[ 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: 191 KB, 500x334, 6a00d8341bf7f753ef00e54f3412f28834-800wi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2970884 No.2970884 [Reply] [Original]

What came before the big bang. People cant honestly believe the universe just aways existed. Any decent theories out there.

>> No.2970889

dumbass
you are the cancer killing humanity industry

>> No.2970890
File: 18 KB, 500x378, 1301861809651.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2970890

"if you can deduce that god always existed, why not skip a step and say that the universe always existed as well?"

>> No.2970891

>>2970884
Just thought i'd point out that the big bang itself is just a theory

>> No.2970895
File: 47 KB, 432x600, 1298353537738.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2970895

>>2970889
Let the tears begin

>> No.2970899

>>2970890
Who said he always existed

>> No.2970904

>>2970890
implying god needed to always exist


also existence itself is a human element defined by humans.

>> No.2970907

12 year old kid already disproved that theory.

>> No.2970911

blah blah everthangs subjective and you cant prove nothing and the universe is just a paralel dimension quantum consciousness blahblahbabble

>> No.2970921

>>2970911
Basically.

>> No.2970922

>>2970911
Do you have any reason to believe in something objecyive

>> No.2970933

>>2970904
To relate to our own existence

>> No.2970945
File: 461 KB, 1600x1082, 1297986474838.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2970945

I am skeptical of everything I read. Although I don't understand the math behind it comprehensively, a lot of the theories of the origin of the universe seem to be guesswork (this sounds stupid, but hopefully many will understand).

For all we know, when (if) we find a unifying theory that governs the universe everything we now know will become obsolete.

>> No.2970949

>>2970945
Math is never going to become obsolete

>> No.2970950

Our modern understanding of Physics doesn't hold at the Big Bang, or inside singularities. So, we don't know.

>> No.2970954

if there had been a bigger bang before the big bang it would not really have been a big bang
but because all bangs come from somewhere we must deduce that before a big bang there was a little bang

>> No.2970963

>>2970954
So itw like a trickle down bang

>> No.2970966

It doesn't make sense to ask what came before the big bang, since time itself was created as a result of big bang.

>> No.2970968

hey OP, define "nothing"
mfw you can't

>> No.2970972

>>2970966
>The big bang caused the big bang.
I swear this is the stupidest thing i have heard all day.

>> No.2970974

>>2970972

Then stop talking to yourself.

>> No.2970976
File: 228 KB, 800x1000, 1298687918824.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2970976

I was mainly referring to current theories like general relativity and quantum mechanics and the conflicting problems that arise.

>> No.2970977

Normal things like cause and effect don't necessarily hold at the beginning of the universe, so asking what caused the big bang doesn't make sense. It's like asking what's north of the North Pole.

>> No.2970979

>>2970972

Nothing caused the big bang. Causation is a product of time.

>> No.2970986

>>2970976

Well, quantum flucation as a theory of "something emerging out of nothingness" is bullshit.

>> No.2970987

>>2970986
Quantum physics is bullshit.

>> No.2970988

>>2970977
Normal things like cause and effect don't necessarily hold at the creation of the universe, so asking what caused god doesn't make sense. It's like asking what's north of the North Pole.


Fixed your post.

>> No.2970989

>What came before the big bang
>before
Found your problem
There is no "before" because time is property of the universe

>> No.2970990

>>2970966
I don't think you understand how the space time continuum works. Time always existed but it was frozen would be the simplest way to put it.
You also missed the point of the question. The big bang is a reaction. Where did the reactants come from. Do you believe it was always there.

>> No.2970995

>>2970989
>he doesn't know about relativity

>> No.2970997

The universe can be self contained. To put it simply human common sense /= the fundamental laws governing the universe. To say that we understand how the universe works is to LIE. We have rough working frameworks which are constantly being edited to meet new observations. There are many evidences for a self contained universe so yes, people DO honestly believe that. If you can't consider that possibility (even to disagree) then you are uneducated.

