How the hell is it possible to shrink everything in the universe to a single point? That makes no sense...

I think units in your picture are wrong (nowadays, temperature is about 300K, not 3K)

There is no such thing as "impossible" for God - the almighty creator of all things. Praise Baby Jesus! Amen.

Is that so. Because you don't how much (duration ) does not mean there was none. Time has always been there. Time has no beginning. It just was ,is and will always be.

According to the bible God is the Word. If not so, the bible is wrong. But for a Word to be, there must be time. So time is inferior to God. Therefor the bible is false. Period.

3 degrees kelvin .. thats about the temperature of space

time is part of space time ..
no space time , no time

Those are not your own words.
Time depends on it own only.

PROVE me wrong.
Protip: you can not

oh well .. nevermind then

It can't. It is just physics hand-waving and mumbo-jumbo magic technobabble.

I think you are forgetting that this is just the best theory that humans have at the moment it relegates the notion that since everything is moving away from us and also from one another then at some point they must have been closer. if we keep going back at some point matter must have been close enough that at at one point it "could" have been together. There is significant math to show that this is probable, if you really want to see how some people with higher education has tackled the problem here.

arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207

this is a paper in which they try their notions of different theories that could solve this problem

Technically we know they were closer because we can see the most distant galaxies with light that was emitted billions of years ago and the galaxies of that epoch are much closer than the galaxies in our local group

Of course i'm not debating that at all since that is an objective truth, we can see that with telescopes.

I heard a theory that the higgs boson field existed before the big bang, and it's what gave things mass

>implying extra-dimensional beings are bound by time

I'm not paying a bunch of money to read the content

>god particle
>god field
the higgs field is literally god

Straight from Wikipedia

There has been considerable scientific research on possible links between the Higgs field and the inflaton – a hypothetical field suggested as the explanation for the expansion of space during the first fraction of a second of the universe (known as the "inflationary epoch"). Some theories suggest that a fundamental scalar field might be responsible for this phenomenon; the Higgs field is such a field and therefore has led to papers analysing whether it could also be the inflaton responsible for this exponential expansion of the universe during the Big Bang. Such theories are highly tentative and face significant problems related to unitarity, but may be viable if combined with additional features such as large non-minimal coupling, a Brans–Dicke scalar, or other "new" physics, and have received treatments suggesting that Higgs inflation models are still of interest theoretically.

the next 'maxwell's equations' will be the equations of the higgs boson field and its solutions are applications to computers

I am stupid and this is my first post on this board.

My impression of the Big Bang theory is that it is not intended to be taken as complete.

For example, I have never heard anyone say that it only can occur once, or that it describes anything beyond the universe.

If it implies that, I have a rationality problem with it.

It comes down, I think, to not having language equal to concepts we try to define. When we use terms like space and time, we automatically assume things like the entirety of the universe and time as having a relative starting point.

I am not sure such things exist. There may simply be no measurable beginning, and a finite end to the universe implies a 'where', a place where there is no universe, or at least not this one.

So immediately we are back to a time 'before' and a place 'beyond'. The language simply fails, at least to me.

I dont look at the broad strokes of this theory as neatly. My impression is that the time we perceive is simply our sensory mechanism of measuring change. We already have reason to suspect that that sense changes with scale and relative speed.

So when I think of the 'Big Bang', I dont think of matter at one place exploding into another at some speed. I just think of all the matter that is everywhere we will ever perceive it reorganzing itself. There is no place beyond or time before. It just reorganizes itself, we perceive it as space created and the enormous change as violent speed. Where gravity and matter depart from energy, we perceive space. Where there is atomic motion within that space, we perceive as time, and thus a sense of ubiquitous and universal homogeneity and synchronicity. From this, we observe 'laws' of physics and are not surprised to find things appearing to work the same in one place as another.

When we try to apply metrics to their extremes, however, they fail our language, and we begin wondering about things that may not exist, like a region 'beyond' our universe and a point 'before' time.

Ah that satisfies it. Wait a minute, no it doesn't. Where did the Higgs field come from? Why was it there? Who put it there? Why? What even is it? Strings? What? If it's strings what are strings? And so on.

>applications to computers
How so?

If you forget the concept of matter for a minute, and assume matter _is_ energy, and energy is peaks and valleys in a field, then it's easy to imagine how the big bang could have happened. The singularity was a point where the peaks and valleys were scrunched together. The end of the universe is where they get almost completely flattened out as the fields "stretch" or expand. And yes, time is just this expansion occurring.

