/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15351909]

Explain to me, in simple terms, how there can be a big explosion of matter before there was even a universe and matter didn't exist? How can -nothing- explode?

[Anonymous No.15351916]

>>15351909
Nobody claims to know there was "literal nothing" nor that it makes sense to assume a literal nothing. Nor is it an explosion. Maybe read a middle school explanation of the big bang before asking stupid questions.
>buht muh cosmologist said
They don't mean a literal nothing either dipshit

[Anonymous No.15351935]

>>15351909
The big bang isn't an explosion, it was the rapid 'expansion' of the universe from a very dense state (an initially infinitely dense state according to GR). According to GR, the time coordinate ends at the initial spacetime singularity, since all spacetime trajectories converge on it, you can think off it was being the north pole of a globe - it makes no sense to speak of something being north of it, in the same way something cannot exist b4 the big bang. However, we know GR isn't the full picture since at those distances quantum mechanics becomes relevant, so we don't know what happens before ~10^-43s after the big bang.

[Anonymous No.15351944]

>>15351909 (OP)
The big bang isn't an explosion, it was the rapid 'expansion' of the universe from a very dense state (an initially infinitely dense state according to GR). According to GR, the time coordinate ends at the initial spacetime singularity, since all spacetime trajectories converge on it, you can think of it as being the north pole of a globe - it makes no sense to speak of something being north of it, in the same way something cannot exist b4 the big bang. However, we know GR isn't the full picture since at those distances quantum mechanics becomes relevant, so we don't know what happens before ~10^-43s after the big bang.

[Anonymous No.15351947]

>>15351909
It can't. It's giant unscientific bullshit that produces 0 falsifiable predictions, and violates commonly accepted principles (thermodynamics).

>Peny show bobs and vajayjay
>Botswana!!!!!

[Anonymous No.15351959]

>>15351909
The idea that there was "nothing" is a scientific simplification because there is no way to know what was there before.
We know all known galaxies originate from the same point and thus mattter probably "exploded" from that one point. Wether matter was already there in extremely, INSANELY high density, or there was latent energy that turned into matter, is complete fanfiction and theory as we have no way to verify any of the various explanations we come up with. Religious physicists will even conclude in that point of space a "god" created the universe, but once again we are looking at completely unverifiable claims.

[Anonymous No.15351974]

>>15351959
>as we have no way to verify any of the various explanations we come up with
Yes we will, stuff occurring at those short distances scale up to the large structure of the universe. The problem is to model the universe near the big bang would require a complete theory of quantum gravity which we don't have.

[Anonymous No.15351984]

>>15351974
>we will
But for now we don't, which is my point. I can't explain to anon in simple terms something we can't explain yet.

[Anonymous No.15352001]

>>15351959
>Wether matter was already there in extremely, INSANELY high density, or there was latent energy that turned into matter, is complete fanfiction and theory as we have no way to verify any of the various explanations we come up with
What do you think the CMB is, retard?

[Anonymous No.15352007]

>>15351909
> Explain to me, in simple terms
All fake guy. Pure hallucinations of people that want to fill you with vomit made from the asslicking of power.
Class warfare too, they hold you dumb, confuses and plunder you.
Last utterly expensive telescope is named after an administrative employee, because that are the people best in gaining tax money. They do not even hide their subhuman behavior. Repeating the lie is mandatory too, that's why bringing up that same dumb story ever and ever and ever.

[Anonymous No.15352019]

None of the current theories says there was nothing. At least you need space. The closest idea is that the total energy of the universe is exactly 0, which makes a lot of sense because where would that energy come from and creating a universe which doesn't require injecting external energy is less work. This is even true if we exist in some sort of black or outside a white hole. That just pushes the problem one layer up.
>>15351959
God is just a placeholder for what we don't understand but can clearly see (stuff exists). It's similar to dark matter in that regard.

[Anonymous No.15352023]

>>15352001
I don't get your point honestly, just because CMB is a thing supporting the latent energy theory thing doesn't mean there could not possibly be matter before the big bang.

[Anonymous No.15352040]

>>15352023
You don't get my point because you're a dumb retard who has no idea what he's talking about. This thread will clearly be overpopulated by schizos like you, so I'm no longer posting here.

[Anonymous No.15352044]

>>15352040
Well? then explain it in simple terms like OP asked? I never said I'm an expert in the matter, and I am accused to be a schizo just because I said I don't get your point?
If anyone here is a schizo it's you.

[Anonymous No.15352983]

>>15351909
>Big Bang explosion of matter

Wtf are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.15354069]

>>15352019
>God is just a placeholder
and a completely pointless one
if god exists, then he has to exist, since he couldn't create himself if the opposite was true
ofc you can avoid this by assuming that we're living in is a subset of reality, but again, we haven't found any proof for that too

[Anonymous No.15354124]

>>15351947
problem is, even putting aside that Big Bang doesn't actually posit that anything came out of nothing, is that the only two underlying fundamental possibilities both violate thermodynamics
either
>something came from nothing
or
>something always has existed and always will
both violate thermodynamics, so clearly there's something very fundamental left out of classical thermodynamics
in fact, we know that vacuum fluctuations violate conservation of energy, so we can already start to see where we're going wrong

[Jealous No.15354138]

Vacuum fluctuations.

