If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Medium)   Mathematical proof that the Universe could have formed spontaneously from...err...nothing   (medium.com) divider line 88
    More: Interesting, Quantum Fluctuation, mathematical proofs, universe, Big Bang theory, Cosmological Constant, uncertainty principle, Institute of Physics, cosmologists  
•       •       •

3808 clicks; posted to Geek » on 11 Apr 2014 at 10:11 AM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



88 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-11 12:23:55 PM
the alternative is unacceptable.
 
2014-04-11 12:25:34 PM

DirkValentine: BafflerMeal: whistleridge: To quote Bill Bryson:

""I'm afraid this is the stop on the knowledge highway where most of us must get off. Here is a sentence from the New York Times, explaining this as simply as possible to a general audience: "The ekpyrotic process begins far in the indefinite past with a pair of flat empty branes sitting parallel to each other in a warped five-dimensional space. . . . The two branes, which form the walls of the fifth dimension, could have popped out of nothingness as a quantum fluctuation in the even more distant past and then drifted apart." No arguing with that. No understanding it either. Ekpyrotic, incidentally, comes from the Greek word for "conflagration."

Matters in physics have now reached such a pitch that, as Paul Davies noted in Nature, it is "almost impossible for the non-scientist to discriminate between the legitimately weird and the outright crackpot." "

[24.media.tumblr.com image 500x261]

what skit is that?


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

'Bill Bryson' just made me chuckle.
 
2014-04-11 01:06:42 PM

colon_pow: the alternative is unacceptable.


True. We'd rather not believe that some Ra ejaculated the universe into being.
 
2014-04-11 01:07:37 PM
The sum of all positive universes is...-1/12
 
2014-04-11 01:30:14 PM

DerAppie: A small change 0.^A second after the bang will have very large consequences 14 billion years later, if randomness really exists at quantum levels.


Or the opposite- if there's enough noise, the random fluctuations basically cancel each other out. It depends on a lot of factors, but look at it this way- if I roll a die a billion times, and track what the result is, what I rolled on the first roll isn't going to impact the last roll at all, and its contribution to the overall sum, mean, and mode is going to be small.

For another example, look at a Plinko machine. There are N possible entry states (one for each column you can start in), and N+2 possible exit states. For each step the puck falls down the machine, it has a 50% chance of going to the left or the right (when it reaches an edge, it has a 50% chance of continuing down the edge or moving back towards the middle). I can number the inputs using odd numbers (1,3,5,7...), and the outputs using even numbers (0,2,4,6...). If I build a machine where N=10 and M=1, and I put the puck in slot 5, its only possible output states are [4,6]. On the other hand, if M is equal to or greater than N+2, then regardless of what input state I put the puck in, it  can reach any exit state. And once M is large enough, the chance of any output state is equal regardless of the input state- the initial conditions of the machine cease to matter. I haven't sat down to calculate out the probabilities, but I think if M = N^2 (maybe N!) the initial conditions cease to matter. It might be a smaller number.
 
2014-04-11 01:34:49 PM

Bullseyed: If there are an infinite number of universes, then the level of variability between each on the whole is staggeringly small. A universe exists where everything is the same except instead of a gray shirt, I'm wearing a white shirt, and a blue one, and a red one, and a black one, and a green one. Sure, there are also ones where my shirt is "floorp" colored because colors turned out differently, but by and large things turn out the same for huge spans of universes, if there are indeed infinite ones.


Or I might lose an arm in a fire instead of going to get the pizza

/This truly is the darkest timeline
 
2014-04-11 01:37:38 PM

whistleridge: To quote Bill Bryson:

" "Matters in physics have now reached such a pitch that, as Paul Davies noted in Nature, it is "almost impossible for the non-scientist to discriminate between the legitimately weird and the outright crackpot." "


That's why there is a peer-review system.  Sure, it isn't perfect and sometimes crap slips through the cracks, but the vast majority is well vetted out before it is sent to the ignorant masses.....   so if you can't get it by then, f u

It's about time that we stop dumbing down things to cater to the lowest common denominator...  Scientists who've spent decades studying in their field are spending far too much time trying to explain things to pinheads.  If you don't understand it, read a little... the world does not operate on easily digestible chunks of 1st grade science.

