[ 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: 238 KB, 766x1024, 1340152805060.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4795727 No.4795727 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /sci/, I was talking to a PHD physics student at a party yesterday and he tried to explain spontaneous creation to me. I think I got it, but he fried my brain a little. Can you explain it and help me to understand? He said something like:

In the beginning there was nothing, except gravity... kinda; there was the potential for gravity to act upon matter if matter were there? He explained how atoms are made of quarks, and quarks are comprised of liptons/hadrons and a range of other things.

With the hadron collider and CERN, we have proven that these tiny particles behave nothing like atoms, they can be paired with each other, Communicate at faster than the speed of light, and can pop into and out of existence. One did, and when it did we had spacetime. This initial particle was going faster than the speed of light, so broke down into a mini big bang, but not THE big bang.

As quarks were being formed there was an exponential increase in the rate at which these particles were popping into existence, and any outside a certain range of the matter now in existence, would be traveling faster than light and result in another mini big bang. This is also exponential, and these mini bangs spread like a Mexican wave from the calming epicentre (roughly where we are) and are still infinitely spreading like the edge of a ripple at edge of the universe… even though there is no edge? just an infinitely expanding universe, which itself is expanding as things drift further apart?

>> No.4795731

>at a party

Get the fuck out.

>> No.4795738

>>4795731
Sorry. Don't you guys enjoy parties here? It was more of a "social gathering" if that makes it any better?

>> No.4795742

are you sure your memory is accurate, or he wasn't consuming alcohol?

it would take an hour or so to pick apart all of the flaws in this and elaborate on each of them in layman terminology, but instead i think you should just read this:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9901124

>> No.4795747

>there was nothing, except gravity
>quarks are comprised of liptons/hadrons
>particle was going faster than the speed of light

What he told you is a jumbled mish-mash of bullshit.

>> No.4795758

>>4795727

>He explained how atoms are made of quarks, and quarks are comprised of liptons/hadrons and a range of other things.

Jesus god, I hope you just don't remember what he actually said, otherwise I don't know what he's being taught as a PhD physics student.

>> No.4795756

>>4795738
>social

Get the fuck out.

>> No.4795759

>>4795742
We had consumed a couple of beers but were not drunk. But no, I can't remember exactly what he said, he used a lot of terms that I didn't know and took about an hour to explain what I tried to crudely paraphrase.

Thanks for the link, but that was published in 1999, and he specifically said most of this is recent stuff that has been thoerized in the past year or two. He also said it came around by trying to debunk some theory stephen hawking came up with about gravity being the sole thing prior to the big bang.

>>4795747
>What he told you is a jumbled mish-mash of bullshit.
I'm sure its just the way I attempted to explain it thats the jumbled mish-mash of bullshit. Like i said this guy was working on this for his PHD paper.

>> No.4795761

>>4795727
8/10. Starts out strong, loses some of its subtlety along the way. Needs to be slightly funnier. Still, good attempt.

>> No.4795766

>>4795758
I think it was "leptons" not liptons, are these the electron ones? I know these were quite important, but I can't remember why.

>>4795761
Im not trolling, you witless cretin. This is actually what he is doing his PHD paper on. I know I've probably cocked it up in the way I tried to explain it, but it's sincere. Thats why I came here, because I would genuinely like to understand it.

>> No.4795783
File: 21 KB, 367x451, LOL_FAGGOT.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4795783

>>4795766
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Fuck off.

>> No.4795786

>>4795766
Really? Mexican waves from the calming epicentre? You actually think he said that?

>> No.4795802

>>4795786
No, he didn't say that. Thats the best way I could think of to paraphrase the way he described it. He was adamant that current mathematical models show that the universe wasn't created in a single big bang, but from a series of smaller ones that fractaled out from one central point. These would have happened ALMOST instantaneously, and are still continuing beyond our observable universe. A mexican wave was how I imagined it.

>> No.4795995

>>4795802
I think you need to go and talk to him again. Keep in mind that most of us aren't PHD students who pursue every new theory, and new theories are often wrong... Look how string theory turned out.