>> No.2970998

>>2970988
You do understand that you just implied that time is circular. If that's not what you meant its a poor analogy

>> No.2971001

>>2970990

People should know what words mean before they use them. If the big bang was a singularity and the start of the universe, as everyone seems to be assuming, time must have started at that point. Now what does 'always' mean? 'since the start of time until the present'. So yes, the universe existed since the start of time.

>> No.2971003
File: 4 KB, 126x103, trollface.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2971003

>>2970998

maximum trolling

>> No.2971004

>>2970997
So you honestly believe the universe was always there. I do not believe you can believe this and call yourself educated.

>> No.2971006

>>2971001
What started time?

>> No.2971007

>>2970989
>>2970979
>>2970988
>>2970977
nope.jpg
thats unsatisfactory

There are actually decent (by decent i mean at least self-consistent) theories about this.
Big Bounce is the most popular one.

Membrane collision from superstring theory also there

I watched a doco where Roger Penrose outlined his theory. It was something like a big bang happens within a big bang or something. I don't really understand him but it sounds ok.

I'll look for the doco and give you an url

>> No.2971008

>>2971003
He compared time to a sphere. How am I trolling.

>> No.2971009

>>2971008
Are you stupid as fuck?

I took your post and changed big bang with god.

>> No.2971014

>>2971009
>It's like asking what's north of the North Pole.
The north pole is a location on a circle or sphere. That analogy can only be compared to something else circular.

>> No.2971016

>>2970884
>>2971007
http://youtu.be/61zEgztvC64
This documentary has some of the current theories about what's before the big bang

>> No.2971017

There was nothing before the big bang, it was t=0.

>> No.2971022

>>2971009
That's not my post. That also happens to be what my post was directed at.

>> No.2971024

>>2971017
so what's at t=-1?

>> No.2971026

>>2971024
There is no t<0

>> No.2971033

>>2970986
ummm, no its not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_uncertainty#Energy-time_uncertainty_principle

>> No.2971036

>>2971024
there is no time without space. There was no "before" the big bang.

>> No.2971043

>>2971036
The big bang isnt space nor did it create it. Youre trying to say that it was the first reaction but time existed before it.

>> No.2971045

>>2971026
Time is relative. there is no t=0

>> No.2971047

The question should be rephrased to "What made the big bang happen?"

>> No.2971048

>>2970884

There's an interesting mechanism Lee Smolin has suggested for solving the finetuning problem.

Ever heard of the no-hair-theorem? Black holes can be characterised by giving mass, charge and angular momentum. These are exactly the properties you can describe elementary particles with. So one might wonder in how far black holes and elementary particles differ at all.

Now the mechanism assumes that a new universe is born inside a black hole, so to speak, with slightly altered natural constants (i.e. speed of light, em-coupling constant etc.). This proposes some sort of evolution of universes, as those universes, which would be able to create many black holes would be preferred.

And that's what happened before the big bang, according to this model. Another universe had created a black hole which has born us.

>> No.2971049

Hasn't the big bang theory only been proven mathematically? Or has it even?

>> No.2971050

>>2971033

And how would that support that something with no properties have properties?

>> No.2971052

>>2971036
see>>2970990
time is one of the reactants. The big bang didnt create it.

>> No.2971053

>>2971017

> implying there's an absolute time.

>> No.2971055

>>2971033
Just thought id throw in how quantum fluctuations arent nothing.

>> No.2971056

>>2970987
>>2970986

Quantum Physics is normal.

We're just dumb.

>> No.2971057

>>2971033

I fucking hate Copenhagen interpretation by now. Makes you newfags not understand anything at all.

>> No.2971059

>>2971048
>finetuning problem
Is this some creationist shit?
Because there is no finetuning in our universe

>>2971043
Wut?
Big bang was all space and all space is from it.
That was kinda the point in it, or did you think that big bang was just big explosion that did nothing in already present universe?

>> No.2971061

Anyone who says anything other than "I don't know" needs to stop being 15 years old.

>> No.2971064

>>2971059

> Is this some creationist shit?

lol'd: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuning

>> No.2971065

>>2971061

But OP asked for decent theories. There are some out there apparently.

>> No.2971069

>>2971065

>OP asked for decent theories.

There are none. Every current theory is as viable as "God did it."