Hoping we find a way to regulate and control this expansion one day millennia from now.

I don't know what you want from me. ..
At some point I believe there was just an eternity of something.
And given an eternity, anything that can happen, will happen, however unlikely that may be.

>eternity doesn't exist
Not in our universe, but outside of it, anything is possible

Our universe is mathematical order, and anything that is not our universe is chaos. Given eternity or the infinite number of possibilities that chaos implies, I think our universe is indeed possible.

That makes sense to me, that re-organization. So then perhaps I should throw the term "when" (as it applies to a Big Bang happening) out the window also. Thank you.

I stopped by wondering if anyone had a good way to distinguish what we call life from other matter organization.

I was thinking about amino acids replicating and wondered where, how and why we distinguish some replication as life and not others.

Forgive me, as I said, its my first time here, and I am not especially smart. I am out of my element, and its intimidating.

Why is our universe governed by formulae and not outside if it?

If you consider the law of entropy, chaos is everything's natural state, and everything will attempt to reach it. So I argue that our universe is, in fact, chaotic and just has a spout of sanity.

According to this definition, any regulation of the expansion of spacetime would be time travel. This is a block universe. If you try to slow down or reverse expansion you'll just be rewinding events.

I agree. It's trying to return to its primordial state where there were no laws of physics.

>senses change with scale and relative speed
Let's expand on this. Why does time seem slower as we approach c? What arguments are there the predict microverses would experience time exponentially faster than macroverses?

My mother told me that the universe is expanding because the dielectric k value is increasing with expansion. So the higher k value the more zero point energy acceleration. She says it will keep happening until all the electrons and protons breakdown which happens lots of years after heat death. Then there are no more particles (postive and negative capacitor plates) so the k value goes down as universe shrinks and it accelerates into the new big bang and repeats.

Help guys I think my mom is an alien. She is mind controlling me to give you this pic and says something like this trash is the best you humans got. Too bad the guy who drew it is dead and you thought he was a quack.
Quack, quack.

>MOM!!!!!!!!! Stop.

Living is merely a word we use to define things that grow, reproduce, take in and use energy, excrete waste, respond to the environment, and possess an organized structure more complex than that of non-living things.

you dont have to buy it. On the right side it says
-Download- right under it there is a "PDF" if you click it you can see the 5 pages of different models in which they use math to make models with mathematical proof. If you like you can research more of how the math works and why these models are prominent.

That's called bounce theory
Is it math connecting quantum and newton mechanics?

Sometimes I just stare at the night sky and think about all the stuff I've studied in physics and how little I actually understand about the nature of any of it.

I suppose its a matter of identifying patterns with beginnings and an end, and then a scale from large down to small where it stops being identifiable.

Which makes it interesting that we recognize it in everything from algae to whales.

I could not say, I am not familiar with them. This is a bit of a dodge in the absence of knowledge; however I would have to know whether you mean objective measurement or measurement relative to what your are perceiving.

Specifically, you indicate a factor of scale, which is interesting, because it seems to imply distances that energy must travel, and there is (presumably) more than one aspect to scale and time, at least insofar as measuring and perceiving it.

A problem I encounter sometimes trying to sort through these ideas is that when I wonder how such things work, I am occasionally confronted with the possibility that I myself exist within one of these possibilities that I imagine.

For example, when you make a distinction of scale. After I consider it for a minute, I begin to wonder if in fact I may exist in one of the scenarios being posited.

That is, what might I think if I discovered I was on the larger or smaller end of this scale?

Its sort of question of how 'big' we think we are. It seems like it could be obvious, but perhaps it isnt.

I would love to hear any thoughts from anyone like yourself who would likely understand the impact of scale better than I do.

Sorry if I rambling.

It's still impossible to crunch that much stuff into such a small space.

As someone who hasn't studied physics, I tend to think that studying anything else, as I have, is a waste of time. Physics at least makes an attempt at understanding our surroundings.

Bounce Theory runs into the 2nd law though.

Our present-day conception of space itself breaks down in the singularity. It's incomprehensible to a mind that occupies space. And yet it's something that almost certainly occurred.

The only useful distinction is that between things that self-replicate and things that don't.

