Hey Veeky Forums

landlord here, nice try user but you are still going to pay this month's rent.

You probably think that time is an illusion.

Time was literally created during the big bang. There literally is no before. Nothing had to have happened to trigger the big bang. Even if there was something before, it wouldn't matter because it's not part of the universe.

If you don't understand what this means, you should learn some more about modern cosmology and figure out why your assumptions are wrong.

time = change

something changed 13.8 bn years ago

not 20 bn years ago

time happened between 20 bn and 13.8 bn
maybe totally distorted pace compared the current flow of time, but change it did, thus time happened.

> where did x come from?
Meh.. we're probably part of something absolute and eternal, no beginning required (not talking about the universe, but existence)

We assume the Big Bang was the beginning of this universe, but something probably started it and we can't figure out what did it with our current knowledge...

it never happened
no beginning and no end
it always happens

chan buddhist koan
as haiku of the day

we could also just be a local expansion even within a large unobservable universe, don't ask me how the light from the rest of the universe not reaching us works, maybe the big bang created a gravity wake and "pushed" the ambient light away leaving only the ambient background noise of the creation event

there's a lot of possibilities

>local expansion event within a larger

good luck explaining the CMB with that

youtu.be/IcxptIJS7kQ?t=24m40s

>time=change
nice assumption you got there faggot

Our model of logic breaks down at the moment of universe creation. Cosmogeny is unknowable to us. A more plausible question is why it is unknowable.

he's right you brainless parrot, if there was no time then the state of matter would not change and no physical reaction causing the big bang would happen, even if all spacetime in the universe was compressed into an infinitely small point it had to still exist

>he thinks the big bag was a physical reaction.
Wew lad.

>the prominent theory would be string theory, and a collision of strings generated the big bang
lmao no.

The big bang is an inference. It is not observed and the idea isn't even useful.

> #
>>time=change
>nice assumption you got there faggot

hello beautiful hetero, feel free to give an alternative definition

Time = increase in entropy
No entropy, no time.
Since the energy state prior to the big bang was the same everywhere, any change that occurred happened every instantaneously. That means it happened in 0/no time.

Of course there was some change that triggered the expansion, but until symmetry of the forces broke, the changes were not measurable.

I know you're a brainlet, and that it's counter intuitive to your everyday life, but try to keep up.

so there was a condensate that didn't change on average.
ok, technically you are correct, the averages didn't change.
However, this is a cop-out, this is nothing like NO-TIME where absolutely nothing happens.

nothing exists without a subject to perceive and communicate it

>This is nothing like NO-TIME where absolutely nothing happens

What you're saying is equivalent to what I said, but you're disagreeing with me somehow.

I'll try again:
In a static system where it's state cannot change, no time exists. This means that nothing happens.

In a system where a change of state occurs instantaneously, it happens in no time. In this no time, nothing actually happened. There's no way to compare the new system state to the old one.

In truth, there never was an "old" system state, because there is no way to compare the change in the system state. The system, the pre-big bang existed and could have existed for an infinite amount of time, undergoing an infinite amount of changes, but the only state that matters is the state it was in that triggered the big bang. Everything "before" could be said to have never existed at all.

The "strings are two entire empty universes, drawn together by their mutual void, and when they touch they create a lot of energy that eventually cools into particles, which then cool into matter.

Neat, huh?

>and could have existed for an infinite amount of time,

ty - that's all I wanted

aw yiss, the giant jew in the sky saw it all

God did it :^)

Only two places a singularity exists in our universe:
>black holes
>"big bang"

Our universe was created by a black hole in another universe. Why is this such a difficult thing to understand?

Remember when I say time, I only mean it by pure thought. As I've already explained, time didn't exist before the big bang.

BUT, if you could imagine that the state of the pre-big bang was observable without interference, it's possible that one would observe an arbitrarily large number of changes over an arbitrarily large amount of time.

Since that isn't possible, physical time still didn't exist.

Also, fuck the english language for equating conjugations of the infinitive "to be" with notions of "time"

It's not. "God created the universe," is not hard concept to understand,, but finding mathematical proof is a different matter and is the only thing that validates your "theory". Why is that hard to understand?

If god did then who did god ;^) ?

Check mate

If time didnt exist before the big bang, the big bang wouldnt have, well... "Banged". Time is determined by change in the total entropy in the universe. If time didnt exist before the big bang then the universe would have remained as it was before the big bang indefinitely. Just because there was no entropy to observe doesnt mean time didnt exist, it was just unobservable through our methods of observation.

That's where you're mistaken.
No entropy = no time end of story.
That's also why time will end in the heat death.

This isn't philosophical, or metaphysical, it is consistent with our current understanding of physics.

It could simply be that at a certain energy density, spacetime becomes unstable and bangs. As I said before, this could have happened instantly. I.e no time.

Our current understanding of physics does not equal law of the universe. If time didnt exist before something happens (big bang or otherwise) then said thing doesnt happen, period. At some point, the singularity that created the big bang (as far as we understand) came into existence. That is a change in the state of the universe before entropy as we know it can be measured. Saying "there was no time, we are certain because x" is objectively more wrong than saying "time could have existed before the big bang, but we dont understand how to measure it". Unless you are saying time exists because of how we define it, which is also wrong, because the universe would change over time with or without any life forms inside of it.

