The aliens are coming!

Lol, only alien life will likely be microorganisms or plant life.

I think this is most likely but we can’t know for sure unless earth somehow manages to map the universe but that’s highly unlikely. The idea that everything came from nothing doesn’t make sense, there is usually a cause and effect but that must begin somewhere? Why were these particular events made in such a way to give birth to an entire existence? Unless of course we are just a naturally occurring phenomenon who is never meant to question such things. 

Autismman said:

The idea that everything came from nothing doesn’t make sense

The idea that something can come from nothing is well-established. The idea that everything came from nothing just takes a bit more imagination.

I agree with all that you say here, in principle......but most especially about not holding one's breath.....I would have gone blue and become "a deceased parrot" a good few decades ago if I had tried that!

Remaining "open".....is a "good call" though.  As an old bloke, I have become "definite" and "absolute" in my belief/understanding  that "absolutes" and "definites" are a mugs game!  Welcome to my autistic reality!

Number said:

By definition, theoretical profferings lack "empirical evidence".....that's why they are theoretical.....rather than "proven" science [until it is later over-turned and revised.....as always!!?]

I'm not convinced that "brains" are necessarily a proof, or support, of "branes" (argument from authority). Newton thought time was an absolute. Einstein was dead set against "spooky action at a distance". Feynman doubted the existence of quarks. Hawking bet that Cygnus X-1 was not a black hole. Lots of great minds supported the ideas of the geocentric model, the luminiferous aether, phlogiston theory, the static universe. All undoubtedly had "brains", but all were wrong.

String theory seems to be more about the mathematics than the science. Undoubtedly it has made great contributions to mathematics, so it's no wonder great "brains" are attracted to it. It has been a source of exciting ideas for over 50 years, but not much in the way of concrete science—testable hypotheses with predictive power. Perhaps in the area of quantum gravity there might be some breakthrough—eventually.

Proving things is an exercise for mathematicians. There is no '"proven" science'. Scientists don't prove anything, they observe, hypothesise, experiment and try to find enough support for, and predictive power in, an idea to call it a "theory". Nobody is under any illusion that these are immutable facts. They are just the best explanations that we have at present of how the world around us works. There's an honesty and humility in that that is admirable. There is a beauty in mathematics that is also admirable. Hopefully string theory will bridge those two domains, but I'm not going to hold my breath while we're waiting.

If I may be allowed to interject, to address your point here.

By definition, theoretical profferings lack "empirical evidence".....that's why they are theoretical.....rather than "proven" science [until it is later over-turned and revised.....as always!!?]

However, the validity of any solely theoretical profferings CAN be judged (to a reasonable extent) by the quality of "brains" that are willing to entertain, propagate and discuss them.

Accordingly, in this instance, the "brains" that can be readily cited, in support of the theoretical premise of "branes" (and it's worthiness for consideration), (whether those brains are now alive or dead......[or are they?!])....can be READILY listed as;

- Juan Maldacena

- Lisa Randall

- Edward Witten

- Joe Polchinski

I suspect that, only the top few percent, of the top few percent, would legitimately be able to dismiss these folks/brains (and their ideas) as anything other than WHOLLY VALID!

"Assumption" - can often be "ignorant complacency," in my experience.

[For the avoidance of doubt damo - I'm not trying to be a wise-donkey here, nor intending to undermine your view.......I'm just stating my truth, as I understand it."

Without theories.....science has no where to go !!

I enjoy trying to understand the scientists theories more deeply. Learning about space and time, dimensions, black holes and this 3IAtlas (comet/alien spacecraft/probe). It’s a never ending mystery space, an explorers dream really, if only it were easier to get around in it. 

TheCatWoman said:

have we ever thought that we might not like the answer and that to much reality might explode out tiny brains?

It’s quite possible that we aren’t developed in a way that is able to comprehend the reality of the beginning of time. It can be explained to some degree but leaves more answers than questions I find. Science is the new religion with mysteries and lots of higher powers involved. 

TheCatWoman said:

Well thats your homework for tonight, look up alternative theories to the big bang, branes amoung them

I'll save myself some time and just assume there isn't any evidence, then.

I always felt this string theory stuff was a bit navel-gaze-y. I mean it's all very interesting in theory, but we're still waiting for something vaguely related to the real world to come out of it. Have they ever come up with a single testable hypothesis?

