/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10617815]

So we all agree that our universe was born of a black hole and that every black hole from another universe, right?

[Anonymous No.10617852]

>>10617815
>cosmology thread
Into the trash it goes

[Anonymous No.10617860]

No, we don't all agree on that

[Anonymous No.10617873]

San someone explain the expansion to me in simple English, please?
I came to understand that the space is expanding everywhere in all directions, not linearly that's why the expansion rate actually accumulates with increasing distance, but is it just empty space between gravity bound structures, or absolutely every cubic unit of volume - including the space between your constituent particles?

[Anonymous No.10617879]

>>10617860
let me guess you're a poltard christfag

[Anonymous No.10617898]

No. It could also result from the splitting of quark pairs by dark energy which produces unlimited quark pairs rapidly in what we would consider a "big bang". In a big-rip scenario. It could also be that dark energy isn't strong enough and thus over time gravity takes over forming a cycle of expansion and contraction over and over again.

But in reality the most likely explanation is that the big bang is just a function of basic thermodynamics and finding a way to maximize entropy which led to the end of the previous era into the start of the big bang era.

As far as we know every law of physics is inherently derived from thermodynamics and even time and space itself is just a function of entropy maximizing itself.

our big bang being a black hole of another universe becomes less and less likely as each consecutive universe would have considerable less mass-energy than its parent universe.

We have 4*10^69 J total mass-energy in our current universe. Quark-pair separation could generate this same amount every time dark energy separated them allowing unlimited "universe within universe" generation.

However the black hole universe would have orders of magnitude less energy every layer. Do the universe above ours would have 4*10^80 J and the universe on the other side of our black hole would have 4*10^40 then 4*10^10 etc until it becomes unviable. This makes the black hole=start of another universe theory extremely unlikely

[Anonymous No.10617905]

>>10617898
> could also result from the splitting of quark pairs by dark energy
[citation needed]
> As far as we know every law of physics is inherently derived from thermodynamics
wat?
> even time and space itself is just a function of entropy maximizing itself.
wat??

[Anonymous No.10617929]

>>10617905
>could also result from the splitting of quark pairs by dark energy
By you not knowing about this I assume you don't know how quarks work in general. Basically we can never split quarks. If you try to split quarks the energy put into it will be high enough to instead create more quark pairs so you end up with 2 quark pairs if you try to split one up (as seen in my picture). In the big rip scenario dark energy becomes so powerful that is slowly rips everything apart. First galaxies, then the solar system, then the planet, then your body, then your atoms, Then eventually quark pairs. However when a quark pair splits it immediately produces more quark pairs which would result in a big bang like phenomenon
>even time and space itself is just a function of entropy maximizing itself.
Quote from Feynman [Sic]: "The only difference between t=1 and t=2 on a universal scale is that the total entropy has increased, therefor you can define time in terms of entropy, time is merely a function of entropy".
>even time and space itself is just a function of entropy maximizing itself.
Every force in the universe only acts in a way that maximizes entropy. Entropy is the "motive" for the universe to do anything at all. Therefor you could express every force in the universe in thermodynamics. This points towards the big bang happening purely for thermodynamical reasons and not because of some outside force. However we can't really say for sure of course since all data from that time has been scrambled meaning we have 0 data from before the big bang. However by the behavior of thermodynamics and especially entropy it gives a very big hint towards the big bang not being fueled by some outside force/universe or any of that.

[darkwalt No.10617947]

>>10617929
duede. i like your creativity, but you think too solitary, too religious, even unknowingly, when picturing the time at the big bang.

I picture it as forces moving for a long time, becoming distant from a former universe, and then causing great shapial evolution until it results in an overdriven "big bang".

Thinking, no intelligence, beyond God, exists away from or pre to the universe is stupid. The concept of species probably existed way before the big bang. Or are we thinking dumb, hopping heads that moved out of entaglement?

[Anonymous No.10617957]

>>10617947
there was more hits from the bong precluding this post, than there are grains of salt in the night sky

[Anonymous No.10617959]

>>10617929
> which would result in a big bang like phenomenon
No it wouldn't. You just made that up yourself.

> therefor you can define time in terms of entropy
You could but it's a classic case of correlation is not causation.

The rest belongs on /x/

[darkwalt No.10617967]

>>10617957
so it's right to think that before the big bang was nothing, rather than a neutral point.

Fuc off cancer

[Anonymous No.10617969]

>>10617947
I honestly can't tell if this is a troll post or not. Either way please keep it /sci/.

[darkwalt No.10617971]

>>10617959
im more intelli

[darkwalt No.10617975]

>>10617969
>>10617959
sameing on sci, this shit still happens? when i was king aeth

[darkwalt No.10617977]

>>10617975
before big bang was nuffin.

k.

