[ 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: 94 KB, 990x675, 1432944734652.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7529059 No.7529059 [Reply] [Original]

Did the Universe "come into existence"?

Or was it just something else before it was stars and galaxies?

>> No.7529068

>>7529059
god. science bitch

>> No.7529126

>>7529059
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

>> No.7529383

>>7529059
No one knows. And no one will ever know within your lifetime. Just focus on what you love doing.

>> No.7529394

Infinite universes colliding each other at the same time in a single point

>> No.7529412

>>7529059
>>7529059

Think of a room, say 5 meters squared. This room, contains NOTHING inside it, no light, no objects, just a closed empty room. Dont stress about the fact you dont know this room is empty untill you observe it. Rest assured, not a speck of matter exists in this room.

How fucking pointless is this hypothetical room? No information, no data contained within. Just a 5x5 space of complete nothingness.

And this logic I find explains the universe and life pretty well. We and everything around us came to be, because the alternative is entirely redundant. Somthing will always prevail over nothing, because nothing, can only ever be the lack of something.

And in endless time and space, the idea of somthing has plenty of time to "be".

>> No.7529460

>>7529412
I've had a similar train of thougth in the past, bro... And lots of physicists have argued kind of the same thing. The "nothingness is unstable" argument.

There's only one problem I have with that reasoning -- it relies on certain rules. To say that "nothingness is unstable" or that "something exists because the alternative is entirely redundant" is to invoke a rule about how reality works. And a rule is something. So then you have to ask who made that rule. And now your just stuck with the prime mover problem all over again.

I've concluded that the only workable explanation is that the universe doesn't actually exist. It can't. The prime mover problem is a simple, direct proof by contradiction that it can't.

>> No.7529464

>>7529059
>>7529059
>Did the Universe "come into existence"?
I think so.

Consider the possibility that a pure form of infinite energy pre-dates the vacuum of space (that we know). All that exists is energy, no space to contain it, but nonetheless it is energy. Following the traditional laws of thermodynamics as we know them, the energy needs a way to move towards entropy.

Much as a star collapses into a black hole, this primordial, infinite energy source has been rapidly "collapsing" into universes, pouring massive amounts of energy into these universes before the "entrance" dissipates due to the instability of the black hole-like entity in the presence of such a colossal amount of energy.

This is insinuating that a black-hole as tremendous as our universe somehow "contains" us even after dissipating.

>> No.7529472

>>7529464
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. If a massive amount of energy (all the energy present in our universe) were poured into a single, massive black hole, assuming the inside of the blackhole is a tremendous vacuum, would the results not resemble the big bang event? An incredible dispersal of energy lacking a distinguishable centre in a "container" that is vast, empty, and expanding?

>> No.7530886

>>7529464
If the universe is made out of infinite energy, then there will eventually be an infinite amount of matter in the universe.

>> No.7530887

>>7529059
p sure it just expands and contracts throughout billions of years

>> No.7530909

What we call "the universe" is just space-time.
We live in it.
Whatever is outside is beyond comprehension.
I suspect gravity is originating from outside.
We have built all our models on our observations and our observations equate to fuck all

>> No.7530947

As somehow religious person i believe that our physical world is something that is contained within greater world, which doesn't have any of our laws and doesn't obey any bit of our common sense.

>> No.7530977
File: 61 KB, 781x552, space-pepe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7530977

>>7529059
>tfw we will never know why anything exists at all

>> No.7531005
File: 130 KB, 353x754, god is dead, long live god.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7531005

>>7530977
>mfw this is not a bad thing

>> No.7531043

>>7530947
In the beginning the WORD already existed forever.
The physics of the future will be the physics of INFORMATION,
and the common sense of the future will reflect that.
Don't expect magic, expect understanding.

>> No.7531113
File: 1003 KB, 4500x4334, 1439164267053.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7531113

>mfw the universe is a stateless object with bounds where "time" is simply a coordinate
>the "future" already exists
>mfw asking a question "why there is a beginning" is akin to asking why a map has a left-down corner

>> No.7531140

How did life started? Was it just chemical reactions plus some electricity or something? DO NOT USE THE WORDS "SPONTANEOUS" "CHANCE" OR "RANDOM" OR I'LL FUCKING MURDER YOU IN YOUR SLEEP.

>> No.7531145

>>7531140
>How did life started?

Why are the English skills of people on this board so terrible? I constantly see mistakes, especially your - you're.

Isn't this supposed to be the smart board?

>> No.7531156

Matter cannot be created from nothing. This is a fact.

The Big Bang hypothesis is a waft of bullshit.

>> No.7531162

>>7531145
There is no smart boards. Only Zuul.

>> No.7531164

What was going on, let's say, 3 billion years before the Big Bang? Will we ever know?

>> No.7531167

>>7531145
No seriously though, if you think that /sci/ is anything more than a bunch of college math drop-outs then you're mistaken. I posted a GCSE math quiz a few weeks ago and only 3 anons out of 300 actually got the right answer.

I might even post it again for the lulz.

>> No.7531178

>>7529412

In my opinion this is very relative. Like the greeks thought that a finite thing was more perfect than an infinite one, we think that the existence is more a necessity than the nothingness.