Well thats your homework for tonight, look up alternative theories to the big bang, branes amoung them.

TheCatWoman said:

Don't be rude!

Don't be shy!

Is there any empirical evidence that supports branes? I'm not really familiar with any.

Don't be rude! 

TheCatWoman said:

We also have a lot of evidence for things like branes too

I showed you mine...

We also have a lot of evidence for things like branes too.

TheCatWoman said:

so why do we take it seriously.

The scientific community mostly takes it seriously because there is a lot of science behind the theory, much of which can be demonstrated.

TheCatWoman said:

from my small understanding seem to it better.

Does this mean you are discounting the big bang theory without understanding it?

TheCatWoman said:

Why do we need to know how the universe started anyway, have we ever thought that we might not like the answer and that to much reality might explode out tiny brains?

By understanding the origins of something and where it is today it gives us a much bette understanding of where it is going and also the nature of the reality we live in.

The big bang theory already is mind melting enough -  I doubt there is much you could do to make it more weird. Working with 11 dimensions (all mathematically viable) that then collapsed some in on themselves, and having our current massive universe starting from a tiny dot of material would have most people giving up hope of understanding it.

Science is knowledge hungry. That knowledge often has practical applications and who knows could lead to being able to produce warp drive by dimension altering, multiverse travel and a host of other ideas.

TheCatWoman said:

why do we take it seriously

Well, we have evidence that points in that direction:

• The red shift seen when looking at distant galaxies tells us that the universe is expanding, so it had to have been smaller in the past.
• If there had been a big bang, we would see its "afterglow" at a temperature of 2.7 K and indeed we do: the cosmic microwave background.
• The theory predicts the abundance of light elements like hydrogen and helium that we observe.
• The large-scale structure of the universe—the distribution of galaxies—is consistent with the theory.
• It is supported by the mathematics of General Relativity—i.e., Einstein's big idea about "spacetime"—and GR is supported by lots and lots of direct observations.
• etc.

Being contravercially honest here, I think the Big Bang Theory is a load of bollards! In the words of the late great Ken Campbell, 'Their was this tiny lump of very dense nothing, that exploded into a big bit of nothing with some bits in.' If people wore silly frocks waved insence around and called it a religion everyone would laugh at them, so why do we take it seriously. Also the big bang theory is a very patched and ragged garment, there have been so many holes in it that have patched up by it's proponenets over the years.

I think there are much more interesting theories such as 'branes', they're a lot weirder, but from my small understanding seem to it better.

Why do we need to know how the universe started anyway, have we ever thought that we might not like the answer and that to much reality might explode out tiny brains?

Autismman said:

these types of infinite questions are like a real itch for me that I can never scratch and move on from, always wanting to try work out how and why

I think I've stopped trying so hard to work out the how and why. It can blow my mind so much that I feel like I'm failing to understand. Just the fact that something "is" seems to be enough for me to get my wonder buzz these days. I leave the higher-dimensional mathematics to the experts and eagerly await their executive summaries.

Iain said:

In some ways it is like asking what is north of the North Pole

I'd be tempted to look up. Maybe that would be the equivalent of the imaginary dimension in an Argand diagram.

Thanks for that, you are right it really does mess with your head. It’ll never cease to cause me curiosity and amazement, these types of infinite questions are like a real itch for me that I can never scratch and move on from, always wanting to try work out how and why. 

Autismman said:

How did this pinhead come into existence if nothing existed before it?

At the point of the big bang there was no time, so there was no "before".  It is a hard concept to grasp as we tend to think or time as a constant but in reality it is a consequence of the big bang itself.

In some ways it is like asking what is north of the North Pole - it actually has no tangible meaning.

It can really mess with your head until you start to realise that dimensions (of which time is but one or potentially 3 temporal dimensions) exist to us as we experience them - there are more beyond out perception. There are up to 11 dimensions that we are aware of and all existed for a fraction of a second at the point of the big bang before collapsing in on themselves, leaving 4 that we can perceive.

It can be like we are a character on a page (knowing 2 physical dimensions of up/down and left/right and someone trying to tell you there is a 3rd physical dimension - we are not equipped to sense it.