If these concepts are too far above your head, go back to reading about whether Kim Kardashian had work done recently or if some other yahoo got checked into rehab....  leave the important work to the adults.
 
2014-04-11 01:57:04 PM

MassD: That's why there is a peer-review system.  Sure, it isn't perfect and sometimes crap slips through the cracks, but the vast majority is well vetted out before it is sent to the ignorant masses.....   so if you can't get it by then, f u

It's about time that we stop dumbing down things to cater to the lowest common denominator...  Scientists who've spent decades studying in their field are spending far too much time trying to explain things to pinheads.  If you don't understand it, read a little... the world does not operate on easily digestible chunks of 1st grade science.

If these concepts are too far above your head, go back to reading about whether Kim Kardashian had work done recently or if some other yahoo got checked into rehab....  leave the important work to the adults.


Yes...because incredibly complex theoretical physics that even the most brilliant physicists themselves admit they don't fully understand is clearly so clear and concise. To say nothing about the utter inability of your average science writer to comprehend it enough to be able to convey it accurately and readably to the general public.

The article isn't based on observations, it's based on a mathematical proof. Which can be explained...in mathematics. It doesn't translate worth a damn into daily language. And if you think otherwise, you're either A. wrong, B. very full of yourself, or C. have a brilliant career ahead of you as a popular science writer.

For once, I'm betting the answer on Fark isn't C.
 
2014-04-11 02:34:58 PM
So, like, God did it....
 
2014-04-11 02:40:36 PM

jbb3141: The sum of all positive universes is...-1/12


I have seen the math behind that. I know that it works. It's been proven to me.

I still can't say I understand it.
 
2014-04-11 02:55:08 PM
I dont have enough Holiday Inn Expresses around to even begin to understand this.
 
2014-04-11 03:25:20 PM

Lando Lincoln: It's a binary state. You either have something, or nothing. Something can't come from nothing. To say that matter could just pop into existence voids certain laws of physics.


Not if an equivalent amount of antimatter also pops into existence.  Happens all the time.

Also, it isn't nothing, it's a metastable false vacuum.  So, no "things" but lots of potential energy.

/With all nothing, there's only one thing you can do
 
2014-04-11 03:30:30 PM
whistleridge:
The article isn't based on observations, it's based on a mathematical proof. Which can be explained...in mathematics. It doesn't translate worth a damn into daily language. And if you think otherwise, you're either A. wrong, B. very full of yourself, or C. have a brilliant career ahead of you as a popular science writer.

For once, I'm betting the answer on Fark isn't C.


Bah....  what I AM is someone who is completely bullcrap about how science is being crapped on by the pinheads here in 'Merica....  they can't understand even the basic concept of a lot of this stuff, so they laugh, yell TL;DR and discount it as poppycock.... or parrot what some talking head politiot tells them (ESPECIALLY when it comes to any kind of environmental science)

And it is getting WORSE.... Hell, "Cosmos" is like a emergency defib.... a valiant attempt to restart our scientific soul and keep this nation from devolving into some 'Idiocracy'-like wasteland.

Crap pisses me off....
 
2014-04-11 03:35:41 PM

Bullseyed: If there are an infinite number of universes, then the level of variability between each on the whole is staggeringly small. A universe exists where everything is the same except instead of a gray shirt, I'm wearing a white shirt, and a blue one, and a red one, and a black one, and a green one. Sure, there are also ones where my shirt is "floorp" colored because colors turned out differently, but by and large things turn out the same for huge spans of universes, if there are indeed infinite ones.


Or a single photon emitted by betelgeuse gets negated by a quantum fluctuation on it's way to earth and never arrives.  The horror.
 
2014-04-11 03:39:35 PM
whistleridge:
For once, I'm betting the answer on Fark isn't C.

