/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5101557]

The big bang theory makes no sense at all. what is this crap?

The universe is expanding, so run the clock backwards and the universe shrinks into a tiny dense ball. Sure, I can buy that. But it seems to me like there is no reason to believe that the tiny ball popped into existence out of nothing and that it was the start of time. This leads to paradoxes like 'what happened before this so-called start of time?' and 'how did something come out of nothing?' and similar nonsensical questions. why can you make this jump? it seems to have no basis in anything.

Reducing the universe to a singular infinitely dense point should be a sign that the cosmologists are not clearly understanding something. You can't just have a theory with these blaringly obvious paradoxes and problems. So why is it so generally accepted??

The idea of cyclic universes makes a lot more sense. Universe expands from a point, reaches heat death, and then contracts back down, then expands back out again every trillion years or so. Much better theory- no weird paradoxes about the 'beginning of time' or things popping into existence.

why does everyone just blindly accept the big bang theory despite it's obvious problems?

[Anonymous No.5101585]

Because deductive reasoning overrides common sense.

[Anonymous No.5101588]

>>5101585
what deductive reasoning? that's my whole point. where is it?

[Anonymous No.5101592]

It is known that the entropy of a recollapsing and re-expanding universe would contain more entropy than before, having less usable energy than the last universe making it very unlikely there is some kind of cyclic even going on.
However, it's still not completely ruled out what you're suggesting. Astronomers simply can't know what has happened, what will happen, what the geometry, total energy, total volume or age of the universe is. It's simply too complex and the data collected is too dubious to find a straightforward answer. However, many models have been made and the most consistent (for now) are being used as standard models.
The big bang is certainly one being held in high regard.

[Anonymous No.5101593]

Nobody claims that the universe popped into existence out of nothing. What was before the big bang is simply beyond the event horizon and not measurable, that's all.

[notfaggot No.5101589]

>big bang is wrong
>any trolls I want
>300 replies starting

[Anonymous No.5101600]

First, without time, forget the notion of causality (and therefore "what was before what"). Also, they did not simply said "Hey, it's expanding, so one day, it was all together". They made experiments and calculated shit. A cyclic universe raise the concept of the Universe being here since... sicne forever and this brings more questions than your "what was before".

[Anonymous No.5101601]

What is nothing but potential for everything?

[Anonymous No.5101604]

>>5101600
if the universe wasn't here forever then there will always be the question what was before though.

it's like counting. for the biggest number you can think of, add one to it. Same thing for time. the furthest back you can imagine, subtract one second from it. how can it possibly have a 'beginning'?

[Anonymous No.5101608]

>>5101604
there was no 'before' because time didn't existed then.

[Anonymous No.5101616]

>>5101604
Because "before" the Big Bang, there is no time. And without time, there is no such thing as "before". I understand that it is a hard concept to grasp (like two temporal dimensions), but there is other things that seems so unlogical and yet they are proven right (e.g. Quantum Mechanics

[Anonymous No.5101617]

>>5101604
To simplify it, time is just a dimension, and dimensions are subject to change just like the matter in them.

[Anonymous No.5101621]

>>5101608
THIS

Why can't people understand this? They're asking about what could happen in a scenario in which the laws of the universe may not apply, yet they refuse to believe that the laws of the universe did not apply.

[Anonymous No.5101624]

I think this relates to the number 0, which is just one of the specific meaning derived from the word Shunyata(void/empty). According to Shunyata, there is no zero existence. All things are derived from zero, but there isnt an actual zero. Thus there really isnt a (existing) beginning. Big bang may have started from a singularity, but the singularity doesnt actually have existence. What we see is a zero-based existence. Existence without any actual existence.

[Anonymous No.5101666]

>>5101624
but that makes no sense at all

[Anonymous No.5101681]

>>5101624
I like this but I don't

Video ergo sum, but this all doesn't "actually exist"?

[Anonymous No.5101690]

>>5101666
Lets see.

Singularity is the beginning(thus it is eternal and uncreated). If it wasn't eternal it would mean creating of nothing, which is illogical. If it was eternal, then it would mean unchanging thus the universe's creation is impossible. Actual existence is pretty illogical. However a zero based existence is more logical.

How can we prove this? Simple, examine anything in the universe, a car, people, buildings, planets, stars, etc. Nothing in the universe has an actual existence. All things are but an empty set of empty sets. A car for example, is engines/wheels/body/seats/exhausts/etc. Those engines are part of other empty sets like screws/battery/etc. And those are also empty sets.

Its actually very logical and true, but if its so logical and true then how come we think in terms of localized actual existence? Not sure, its probably related to how we perceive things and how we conceptualize things.

[Anonymous No.5101697]

>>5101690
wat?

