/sci/ - Science & Math

other dimensions obviously

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

They're constantly happening everywhere, probably.

What he's talking about is one of these virtual particles remaining in existence, something unlikely beyond comprehension.

Quantum vacuum.

>>3869614
But that would mean that the universe was indeed created out of something and certainly not out of nothing. What am I missing here?

>>3869626

Only idiots say the Big Bang came from "nothing". The Big Bang came from a singularity, something we couldn't quantify (yet) if we WANTED to.

Current theories can't explain singularities, and how the matter came into existence. We do know that a large explosion throwing matter in all directions happened though.

>2011
>still believing in scientific theories

hahahahaha fucking retards

>>3869744
>2011
>being 12

>>3869754
I think there are a lot people born in 1999.

>>3869754
>still on /sci/

>>3869744
>>3869754
>2011
>not believing in the machine goddess

>2011
>ruining a completely legit science related thread

>>3869608
Did you even bother to watch the whole thing or did you just read the title?
He says nothing isn't really nothing anymore because of the quantum fluctuations.

>>3869646

>We do know that a large explosion throwing matter in all directions happened though.

Good fuck.

It is not a goddamn EXPLOSION. It is an EXPANSION OF SPACE.

Explosions are chemical reactions that impart kinetic force.

The Big Bang was SPACE ITSELF expanding.

>>3869781
Yes, but he explicitly states that a flat universe is the only universe that could start from nothing. I get the metaphor though, but doesn't it still mean that something created something?

>>3869791
we live in a flat universe, and no it doesn't imply something created anything it implies quantum fluctuations can create a universe from "nothing".

it's quite obvious this universe was carefully designed by a superior being.

>>3869803

>>3869811
Good no one said reality had to be how you thought it was.

I actually find it intuitive that the universe is random and completely senseless to some extent at its fundamental level.
What i don't find intuitive is why certain rules appear like the conservation of energy and the fundamental forces.

>>3869819
Because only in such a universe can life (as we know it) arise, so if it wasn't so you wouldn't be here so you wouldn't be able to find it strange if that makes sense. Might not satisfy you as an answer but it's just how it is science isn't very good at why questions because you can always ask why's that well why is that well why is that etc.. etc.. on and on at some point you just have to accept it's like that because.

>a universe out of nothing. So the next logical question is, where do these fluctuations come from?
No. The next logical question is, can we create universes and harness the energy?

Please smash this idea. Don't worry about me, my hopes are really low.

>>3869636
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument

Krauss doesn't say we came from nothing. It's just a play on the typical creationist retard going on about how atheists say the big bang came from nothing. Quantum fluctuations can explain something popping out of nowhere, but of course it's not really nowhere. That would be silly.

>>3869791
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Part-whole_theory

>>3869819
It would be so much easier if we had like, 3 or 4 different universes we could look at. Whether or not they all acted the same way ours does would answer a lot of questions.

Infinity
Try and wrap your head around that.

>>3869906
To add to this post, maybe life and the universe is just an infinite repeating fractal, with scales that mimic each other, like this picture.

>>3869906

It's not any more complicated to accept than zero.

>>3869915

Except the universe looks nothing like that abstraction

>>3869915
the universe is a mind?

>>3869917
I can visualize 0 apples, but I find it hard to visualize ∞ apples.

in b4 ∞ is not a number

>>3869964

>I can visualize 0 apples

How about a negative one apple.

Numbers are not apples, numbers are numbers. Zero has nothing to do with apples, and we're not talking about zero apples.

You can't grasp infinity and/because you haven't grasped zero.

>>3869967
a) You're wrong
b) Why are you saging?

>>3869967
I my neighbour has two apples and he give one to me, then he has 2 minus 1 apples. However, if he has two apples and gives three apples to me, then he has -1 apples, and it sounds ridiculous in the real world but mathematically it is correct.

>>3869967
How am I supposed to grasp any number if I can't assign it an object like an apple?

>>3869608
quantum fields don't require any spatial or temporal dimentions to exist, they also don't need to have been created

>>3869990

Realizing mathematics is abstraction.

>>3869976

Because I don't want to be in this thread anymore.

>>3869976
>thinks numbers are apples

>>3869608
Stop.. Vacum space is nothing... Therefor it has no properties..-" Tesla". And HE will be right once again

>>3869994
[sarcasm]Look, I'm only a human[/sarcasm]

>>3869608
lawrence krauss is so fucking hot. fapping.

>>3869766
>32011
>techheresy

>>3869917
Lol keep feeding that ego, I'm sure it's doing wonders for your life.
But seriously, trying to grasp the concept of infinity is impossible.
>>3869924
Except that it very well could if you look at it at the right scale.
>>3869930
No. Well, maybe.
But what I'm throwing out there is that it's possible that the scale of everything is similar at different levels, like fractals, and there's an infinite scale that you can go up to look at, or go down to look at.
Take the Fibonacci spiral for example.
If you're existing at the scale of #5 on the spiral, and you try to examine #144, it's going to look a lot different and seem to work differently, like us looking at the universe.
But in reality, the Fibonacci spiral is the same the entire way, no matter what scale you examine.
But hey, I'm just throwing this idea out there, not claiming that I know everything.

I got to meet Lawrence kraus once.

Makes me so happy.

OP you could just email him if you want and ask.

>>3869994
A field in physics is a function of position and time. Quantum field theory doesn't change that; it just turns the fields into operators. Without space and time, there are no quantum fields.

>>3870053
seriously krauss is the ugliest academic I have ever seen, and I've seen him irl. The Horror!

>>3871639

What?

No!

Look at that handsome man!

>>3869608
i guess from the uncertainty principle

>>3871642
no he's got all these holes on his face... it's like looking at leprosy

>>3871649

Id admit, hes got a crevassey face. Isnt something unattractive though.

>>3871639

absolutely not you fucking faggot, i went to his office last week to talk to him and he is not ugly, i assure you

>>3871676
>>3871639

Do you guys go to ASU like me?

>>3871649
acne scars

>>3871679

ok next time you see him tell him how ugly i think he is
and no I don't go to ASU, I saw him when he was visiting my uni