OH... and another thing...  science has already cherrypicked the easy crap....  You know, the visible spectrum, how photosynthesis works, stuff like that... the low hanging fruits are all gone, so now these guys have to put on their big kid pants to keep advancing.  So if the general public can't wrap their starbucks and E-News soaked minds around what they are working on....  too bad, so sad.
 
2014-04-11 03:53:25 PM

MassD: whistleridge:
For once, I'm betting the answer on Fark isn't C.

OH... and another thing...  science has already cherrypicked the easy crap....  You know, the visible spectrum, how photosynthesis works, stuff like that... the low hanging fruits are all gone, so now these guys have to put on their big kid pants to keep advancing.  So if the general public can't wrap their starbucks and E-News soaked minds around what they are working on....  too bad, so sad.


Neither the public nor the physicists nor you nor I can wrap our heads around the relative insanities of string theory, M theory, K theory, or any of the other exotic ideas out there that have been fabricated in an attempt to reconcile the disparate observations of particle physics and astrophysics. Most of us can get about 60% of it, the brighter among us with some exposure to higher mathematics can get 80-90%, and maybe a few hundred people on Earth can get all of it. It's less a function of raw intellect than it is one of time spent focusing on the arcane. There are probably a few hundred people on Earth who have the entire D&D manual memorized too. 

Fortunately (and to Bryson's point), really getting it isn't currently necessary. Most of these theories are either untestable and/or entirely lacking in predictive ability. They're mathematical contortions based on some fairly broad assumptions, and even those who specialize in them are frequently dubious of their validity.

You're talking as though the general public are a bunch of idiotic luddites, for not getting what is generally accepted as the single hardest topic mankind has ever discovered.
 
2014-04-11 03:58:46 PM

idsfa: Lando Lincoln: It's a binary state. You either have something, or nothing. Something can't come from nothing. To say that matter could just pop into existence voids certain laws of physics.

Not if an equivalent amount of antimatter also pops into existence.  Happens all the time.

Also, it isn't nothing, it's a metastable false vacuum.  So, no "things" but lots of potential energy.

/With all nothing, there's only one thing you can do



Too late.  I already went through the universe's clothes.  No loose change.
 
2014-04-11 04:04:30 PM

I can only hope that this proof serves as the foreword to "Well, That About Wraps It Up For God", by Oolon Colluphid.

 
2014-04-11 04:20:04 PM

mark12A: So, like, God did it....


... isn't needed.
 
2014-04-11 04:29:02 PM
Pondering about the nature of reality gives me a queasy feeling in my stomach.
 
2014-04-11 04:41:56 PM

whistleridge: MassD: whistleridge:
For once, I'm betting the answer on Fark isn't C.

OH... and another thing...  science has already cherrypicked the easy crap....  You know, the visible spectrum, how photosynthesis works, stuff like that... the low hanging fruits are all gone, so now these guys have to put on their big kid pants to keep advancing.  So if the general public can't wrap their starbucks and E-News soaked minds around what they are working on....  too bad, so sad.

Neither the public nor the physicists nor you nor I can wrap our heads around the relative insanities of string theory, M theory, K theory, or any of the other exotic ideas out there that have been fabricated in an attempt to reconcile the disparate observations of particle physics and astrophysics. Most of us can get about 60% of it, the brighter among us with some exposure to higher mathematics can get 80-90%, and maybe a few hundred people on Earth can get all of it. It's less a function of raw intellect than it is one of time spent focusing on the arcane. There are probably a few hundred people on Earth who have the entire D&D manual memorized too. 

Fortunately (and to Bryson's point), really getting it isn't currently necessary. Most of these theories are either untestable and/or entirely lacking in predictive ability. They're mathematical contortions based on some fairly broad assumptions, and even those who specialize in them are frequently dubious of their validity.

You're talking as though the general public are a bunch of idiotic luddites, for not getting what is generally accepted as the single hardest topic mankind has ever discovered.


Good.  I'm not the only one who noticed that.  I was starting to worry.
 
2014-04-11 04:42:48 PM

DerAppie: This makes me wonder, what does this do with the heat death of the universe? Does everything simply hang around until some sequence in particles popping up causes a slight imbalance causing everything to contract? Or do we get a new big bang causing the "old" matter to be propelled even farther while the young matter starts the whole dance again? The whole idea that we are the first and only (iteration of the) universe to ever exist seems very boring to me.

