Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 17:26:36 UTC No. 16137480

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 17:30:19 UTC No. 16137483

>>16137480
Saying the big bang came from nothing is invoking magic on a gargantuan scale, that’s schizophrenia. And also no serious physicist believes in this magic from nothingness.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 17:39:34 UTC No. 16137499

>>16137483

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 17:40:48 UTC No. 16137501

>>16137499
Look up pre big bang cosmologies and see how many physicists agree with your pop-sci ass

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 17:50:34 UTC No. 16137510

>>16137501
I am a physicist you fuckwit. You're a great example of Dunning Kruger. You know nothing. There zero evidence there was something before the big bang, or that there was nothing before the big bang. Zero. Anyway saying either is fact, like you, is a complete retard.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 18:01:49 UTC No. 16137530

>>16137510
>zero evidence
Do physicists learn about the streetlight effect?

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 18:01:58 UTC No. 16137532

>>16137510
Absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. When dealing with imperfect information, we go on by judging probabilities. Is it probable that there was magic that just spawned the universe, or could there have been an underlying mechanic.

Suppose a moron like you lived on a lone planet with nothing but one star in his observable universe, he would conclude the universe to consist of 1 planet and 1 star in your same smug and deluded manner.

On top of that, the evidence for the big bang is only inferred from the CMB that we see 400k years after the big bang. If you can go back the causal chain and use that as evidence for the big bang, you can extend that type of reasoning further to before the big bang. You can not use this type of causal reasoning and then just stop at some arbitrary point and call it a day.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 18:04:36 UTC No. 16137538

>>16137532
> When dealing with imperfect information, we go on by judging probabilities.
That's not how the scientific method works. Come back to the thread one you've reached puberty.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 18:05:02 UTC No. 16137540

the big bang is psuedoscience. unverifiable, unfalsifiable junk. we don't know how to go back in time to test the hypothesis.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 18:06:24 UTC No. 16137543

>>16137538
The third paragraph explains why the reasoning you use for the big bang applies to pre-big bang as well.

And the big bang is not ”scientific” either in this sense.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 18:08:58 UTC No. 16137547

where the inflaton field big bang faggot trannies? it magically disappear after doing its job?
tell me where the fuck is the inflaton field???
you literally put unverifable unfalsifiable mechanism into the equations that magically did thing that was needed to do.
that is just puting deus ex machina into the evolution of the universe.
might just call your bullshits the bible v2.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 18:09:03 UTC No. 16137548

>>16137540
>schizo who claims he was never born

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 18:12:27 UTC No. 16137553

>>16137543

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 18:13:11 UTC No. 16137554

fuck, if you cosmologists are making shit up, at least have the decency to be honest and call it like it is, a fairy tale. don't sell your bovine feces as science.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 18:16:25 UTC No. 16137559

>>16137553
Nice selfie. Do you believe in singularities in nature too?

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 18:31:40 UTC No. 16137578

>>16137477
>Please stop spouting this stupid shit that the big bang came from nothing
Nobody is claiming this

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 18:36:18 UTC No. 16137583

>>16137477
i prefer to refer to it as "the last major inflationary event" because its more accurate

i get called an autistic chode for this, and thats fair, but its less misleading to refer to it as such so i do

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 21:30:31 UTC No. 16137854

>>16137547
>where the inflaton field
dark energy

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 21:42:50 UTC No. 16137876

>>16137854
please do not "contribute" and leave if you don't know what you are talking about.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 22:00:16 UTC No. 16137896

>>16137876
projection, the post

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 22:04:28 UTC No. 16137900

>>16137896
>picrel
I wonder if it possible to make an AI assisted autism meter like that. it constantly observes you through webcam or something and averages out an autism score.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:34:53 UTC No. 16138020

Nothing begets nothing.
Whenceforth something?
Alas, it must be the case then
That we are Nothing.

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 04:48:45 UTC No. 16138393

>>16137510
The evidence is a priori.

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 08:48:35 UTC No. 16138553

>>16137547
The field would decay into it's ground state, and the energy would become particles.

And inflation is testable. It already predicted that the almost scale-free density perturbations, i.e. a scalar spectral index of slightly less than 1. This was confirmed by the Planck mission, which measured it at 0.9656 +/- 0.0042. That is over 8 sigma from n_s=1. So inflations big prediction has already been verified.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06209

Going to the future inflation predicts relic gravitational waves, measurable either directly or with the CMB polarisation.

But if you feel inflation is so absurd go ahead and post an alternative which fits the cosmic microscope background data just as well. Does the bible predict n_s? I suspect not.

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 08:51:00 UTC No. 16138557

>>16138020
No it's true there's a god of pieces of shit who forces us to suffer lol. What the fuck nigger.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 08:56:01 UTC No. 16138564

>dude, I know everything about the entire universe, I'm omniscient like god
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 12:59:54 UTC No. 16138812

>>16138553
>The field would decay into it's ground state, and the energy would become particles.
this is absolutely nonsense. please kill youwrself retard.
>And inflation is testable. It already predicted that the almost scale-free density perturbations, i.e. a scalar spectral index of slightly less than 1. This was confirmed by the Planck mission, which measured it at 0.9656 +/- 0.0042. That is over 8 sigma from n_s=1. So inflations big prediction has already been verified.
>https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06209
I skimmed that paper. no, it hasn't verified anything dumbass. what you said contradict each other.
there are inifinte number of model that will predict the same thing, why the fuck should the inflaton model be the correct one?