But I don't agree, "nothing" not need "being" because "nothing" don't have "anything"

So the great question is way we have existence if is more easy to be nothing? Probably the problem is logical and linguistic. With our language we can use logic to explain a part of the system, but we are limited in the system, and we cannot try to describe all the system for an outer position. (Even the term position can be problematic out of it)

Yes I know this is philosophy, but are these question the point to start speculation and interest to discover things.

Sorry for my bad english, I never written this kind of things in a foreign language.

>> No.7531180

>>7531156
the big bang theory doesn't claim that matter came from nothing you utter retard...

>> No.7531189

>>7531178

The example of the greek was about relative logic and thinking. They think that a finite thing is perfect because is complete, and infinite thing can't reach perfection because is limitless and without form. Today instead many people think that an infinte thing is more perfect because without form and limit it can everything in every time.

>> No.7531202

>>7531180
>>7531180
Really?

What does it claim, then?

>inb4 singularity/infinite

>> No.7531209

>>7531202
the big bang hypothesis says nothing about the actual creation of the universe, only what happened at the very beginning.

>> No.7532497
File: 12 KB, 560x407, 1408187320885.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7532497

This

https://youtu.be/UDC9Ukmbi5U?t=31s

>> No.7532520

>>7530886
It actually looks likely that the universe contains zero energy.

>> No.7532551

>>7529059
Where was the universe before the universe existed!?

>> No.7532583

>>7529412

nothing is also something

>> No.7532588

>>7532583

Really?
Give us an example of nothing that we can observe, fuckboi.

>> No.7532604

>>7532588
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/

>> No.7532636

>>7531156

Check out Hawking Radiation and realize you are an idiot. Matter can be created out of nothing (other than a transfer of energy, with an equal amount of anti-matter created

>> No.7532643

>>7532551

This sort of question ignores the fact that time is a component of the universe as is, and was "created", or rather began to behave normally only after the big bang. All known laws of physics break down near/at singularity including the very concept of time.

There is no such thing as a "before" before time existed. Sure, lets say another big crunch is due, you would not however be able to say a following big bang came "after" or as a result, contrary to logic

>> No.7532678

>>7531140
Someone's clearly deterministic. I'm almost afraid to talk about the quantum mechanical ideas behind the origin of the universe.

>> No.7533388

>>7529412
>Somthing will always prevail over nothing
No, it only prevails because you're alive (something) and that's all you know, hence your view is flawed. That does not mean something always prevails over nothing, they go together.

>> No.7533423

>>7529460
Usually sci philosophy is very bad but I really like your point, underrated post

>> No.7533429
File: 113 KB, 800x535, 1435212071393.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7533429

>Who lit the blue torch paper
>What breathed fire into the equations
>The universe a "put up" job
>It knew we were coming
yada yada yada

>> No.7533431

The universe is a complex simulation nested within a complex simulation and so on for infinity?

>> No.7533452
File: 13 KB, 250x235, 1425502491200.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7533452

>>7531113
That is just brilliant

>> No.7533463

Were 'abstract' objects always here?

>> No.7533575

>>7529412
Nicely explained.

>> No.7533598

>>7529412
So, something instead of nothing, because why not.

Yeah, seems intellectually rigorous.

>> No.7533602

>>7530909
Gravity is related to this (particular) universe, it's here, there is no outside. It all goes together.

I agree with
>Whatever is outside is beyond comprehension.
But probably not in the same way.

>> No.7533605

>>7529412
Because this time something won the fight and it's irrelevant who wins the fight.

>> No.7533617

>>7529412

WRONG faget.
Everything we can observe is 99.9999999999999% empty space.
We are all an expression of nothingness.
And we can't make any assumptions until we observe and measure what "nothing" is; we don't have an example of it that we can test, even though we are made out of it.
So something and nothing might as well be the same thing.

>> No.7533654

>>7533617
saying 99.9999...% means you say the absolute is contained somewhere
Might be no way in the future for anything to know of nothing because right now it's outside of the universe stretch and even the empty space in our universe it's not actually nothingness even if there is no particle no nothing there it's still space stretched there... so it's contained.
Probably many billions years ahead civilizations advance enough will perceive everything better and more connected and there will be no proof of nothingness to ever existed.

>> No.7533699

Does the universe even have to have an outside? What if everything from the farthest stretches of the futures expanding universe to the tiny point of matter that might have created the big bang all happened in the same space? Just because it's growing does that mean that there must be a space it is growing into.

>> No.7533701

How did the universe decide the cosmic constants? How did it decide the equations? How did it decide there ARE constants and equations?

>> No.7533782

>>7533617
>Everything we can observe is 99.9999999999999% empty space.

So? It's just an interval. It may as well be a zero between two ones.

If there were no intervals to perceive then we wouldn't be able to process any information.

>> No.7534389

>>7533701
"string theory states that our familiar elementary particles correspond to low-energy string vibrations"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabi%E2%80%93Yau_manifold#Applications_in_superstring_theory

>> No.7534424

>>7529394
shut the fuck up

>> No.7534480

>>7529412
Well said