/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7968236
Science vs Religion threads are against the rules.

Properly interpreted, this thread may not qualify, but your phrasing is risky.

this is rhetorical but why does /sci/ attract the worst kinds of popsci reading pseudoscience spouting retards?

>>7968241

>Science vs Religion threads are against the rules.

Well shit. /pol/ and /x/ both redirected me here.

>>7968243
Why would a board on 4chan attract anything else?

>>7968236
My theory is that we will never understand how the universe began and thus will never solve this argument.

On a related note I personally believe that God made it this way to intentionally fuck with us. I'm not christian though.

>>7968236
>>Essentially assumes that these strings exist outside of our conceptions of space and time, and have popped into existence outside of nothing, are everywhere and are ever present.

The Higgs field has nothing to do with string theory. It is a prediction of the standard model necessary for some bosons to be massive [the same mechanism occurs when light goes into a superconductor causing the photons to acquire an effective mass].

>>7968243

>>7968236
>correct me on my mistakes
Sorry, haven't got all fucking day.

>>7968319

I'm not necessarily saying it does. The reason I bring it up at all, is because it seems to inevitably get mentioned every time I have this discussion.

>>7968327

>>7968329
Then why do you mention strings in the entirely incorrect picture of the Higgs field you present?

>>7968236
>Big Bang Theory
>Beginning of the universe
Not necessarily.

>Contains a near (if not completely) infinite amount of parallel realities.
No.

>Branes, are unfathomably large masses of energy.
Not necessarily. A brane is just a generalization of a zero dimensional point to higher dimensions. So the one dimensional brane is the string that string theory is named after.

>String Theory
>Protons, Electrons and Photons (which are made up of quarks), exist, but are disintegrated almost immediately in the “Brane-verse”
>Higgs-Field
>Essentially assumes that these strings exist outside of our conceptions of space and time, and have popped into existence outside of nothing, are everywhere and are ever present.
Where are you getting this stuff?

>What exists outside of this “Brane-verse”?
Nothing.

>Why do Branes exist?
Why does anything require a reason to exist? It just is.

>How can strings, pop into existence, in such an intense state of heat?
They don't. You seem to be conflating a great many different concepts and misrepresentations of concepts together. But I think I see the gist of what you're really trying to ask. My question to you would be, why does God exist? Who created God, etc? If you can't answer those questions then don't ask others to do the same.

>>7968236
You are asking what is beyond the frontier of our current scientific knowledge. It should be obvious that these questions cannot be tackled with science yet.

To get answers to these questions please refer to the Pope or Lawrence Krauss or >>>/reddit/.

>>7968359

Maybe I shouldn't have. Like I said, it seems to invariably get mentioned.

>>7968374
>Lawrence Krauss
fuck Krauss, he's like oh things can come out of nothing but intentionally doesn't even touch the problem that there must be a rule why particles can come from nothing why there are these specific particles and why there are particles at all.
these things are preconditions to his model. these things while not matter nor energy need to exist before a particle can come from nothing.

also, all those US anti-religious pop-science idiots can just fuck off. I mean they're a product of the US environment but still, they can just fuck off.

>>7968384
I kind of doubt Higgs Field gets brought up commonly in the "hurr durr what created the universe atheists" thread. Are you pretending to be retarded?

>>7968367
>My question to you would be, why does God exist? Who created God, etc? If you can't answer those questions then don't ask others to do the same.

I admit I can't. But, if atheists are as analytical as they claim, a somewhat plausible theory should exist for what created the state of heat (or whatever you believe predated the big bang) before the universe.

>>7968393
see>>7968391
>"oh things can come out of nothing but intentionally doesn't even touch the problem that there must be a rule why particles can come from nothing why there are these specific particles and why there are particles at all."

>>7968391
Yeah, fuck them. Being non-religious in my country was not a big deal at all before these people became popular. There was a silent understanding that older people are mostly religious and younger are mostly not. Nobody even discussed this.
But nowadays, you often see some edgy teenager trying to arrogantly convince some random elderly woman that god is a delusion. Who fucking cares.

>>7968405
I don't think atheists claim to know what, if anything, created the Big Bang. So what is the point of asking? If it's to argue that we should believe in God, then the argument fails under its own reasoning.

>>7968405
>If you are so smart, how come you don't know everything?

>>7968241
>Science vs Religion threads are against the rules.

This assumes science is inconsistent with God.

>>7968289
>My theory is that we will never understand how the universe began and thus will never solve this argument.

>>7968408
Physical rules aren't things that "exist". They are just a way of explaining what we see. The question is not why there are particles, the question is how did particles come to be. The latter is what physics answer. The former is a nonsense question. The implicit assumption here is that everything is created and everything which is created was created by an intelligence. Why do theists think this? Because it's true for everything humans create. We are simply projecting our conscious viewpoint onto an unconscious universe. What is God really but a human mind with magic powers? The findings of modern science related to our development as a species and our place in the universe at large have largely dispelled this view in my opinion. Everything that exists is as we find it, and there is no reason for it.

>>7968430
This does not assume any such thing. If you create a solid, testable theory that rigorously involves god, please go ahead and create a thread about. But that's never the case, all religion vs. science discussions are hopelessly fruitless and unscientific.

>>7968452
>all religion vs. science discussions are hopelessly fruitless and unscientific.

>>7968236
>>What exists outside of this “Brane-verse”? Why do Branes exist? Where did they come from?
>>How can strings, pop into existence, in such an intense state of heat?
>>Why/how is there an intense state of heat to begin with?
>>TL;DR Why/How do we have anything?
We don't know and, by the looks of it, neither do you.

Welcome to the club!

>>7968457
I meant only that such discussions are pointless in a scientific framework, they belong to /his/, not /sci/. I have nothing against philosophy in general.

>>7968469
>they belong to /his/, not /sci

/pol/ told me to try /x/. Then /x/, told me to consult /sci/.
Well, alright. I'll try /his/ next.

>>7968487
Don't expect a nice welcome there either. :^)