Hell, the acceleration might even be because of a new bang pushing outwards (yep, now I'm probably grasping).

/Blah blah, multiverse
//Would still mean that there are universes that are the only ones to exist in their neck of the wood and which will be dead for an eternity


In my utterly amateur opinion....(and I'll be talking about other posts up and down the thread without quotes, so take that for what it's worth, your post was just a starting point for a long stream of consciousness post)

Heat death, as you called it, is the eventual natural decay of energy.  In the grand scope of things, it's like flicking on an incandescent bulb in a vast chasm with absolutely no other light, and flicking it back off. Eventually the heat fades to nothing.  Nothing to do with new or old or anti matter.

However, once it's gone, the particles that pop in and out of existence are more likely to become something stable and hang around for a bit.  With the existence of matter as we stand now, everything exerts a force and dampens or nullifies these other particles.

Eventually,  those particles could gather or pop into existence in enough concentration to cause a new "universe"(ie our collection of galaxies).  Or, alternatively, instead of having alternative universes, there are others that exist simultaneously, but are so far away as to be out of the realm of the influence of ours.

There's a funamental problem with the word "universe", as it's variable meanings but originally and traditionally, it is "everything".   There is one universe, one reality.  Entirely too many people utter it and apply some misconception or forced meaning(ie Fetch, stop trying to make fetch happen).

So, imo, we've got one universe.  It's infinite, it's really big.  It's a bit of hubris to talk about alternative realities that are centered on our own.  It's far more likely and
reconcilable with popular theory that others may or may not exist right now, but are so far away as to be nonexistent.  We are but a single ripple in the ocean from having a grain of sand dropped in, a ripple which will not propagate very far at all, in the larger scale of things.  These are the iterations that other posters mention, or, imo, the more likely truth to them.

Another thinking point that I don't often see from scientists(as many are more dreamers than realists when it comes to guessing how X works) or even fantasy fiction writers.  Wormholes are always these vast things which will permit travel.  IMO, according to some theory, they're miniscule folds in space, not gargantuan.  These are what make up matter as we know it, a bend in space.  This is what the aforementioned particles are that are popping in and out of
existence.

They pop back out more readily because there are already other forces on the chaos that they popped into.  The sheet being pulled and ironed out doesn't tolerate wrinkles very easily.

IMO, those tiny wormholes are what's at the center of a blackhole.  Enough matter exists in a place to have gravity, so all the folds gather.   Get enough of them, and there's not only enough force to stop others from materializing but to crush the folds at the center, the folds that were previously stable return to a chaotic state.  That state of chaos is inherently more powerful than these particles(all of which are temporary on scale, relating back to the beginning of my post).  And once a particle is destroyed in such a way, it's like a firehose that's left unattended but with massive pressure flailing it around, that's enough force to upset the balance in the surrounding particles, and their wormholes unravel as well.

IMO, again(is it odd that I feel compelled to keep saying it?)  A black hole is not a "drain" to some other place.  It's utter destruction.  Explosions as we know them, even nuclear, are still only so much re-arranging of matter as we know it, not destructive at all in comparison to what's happening in a black hole.  It's a temporary tear, a return to the chaos of "nothing" that the state the universe was in before the light was flicked on.

That's one problem that a lot of people have with matter coming from "nothing".  They picture "nothing" as a void relative to observable physical material.  But that void is not nothing, it's still being ironed out by the presence of matter.  Gravity, radiation, magnetic fields, etc.

Pure nothing is chaos with potential. No defined space or time, nothing to give any of it meaning.  So point A can also be point B, and also route blutarch.  It's noise, as other posters have hinted at, static, shifting randomness.

The
development of matter is not spontaneous, it's inevitable, in such a state of chaos.  Not so different than "brute force" theory when guessing passwords, trial and error on scale, except there is no actual intent.

