic

>>3727242
Things pop up from nothing all the time. It doesn't make sense but that's how it is.

>>3727215
Actually, they're completely different. The fact that you can't tell the difference is alarming.

>>3727242
If 1 million dollars were theoretical particles, then a few quantum fluctuations later and you'd be rich.

>>3727236
>There must be something.

Why?

>>3727249
>>3727249
Go on... continue.

You faggots ever read THE BIBLE!?!

>>3727263
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

>>3727236
Define what you mean by "before".
(No, this is not being fastidious)

>>3727265

I read it all the time. If you carefully examine the original Hebrew, the implication is that god formed the 'heavens and earth' from a pre-existing formless matter.

>>3727297
No, that's just how your autistic mind interprets it.

>>3727303

sorry, son. I am Officially Neurotypical. And you are no doubt reading later Christian (Platonic) Metaphysics on top of it.

Humans tend to think the universe, its explanations and origins should all be intuitive and possible to understand. They wont accept anything more complicated than 42.

The majority seem to think the universe is all for them. This ego-centric view finds it impossible to truly believe tested observations such as those in quantum physics and general relativity, for example, which seem to defy intuition.

It wasn't made for us and it can be as non-intuitive and complicated as it likes! The full description for the universe is likely to be completely unobservable and incomprehensible to relatively simple self replicating factories such as ourselves.

Our brains needed only to get us this far. Descriptive models could forever increase in complexity and accuracy for the entire future of life on this planet, yet are unlikely to fundamentally tell us what the universe is.

>>3727370
Snap. This guy's got it.