/sci/ - Science & Math

god, of course

>Science says nothing existed before the Big Bang, that time didn't exist even.
No, they're telling you that our concept of "time" doesn't even make sense "before".

What media and popsci say are not what the scientists actually say.

It is literally impossible to know. Any information predating the big bang is not observable.

>I find this answer extremely unsatisfactory, and perhaps even dogmatic. It is stuck is a very stubborn view of reality.

Completely irrelevant. The evidence suggests what it suggests, regardless of how you feel about it.

>>4680166

wow, that explains everything!

>>4680162

what's north of the north pole?
what's colder than absolute zero?
what's larger than infinite in number?

just because a question makes grammatical sense you shouldn't assume it's a sensible question.

ask yourself how the idea of separate "realms of existence" even came to you.

anyway, you can always read up on Big Bang Theory if you want to learn how questions like yours are handled. A good and recent popular science book is A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss. give it a shot.

you could go with the expand/crunch model
before the big bang there was the big crunch, and before that, a giant fucking universe, and before that, another big bang

op is a fag 2/10 would not bang/it's the best I can do/for getting me to reply/wouldn't read again

i upsets me how everyone always takes the big bang theory as a fact its a THEORY yes very possible but there's no way for us to know


quite personally i believe an alien race from higher dimensions made this universe

>>4681398

3/10 you are learning, but you need to apply yourself more.

THERE IS NO "BEFORE" THE BIG BANG

"BEFORE THE BIG BANG" ISN'T EVEN A THING

>its a THEORY (a gauss)
1/10, too obvious

>>4680162

Real science says " we do not know what is before big bang ".


Something is sure,anything that happened before the big bang could not affect what happened after.

>>4681423

No, real science says "It's an event horizon, there's no way to determine anything and even speculation is utterly pointless and irrelevant, as there's nothing to extrapolate or consider".

It is quite impossible to tell whether the cosmological singularity was spawned out of "nothing", has always existed, or presides in some other bizarre state of being.
We can merely fuck around with mathematics and ohilosiphize. There is no science to be done beyond the Planck epoch.

>Science says nothing existed before the Big Bang, that time didn't exist even.

science says no such thing. science says nothing about the moment of the big bang. science only talks about what occurred a moment after any putative big bang.

stop reading pop sci specualtion and thinking it is scientific theory

>>4681426
nope.

>>4681432

Yes, it is an event horizon.
Any data input at all is of null consequence.

>>4681427

What type of rendering of the mandelbrot fractal is this?

>>4681439
It's a slice of the 4D Julia set.

How does one determine, using universal laws and constructs, what happens outside of universal laws and constructs?

It doesn't make sense.

>>4681437
you are assuming GR is a complete theory

no one actually does this except people who are studying GR for the first time

>implying the big bang created anything

It was just an explosion. Laws of thermodynamics still apply.
>Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted

If this is true, then before the big bang, there must have been matter to exist for there to be a big bang. More than likely, the Big Bang happened more than once. We're just experiencing one point in the infinitely long timeline, the cycle of the universe's birth, death, and rebirth. An infinite has already happened. There's infinite more to come.

If it already existed forever, there's no room for time of creation, and there's no need for creation either. This does not violate the law. By saying "matter was created", you're also implying that at one point, it didn't exist. This is a very bold claim.

>>4681465

This stays true to the natural wave-like behavior we see so often in nature. The big-bang big-crunch theory holds a viable explanation to the (un)origins of the universe. However, data suggests that the universe is expanding quicker, not slowing down. Elaborate this in defence of the big-crunch hypothesis.

>>4681465
If Lawrence Krauss is right, Universe-from-nothing and all, and assuming that the Universe is a closed system; will this not violate the laws of thermodynamics? ...is this OK because the Universe is expanding and so is not considered a closed system. How does this work?

>>4681488

It is quite possible that the universe is still expanding, and that the unobservable part of the universe holds the majority of matter, which attracts the remnants of the observable universe toward its edge. In time, the matter that resides in the unobservable universe may eventually become observable as we are drawn closer to it. Eventually, this may also be when the universe collapses back into itself as it proceeds to the next big-crunch.

>>4681489

Why are you claiming that it's a universe-from-nothing and a closed universe at the same time? It'd make more sense to come to this conclusion if this was an open universe.

No, it is not okay, and it shouldn't work because from the data we have gathered, there is no way for matter to be created or destroyed. A more viable conclusion is that the universe has had many big bangs. In this hypothetical scenario, if you had a time machine that'd take you to any point in time, and you went back in time before the big bang, there'd be a big crunch before it. And before that crunch a big bang, and before that another crunch. There will be no beginning, because it goes on forever like this. There doesn't need to be a creation at all if it already existed.

Our universe was created from matter that got sucked into black holes from another universe.

Just like a universe is getting built from the matter that gets sucked into our black holes.

Universes exist in layers connected by black holes, with each universe having a larger universe above it and a smaller one below it. Except for the smallest possible universe of course, and the massive original universe from which all others were created under.

Someday humans will learn to travel to other universes, and as a way of side stepping the speed of light we'll travel to smaller universes and then come out at the point in our universe that would be impossible to reach with the distance here. Since the distance between those two points is smaller in a smaller universe.

And when the universe atrophies we'll avoid death by colonizing another universe. And so on, and so on.

>>4681562
>Modern day religious thought