People say spontaneous and random are leading themselves into a mental trap.  It's not like we've got one dice roll and we just happen to roll a 6, it's that we get an infinite amount of dice rolls and often roll a 6, sometimes several in a row, sometimes billions.  It's that those periods in between hitting a billion in a row seem right next to eachother, because without that event, time is meaningless.

Presented graphically with text(we'll say 3 6's in a row, just for ease of demonstration)
(not 3 6's) 666 (not 3 6's) 666 (not 3 6's)


/no mark of the beast, just happened that way and I'm not going back to edit it

All of the above parts in parenthesis could be anywhere between a single dice roll and umpteen googleplexes to the billionth power, but are irrelevant because only the presence of 666 yields any order with which to judge time.

And at that, my stream of consciousness has ran dry for the time being.  Appologies to all who would be offended at the length, well, not really.  If you can't scroll past or keep up mentally, go fark yourselves.
/will admit that it's a bit scattered maybe, but it's all relative somewhat.
 
2014-04-11 04:44:57 PM
so we just sort of "poofed" out from nothing.
nothing magical about that...

whatever helps you sleep at night.
 
2014-04-11 05:06:48 PM

colon_pow: so we just sort of "poofed" out from nothing.
nothing magical about that...



Begs to differ:
www.sesamestreet.org

(Why yes, I have daughters. How did you guess?)
 
2014-04-11 05:13:39 PM

t3knomanser: if I roll a die a billion times, and track what the result is, what I rolled on the first roll isn't going to impact the last roll at all, and its contribution to the overall sum, mean, and mode is going to be small.


Yeah, and now assume that things in physics actually interact as opposed to the various results from an ideal dice rolled in ideal circumstances. The whole what-if-I-step-on-an-insect-if-I-travel-100-million-years-back-in-time scenario

Having a few bits of matter shift a bit to the right at an early enough time shifts all the interactions of matter in that area. Instead of a plinko machine imagine a busy street. There are thousands of people walking there on any given day. Imagine someone doing on step to the right at a random moment. He might step on someone's toe. That person will slow down a bit, get angry and then move on. The delay influences the flow of traffic around him in minute ways. His emotional state might cost him the job he was about to interview for. The change in the flow of traffic might mean someone gets pushed into oncoming traffic by accident where this wouldn't have happened before. Or someone won't get pushed where it would have happened. The random change isn't something that happens in isolation from the world. It is something that happens to particles that get shot out with insane amounts of energy at the birth of a new universe.

Or to go back to the plinko machine: imagine perfectly identical balls all being dropped in exactly, and I do mean exactly, the same manner and location. The balls would, barring external influences and wear and tear on the pins, all end up at the same end location. Change a bit at the beginning for each ball, or use slightly imperfect balls, and you'd get a spread. So change something at the start and you'll get a different outcome. Have everything at the start the same, and you'll get identical outcomes for each ball.
 
2014-04-11 05:38:23 PM

Lord Dimwit: The issue here is that "nothing" isn't "nothing" in the philosophical sense. The "nothing" whence sprang the Universe was still a quantum vacuum, with the rules of quantum physics and potentials and such. It's not "literally nothing".

So now the question is, where did the quantum vacuum, and the rules of quantum physics come from?


I've come to the realization that at the bottom of Everything *must* be nothingness.  However, Nothingness can't exist without Possibility.  Given an infinite number of Nothingnesses, the Possibility that Something happens increases to certainty, and it thus follows that if Something happens from Nothing over an infinite amount of time, then not only must Something happen but indeed Everything must happen, as the Multiverse is defined.  If one accepts the possibility of Nothingness, one if forced to accept the requirement that Everything must happen.  The trick is to determine which variant of Everything one exists in.
 
2014-04-11 05:50:10 PM

Bullseyed: DerAppie: Lando Lincoln: DerAppie: The whole idea that we are the first and only (iteration of the) universe to ever exist seems very boring to me.

The opposite of that seems very boring to me. If the universe has been expanding and contracting forever and ever backwards in time, then that means we've probably had this same discussion an infinite amount of times.

Why would things need to be the same every single time? A small change 0.^A second after the bang will have very large consequences 14 billion years later, if randomness really exists at quantum levels.