[Anonymous No.10617978]

>>10617815
no

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state

Hartle and Hawking suggest that if we could travel backwards in time towards the beginning of the Universe, we would note that quite near what might otherwise have been the beginning, time gives way to space such that at first there is only space and no time. Beginnings are entities that have to do with time; because time did not exist before the Big Bang, the concept of a beginning of the Universe is meaningless. According to the Hartle–Hawking proposal, the Universe has no origin as we would understand it: the Universe was a singularity in both space and time, pre-Big Bang. Thus, the Hartle–Hawking state Universe has no beginning, but it is not the steady state Universe of Hoyle; it simply has no initial boundaries in time or space.

[darkwalt No.10617982]

>>10617978
time does not exist before big bang?

how do you know?

there can be different times.

[Anonymous No.10617983]

>>10617971
The evidence we have from your words and spelling would say otherwise.

[Anonymous No.10617985]

>>10617959
>No it wouldn't. You just made that up yourself.
It's a common theory and PBS spacetime even covered it.
>You could but it's a classic case of correlation is not causation.
Feynman meant it in a direct way that the dimension of time is always moving forwards because entropy is always increasing. There is no interpretation on my part.
>The rest belongs on /x/
Actually it's taken from grad physics lecture about forces only working where there is a difference from situation A to situation B which is what entropy causes. I've said nothing controversial I just stated why under current understanding it's most likely that the big bang is an isolated event with no outside interference due to how thermodynamics acts in our universe.

[darkwalt No.10617986]

>>10617983
nice rotary posting, didn't you say something similar every time? i suppose you're going to start saying im a bot or somethin'. This is the image of the true society degrade.

[Anonymous No.10617987]

>>10617929
energy is not globally conserved in general relativity, or alternatively, total energy remains zero

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

processes such as inflation can generate entire universes for free, and once it begins, forever

that said, you still need to respect entropy always increasing, and so even inflation must have had a beginning

[Anonymous No.10617989]

>>10617978
That's nice I'm happy for them that they came up with an idea, but in what way does some hypothetical proposal disprove the idea of the black hole universe? You do realize this is just an idea floated by two people, not anything that has been demonstrated to be true, right?

[darkwalt No.10617992]

>>10617989
you are pollution.

[Anonymous No.10617995]

>>10617815
this idea is called fecund universes, by lee smolin, a well known borderline crackpot

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes

[darkwalt No.10618004]

>>10617992
black holes creating universes is pollution of what actually happened. It's more likely different, not a black hole but, metaphorically white waves.

it's not typical to think that before the big bang was nothing, nor should it be, or any evidence point to it.

[Anonymous No.10618013]

>>10617982
Time=entropy
before big bang=one big particle
one big particle can't have entropy and thus can't have time
thus big bang=start of entropy=start of time

[darkwalt No.10618020]

>>10618013
there can be other entropies, think of the fact you can't create free energy; that's negative entropy, but there can be states in which free energy is harvested, that's another entropy.

why is it one big particle before the big bang? Isn't that oneism, solipsism?

Why is it not an other time where many particles exist? Why nothing? If you're talking about the very start of existence then it probably did not immediately big bang.

[darkwalt No.10618022]

seems irrational, how did it collect all this information; try jumping heads synrdrome.

[Anonymous No.10618023]

>>10617815
How can a black hole have its own black hole?

[Anonymous No.10618043]

At this point, is this philosophy or science?

[darkwalt No.10618046]

>>10618043
cancer

[Anonymous No.10618054]

>>10617873
please respond

[Anonymous No.10618070]

>>10617873
>>10618054
Basically there is some sort of energy (dark energy) out in the universe that increases the amount of space. Yes this space is created everywhere. Which is also why the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. It doesn't break physics because you should see it like this. When you have a cube of space there will be a cube of space "generated" next to it. This generation is happening at the speed of light but because the cubes get generated everywhere at the same time the total amount of extra space is bigger than the time it takes for the light to pass through it meaning it "expands faster than the speed of light".

The reason why your body isn't divided into many pieces is because gravity of matter keeps itself together. However at big enough distances such as between galaxies the extra space created will be big enough to eventually drive them apart.

There are three scenarios
>Dark energy gets less powerful over time
Here dark energy slowly loses its energy and eventually gravity will overpower it meaning the universe slowly collapses into itself again. Every observation so far disproves this as there is no sign of dark energy becoming less powerful
>Dark energy gets more powerful over time
Here dark energy gets more powerful over time meaning the universe will have an exponentially exponential universe. (So the square is itself squared) All matter will eventually be pulled apart as it gets stronger and stronger and breaks all gravity effects, then electromagnetic effects and then weak and strong nuclear forces. Universe would get destroyed in about 80 billion years
>Dark energy stays exactly the same over time
Here the universe expands and it will drive galaxies apart from each other but it doesn't expand fast enough to deconstruct galaxies. Most evidence points towards this being the case with a very small chance of the dark energy getting more powerful. Here we'll slowly experience the heat death of the universe.