[Anonymous No.5101705]

>>5101681
geddof gedoff gedoff

[Anonymous No.5101701]

>>5101697
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set

[Anonymous No.5101707]

>>5101690
Because we can differentiate between stuff; give something an identity; a construct like a brain must "actually exist".

[Anonymous No.5101717]

>>5101707
A brain is nothing but a collection of cells which for the most part is neurons. Neurons themselves are made up of smaller parts, which themselves are made up of other parts. So yea, the so called brain isnt any more special than any/all other objects in the universe

[Anonymous No.5101724]

>>5101717
And to add to this, a brain is thus also an empty set of empty sets. Identity doesnt mean there is actual existence, it just means there can be different empty sets. Which are seemingly different yet same at the core.

[Anonymous No.5101735]

>>5101557
>But it seems to me like there is no reason to believe that the tiny ball popped into existence out of nothing and that it was the start of time.
That is described for a different set of reasons than turning back expansion.

This leads to paradoxes like 'what happened before this so-called start of time?' and 'how did something come out of nothing?' and similar nonsensical questions. why can you make this jump? it seems to have no basis in anything.
Only because you don't know the physics or metaphysics of it. There are not just reasons there, they are solid and make sense, and there is considerable evidence to show it.
Remember, this is the technical stuff -- it isn't supposed to be obvious in a way that people can just observe it so.

>So why is it so generally accepted??
Again, because the experts have A LOT more knowledge than you do, have been examining it for decades, and their expertise and arguments point to this.
On the other hand, YOUR point of view lacks ALL of the information except what you just said, so it seems baseless.

>The idea of cyclic universes makes a lot more sense. Universe expands from a point, reaches heat death, and then contracts back down, then expands back out again every trillion years or so. Much better theory- no weird paradoxes about the 'beginning of time' or things popping into existence.
Is it less weird to have to admit there was no beginning for the cycles?
Mind you, there still is an end to all of time -- at every crunch, time would be stopped. As space is stopped, so must time be.

>why does everyone just blindly accept the big bang theory despite it's obvious problems?
Because of all the evidence they have.

Look, when a large group of people who know TONS more than you tell you something, just listen. If they have reasons you can agree with, evidence and explanations, you can decide whether to believe them or not.
Don't tell them it's not that way with no knowledge at all.

[Anonymous No.5101736]

>>5101717
Would you call recursion an empty set?

[Anonymous No.5101742]

>>5101717
>So yea, the so called brain isnt any more special than any/all other objects in the universe

That's silly.
The fact that it can be reduced in terminology to 'just a structure of atoms' doesn't actually reduce it's uniqueness.

[IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no No.5101757]

>>5101557
You sound like a child. I would advise you to take a course on elementary remedial astronomy before spewing this crackpot anti-scientific propaganda.

>But it seems to me like there is no reason to believe that the tiny ball popped into existence out of nothing and that it was the start of time.
The standard Big Bang cosmology, coupled with inflation, beautifully describes the evolution of the Cosmos back to but not including the cosmological singularity with large quantities of evidence.

>Reducing the universe to a singular infinitely dense point should be a sign that the cosmologists are not clearly understanding something. You can't just have a theory with these blaringly obvious paradoxes and problems. So why is it so generally accepted??
The singularity is not of infinite density. Big Bang cosmology does not deal with the singularity. If you are interested in this, I advise you to pursue an education in quantum gravity before making outright quasi-religious speculations.

>The idea of cyclic universes makes a lot more sense.
Nature doesn't care about your opinions.

>why does everyone just blindly accept the big bang theory despite it's obvious problems?
There is nothing wrong with Big Bang cosmology. You are talking about problems it does not deal with. Your crackpot babbling is pathetic.

[Anonymous No.5101760]

>>5101757
IQ fundie

[Anonymous No.5101762]

>>5101736
Empty set can probably be seen as recursive. IMO. Think of it like indra's net example. Here's a wiki quote.

>Far away in the heavenly abode of the great god Indra, there is a wonderful net which has been hung by some cunning artificer in such a manner that it stretches out infinitely in all directions. In accordance with the extravagant tastes of deities, the artificer has hung a single glittering jewel in each "eye" of the net, and since the net itself is infinite in dimension, the jewels are infinite in number. There hang the jewels, glittering like stars in the first magnitude, a wonderful sight to behold. If we now arbitrarily select one of these jewels for inspection and look closely at it, we will discover that in its polished surface there are reflected all the other jewels in the net, infinite in number. Not only that, but each of the jewels reflected in this one jewel is also reflecting all the other jewels, so that there is an infinite reflecting process occurring

If you ignore the religious references, the example shows what a recursive/empty set universe would look like when examined.

[Anonymous No.5101776]

>>5101757
hey man are you mad?

[Anonymous No.5101777]

>>5101762
On the note of Indra's net, its also a very good model to show nonlocality of the universe.

