[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.02 MB, 1417x1417, 1264468641840.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2106076 No.2106076 [Reply] [Original]

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-scientists-glimpse-universe-big.html

You religiousfags getting scared yet? Or does staying willing-fully ignorant still keep your faith strong?

>> No.2106097

>go to link
>see a theory ( a guess )

>> No.2106094

The bible said it, I believe it, that settles it.

>> No.2106102

big bang theory is so 1990's

>> No.2106117

Where did the big bang come from?

>> No.2106126

Genisis says about 7days of creation, and to be fair it happens in that order in the big bang, just not in 7 days.

>> No.2106133

>>2106117

Who says it needed to COME from anything? Why does there need to be a reality that existed before reality?

>> No.2106138

>>2106117
Well, fucking nothing.
As our current understanding of math and physics go, the universe is flat and thus shit pops out of precisely nothing and, well, bang.

>> No.2106152

>>2106117
according to the article...from the collision of multiple super massive black holes. Probably when everything in a universe collapses into a back holes eventually collide on each other and explode out as a new big bang.

>> No.2106163

>>2106126

>>Genisis says about 7days of creation, and to be fair it happens in that order in the big bang, just not in 7 days.

No it doesn't. The Genesis account claims the Earth existed before the sun, the sun before other stars, and birds before land animals.

>> No.2106167

>>2106117

>>Where did the big bang come from?

Actually a great deal is known about the big bang, and although it's fairly young as far as theories go, one candidate for the causal mechanism called "particle pair separation" leads the rest.

Here's a little thought experiment: combine 1 and -1, and you get zero, right? Likewise, if you carry out this operation in reverse, you can separate 1 and -1 out of zero. Something from nothing? Not exactly. Something and "anti-something" from nothing. Specifically, particles and their anti-particle equivalents dividing out of a state of nothingness science calls quantum potential. This has been directly observed in particle colliders and is known to happen spontaneously, a sort of quantum 'static' at the smallest scales, particle pairs splitting off from one another and then annihilating shortly after. (Better known to most as Hawking radiation).

One of the more recent experimental confirmations of the big bang, by the by, has been the discovery that the total negative gravitational energy in the universe is precisely balanced out by ordinary matter and energy. The result is that the "total energy state" of the universe works out to be zero, meaning it can easily have come from nothing without violating the law of conservation. The universe isn't a "something" that popped into existence out of "nothing" in other words, it's a state of imbalance that collapsed from a more balanced state by way of entropy.

>> No.2106168
File: 30 KB, 374x300, WTF_Random_stuff-s374x300-41591-580.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2106168

>But now, Oxford University physicist Roger Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan from the Yerevan Physics Institute in Armenia have found an effect in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) that allows them to "see through" the Big Bang into what came before.

>> No.2106174

So where did that perfectly balanced state come from? It didn't. That's nothingness. At least, the scientific understanding of it. As it turns out the philosophical/mathematical concept of nothing may not exist outside of either discipline.

And where did the space for all of it to expand into come from? Again, it didn't. The big bang didn't occur in preexisting space, nor did all 3-dimensional matter move away from a central point within 3D space. Imagine all 3D matter and energy as 2D pen dots on the surface of a balloon. As you inflate the balloon, from the perspective of any one dot, all the other dots seem to be flying away from it. But it looks the same to any other dot. Because the space they are part of is expanding from a higher dimensional point. You could forgive any one of them for mistakenly thinking they were the center of all creation, situated directly on top of the big bang's point of origin. But of course they'd be wrong.

Citations:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create
-the-Universe.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026832.100-the-free-lunch-that-made-our % 20-%20universe.html
http://www.nanogallery.info/news/?id=8735&slid=news&type=anews
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacu % 20u%20m-fluctuations.html
http://www.curtismenning.com/ZeroEnergyCalc.htm
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/matter-wins-over-antimatter-100518.html
http://www.universetoday.com/72605/hawking-god-not-needed-for-universe-to-be-created/

>> No.2106177

>>2106163
Nah, it just 'along the lines of implies' it, well it kinda came across like that to me when i read it..

heavens & earth does imply heavens first and i see heavens as universe.

>> No.2106180

>>2106126
Yeah, except if you read your bible and had scientific knowledge you'd find out that it really doesn't.

>> No.2106188

>>2106168
Basically they see the collision of super massive black holes 'before' the big bang happened. It is like reversing the state of a physical system. If you know the end state and every rule involved you can come to a reasonable hypothesis of the beginning state. If a ball is rolling towards you, you can reverse the state to see where it came from. If you have enough data you can actually reverse the state enough that you can see what happened before the ball started rolling such as if it was dropped from a height.

>> No.2106190

>>2106177

>>Nah, it just 'along the lines of implies' it, well it kinda came across like that to me when i read it.

It doesn't imply it. It states it outright. Shall we start quoting Genesis chapter 1?

>> No.2106193
File: 47 KB, 655x560, 1250308646068.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2106193

>>2106177
and let there be light could be a refrence to light taking time to travel from A to B... maybe?

>> No.2106198

>>2106167
In a cyclical model, wouldn't entropy eventually have to decrease again?

>> No.2106213

>>2106198
wait, nevermind, i am an idiot

>> No.2106562

God is the answer to all questions. All one need do is simply believe.

I don't understand what's so hard to understand...

>> No.2107015

Why do these scientists think they can extrapolate backwards through the big bang when we have no reason to believe we understand the physics of the extreme conditions of the early universe?

>> No.2107056

>implying that CMB anisotropies are not completely random.

>> No.2107114

>>2107015

Why trust one set of findings (that the laws of physics broke down in the earliest moments of the big bang) but not another set of findings (that it appears possible to peer beyond the big bang at whatever came before)?