Slashdot Mirror
Mathematical Proof That the Cosmos Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
KentuckyFC writes: "One of the great theories of modern cosmology is that the universe began in a Big Bang. It's backed up by numerous lines of evidence, such as the cosmic microwave background and so on. But what caused the Big Bang, itself? For many years, cosmologists have fallen back on the idea that the universe formed spontaneously; that the Big Bang was result of quantum fluctuations in which the universe came into existence from nothing. But is this compatible with what we know about the Big Bang itself and the theories that describe it? Now cosmologists have come up with the first rigorous proof that the Big Bang could indeed have occurred spontaneously and produced the universe we see today. The proof is developed within a mathematical framework known as the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows a small region of empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to quantum fluctuations. Most of the time, such a bubble will collapse and disappear. The question these scientists address is whether a bubble could also expand exponentially to allow a universe to form in an irreversible way. Their proof (PDF) shows that this is indeed possible. There is an interesting corollary: the role of the cosmological constant is played by a property known as the quantum potential. This is a property introduced in the 20th century by the physicist David Bohm, which has the effect of making quantum mechanics deterministic while reproducing all of its predictions. It's an idea that has never caught on. Perhaps that will change now."
... I will punch you in the face.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
There's also "mathematical proof" that a while hole can exist. Just try finding one.
All kinds of wonders exist in theory. Few manifest in reality. I wouldn't be placing any money on this one either.
I would love to hear more about this nothing. I never knew something could be so fascinating and capable as nothing.
Millions of college students writing empty 500-word essays void of meaning or substance have now been vindicated by the Universe.
This is an abuse of the word "nothing", which is a universal negation "not anything". But quantum fluctuations in the quantum vacuum are something, and not nothing. The research might be interesting, but it does nothing for the question the philosopher is asking when he is wondering "Why there is somerthing rather than nothing?"
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows a small region of empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to quantum fluctuations
I don't remember that in the principle when I took physics. I think they are skipping quite a few steps in the summary.
This is not a "proof that the universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing". As is common in popular versions of science (and often even in peer-reviewed articles by scientists), there is a confusion between modeling reality and reality itself. All this proves is that the current most accurate (in terms of making predictions that we can measure) mathematical model of reality does not contradict the claim that the universe spawned from nothing (and of course the term "nothing" here is tenuous at best--it certainly isn't philosophical nothingness, because something did indeed exist, i.e. a state in which quantum fluctuations were occurring, such a state is not nothing, it is something... perhaps by "nothing" they mean a vacuum, but again, a vacuum is something since it is still governed by laws). And let's not forget that though QM has a lot of predictive power as a model, it is still just that, a model.
In "God and the Astronomers", agnostic Robert Jastrow chronicles the development of the Big Bang theory, and how for decades many physicists resisted it; not because of data, but because it meant the universe had a beginning, which was at odds with their worldview (“The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." --Karl Sagan). They recognized that if there was ever truly NOTHING, that science would never be able to explain why there is SOMETHING. The question of origins is outside the reach of scientific inquiry. I wish the physicists would stop playing in the philosophical and theological sandbox.
Since the equations only express the properties of the universe, what exaclty did the quantum fluctuation occur in? This seems to be more of a confirmation of M-theory than that the universe came from nothing. What is the formula for the state directly before the fluctuation ocurred? It seems that state would be necessary to calculate what the fluctuation occurred IN. That would, to me, be more of a discovery.
So "nothing" has quantum fluctuations.
I have zero apples, which one will produce an apple seed to grow a tree.
Note: The article itself doesn't imply what the summary says, but the summary here makes the article seem like nonsense.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
In what was there fluctuations? This might seem like a glib question but, I actually am interested in the answer. Their theory seems to cover the idea of where all the stuff (including space) came from. But where did the "thing" that was fluctuating come from? And no I am not implying religion.
But it is proof that disproving Aquinas's argument that no physical phenomena can arise ex nihilo is currently beyond the capacity of science, mathematics and philosophy.
MIND FUCKING BLOWN what happens when our universe collides with another universe.. Whats in the empty space that our universe is expanding to? WHERE IS FLIGHT 370!>!>!>!>!
E=M*(C cubed)
But that doesn't mean it is 'right'. The correct formula is E= M*(C squared) and it doesn't matter how many times I write any other formula.