[Anonymous No.15354145]

>>15354069
God is whatever mechanism it is that makes it possible for anything at all to exist.
>if god exists, then he has to exist, since he couldn't create himself if the opposite was true
So? I'm not claiming god is all powerful. It's probably impossible to say how powerful god is but evidently at least powerful enough to create an environment that is able to spawn our universe and even that might not have been willingly if such a thing as will even applies to him or rather to it.

[Anonymous No.15354151]

>>15354145
that's a total misuse of the term "God", because that word has very clear connotations to some personal creator deity (which is total nonsense), rather than some eternal principle
I suggest you stop misusing the term "God" in this manner and instead employ terms that literally mean exactly what you are trying to convey, such as "Tao", "sanatana dharma", "natural law", "physics", and so on

[Anonymous No.15354155]

>>15352019
>God is just a placeholder
"God of the gaps" term was invented by Christians themselves. They themselves thought that everything is God, not just gaps.

[Anonymous No.15354156]

>>15354151
This isn't the middle ages anymore, grandpa.

[Anonymous No.15354159]

>>15354156
that's what I'm telling you, since you're clinging to terms with connotations that we know to be total nonsense with zero basis in reality

[Anonymous No.15354160]

This Universe was created by Rick to power his vehicle. He's not omnipotent, not omnipresent, and not omniscient.

[Anonymous No.15354162]

>>15354155
Strawman argument. I'm not saying thunder is Zeus. This is a gap that science can't and never will be able to explain away because it lies outside physics.
>>15354159
Not all gods are created equal. This kind of thinking is nothing new and has been around for ages.

[Anonymous No.15354164]

>>15354162
We're gods, from perspective of cavemen

[Anonymous No.15354178]

>>15354138
*Tunneling events, which allow for spontaneous pair-production at the cost of field energy (ie Schwinger effect)

[Anonymous No.15354179]

>>15354164
Sure, but we're not. We didn't create our own universe to live in. Or if we somehow actually did that (ideas like this exist), then yes, I guess that would make us gods.

[Anonymous No.15354184]

>>15351909
If there was nothing
what stopped something from appearing?

[Anonymous No.15354188]

>>15354162
again, it's the term "God" itself which is fallacious, so it doesn't matter how "many" you posit of that nonsense
your kind of thinking is indeed nothing new, just wrong

[Anonymous No.15354190]

>>15354188
OK, chirstcuck.

[Anonymous No.15354215]

>>15354190
I'm literally explaining how there's no such thing as "God", you retarded moron

[Anonymous No.15354219]

>>15351944
>expansion faster than the speed of light
>not an explosion

[Anonymous No.15354222]

>>15354215
You're not even arguing against my points. You're just arguing definitions.
>hurr it's not like christian god so it's not god

[Anonymous No.15354228]

>>15354222
I never claimed to be arguing against your points, I explicitly pointed out that you're misusing the term "God" to mean something entirely different
it has nothing to do with the "God" of any specific religion, but what "God" itself denotes, which is a personal creator deity, be that the one or ones of Mudslimes, Christfaggots, Kikeniggers, or Poos

[Anonymous No.15354233]

>>15354219
In some ways it's actually more like implosion. The big bang is all around us.
>>15354228
So what would you call that which made the creation of our universe possible, whatever it is? It's not physics.

[Anonymous No.15354235]

>>15354233
>So what would you call that which made the creation of our universe possible, whatever it is?
I already gave you a number of possible terms to use, but there are many more to refer to the underlying principle
>It's not physics.
yes, "physics" is absolutely one of those terms, being derived from Greek "phusis", meaning "appearance" or "growth"
even in contemporary usage, the "laws of physics" literally refer to those underlying principles that cause reality, but that doesn't make it mutually exclusive with other traditions referring to it in other ways and by other terms

[Anonymous No.15354244]

>>15354235
>the "laws of physics" literally refer to those underlying principles that cause reality
No physicist would say something like that. Physics is an approximate description of reality, it doesn't explain what makes physics reality.

[Anonymous No.15354249]

>>15351944
>muh northern than north meme
That analogy is used to explain the Hartle-Hawking state, anon. It's a Wick rotation. The standard big bang does have a t=0 and mathematically it makes sense just fine to go before it, it's just that it's unphysical.

[Anonymous No.15354250]

>>15351909
It most likely didn't. There's a very high probability that there's an error in some physics formula somewhere, that doesn't manifest with shorter time scales, but on longer ones, it leads to 0/inf limit or something like that.

[Anonymous No.15354253]

>>15351909
Matter wasn't created at the time of the bang though, for the first few hundred million of years there was only hydrogen. Which then formed the stars and then a few more millions of years later all of the matter was created.