[Anonymous No.5101791]

>>5101604
>Same thing for time. the furthest back you can imagine, subtract one second from it. how can it possibly have a 'beginning'?

That is a false analogy;
that you can always subtract a number is not the same as going back in time;
there really can be a beginning of something.
There really can be a time when it wasn't there, and then it was. It actually happens around you all the time.

[Anonymous No.5101797]

>>5101557
>no reason to believe that the tiny ball popped into existence out of nothing

Except that our understanding of physics, as well as fucking reality support it.

Just because you are too dumb to understand shit, doesn't make it false.

\thread

[Anonymous No.5101803]

>>5101557
>doesn't know what a paradox is
>draws shitty conclusions
>fails at basic reasoning

[Anonymous No.5101806]

Yes, OP, without any knowledge of it at all, it certainly must seem very weird and mysterious.

Hey, you know what some people like to do when they learn about something weird and mysterious? They READ.
And you know what they do while they read about it? They shut the heck up.

[Anonymous No.5101812]

>>5101803
I think he wouldn't, but there is no paradox in Big Bang Theory.

[Anonymous No.5101823]

>>5101762
>hung by some cunning artificer
>my face when

It's a beautiful idea, just unfathomable.
Sigh

[Anonymous No.5101825]

If before the big bang there was no time, how did anything happen to progress to the big bang?

[Anonymous No.5101835]

>>5101825
>implying time is needed for progress

You think is such simple terms, and ideas. It is cute.

[Anonymous No.5101836]

>>5101823
Unfathomable? Yea thats true, but doesnt mean its not true. If quantum mechanics is true then everything in the universe is entangled. Which means we're all connected. Unfathomable as it may seem to us because we cant see it, its how reality is.

[Anonymous No.5101845]

>>5101836
But how <span class="math">is[/spoiler] reality?
That's what I meant by that post. What makes Indra's net, Indra's net?

[Anonymous No.5101848]

>>5101825
>If before the big bang there was no time, how did anything happen to progress to the big bang?

That's actually not a bad question; let's see if I can make it work for you using one of the most-accepted models:

In a separate universe, a section twists off and breaks. The energy inside that piece that broke off is all that begins our own.
If it helps, think of it as a ball or energy wrapped in unlabeled space-time.
Once that separation happened, the space-time was free to expand; it unwrapped and all that energy spilled out in every direction -- at the same time the wrapper (space-time and all properties) are unfolding.
It's like a sponge attached to a plastic wrap, it isn't expanding from a center, it's expanding and the universe was expanding with it.

Within the first few seconds, our universe acquired properties and constants that have determined the state of our universe.

[Anonymous No.5101850]

>>5101845
Not sure what you're going at. Indra's net is Indra's net because of series of words use to explain another greater meaning which needed a unique and short compound word to describe it.
If you're asking if Indra's net is empty set or not, then the answer is yes. When I said all things, I meant all. Both objects and concepts/language/words.

[Anonymous No.5101852]

>>5101845
Indra's net makes Indra's net Indra's net.

[Anonymous No.5101854]

>>5101557
>underage faggot with no physics knowledge can't understand advanced physics concepts

This isn't suprising OP. What is suprising is that you assume you would actually understand shit. Are you fucking retarded?

[Anonymous No.5101863]

>>5101852
How in the fuck can something be an artificer of itself?
Basically the same thing I ask all the time: how is recursion recursive?

[Anonymous No.5101866]

>>5101854
Hey look, its a retard who blindly accepts the crap that spills out of theoretical physicists imagination like its fact.

WAY too many people who claim to be of science don't question unproven, hypothesized shit.

"Oh, everything burst into existence randomly for no reason even though all scientific evidence points to a causality based universe... makes sense to me! Cause, you know, its what that one guy guessed...."

[Anonymous No.5101878]

>>5101863
Well if you want to go deeper, think of the artificer and his reality as one of the jewel. From his pov(and from ours because we're using his pov), he is creating the net. But from a nonpov, the creation of the net itself is created by all the other jewels as well. With this, we can see that there isnt a single creation, but rather an entangled creation(if you prefer buddhist terminology, "dependent origination") of the net.

[Anonymous No.5101888]

>>5101866
>Hey look, its a retard who blindly accepts the crap that spills out of theoretical physicists imagination like its fact.
>"Oh, everything burst into existence randomly for no reason even though all scientific evidence points to a causality based universe... makes sense to me! Cause, you know, its what that one guy guessed...."


That is not what is happening here.
People would call those 'hypotheses' -- once a group of experts uses the term 'theory,' sit down, shut up and listen.
That is their word for 'we don't see any problem with this version -- it fits what we observe and measure, and fits against most of our other theories.'

The theories we are talking about include dozens of other conceptual physics ideas which are examined and, in many ways, tested against both prediction and experiment.
They have corraled this bronc in a handful of very specific, very exacting ways.
Every way validates and narrows the possibilities -- even if there is something wrong, it cannot be very far wrong any more.