>> No.2971072

>>2971059
OH OKAY. So youre just stupid. So you believe the nothing just exploded into something.
I did possibly believe anyone could be this unesucated so i assumed you were saying that time is based on the motion of the universe.

>> No.2971073

>>2971057
explain yourself

>> No.2971074

>>2971069

Yeah, but some are more interesting than that.

One can always learn through discussion, you know?

>> No.2971078

>>2971074
The 'god did it' argument is the most interesting to me because it delves further into philosophy and uncertainty principle.

>> No.2971079

>>2970884
Energy.

>> No.2971083
File: 392 KB, 975x1210, gustave_dore_dante_mars.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2971083

>>2970890
So you don't get Pantheism

>> No.2971084

>>2971064
I think i messed it with something like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe
The basic: "Hurr if we were 1m closer to sun we would die so god did it"

But still, that solution you gave is perfectly reasonable. Other is the "If things were not like this, we wouldn't exists, so logically only situation where we exists to wonder why things are like this, is situation like this."

>> No.2971089

>>2971084
Well yeah, its makes sense. Not everyone believes in coincidences.

>> No.2971093

>>2971059
You do know that the big bang theory says that the universe is a piece of sand that exploded into the universe.

>> No.2971097

>>2971078

> implying uncertainty principle is of any meaning and not just an artifact you get by imposing the concept of waves and localized particles on quantum physics

Yes, i imply that the uncertainty principle is not there if you do not use an interpretation, or any other one apart from Copenhagen interpretation. A good one at least.

>> No.2971098

>>2971093

Big bang says the universe suddenly got really big for some reason.

>> No.2971101

>>2971098
Now you see why its still a theory.

>> No.2971102

>>2971093

> exploded

no, expanded. Big difference.

>> No.2971106

>>2971072
No
Universe was in singularity
Then it expanded and space was born.
With space there came time
"Stephen Hawking in particular has addressed a connection between time and the Big Bang. In A Brief History of Time and elsewhere, Hawking says that even if time did not begin with the Big Bang and there were another time frame before the Big Bang, no information from events then would be accessible to us, and nothing that happened then would have any effect upon the present time-frame. Upon occasion, Hawking has stated that time actually began with the Big Bang, and that questions about what happened before the Big Bang are meaningless."
From wiki
Time is a property of the universe, and only places that have time have something meaningfull as "before"
Because there is nothing before the big bang that we know about there is no time and because that there is no before.
Why big bang happened, only good answer is we don't yet know, even the best scientist don't know so there is no chance for us to know any better.

Also:
>So you believe the nothing just exploded into something.
1) It wasn't "nothing"
2) It didn't explode
So you can just cut the trolling.

>> No.2971107

>>2971101

I don't think you know what a theory is, brah :D

>> No.2971109

>>2971101
>still a theory

what does that even mean?

>> No.2971113

>>2971109
Thats its not accepted as fact.

>> No.2971115

>>2971033

> Another common misconception is that the energy-time uncertainty principle says that the conservation of energy can be temporarily violated – energy can be "borrowed" from the Universe as long as it is "returned" within a short amount of time.

>> No.2971116

>>2971101
>still a theory
What else could it be?
You don't seem to know what the word "theory" means in science
It's the best possible position to get so all ideas hope to become theories someday.
Example of theory: Theory of gravity

>> No.2971120

>>2971116
gravity has laws that spawn from it.

>> No.2971123

>>2971113

The theory of evolution, the theory of gravity are all accepted theories.

>> No.2971124

>>2971106

Be careful with the word singularity. Newfags will think you mean that everything was packed inside a point.

Also
> Then it expanded and space was born
this is not necessarily true. Who is to say time and space did not exist in the "singularity"?

>> No.2971126

>>2971113
No.
We have facts also known as observations
Then we think something that could explain those said facts.
We have facts about the big bang, we create the big bang theory to explain how things work based on those facts.

>> No.2971127

>>2971120

Natural laws aren't the same kind as logical laws; natural laws aren't necessary.

>> No.2971130

>>2971124
Stephen Hawking:
>>2971106

>> No.2971133

>>2971120
its the other way around idiot. You incorporate laws into theories, not theories into laws.

