I guess my questions to all you #Astrophysicists and #Physicists are (the few I remember now) like such:

* How long was the first second?
How long was the first second viewed from our *now*

* Could there be an anti-verse where time moves forward, but in the opposite direction (I don't know how else to explain it) relative to our universe?

* Was the Big Bang part of our universe?

* Was the Big Bang what came *before* our universe?

* Are black holes of our universe?

* Could black holes perhaps be described as *off* our universe (much like the Big Bang(?))?

I have so many questions (:

Maybe I should tag this #Astrodon? #Spaceodon? #Speculatiodon? #LittleGreenPeopleOdon?

@redshiftdrift

Lots of reasons, I suppose. Personally, I think it can be answered simply but the whole 'numbers are real' #Platonism argument adds a bit of complexity for some people.

In any case, it's a question that is indeed asked, especially by #Physicists interested in the foundations of knowledge and metaphysical reality.

How Our #Reality May Be a Sum of All Possible Realities | Quanta Magazine

“Richard #Feynman’s path integral is both a powerful prediction machine and a #philosophy about how the world is. But #physicists are still struggling to figure out how to use it, and what it means.”

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-our-reality-may-be-a-sum-of-all-possible-realities-20230206/

A very important text that helps to understand my criticism of many #anarchists that come with #science background, especially many of the #physicists anarchists discourses we read in Mastodon and Twitter. Because their deep interest on understanding in isolation the structures [of #power], assuming it brings #knowledge of the root of social [power] relation, does actually the very opposite of their assumptions.

It is especially concerning when they express the opinion that anarchists have somehow a higher intellect to understand things, as they judge scientists themselves, or as their background, to have. When in fact it has nothing to do with with intellect. Science has more to do with how we organize data in conformity to what we want to find (to see).

The #scientific field hates variability because variability makes it hard to collect and organize data to analyze and come up with theories. So it becomes narrow and shallow in order to become allowed to move on. And as such the understanding of the shallowness of one's own knowledge becomes limited as well.

> In 1713, Isaac Newton appended a postscript to the second edition of his “Principia,” the treatise in which he first laid out the three laws of motion and the theory of universal gravitation. “I have not as yet been able to deduce from phenomena the reason for these properties of gravity, and I do not feign hypotheses,” he wrote. “It is enough that gravity really exists and acts according to the laws that we have set forth.” What mattered, to Newton and his contemporaries, was his theory’s empirical, predictive power—that it was “sufficient to explain all the motions of the heavenly bodies and of our sea.”

> Descartes would have found this attitude ridiculous. He had been playing a deep game—trying to explain, at a fundamental level, how the universe fit together. Newton, by those lights, had failed to explain anything: he himself admitted that he had no sense of how gravity did its work or fit into the whole; he’d merely produced equations that predicted observations. If he’d made progress, it was only by changing the rules of the game, redefining wide-ranging inquiry as a private pastime, rather than official business. And yet, by authorizing what Strevens calls “shallow explanation,” the iron rule offered an empirical bridge across a conceptual chasm. Work could continue, and understanding could be acquired on the other side. In this way, shallowness was actually more powerful than depth.

https://archive.ph/LEpk2

Mind you that it is not a defense of Descartian philosophy and methods (read the text on the link to understand). It is just an example of the development of thinking in modern science.

I, like other #gay #physicists & #students, have been FALSELY lured into #ParticlePhysics under the notion we'd get to #study and work with 'tops' and 'bottoms'

🚨IT'S A TRAP!🚨

I cannot #stress my disappointment enough to find out they're #particles who're smaller than my ex 🙃

So much for learning about the #BigBang the hard way...

Positively, I'll at least be known as Dr. Cox at the end of my #PhD :ablobcatrave:

#lgbtq #lgbt #science #physics #student