I am not versed in the physics. But I too have supposed that it is cyclical

I have heard it ends with 'a whimper'. At which point it may seem difficult to imagine what precipitates the big crunch.

But then, with matter organized the way it would be at that point, I have no idea what the properties of space and other forces would be, or how gravity would interact with itself across so much space and dispersed energy.

The craziest thing is that I always wonder if any living thing within it would actually notice, given the relative nature of it all.

Then there is dark matter to consider, and I have no grasp of that at all.

I think what he was perhaps suggesting is that the space itself is somewhat relative. In fact, quantifying it in such a state may be pointless. Its often described as a singularity. But that point of compression isnt a point *in* a space, but all space itself within it.

So then describing it as a point *in* space may be misleading. The point is all space itself, and describing it as a point is more a statement about the nature of what is in it and how it is organized than how much "space" it occupies.

Then it changes organization. If you are within that point, you may or may not be able to perceive it as any different than it is now. We extrapolate and watch, but there could be a 'future' where beings view us as being in that point in "time" ourselves right now.

If you are outside that point, then you are presumably somehow 'outside' this universe and can't detect us anyways, or one of us doesn't technically exist.

>The point is all space itself
That can't exist without something outside of it.

Im not sure that is necessarily true. The point and the universe may be interchangeable with the only distinction being what state it is organized in. In both cases, it is everything. Describing it as a point denotes its state, not that it must necessarily be relative to anything outside of everything.

Its tricky business trying to see the universe from a distance. Because where ever you are, you are taking matter and energy with you. The act of trying to leave it would in fact expand it. Your heat itself would theoretically be expanding ahead of you. To be outside of it was to never have been in it at all. And where ever you are, I cannot fathom how you would know this universe exists.

Again, tricky business when there is the universe and everything in it.... and yet something more somewhere else. At that point, the term 'universe' sort of fails. Even if you only have two universes, then where are they?

Good night all, and thank you for a fun discussion.

>the term universe fails
I agree, even if we were in fact part of a multiverse, what's outside of that? Or is it infinite?
These elementary scalar fields such as higgs boson field are believed to be not just everywhere in our universe, but everywhere everywhere.

What do we call everything everything?
The universe and beyond?

What if there are multiple universes coexisting in a massive expanse? Think of it this way, the universe itself is but an atom in a massive web of empty void, and there are other atoms at infinite distances such that most universes never interact with each other.

I don't believe that universe is all there is. Since it's expanding, there has to be something beyond it but I don't know what. Claiming that there's nothing beyond the universe is just intellectual dishonesty.

>Has not seen edge of tomorrow with Tom Cruise yet. Laffable

>Our present-day conception
>It comes down, I think, to not having language equal to concepts we try to define
>implying extra-dimensional beings are bound by time
>Maybe there was something

Can we all just agree that there is an entirely new branch of science we are yet to discover, and start hypothesising what it might look like?

Some have already been hypothesising. Before our universe was elementary scalar fields. It would make sense that that's outside our universe too.
As for time there are a couple caveats of scientists: simply perception, 4th dimension in space-time (also has to do with perception).

bosons have no trouble in accumulating to one point, Pauli exclusion doesn't apply

All matter is made of energy and energy can be compressed.

Intuition tells us, we're solid. Yet, if you acknowledge the fact that atoms are literally 99.99% empty, you're disregarding your initial intuition about the make up of the physical bodies.

Good thing science doesn't work on intuitions or common sense, else we'd be stuck as cavemens.

Because at high enough energies it ceases to be matter and becomes pure energy.

There is an ENORMOUS FAILURE in this picture

WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK GRAVITON IS?

TAKE IT AWAY YOU DIRTY CASUAL PLEB

GRAVITON DOESNT EXIST YET

STUPID BRAINLET

At point like instance, there are no place for particles to move, so they can not have high energy at that state.

>graviton
>implying

What causes gravity then? What was the significance of g-waves? What do they mean?
>inb4 just another way to measure
Why do they exist?

exactly

The picture is claiming that not only graviton exists, but it
>is made from baryonic energy
>has even spin
>has vector spin

THOSE ARE MASSIVE 3 CLAIMS THAT HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS ON REALITY

does it help you if I tell you it would be a "big" point?