So, again, stop assuming someone just guessed.
They may have a few decades ago, but they've been fighting and examining and have had to prove to each other a lot since way back then.
What you are reading now is the result of a bunch of VERY smart people with VERY good tools and a lot of discussion.

It is EXTREMELY insulting for you, a non-expert, to now come into the discussion and tell them it's all made up, nonsense.

[Anonymous No.5101899]

>>5101878
My brain is full of fuck

[Anonymous No.5101921]

>>5101899
Getting the gist of how Buddha felt

[Anonymous No.5101952]

>>5101557
>This leads to paradoxes like 'what happened before this so-called start of time?
how is this a paradox?
>'how did something come out of nothing?
quantum mechanics
>The idea of cyclic universes makes a lot more sense...no weird paradoxes about the 'beginning of time' or things popping into existence.
even if something were wrong with the big bang, how would this eliminate the problems? the cycle still had to have a beginning, something still had to pop into existence at the beginning of the cycle. by your logic anyway.

[Anonymous No.5101961]

The Big Bang Theory explained.

First, there was nothing.
Then it exploded.

Everything is just a whole lot of nothing.

[Anonymous No.5101969]

>>5101961
>Everything is just a whole lot of nothing.
you are 99.999999% empty space. so basically, yea.

[Anonymous No.5101980]

>>5101961
Well there is a significant difference between explosion and expansion... an explosion has a central point, the big bang did not... its complicated.

[Anonymous No.5101984]

IMO, it's like this:

Either there was a beginning of the universe and there was an effect without a cause, or there was no beginning, time has no terminator, and every effect has had a cause.

Choices.

Both possibilities have unsettling propositions. However, one conclusion does appear to be the most logical one based on the following rationale: Our experience thus far in this universe indicates that everything, without exception, is causal(even if it is completely random) and, furthermore there is no reason to believe that time might cease to exist, only reason to believe that there appears to be an event that occurs that resets everything and constitutes the effective beginning of the universe as we observe it, but not necessarily the effective beginning of time and an effect without a cause.

This is a simple case of Occam's Razor and it seems like nearly everyone is insisting on the more complicated conclusion.

[Anonymous No.5101996]

>>5101980
So not just that nothing exploded (expanded), it was also nowhere.

So we have nothing which was nowhere, which happened before "when" existed.

So to have a location the univers must first exist. So in a way, it is outside itself.

[Anonymous No.5102010]

>>5101984
Either of them have big problems. Which Occam Razor doesn't address.

1. Creation ex nihilo
2. Eternal phenomena

Both of the problems have been highlighted by various philosophers throughout the history. One that I've based my understanding on and how to solve it is from the 2nd century Buddhist monk.

>http://www.bergen.edu/phr/121/NagarjunaGC.pdf

Its a short reading and download(84kb) on this problem that buddhist were trying to tackle. Which I think gives a more accurate answer

[Anonymous No.5102019]

>popped into existence out of nothing

The problem with this line of thinking is that it requires that some kind of spacetime to exist that houses the "dense ball" of spacetime or has it "pop into" it before spacetime even existed.

Laymen consistently cannot wrap their heads around this.

Quantum fluctuations allow for things to come into existence yet still be zero sum.

[Anonymous No.5102054]

>>5102019
>Quantum fluctuations allow for things to come into existence yet still be zero sum.
the zero sum thing is kind of sneaky and arbitrary. You have to define things such as gravity as being negative energy and we have no reason to do so other than, "well it lets me use my theory".

[Anonymous No.5102069]

>>5101717

>So yea, the so called brain isnt any more special than any/all other objects in the universe


what the fuck am i reading.

[Anonymous No.5102076]

Hey op, if something can't come from nothing that implies that in order for something to exist then it must have existed in some form having been ''made into it'' or alternatively always have existed. So how is it that it's perfectly logical to assume that the big bang is illogical yet a god theory assuming that a god always existed is logical?

[Anonymous No.5102091]

Not a singularity. A white hole.

[Anonymous No.5102105]

>>5102069
Whats so hard to understand? Just read the linked comments before and forward.

[Anonymous No.5102132]

>58 replies to an obvious troll thread

[Anonymous No.5102139]

>>5101717

"the beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together." - carl sage'n

[Anonymous No.5102159]

>>5102132
>buddhism
>trolling

[Anonymous No.5102209]

Why does everyone thing the big bang theory implies everything came from nothing?
The big bang theory is not an explanation for creation of existence, just the origin of the universe.

[Anonymous No.5102234]

What if redshift is because we're being sucked into a black hole? Everything would be getting farther from everything else, no 'expansion' needed

[Anonymous No.5102248]

>>5102209
This + OP be trolololin