Do you have adblock enabled?
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 19
    More: Interesting, Quantum Fluctuation, mathematical proofs, universe, Big Bang theory, Cosmological Constant, uncertainty principle, Institute of Physics, cosmologists  
•       •       •

3812 clicks; posted to Geek » on 11 Apr 2014 at 10:11 AM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-04-11 12:13:48 PM  
5 votes:

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.


I win again, Lews Therin.
2014-04-11 10:49:36 AM  
5 votes:
Fark it, I don't understand all this science shiat.

So, from now on I'm a Christian. Problem solved!
2014-04-11 12:15:22 PM  
2 votes:
So before the universe, quantum fluctuations existed, meaning something existed at a quantum level to cause the fluctuations. All evidence points to the cosmic background hot air traveling back in time from the Politics tab discussions.
2014-04-11 10:55:32 AM  
2 votes:

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Oh yeah, Mr. Wizard... where did all the nothing come from then?


Infomercials.

/if you act now, you can get a second one for free
2014-04-11 06:35:14 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:06:42 PM  
1 votes:

colon_pow: the alternative is unacceptable.


True. We'd rather not believe that some Ra ejaculated the universe into being.
2014-04-11 11:49:42 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-04-11 11:43:01 AM  
1 votes:

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.


That's the thing about infinity. It's really big. If you go back and check the last 10 billion iterations of the universe and say that you haven't found an instance of us talking about this shiat on this day at this time, then you just haven't looked far enough back.
2014-04-11 11:42:47 AM  
1 votes:

mutterfark: First, this is several levels above my pay grade


I read this as "above my gay parade".

TotalFark is making me a bit silly, I suppose.
2014-04-11 11:41:42 AM  
1 votes:

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?


There is never an end to this. Each end is but a new beginning.

Unless we finally find out everything is cyclical and the theories wrap into themselves.
2014-04-11 11:39:51 AM  
1 votes:

GungFu: Fark it, I don't understand all this science shiat.

So, from now on I'm a Christian. Problem solved!


Except the Big Bang Theory was conceived by a creationist Christian and mocked by "scientists" for decades.

/themoreyouknow.jpg
2014-04-11 11:29:03 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-04-11 11:24:53 AM  
1 votes:

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Oh yeah, Mr. Wizard... where did all the nothing come from then?


Ten percent of nothing is-let me do the math here. Nothing into nothin'. Carry the nothin'...
2014-04-11 11:01:04 AM  
1 votes:

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
2014-04-11 10:56:32 AM  
1 votes:
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?
2014-04-11 10:45:39 AM  
1 votes:
Oh yeah, Mr. Wizard... where did all the nothing come from then?
2014-04-11 10:01:42 AM  
1 votes:
I was told there would be no math.
2014-04-11 09:55:14 AM  
1 votes:
I'm reminded of the old slogan - If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshait.

I both dazzled and baffled.
2014-04-11 08:39:02 AM  
1 votes:
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." "
 
Displayed 19 of 19 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report