It was not shrunk to a point. It was an infinitely dense field with infinite volume. And there were no atoms at that point, just energy.

ah shiiit

meh, it's a small, m < 1.2 × 10−22 eV/c2
spin-2 boson
deal with it

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

OH GOD what on EARTH are you talking about??

Stop. You are being astoundingly retarded and incorrect.
Please for the love of God just think about before you post.

Wrong.

Status is hypothetical. There are dozens of different hypothesis on what causes gravity. They are all wrong, just like you.

How do we circumvent the end of the universe? This is really bothering me. I feel like nothing matters unless we figure this out. I refuse to believe it's not possible.

>I feel like nothing matters unless we figure this out

Explain why anything would matter even after figuring it out?

You are a monumental brainlet, you do know that?

>they are all wrong
huh? and you know this how? i think what you mean to say that you don't know and we don't know and they don't know because no one knows.

I feel like it would matter because we would be able to live on eternally. Also, please don't call me a brainlet. I'm well aware of it and it hurts.

Nah, we're not talking about metaphysics. In this thread we talk about Big Bang. Go read a book on research design and philosophy in your local library if you are interested.

>we would be able to live eternally

No we wouldn't. You will die in the next 130 years (oldest human was 125 years something) and your body storing your identity and memories will slowly degrade and what was once user will disappear from the Universe forever.

It's not possible to become immortals.

I feel like if we're literally able to control spacetime, we'd also be able to control something as comparatively small as human mortality. It just seems like an inevitability that we will be in control of our mortality one day. Assuming we're not wiped out by some cataclysmic event for the next millennium or so. Big "if" I know, but just for the sake of argument. Once we reach that goal, what then? Controlling the fate of the universe seems like the next logical step. However, that doesn't seem so inevitable.

Why is it not possible? We've reversed aging in mice. It seems very possible already today.

You're thinking of a "point" in space relative to what we know the fabric of space-time as being.
If space itself were "condensed" into a "point", then space-time would no longer behave in the same way that we would expect it to.

Humans used to be primates. Primates used to be mammals. Mammals used to be vertebrates. Vertebrates used to be animals. Animals used to be eukaryotes. Eukaryotes used to be single cellular organism that had no senses, no memories, no freedom of will, no consciousness, no friends/family/ownership, and lived for less than an hour. Let's say that single cellular organism maybe dreamed about controlling the universe and living forever, but he realized he must abandon what he is in order to achieve those things. He would never call himself a human just because he, in 3,5 billion years, would become so. Maybe humans some day become entities that can control spacetime and energies. They will probably also not have any emotions, or physical bodies.

>how do i into relativity

Cool. Yeah I totally agree with this. I believe we work with the hope that something will come of it. Otherwise we'd all have killed ourselves by now and we wouldn't be here to talk about this.

Because the universe has an end and you cannot live forever.

We could create a new universe, a new big bag inside our own, and figure out a way to transfer all of humanity's memories bit by bit to new bodies within that new universe. Get on it, chop chop

>He thinks he's gonna survive such an explosion

What are you talking about moron? This is cosmology 101. From wikipedia:

>If the known laws of physics are extrapolated to the highest density regime, the result is a singularity which is typically associated with the Big Bang. Detailed measurements of the expansion rate of the universe place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe.[8] After the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later simple atoms.

It's impossible for that kind of density. There's just not enough space to fit everything. We're talking about trillions of stars and planets. TRILLIONS. Maybe even more. There's just no way all that can fit inside something smaller than a marble. It's impossible.

If we create it far enough from where we are, it could give us enough time to complete the transfer before it wipes us out. This would require this transfer to happen faster than the speed of light however. Counting on entanglement, even though supposedly no transfer of information is possible with that. Maybe there is some workaround we just have no clue what it could be yet.

Christy m8 you best be trolling

>space as we know it breaks down in singularity
>not enough space

What is the maximum density of an infinite amount of energy in an infinite amount of space?

>breaks down in singularity
>singularity
Isn't a "singularity" something that only comes up when we've got the physics wrong?
There is no such thing as a "singularity" in the real world, only on paper.
>inb4 black hole

No one cares

Or rather when the physics involved isn't the physics we know. The laws of physics break down in the "singularity"

That's really mean. It's still a fact that no one objectively cares though.

Singularity generally refers to a point beyond which prediction is impossible. Black holes and the big bang are examples of real singularities.

it isn't possible, It's just the mental gymnastics atheists have to do to get to sleep at night.