As such, math can describe ANY internally consistent theory. (and even some internally inconsistent ones). It is only through practical testing that we can determine if the math is right.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Or rather not applicable. Physics is not accessible to mathematics, Mathematics is just a tool physics uses on formalized abstractions of physics. These abstractions _always_ introduce inaccuracies, and hence no mathematical proof can ever apply to physics directly or absolutely. Mathematics can just not bridge these transformation steps. That is the tasks of Physics.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I don't see how it would be possible for a quantum fluctuation to create the universe it is a part of, but maybe I just don't understand the theory and principles involved. Wouldn't we have to verify that our mathematics work and quantum fluctuations exist outside our own universe before a proof like this would be valid?
However do what you like to zero - you're not getting any other value from it unless you have another value -ie something non zero - to begin with. This theory does nothing to explain how something arose from nothing.
When I see a null self initialize into something there will be proof. Until then it is a git semantic proof that is easily exposed as shenanigans with language.
Quantum fluctuations of spacetime, sure. But with Nothing, there is not spacetime. There isn't even time. Without time, there is no change. Without change, there is no "Nothing Then Something" (because there is no time thus no Then). Unless there's meta-time from a supernatural universe, but then that would mean the universe didn't spring into being from nothing. An infinite "crunch and bang" cycle I can wrap my head around. "Ever-present God did it" I can wrap my head around. "Nothing then something" is a logical impossibility.
This position actually makes relatively more sense. Honestly, physics research is like a recursive function that keeps going back, back, back. You can't throw your hands up in the air and say "it magically came from nothing" until you've reached a proper terminus where there *is* nothing (quantum fluctuations aren't nothing)..
Keep in mind that his is only a mathematical proof that our current hubble volume coming out of quantum fluctuations, not a proof for where quantum fluctuations come from.
Quantum fluctuations are something. The question should actually be "Where do quantum fluctuations come from" to which a physicist will probably reply - "they just happen". Which is feck all use to anyone as an answer. Might just as well say the universe just happened or the God/The Sphagetti Monster created it.
If physicists don't have a proper answer to "Why is there something rather than nothing" then they should stop pretending they do by the deceit of changing the definition of "nothing".
I have some basic understanding on a non-physicist level of what quantum physics is all about, the weirdness that is involved with it and how it scales to the world I can see, but this I simply cannot fathom.
How can quantum fluctuations occur in absolute nothingness?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Mathematical Proof That the Cosmos Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
What does this mean, really? Either a thing did or didn't happen. What does it mean to have proved that it could have happened?
Is there room for someone to come along later and prove that it couldn't have happened for reasons not yet understood?
What if we discover the universe didn't form spontaneously from nothing? Would that disprove this "proof"?
Car analogy time: if I see a car at a certain place, and I measure its speed at 60mph, then I could claim to have "proven" that it could have been 60 miles away an hour ago - based on the little evidence I have. But if I then find out it can't go any faster than 60mph, and the hood is cold, that might prove that it couldn't have been 60 miles away an hour ago.
So, is this just a badly-worded headline, or am I just very very tired?
Hint: it could be both.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
More likely it's the result of the infinite improbability drive. I just hope that the Universe and Arthur Dent never meet.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I remember reading about an European mathematician who set out to prove that Euclidean geometry was the only possible geometry. He came up with lemma after lemma, conjecture after conjecture, but no matter how hard he tried he could not prove non-Euclidean geometry could not exist. All those proofs, lemmas and work on conjectures formed the mainstay of the branch of non-Eucledian Geometry.
So all the math proof tells you is, if you make a set of assumptions, cosmos could be created spontaneously.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Wow.. that piece really stretches things and makes some rather impressive leaps. Much of it seems to to simply be 'the bible is true, when science hits an unknown, it is proof of god' and then goes into the standard 'there must be an intelligent designer because things need to be intelligently designed' reasoning followed up by 'if you read the bible just right and compare history we already know, look how prophetic it is!'
Since the necessary tools, maths, logic, and brains used to prove that the universe can exist out of nothing are solely part of that same universe, and even important blocks making it, isn't the whole thing an example of circular reasoning?
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows a small region of empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to quantum fluctuations.
Ok, so this entire premise is refuted by this one statement.