I would recommend having a read at the following article if you are dubious:

https://www.sciencenewstoday.org/what-was-before-the-beginning-of-the-universe

The Idea that the universe was birthed from matter the size of a pinhead is mind blowing. Time and space didn’t exist till The Big Bang, how can anyone begin to imagine….nothing. How did this pinhead come into existence if nothing existed before it? It’s always been there? Maybe The Big Bang wasn’t the first or the last and the universe forever expands and shrinks creating a new universe every time with an infinite amount of possibilities. 

The Idea that the universe was birthed from matter the size of a pinhead is mind blowing. Time and space didn’t exist till The Big Bang, how can anyone begin to imagine….nothing. How did this pinhead come into existence if nothing existed before it? It’s always been there? Maybe The Big Bang wasn’t the first or the last and the universe forever expands and shrinks creating a new universe every time with an infinite amount of possibilities. 

I agree with all that you say here, in principle......but most especially about not holding one's breath.....I would have gone blue and become "a deceased parrot" a good few decades ago if I had tried that!

Remaining "open".....is a "good call" though.  As an old bloke, I have become "definite" and "absolute" in my belief/understanding  that "absolutes" and "definites" are a mugs game!  Welcome to my autistic reality!

Number said:

By definition, theoretical profferings lack "empirical evidence".....that's why they are theoretical.....rather than "proven" science [until it is later over-turned and revised.....as always!!?]

I'm not convinced that "brains" are necessarily a proof, or support, of "branes" (argument from authority). Newton thought time was an absolute. Einstein was dead set against "spooky action at a distance". Feynman doubted the existence of quarks. Hawking bet that Cygnus X-1 was not a black hole. Lots of great minds supported the ideas of the geocentric model, the luminiferous aether, phlogiston theory, the static universe. All undoubtedly had "brains", but all were wrong.

String theory seems to be more about the mathematics than the science. Undoubtedly it has made great contributions to mathematics, so it's no wonder great "brains" are attracted to it. It has been a source of exciting ideas for over 50 years, but not much in the way of concrete science—testable hypotheses with predictive power. Perhaps in the area of quantum gravity there might be some breakthrough—eventually.

Proving things is an exercise for mathematicians. There is no '"proven" science'. Scientists don't prove anything, they observe, hypothesise, experiment and try to find enough support for, and predictive power in, an idea to call it a "theory". Nobody is under any illusion that these are immutable facts. They are just the best explanations that we have at present of how the world around us works. There's an honesty and humility in that that is admirable. There is a beauty in mathematics that is also admirable. Hopefully string theory will bridge those two domains, but I'm not going to hold my breath while we're waiting.

If I may be allowed to interject, to address your point here.

By definition, theoretical profferings lack "empirical evidence".....that's why they are theoretical.....rather than "proven" science [until it is later over-turned and revised.....as always!!?]

However, the validity of any solely theoretical profferings CAN be judged (to a reasonable extent) by the quality of "brains" that are willing to entertain, propagate and discuss them.

Accordingly, in this instance, the "brains" that can be readily cited, in support of the theoretical premise of "branes" (and it's worthiness for consideration), (whether those brains are now alive or dead......[or are they?!])....can be READILY listed as;

- Juan Maldacena

- Lisa Randall

- Edward Witten

- Joe Polchinski

I suspect that, only the top few percent, of the top few percent, would legitimately be able to dismiss these folks/brains (and their ideas) as anything other than WHOLLY VALID!

"Assumption" - can often be "ignorant complacency," in my experience.

[For the avoidance of doubt damo - I'm not trying to be a wise-donkey here, nor intending to undermine your view.......I'm just stating my truth, as I understand it."

Without theories.....science has no where to go !!

I enjoy trying to understand the scientists theories more deeply. Learning about space and time, dimensions, black holes and this 3IAtlas (comet/alien spacecraft/probe). It’s a never ending mystery space, an explorers dream really, if only it were easier to get around in it. 

TheCatWoman said:

have we ever thought that we might not like the answer and that to much reality might explode out tiny brains?

It’s quite possible that we aren’t developed in a way that is able to comprehend the reality of the beginning of time. It can be explained to some degree but leaves more answers than questions I find. Science is the new religion with mysteries and lots of higher powers involved. 

TheCatWoman said:

Well thats your homework for tonight, look up alternative theories to the big bang, branes amoung them

I'll save myself some time and just assume there isn't any evidence, then.

I always felt this string theory stuff was a bit navel-gaze-y. I mean it's all very interesting in theory, but we're still waiting for something vaguely related to the real world to come out of it. Have they ever come up with a single testable hypothesis?