[Anonymous No.15354255]

>>15354244
not true at all
of course most physicists agree that the most fundamental principles have not yet been discovered, but the ultimate goal of physics is to find the deepest source of reality itself, rather than just an incomplete description
this is why people like Aristotle, after whose terminology we name many such disciplines, didn't make any sharp distinction between metaphysics and science at all

[Anonymous No.15354259]

>>15354244
>what makes physics reality.
What a stupid thing to say.

[Anonymous No.15354275]

>>15354255
I'm not talking about equations. By themselves equations are just that. Even if it's a correct one that describes everything perfectly.
>>15354259
Why? Equations don't suddenly spring to life.

[Anonymous No.15354280]

>>15354275
what the fundamental principle(s) might be, we don't know yet, the point is that discovering this principle is the ultimate goal of physics, not descriptions or equations

[Anonymous No.15354282]

>>15354275
>Equations don't suddenly spring to life.
What are you babbling about? Also, that Heisenberg quote is fake and the fact that you posted a fake quote confirms that you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.15354283]

>>15354249
I do admit my analogy was rough, but spacetime singularities can't be extended, in a Schwarzschild blackhole, coordinate time intervals approach zero as r->0, which means coordinate time ends at the singularity.

[Anonymous No.15354287]

>>15354275
>>15354280
also, that's known to be a fake quote, so you should really start double-checking these things, just as you should start to investigate the terms you are misusing, like "God"
>The journalist Eike Christian Hirsch PhD, a personal acquaintance of Heisenberg, whom he interviewed for his 1981 book Expedition in die Glaubenswelt, claimed in de.wikiquote.org on 22 June 2015, that the content and style of the quote was completely foreign to Heisenberg's convictions and the way he used to express himself, and that Heisenberg's children, Dr. Maria Hirsch and Prof. Dr. Martin Heisenberg, did not recognize their father in this quote.

[Anonymous No.15354321]

>>15354282
Ok, then this one. Source is: https://archive.org/details/briefhistoryofti0000hawk_e8i9/
Page 190.

[Anonymous No.15354333]

>>15354321
What's your point? Are you just googling quotes by scientists which include the word "god"?

[bodhi No.15354345]

>>15354215
You arent explaining anything, you are an ignorant fool sperging out

[Anonymous No.15354346]

>>15354321
Actually, since you're just posting random quotes, let me do that too
>Hawking spoke more plainly about his thoughts on God in an interview with Spanish publication El Mundo.
>“Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation,” he said. “What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”

[Anonymous No.15354382]

>>15354333
The point is most physicists have unconventional understanding of what they mean by god but they don't deny it. I'll admit that quote was a bad choice.
>>15354346
Picrel. Source: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11722-stephen-hawking-prepares-for-weightless-flight/

[Anonymous No.15354406]

>>15354382
Any good scientists would strictly be agnostic.

[Anonymous No.15354413]

>>15354382
He's not saying he believes in god in your quote, he's saying that he believes the universe is governed by laws. As you can see from the quote I posted, hawking is an atheist in the correct meaning of the term.

[Anonymous No.15354421]

Why do you autists even care what Hawking's religious views are? This is /sci/ ffs.

[Anonymous No.15354433]

>>15354406
Agnostic with regard to a specific definition of what god is like. If you say the universe just exists with no external cause you're basically a pantheist. That by itself doesn't make you religious. Spinoza himself was burned for promoting atheism.
>>15354413
>the laws may have been decreed by god

[Anonymous No.15354435]

>>15354421
He started posting fake quotes or quotes out of context and such things should be pointed out/corrected especially because this is a science board. It's not about caring what Hawking believed.

[Anonymous No.15354457]

>>15354433
>the laws may have been decreed by god
He's entertaining a possibility for the sake of making a point. For example, if I say "you may not be retarded but your posts look retarded", it doesn't mean I think you're not retarded.

[Anonymous No.15354468]

>>15354457
If that really were how he meant it he wouldn't have said "not religious in the normal sense".

[Anonymous No.15354469]

>>15354233
>In some ways it's actually more like implosion. The big bang is all around us.
Thank you, science man.

[Anonymous No.15354482]

>>15354253
Hydrogen is matter. Quarks are matter. There was matter (and antimatter) very soon (microseconds) after the BB.

[Anonymous No.15354496]

It is just a way of lying to people so they think they are a grain of sand in time. 13 bajillion years already passed why would anything good happen for you? You are a pebble in time. Lame ass shit.

[Anonymous No.15354500]

>>15351909
The Big Bang was theorized by a catholic priest, of course it's a retarded concept that needs religious-tier beliefs to make sense

We know jack shit about what happened that long ago, stop trying to make sense of schizophrenia

[Anonymous No.15354552]

>>15351909
If you got an hour to spare for the subject:
https://youtu.be/7ImvlS8PLIo

[Anonymous No.15354588]

>>15354552
That illustration at about 10 minutes about the expanding universe should be more popular