This statement assumes there was "Space" prior to the big bang. There was neither time or space prior to the big bang... in fact, there WAS NO PRIOR TO THE BIG BANG. It would be like arguing that "This triangle rolled across the floor while it was a circle"
Secondly, it also assumes that the universes physical laws like quantum mechanics still applied prior to the big bang. There were no universal laws, and once again there is no "Prior to the big bang"
The only way this would work is if the Big Bang were not the beginning of all time and space, and we have mountains of observational evidence that already proves this.
So is it likely that we will shortly have a new universe start forming in the middle of our current one?
I'm afraid my poor little brain is ill equipped to understand this.
So, if there was 'nothing', WTF is there to be 'quantum fluctuating'?
A fluctuation of nothing produced everything?
Sometimes (okay, often) ... when people speak of quantum mechanics I have no idea of WTF they're saying or how it translates into reality.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I was about to blame Slashdot for a bad headline when I realized that the article actually states that this mathematical proof offers evidence that the universe could have spontaneously formed from nothing. But if the universe really did form spontaneously from nothing, wouldn't that violate the law of conservation of mass and energy?
After reading the article, it sounds like they have a good theory about what happened during the Big Bang, but I didn't see anything in the article that offered proof that something came from nothing.
(I've probably described this very poorly - IANAC, IANAP, IANAL, etc.)
Isn't the whole point of quantum physics that the condition - "something has happened" - is in itself a fractional number? For example, a photon does not go through one slit or another, but both, and these histories interfere with each other to produce the interference pattern on the wall.
Which, of course, is the answer to the qproblem about apparent causality violations in quantum mechanics: no, observing one of entangled particles does not send a FTL signal to the other paricle; any point in spacetime where you can compare observations of both is by necessity causally linked to both, and these pasts interfere with each other to promote those combinations where purely random chance caused a seeming linkage over those where it didn't.
Not that you can ever prove an event happened even in classical physics. No matter your observations, you can never know if you have all the relevant facts; "Last Thursdayism" is undisprovable, even in principle.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Can someone please explain what the hell a quantum fluctuation actually is? It seems like every so often an article like this comes out claiming to have solved some age old problem in physics and the explanation is always 'because quantum fluctuations'. "Where did the universe come from, what caused the big bang?" "Quantum fluctuations." "I don't see how..." "I said quantum fluctuations sir." "But..." "Quantum fluctuations, sir!"
Honestly, a lot of science is reaching. The science in this article is reaching. It cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt no matter how hard they try. I cannot prove God to you, but personally, I'm betting on God.
Very quickly...
Take, say, a bagel, for instance. The bagel didn't come out of nowhere. The bagel didn't create itself. The logical conclusion is the bagel was created. Extrapolate that out to the vastness of the universe. There is a creator.
This proof, while impressive, does not proof that the cosmos could have formed spontaneously. It only shows that the big bang was not the start of the cosmos and something early and yet unknown pre-existed it. The old axiom that "ex nihilo nihil fit" (nothing can come from nothing), still holds, because if there were nothing, no matter, no energy, no anything, then there couldn't be quantum fluctuations to spontaneously form the universe.
As such, the big bang must not have been the start of universe, but probably very, very, very close to the start of the universe.
All the math proof tells you is, if you make a set of assumptions, cosmos could be created spontaneously.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I won't even pretend I read the damn thing. However, I reserve my right to have an emotional opinion.
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
More relevant car analogy: If you have the specs for a car (hp, torque, weight, drag coefficients, etc.) that had not yet been built you could prove mathematically, without it ever actually happening or the car even existing at the time except on paper, whether or not the car could accelerate to 60 mph.
What they are saying here is that, according to the math, the universe could have formed this way. The math does not prevent it so it's a valid theoretical possibility. This does not mean that another model won't show that it could have formed in a different way as well. After all we have three perfectly mathematically valid geometries yet we know only one can be the true geometry of the physical universe.
Now, it would take a lot more than a mathematical model to say that it did form that way.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
What other possible enjoyment could we find in life? :-)
Hail Eris.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
More relevant car analogy: If you have the specs for a car (hp, torque, weight, drag coefficients, etc.) that had not yet been built you could prove mathematically, without it ever actually happening or the car even existing at the time except on paper, whether or not the car could accelerate to 60 mph.
Not sure about this. They're claiming a proof for the possibility of a particular mechanism behind an event which has already happened.
It still feels like there's an oxymoron* here somewhere...
(*don't!)