Your comprehension is lacking.

If there are an infinite number of universes, then the level of variability between each on the whole is staggeringly small. A universe exists where everything is the same except instead of a gray shirt, I'm wearing a white shirt, and a blue one, and a red one, and a black one, and a green one. Sure, there are also ones where my shirt is "floorp" colored because colors turned out differently, but by and large things turn out the same for huge spans of universes, if there are indeed infinite ones.


You're nowhere near the level of variance involved in the concept of 'Multiverse', m'man.  Since the theory arose out of quantum mechanics, the variance that seperates one variant universe from the next is simply the random position of a sub-atomic particle in some point in the universe at one instance of time.  What seperates our universe from the next one to the left is whether an electron in a Lithium atom floating in the Crab Nebula will be on the left side or right side of its nucleus at a particular instance 73,000 years from now on a Tuesday.  Differences involving something so large as your shirt shows variance at several infinity-minus-one levels above where the variance actually happens.
 
2014-04-11 05:57:47 PM

Lando Lincoln: It's a binary state. You either have something, or nothing. Something can't come from nothing. To say that matter could just pop into existence voids certain laws of physics.


The problem with this argument is that the laws of physics are only applicable within this universe, and cannot be assumed to have been in existence prior to said universe.
 
2014-04-11 06:25:28 PM

AdrienVeidt: The problem with this argument is that the laws of physics are only applicable within this universe, and cannot be assumed to have been in existence prior to said universe.


It also assumes that the sum total of everything isn't "nothing"
 
2014-04-11 06:35:14 PM
So we came from nothing.

A nothing that had characteristics. Elements sort of. Proto existence. Like the possibility of a quantum fluctuation.

Exactly what sort of nothing are we talking here because nothing doesn`t have anything and this nothing had something..

Are you talking about something?

That`s not nothing.
 
2014-04-11 06:39:05 PM
One thing people keep forgetting is there's a reason we say the universe came from nothing.  It's because "Came from" implies a "before", and in the case of our universe, time itself began at that point.  So while the universe may have come into being as the result of some sort of mechanism or effect, you can't say it came from something, because there was no before.  Scientists for the most part aren't implying the universe poofed into existence for no reason at all.  But they are saying that you can't refer to a previous event when time didn't yet exist.
 
2014-04-11 06:52:57 PM
According to the descriptions/explanations I've heard:

The smallest component definable as space is Planck Length 10E-35 Meters
However the Planck Energy translated through E=MC^2 associated with the Planck Length is 10E+19 x larger than a proton's mass.

So if there is so much potential energy associated with such a tiny "point", then if a larger combination of energy coming from the outside of the Universe, in this case "the threeway collision" of 3 branes on one Planck Length, and that collision caused all of the potential energies of all of those 3 Planck Lengths (1 from each of the branes) to suddenly release in one "Big Bang" then a "Universe" could arise.

So in essence each and every Planck Length in our universe has the potential energy to produce a new and unique Universe, with a possible difference in "shape" close to 10E+500 varieties of universe being produced each time.

So that means that every cubic meter of Planck Lengths in our space time could technically produce 10E+105 Universes if those outside branes made contact and repeated the forces that we are looking at in the creation or our current universe.

Then we have what we can see, and now verify.
A unit of Planck Time is 10E-43 seconds.

With the findings of released on March 22nd, and explained via this video, on March 26th, 2014, we now have seen what happend at 10E-36 Seconds, just at the middle/end of the "Inflationary" phase of the Universe which lasted until 10E-30 Seconds after the initial release.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8s0ejrBkVg#aid=P9il45uuWCQ

For perspective, the total size of the Universe during the Inflationary period went from Planck Length of 10E-35 Meters to the approximate size of a grapefruit/softball in the space of 10E-43 to 10E-30 seconds or 10 1/trillionths of a second.

So while we have come a long ways from the 1 second away from the big bang that we were at when Brian Greene published his book in 1999, (in fact we are a trillion, trillion, trillion times closer to seeing the actual Big Bang) we still need to traverse another 10 billion times closer to see the actual bang events at the Planck Time scale 10E-43.

