Edit: Here is one of the better inferences of what happened before the BB and even it boils down to a spec of energy to get the whole thing started.

“Study”. Even his best guess is that the singularity self-perpetuated until its stability gave out for unknown reason. Again, one dude, no supporting evidence, coming up with ideas because science is rigorous. Is his idea the consensus? No. Does it even address before the singularity itself existed? No. Why? because there is nothing to go on.

You are literally talking about something the Bible is as relevant an authority on as anyone else. That is why scientists don’t bother with it because it is meaningless to do so.

By consensus, I’m referring to the fact that scientists, when asked, say “the universe started ~14bya”. Any attempt to discuss earlier than that is wild conjecture so the only responsible way to deal with it is to accept that it is currently unknowable. Fact is we already see ‘something from nothing’ constantly. This phenomenon is readily proven. For example, spontaneous generation of quantum particle pairs are well established so the aforementioned conjecture is an attempt to be rigorous, but not an invalidation of consensus.

What is more dangerous for ‘people that infer knowledge from authoritative language’ is to believe that ‘consensus = matter settled, the end’. Nothing in science is absolute except, perhaps, the mathematical fundamentals. Are there still concepts or proposals that will get you laughed at by respectable scientists? Of course. That is what is meant by ‘consensus’ when it comes to Science.

No, you’re confusing testability with reasonable interpretation via interpolation of data. I did simplify to answer the OP’s question. Prior to the Big Bang we can’t know what ‘exactly’ was going on, but at that point, by definition, Time and Entropy begins. It’s like arguing absolute zero doesn’t have consensus because it is physically impossible to attain that temperature, or that there are actually distances smaller than the Planck length.

The salient point is that Something HAS to exist because the opposite is literal meaninglessness and that has scientific consensus.

As much consensus as there can be. The BB is defined as being the event that brought everything into existence and so there’s no point in debating something that cannot be tested.

Because when there’s nothing there is literally no meaning. Prior to the Big Bang there was no Entropy, no Time, no Matter or Energy. You cannot really discuss what happened then because it would be nonsense. You can’t even ask ‘how long before the BB did the nothing exist?’ because there was no time, so the answer is like dividing by zero. The BB brought all that into existence so by necessity anything must exist for your question to even have meaning.

To answer your question more directly: because nature abhors a vacuum (even though there was no vacuum before the BB because that would have been a ‘something’).

You aren’t a CEO though.

You gotta be kitten me

I still use Hotmail because I have a billion accounts linked to it and can’t be arsed to change the address.

Musk to Altman: I can’t help it, it’s my nature.

If they ever catch the person and their defence team argues self-defence I’d buy it in a heartbeat.

I prefer this one for obvious reasons.

Welcome to Lemmy. It’s cringe incel level stuff all the way down.

little to no money would reach the actual researchers who spent months and years working in this.

Researchers often pay to get reviewed/published. Typically due to the Journal being open access, but often for things like ‘expedited review’.

Regardless, they don’t get paid for the article, relying on donations or grants to fund the research (with publication costs included in the proposal).

Asian continent: it’s the moths! We swear!

deleted by creator

It’s ‘great’ along the same lines as if the US gov announced paying all citizens insurance premiums for 3 years. Sure, more would temporarily have access to a service they should already permanently have access to, but in reality it shines a spotlight on how serious the problem is.

India paid $55k per journal for 3 years access… to knowledge. Knowledge that the journals did nothing to accrue themselves. If you can make that make sense then sure it is a good thing in that it is better than not having access at all or for a more egregious cost.

Thanks mom

…

The hymen

Amazing how they didn’t say shit until after the election. Almost like they want to have their cake and eat it too.