>> No.2971139

>>2971130
He also said he thought that because he felt if it didnt it would be meaningless.

>> No.2971140

>>2971139

Yeah, so basically he said "I don't know if there was a time before big bang".

Which is accurate.

>> No.2971142

>>2971123
>The theory of evolution
>accepted
getting a little ahead of yourself are you.

>> No.2971148
File: 12 KB, 256x243, 185.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2971148

>>2971142

Try leaving america for once in you life, you fucking caveman.

>> No.2971149

>>2971142
It's accepted by the people who's opinion actually matter.

>> No.2971150

>>2971140
More like he doesnt want to believe that there was but he cant deny its possibility.
Same thing, slightly different connotation

>> No.2971151

>>2971142

> implying evolution is not an accepted theory

>> No.2971153

>>2971148
What,where muslim nations have the majority.
>>2971149
>opinions
>>2971151
Im sorry, would it have been better if i didnt imply it.

>> No.2971156

>>2971149
>>2971153
It's accepted by people who actually know what the hell they are talking about.

>> No.2971158

>>2971156
Again opinions.

>> No.2971160

>>2971158
go away troll.

>> No.2971163

>>2971160
You mad my opinion>your opinion

>> No.2971164

Existence is either true or false, which is proved true by the slightest knowledge. I think, therefore I am.

The argument is not what brought about existence itself, but what brought about existence as we know it. True existence is definite, as nothing is still something, as it is the lack or anything but itself.

>> No.2971170

>>2971156
nope
it is accepted by atheists

>> No.2971176

Not quite, something must exist for there to be a lack of it.

>> No.2971180

>>2971140
This:
>>2971150
He doesn't really think that time existed "before" the big bang, but as a scientist he acknowledges the possibility.
Then he goes on and says that even if there was time before big bang it wouldn't really matter and the question is meaningless

That was my point exactly. There whole question is pointless and trolling.
Only proper answer that can be give is we don't know yet.

To the rest of you, evolution is a fact, and theory of evolution is accepted by the scientific community and majority civilized nations.

>> No.2971181

>>2971170
and biologists

>> No.2971184

>>2971180
>evolution is a fact
Getting bold in our proclamations now.

>> No.2971187

>>2971184
absolutely not. Evolution is a fact. Anyone who tells you otherwise is mistaken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

>> No.2971190

OP: check out Brane Theory

>> No.2971191

>>2971187
>wikipedia
Getting desperate now.

>> No.2971193
File: 13 KB, 386x330, troll.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2971193

>>2971191
>>2971170
>>2971163

>> No.2971196

In the beginning there were two worlds, Niflheim and Muspelheim which after millions of years collided in a big bang and hence, creation occurred.

>> No.2971197

>>2971191
You don't have any evidence that i can see.
Wikipedia is a great place for people like you to start.

>> No.2971199

>>2971170
That's why he said people who know what they're talking about.

>> No.2971200

>>2971191
lol

>> No.2971202

>>2971197
>Using wiki as legit source

>> No.2971204

>>2971202
>wikipedia usually uses legit sources

>> No.2971205

>>2971202
You know when person is trolling when he repeats the same post twice without any content.
Please provide counter evidence if you can find it.

>> No.2971207

>>2971204
>wiki
>legit

>> No.2971212

>>2971207
>>2971204
read the citations at the bottom of the page.

>> No.2971216
File: 4 KB, 190x190, 1302411027176.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2971216

>>2971212
>Not just a theory dot com
>wonders why no one takes wiki seriously

>> No.2971222

>>2971216
did you actually read that site? Theres nothing wrong with it.

>> No.2971225

>>2971004
Do you want me to give you a list. Or are you just trolling?

>> No.2971234

>>2971222
Its going to take more than a blog to be a legit source

>> No.2971242

>>2971191

> implying there aren't proper sources on the bottom of wikipedia.

>> No.2971246

>>2971234
then try checking the actual citations and not just the references.

>> No.2971247

You people are fucking pathetic and prefer to feed trolls isntead of answering OP's question or follow the discussion.