Interesting indeed. And what is funnier still is that Jim Carrey actually tried to explain this on Conan O' Brian's show. Jim Carrey's explaination portion of the clip is in the You Tube Video linked above from 16:13 to 17:48. Of course the audience laughs nervously throughout, as they don't know whether it's serious or comedy or parody, but he was trying to talk seriously about science on the stage.
 
2014-04-11 08:07:32 PM

colon_pow: so we just sort of "poofed" out from nothing.
nothing magical about that...

whatever helps you sleep at night.


I wouldn't worry about it, if I were you. You don't need to know.

Teaching the Ultimate

In early times in Japan, bamboo-and-paper lanterns were used with candles inside. A blind man, visiting a friend one night, was offered a lantern to carry home with him.
"I do not need a lantern," he said. "Darkness or light is all the same to me."
"I know you do not need a lantern to find your way," his friend replied, "but if you don't have one, someone else may run into you. So you must take it."
The blind man started off with the lantern and before he had walked very far someone ran squarely into him.
"Look out where you are going!" he exclaimed to the stranger. "Can't you see this lantern?"
"Your candle has burned out, brother," replied the stranger.
 
2014-04-11 09:35:08 PM
whistleridge: ...

Matters in physics have now reached such a pitch that, as Paul Davies noted in Nature, it is "almost impossible for the non-scientist to discriminate between the legitimately weird and the outright crackpot." "

Completely and regrettably true - and yet that is not going to stop legions of people from declaring that this mathematical "proof" is now scientific and provable FACT that the universe sprang from nothing when, in truth, it is not "proof" in any tangible and realistic sense at all.  More fodder for the irrational to quote I guess.
 
2014-04-11 10:46:58 PM
What plays the role of the cosmological constant in Dongshan and co's new theory? Interestingly, these guys say a quantity known as the quantum potential plays the role of cosmological constant in the new solutions.
This potential comes from an idea called pilot-wave theory developed in the mid-20th century by the physicist David Bohm.


motores.com.py

(pilot-wave theory is not generally well-regarded)
 
2014-04-11 11:36:54 PM

Skyrmion: (pilot-wave theory is not generally well-regarded)


Neither was the Big Bang.  The determining factor will be if it does a better job of describing observation.
 
2014-04-12 04:03:41 AM
Not to harsh your buzz; as much as to point out that the emperor is naked..

Something is actually nothing without time/space applied.
That is, to us, in space/time.

God is.
Outside of and within space/time
Eternity is outside space/time
There was never a start, size, quantity, boundary nor is there an end, those are properties of space/time.

The fluctuations people are struggling with could be just as easily seen as a "word", which is composed of energy [ confined, manifested as matter, by space/time]

pressure fluctuations of inchoate matter [gravity waves] within, and defined by space/time.
Like any true equation, it is also true in reverse, the word itself defines and -creates- space/time.
That space/time is by nature expansive and driven by the power described by E=mc2

The energy which became mass by the operation of space/time is-was-and ever shall be a property separate from space/time.

That is why super prompt nuclear reactions are so prompt, pure energy can not exist in a free state within space/time,

Hard part.... when the atom is "split" [misnomer] matter is annihilated as energy is instantly [no elapsed time] bound ["created"] as matter within space/time [2d law of thermodynamics] No energy can be lost in space/time, it always decays into matter [entropy]

This binding of energy into mass is beyond the speed of light in that the 'reaction' happens outside of space/time. The 'communication of information' is instant.
Gravity is also outside this 'veil' ; the communication is instant no matter the space/time and can not be defined in space/time.

Now i could replace all the terms [words] with mathematical symbols and say the same thing, if you can understand that language. Mostly, human math is a dead language, needs more cowbell, etc.

i could go on, but there are things about this that are too simple to express using words or math.
Better felt,
than telt.
 
2014-04-12 07:16:38 AM

JSTACAT: Not to harsh your buzz


Speaking of, you sound like your preferred high is drinking drain cleaner.
 
Displayed 38 of 88 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report