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:07:12 UTC No. 16138824

>>16138553
How does any field start out in a high energy state to begin with? If all fields tend to move to their ground state they should all be at their ground state.

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:19:15 UTC No. 16138961

>>16138812
>I skimmed that paper. no, it hasn't verified anything dumbass.
I cited the value, not argument. You seem to have completely ignored what I said.
>there are inifinte number of model that will predict the same thing
But there weren't. Inflation uniquely predicted this. Any hack can fit something after the fact, inflation predicted the result.

>>16138824
The entire universe started in a very energetic state and then expanded and cooled.
> If all fields tend to move to their ground state
That depends on the energetics of the states. High school physics.

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:22:43 UTC No. 16138968

>>16138812
>>16138961
Also other things you can read in that paper. Inflation predicted a flat universe, adiabatic fluctuations, gaussian perturbations and the almost scale free spectrum (which I already mentioned). None of these were clear at the time but the CMB data from Planck shows the observations confirm all of these predictions.

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:50:06 UTC No. 16139009

>>16138968
Flat universe is 100% confirmed now?

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:52:19 UTC No. 16139012

>>16139009
It is consistent with flat given the uncertainty.

Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 00:20:03 UTC No. 16139649

>>16137477
>There was stuff before the big bang.
Causality implies it, but it has never been proved or demonstrated.

Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 00:21:48 UTC No. 16139655

>>16139649
that's quite retarded since causality started with the big bang you see. for some reason you just suppose there was some other thing with causality and time, for some reason, and then big bang happened. you think all this because reasons (protip: they are retarded)

Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 13:53:02 UTC No. 16140500

>>16139655
>that's quite retarded since causality started with the big bang you see
This is completely made up. There is no evidence for being the cause.

Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 13:56:23 UTC No. 16140505

>>16137480
Are there any other threads here?

Anyway, I don't treat anything at all I hear about the beginnings of the universe seriously. Its like Fermi Paradox, whatever answer you might have its just as fake and gay as thousands of other answers because you have no data.

Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:58:20 UTC No. 16140563

>>16140505
>Calling others schizophrenic while claiming "causality and 10^53kg of matter appeared from nothing"
...

Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:00:59 UTC No. 16140565

>>16140563
Not sure what are you on about, but I didn't made such claim.

Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:24:18 UTC No. 16140596

>>16140565
Right so then you agreed with the supposed "schizo" thread OP

Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:04:07 UTC No. 16140643

>>16140596
You like putting words in my mouth, do you? I've said what I said and nothing more.

Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:15:20 UTC No. 16140655

>>16140500
so what are you saying anon? there's another place with space and time and things happening in time, and someone farted there and after that fart, and because of that fart, our big bang happened? in that time and place with this kind of causality that we have?

Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 17:29:53 UTC No. 16140769

>>16140655
Yes, that it is more probable than a magic poof from nothing.

Imagine it like this:
The wave function of our universe -> gives rise to all the excited fields in our universe -> gives rise to particles and particle interactions -> gives rise to atoms -> gives rise to macroscopically large objects -> gives rise to planets, stars and life -> gives rise to silica computers via humans -> gives rise to virtual worlds.

Suppose a lifeform in such a virtual world thinks about his "universe". It might wrongly conclude that his world came from nothing since it can not probe very far. It could be a similar story in our case. How many layers before the big bang are there? I think non-zero is the likely scenario. And when the number is non-zero, there could be an arbitrarily large amount of links in this chain.

Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 18:03:46 UTC No. 16140823

>>16140769
I was implying or monkey brains have problem with thinking what was before time, since they run inside this universe. hard to get an intuition for what it's like there being something else outside our universe and causality. we default to thinking in causal terms, time, this then that. which might not be the case.

Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 21:13:57 UTC No. 16141135

>>16137477
BB is shizo posting. You must be retarded or a bot not to know the refutations. They are irrefutable btw. Sure.on this glownigger contaminated low iq board you cannot find them. Pruned or deleted. Stay happy you can write the N and J words.

Anonymous at Tue, 23 Apr 2024 02:09:18 UTC No. 16141496

Lex with Sean Carroll, discussing this very subject. fresh episode
https://youtu.be/tdv7r2JSokI?t=5268

Anonymous at Tue, 23 Apr 2024 02:12:12 UTC No. 16141501

>>16141496
>Sean Caroll
wouldnt watch. he's the "scientist" that tweeted sex is nonbinary, why should I care about his opinions?

Anonymous at Tue, 23 Apr 2024 02:13:58 UTC No. 16141502

>>16137510
>large matter doesn't generally come from nothing
>therefore, it probably didn't come from nothing
How is this not proof?

Anonymous at Tue, 23 Apr 2024 02:16:12 UTC No. 16141503

>>16141501
I think he literally sits at Feynman's old desk. That's pretty cool

Anonymous at Tue, 23 Apr 2024 02:35:22 UTC No. 16141518

>>16141503
shameful.

Anonymous at Tue, 23 Apr 2024 03:39:02 UTC No. 16141552

>>16141496
I am listening to this right now and Lex Fridman is so stupid, it's irritating. He keep asking stupid contrived superficial questions and is unable to dig the best out of the guest.