>If time didn't exist before something happens, then said thing doesn't happen
This is where you and others keep getting caught up.
Things can "happen" without time passing. It's not hard to imagine. If you could travel at the speed of light (which you can't) you would instantaneously move a certain distance. I.E. in no time. Something obviously happened, but it happened in no time. This is what I mean by my previous explanation.

>At some point the singularity.....
That's an outdated model. There was no need for a singularity, the big bang was everywhere, it's just that the universe was really small.

>unless you're saying time exists because of how we define it
no, I'm not. and telling me I'm wrong and not offering any reasons why isn't very productive.

I'll explain it again, as simply as I can:
The state of the universe in the pre big bang was in a state of minimal entropy. Things could have been happening to the universe, but since the entire universe shared the same state, these things that happened happened everywhere simutaneously.

If it were possible to observe the pre big bang, nothing would be observed, because it would be impossible to tell if the state of the universe changed at all. This is what I mean by no time. We know with as much certainty as anything else in physics that this was the case. If you want to deny this, or split hairs between knowledge and truth, then I'll leave your ignorance in peace because you are incapable, or choose not to understand what I'm actually saying.

He has a point though.

Time is still poorly defined for him and most people who don't realize you can link the concept to the macroscopic increase of entropy in a system.

>he thinks the big bang explains the start of the universe, when in reality, it explains literally everything but.
Big bang isnt a model about the first instant, only whats after.

That's fair, I don't comprehend it fully either.
I have however, explained it several time throughout the thread, and with only a basic understanding in thermodynamics, the implications should be immediately clear.

You can also watch a bunch of (credible) videos about the big bang. They'll explain it similarly. I promise I'm not making this up, it's largely the consensus in the scientific community (which doesn't validate it, but shows I'm not making it up).

I used to believe there needed to be a first cause, a before and after. I searched for explanations of how God could exist in our universe. If you think this way, you'll only find turtles all the way down.

If you adopt the current explanation, as I've explained it, it doesn't discredit the existence or influence of a god, and it doesn't require the paradox of first cause.

>I searched for explanations of how God could exist in our universe. If you think this way, you'll only find turtles all the way down.
Hey if you want something fun and new read up on how Computation Theory basically paves the way for the existing of the divine in theory, but not in practice, as a super-Turing capable entity that's infinite in relation to us but not in of itself.

But if you want to quickly reply to people who ask what came "before" the Big Bang, ask them to define precisely time first and that then you'll tell them.

P.s. I am not a CS student

>As far as I understand the prominent theory would be string theory, and a collision of strings generated the big bang. Fine, but where did the strings come from?
1) string theory is a literal meme, it is not science
2) the big bang theory comes entirely from gr
3) string theory is a literal meme

>Heisenbergs uncertainty principle states that systems can be created out of nothing by spontaniously forming pairs of particle . The closer the sum of energy of these particles, the longer the system can survive.
Do you know what the uncertainty principle is? Because it sure doesn't say that anywhere. You're thinking of the casmir effect which, like everything in qm, applies the uncertainty principle. Also the casmir effect is highly nuanced and doesn't work as simply as you postulated.

>Also, in what dimension would that have happened?
String theory is a literal meme.

tl;dr stop reading popsci, pick up a textbook

Science has it's head so far up it's rectum it's coming up with occult nonsense to perpetuate the belief that we weren't created by a creator because they are too afraid of that implication.

Cool question, but trolls like this make Veeky Forums sci uninteresting nowadays. Nothing=nothing. We will never solve this question. Ever.

Also, this means everything is ultimately random. Think about it. Why are we stuck with the speed of light. Who cares really? It's all random rules. We will never explain anything really. It's just shallow "explanations" really. Prove me wr0ng.

RANDOM??? Please look up "fine tuned universe"
PLEASE......

Wew lads this is but a plane of existence, what you see feel smell is just electric nerves telling your brain what you see is a real solid object "matter" is a term used in this plane of existence but its just a NAME that WE created to try and comprehend our existence, death is only the beginning of this journey, instead of asking how we should ask why

...

>creation of the universe.
As far as we can prove causality only applies within the universe. If causality doesn't apply to everything that isn't a subset of our universe, its existence is really quite easily explained.

In other words it might be that causality is only a rule followed by things -in- the universe, not by the universe itself. If this is the case, universe creation is no biggie.

It is unknown yet what came before the big bang. However our human mechanical sensors picked up gravity waves at a certain frequency when two black holes collided. Perhaps we can figure out another harmonic that will yield a signal from before even gravity came into being.

It's all music baby~
Play the sound of a beautiful rhythm~
Come alive since the dawn of time~
Rhythm and rhyme~
Love and war~
Near and far~
I have found you!~

For the last time, don't cite me Kanye West lyrics you fuccboi

S-senpai...

Got any links for that reading? I'm very interested.

god did god, they call it masturbation

Energy forming particles of mass is not "nothing making something."

Im a theist, so you wouldnt like my belief, but so far we only have explainations for the cosmic microwave background radiation, but no concrete proof. We still dont understand why the CMB isnt homogenous or why mass was created in an uneven distribution compared to "antimass" (for lack of a better word.)

That is retarded.

>string theory
>prominent
Here, have some pop-sci for the basics:
youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Then, after a lotta math, you can get into more complicated stuffs.

>No entropy = no time end of story
Entropy is but one arrow of time. It's not as if time reverses in localized instances where entropy is reversing. (Which yes, happens, entropy is only uni-directional in a closed system.)