/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7658899

Science, man. Shits crazy. Don't question it, just accept that shit

The expansion of spacetime from a singularity.

Well the big bang itself was the rapid expansion of that hot dense shit comprised of a tiny tiny point that was the universe.

The big questions are shit like "well where did that hot dense lump of shit come from", "is there something outside of that hot dense lump of shit" and "where is the remnants of that hot dense lump of shit going to end up".

If you assume that the big crunch is a likely outcome for our universe then it becomes a matter of everything being in a cycle and the universe waxes and wanes for all eternity.

That's the nature of "everything" and shit though. Was there a reason it happened? Was there something before it? Is there something outside of universe? It's really hard to grasp that there might not be an actual reason and there might no be anything on the "outside". Some shit just happens.

>>7658910
I know and it seems obvious that religious people will eventually retreat in their arguments to "why is there something rather than nothing?", which science can't answer.

However, the big bang must have had a cause.

>>7658899
The big bang is just an illusion.

>>7658913
It doesn't have to though. Again while hard to grasp, our basis for basically everything (including cause and effect) is based on the rules we take from the universe we live in.

There honestly does not have to have been anything before the big bang because if there's a "before" our universe then that's "before" the present rules of our universe and there doesn't have to be shit just because we currently live in an existence where something had to lead to something.

There doesn't have to be a cause. There probably "has" to be an end (whether it's heat death or the big crunch or whatever) because the universe is, as far as we know, obeying its own laws but even then it's a giant toss up.

>>7658899
Universe gets bigger all the time, we know from red shifted light coming from distant galaxies/stars. If its bigger everyday then wouldn't it be logical to say that if you ran time backwards it would be smaller and smaller? Maybe at one time it was infinitely small, the smallest anything could be and then began its rapid expansion from there.

The existence of the cosmic background radiation supports this theory. Its left over from when the expansion began.

>>7658899
Do you understand what a field means in terms of physics?

At every point in space-time there the field has a value, and can be graphed in 3 dimensional space. Surrounding a planet or star for example, there is a gravitational field, which at every point in space has a value pointing towards the center of mass of the object. Taken to the extreme, at every point in space there is a vector which is the sum of all gravitational potentials for all objects in the space, and it points in the resultant direction (as you move away from Earth, the vectors slowly start to point away from Earth and towards the Sun, as the Sun's gravitational field takes over)

Now, in Einsteins field equations there exists the cosmological constant, which describes the expansion of space. We say constant, but it does not need to be. The current theory of inflation says that the constant is also part of a scalar field. At a local minimum in the field, a space may tunnel to different minimum, until it eventually reaches a stable state. Inflation, which matches the data we have seen in the CMB through Planck Surveys, is the idea that in different areas of a space, the cosmological constant may have different values. The space is always expanding due to the value of the constant, where the values are high the space expands so fast that the energy is released as the no light can cross it. We live in a space where the constant rolled down a potential hill into a very very small minimum, but that is not necessarily the case for everywhere in the universe, or every universe as multiversal ideas (why the values of the scalar field are what they are, can they be different, etc) enter into theory.

The "Big Bang" is essentially a quantum tunnelling event from one minimum to another, followed by inflation which leads to the universe we see today.

>>7659052
>quantum tunnelling
>I'll use these words to pretend to know what I'm talking about
Protip: You don't.

>>7659055
Right because quantum cosmology has never been talked about before

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=inflation+quantum+tunnelling

They are linked together at this point.

>>7659055
He's descrining an instanton - a tunnelling between vacua.

>>7658899
What is a "red shift"?

I prefer the color yellow, is there any way I can shift it to this color?

>>7658903
Science demands questioning things. Go back to religion.

>>7658910
>If you assume that the big crunch is a likely outcome for our universe then it becomes a matter of everything being in a cycle and the universe waxes and wanes for all eternity.

Fuck. every time

What caused the thing that caused the big bang?

Maybe it's not turtles all the way down. Maybe we're just on self-contained one turtle.

>>7660027

People often ask what was 'before' the big bang. If time came into existence after the bang then there literally was no before because there was no time.

>>7660246

If you get drawn into that bullshit "How did something come from nothing" argument with a creationist, you only have yourself to blame when they go off on some stupid tangent that leaves you spluttering.

The correct reply is, "There was never a 'nothing' in the first place. Just a prior state we've yet to determine."

>>7658899
We don't know yet.

Big Bang doesn't describe how the Universe came into being, it only describes how it evolved from something small, dense, and hot to something big, empty, and cold.

>>7658910
>>7660118

i'm pretty sure *our* universe is just one of many simulations.

pic related

>>7660312
My favorite when the "something can't come from nothing" lone falls is to flatly deny. "How do you know? Have you ever observed nothing? What are nothing's properties?"

>>7660118
Well none of the "ends" are really anxiety free.

Big Crunch means everything is the same forever in a cycle.

Big Freeze means everything is going to be little more than nothing in an absurd amount of time at which point *maybe* we get something

Big Rip/Slurp is just "at some point everything might just fuck itself the end".

Only two "good ends" are gravity being able to counteract Big Freeze or multiverse balancing things out.