Well thats your homework for tonight, look up alternative theories to the big bang, branes amoung them.

TheCatWoman said:

Don't be rude!

Don't be shy!

Is there any empirical evidence that supports branes? I'm not really familiar with any.

Don't be rude! 

TheCatWoman said:

We also have a lot of evidence for things like branes too

I showed you mine...

We also have a lot of evidence for things like branes too.

TheCatWoman said:

so why do we take it seriously.

The scientific community mostly takes it seriously because there is a lot of science behind the theory, much of which can be demonstrated.

TheCatWoman said:

from my small understanding seem to it better.

Does this mean you are discounting the big bang theory without understanding it?

TheCatWoman said:

Why do we need to know how the universe started anyway, have we ever thought that we might not like the answer and that to much reality might explode out tiny brains?

By understanding the origins of something and where it is today it gives us a much bette understanding of where it is going and also the nature of the reality we live in.

The big bang theory already is mind melting enough -  I doubt there is much you could do to make it more weird. Working with 11 dimensions (all mathematically viable) that then collapsed some in on themselves, and having our current massive universe starting from a tiny dot of material would have most people giving up hope of understanding it.

Science is knowledge hungry. That knowledge often has practical applications and who knows could lead to being able to produce warp drive by dimension altering, multiverse travel and a host of other ideas.

TheCatWoman said:

why do we take it seriously

Well, we have evidence that points in that direction:

• The red shift seen when looking at distant galaxies tells us that the universe is expanding, so it had to have been smaller in the past.
• If there had been a big bang, we would see its "afterglow" at a temperature of 2.7 K and indeed we do: the cosmic microwave background.
• The theory predicts the abundance of light elements like hydrogen and helium that we observe.
• The large-scale structure of the universe—the distribution of galaxies—is consistent with the theory.
• It is supported by the mathematics of General Relativity—i.e., Einstein's big idea about "spacetime"—and GR is supported by lots and lots of direct observations.
• etc.

Being contravercially honest here, I think the Big Bang Theory is a load of bollards! In the words of the late great Ken Campbell, 'Their was this tiny lump of very dense nothing, that exploded into a big bit of nothing with some bits in.' If people wore silly frocks waved insence around and called it a religion everyone would laugh at them, so why do we take it seriously. Also the big bang theory is a very patched and ragged garment, there have been so many holes in it that have patched up by it's proponenets over the years.

I think there are much more interesting theories such as 'branes', they're a lot weirder, but from my small understanding seem to it better.

Why do we need to know how the universe started anyway, have we ever thought that we might not like the answer and that to much reality might explode out tiny brains?

Autismman said:

these types of infinite questions are like a real itch for me that I can never scratch and move on from, always wanting to try work out how and why

I think I've stopped trying so hard to work out the how and why. It can blow my mind so much that I feel like I'm failing to understand. Just the fact that something "is" seems to be enough for me to get my wonder buzz these days. I leave the higher-dimensional mathematics to the experts and eagerly await their executive summaries.

Iain said:

In some ways it is like asking what is north of the North Pole

I'd be tempted to look up. Maybe that would be the equivalent of the imaginary dimension in an Argand diagram.

Thanks for that, you are right it really does mess with your head. It’ll never cease to cause me curiosity and amazement, these types of infinite questions are like a real itch for me that I can never scratch and move on from, always wanting to try work out how and why. 

Autismman said:

How did this pinhead come into existence if nothing existed before it?

At the point of the big bang there was no time, so there was no "before".  It is a hard concept to grasp as we tend to think or time as a constant but in reality it is a consequence of the big bang itself.

In some ways it is like asking what is north of the North Pole - it actually has no tangible meaning.

It can really mess with your head until you start to realise that dimensions (of which time is but one or potentially 3 temporal dimensions) exist to us as we experience them - there are more beyond out perception. There are up to 11 dimensions that we are aware of and all existed for a fraction of a second at the point of the big bang before collapsing in on themselves, leaving 4 that we can perceive.

It can be like we are a character on a page (knowing 2 physical dimensions of up/down and left/right and someone trying to tell you there is a 3rd physical dimension - we are not equipped to sense it.

I would recommend having a read at the following article if you are dubious:

https://www.sciencenewstoday.org/what-was-before-the-beginning-of-the-universe