What they are saying here is that, according to the math, the universe could have formed this way.
Right, but what if someone comes along later with more math that proves it couldn't have formed this way? What would that do to this "proof"?
Maybe this is the bit that counts:
The proof is developed within a mathematical framework known as the Wheeler-DeWitt equation.
Proving something as possible within a certain framework isn't the same as proving it's possible, full stop. Right?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
We're waiting for you to tell us why it's a bad analogy. Take your time.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
One of the most difficult topics of the human condition in my opinion is time, time itself.
Humanity seems to believe that "time" exists in a relative manner to itself and thus time is inherently flawed at any level objective analysis of events throughout the existence of the Universe. When we look at what we know to have happened, we want to draw some conclusion relating to what caused it. The Big Bang in this example appears to have happened and we ask why? This is where our interpretation of time, which in turn can relate to "nothing" becomes skewed. If we avoid self-destruction, if we avoid the explosion of our planet by natural forces, if we thrive beyond the limits of our solar system before time runs out we may one day change our views of time and nothing... Until then, it is relatively impossible to draw any real conclusion other than to assume that the Universe always has been and always will be... in some form or another.
that line of thinking has something in common with the bagel.
Sheesh. I mean, I'm a theorist. I love theory. But let us not lose sight of the difference between metaphysical speculation and "proof". All that has been done is that it has been shown that -- subject to a whole slew of prior assumptions (premises, axioms) that may or may not be correct (and that cannot be verified or sorted out either way) -- that a particular kind of "empty" Universe could consistently give rise to a vacuum fluctuation that grows a la big bang. Of course, there is a big difference between an "empty" Universe subject to all sorts of quantum rules and nothing -- as nothing tends to come without anything, including a set of rules quantum or otherwise.
So let me summarize the argument. If the Universe already existed, complete with a set of physical laws, but just happened at some point in meta-space and meta-time to be empty, then if those probably non-unique laws had parameters within some almost certainly non-unique range, then mass-energy could have poofed into existence in a big bang as a quantum vacuum fluctuation that grew. It is proven that all of this could have happened.
And we are now precisely as knowledgeable as we were before. We already knew that it could have happened because it did. We still know absolutely nothing (more) useful about the state of the Universe before the bang, because the bang erased the prior state in a blast of cosmic entropy and all of our ability to make inferences comes from weak extrapolation of observation of its visible state "now" (that is, into the distance-mediated past). We cannot use the "proof" to make any useful predictions that can be tested (either verified or falsified).
Don't get me wrong, I think it is a lovely result, and it may prove useful in some indirect way by providing an incentive to reformulate quantum theory in ways that are at least consistent with the big bang, just as quantum theory ultimately proves useful when discussing things like black holes. But it is still theoretical metaphysics, not physics.
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
zero doesnt equal one — no matter how much fancy math you got to prove it. :-p
cannot prove God to you, but personally, I'm betting on God.
What's the point of a bet you can't win or lose? Would you do anything differently even if you did know the outcome of that bet?
that the Big Bang was result of quantum fluctuations in which the universe came into existence from nothing.
If there was "nothing" what was fluctuating?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I don't claim to be a mathematician or a physicist but how could "nothing" have quantum field fluctuations? Isn't that by definition "something"? Can anyone clarify this?
Maybe nothing in the philosophical sense never was. Perhaps there was always something but that something was what gave rise to the quantum fluctuation. And, perhaps, that something was not a god after all but just the quantum vacuum. The philosophical nothing may be entirely imaginary. I don't know seems to be the best I can come up with on such matters.
> that the Big Bang was result of quantum fluctuations in which the universe came into existence from nothing
They're using a rather odd definition of "nothing."
If someone came along with a counter-proof and that proof held up then yes, it would invalidate the original.
As for using a framework, correct. You have to use certain starting assumptions. In this case they are building on prior work that applies to the theory they are writing the proof for. Going back to the car analogy, you have to take an assumption, for example, that four wheel vehicles exist before you can begin trying to prove that a theoretical concept car can go 60 mph.
Keep in mind we are talking about a "mathematical proof" that something is possible, not "math proves" that something is possible. There is a distinction.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
I think more physicists need to work on the physics of "nothing". I don't think we really understand "nothing". In addition there are different kinds of "nothing".
We have the "nothing" of empty space-time where particle and energy pop in and out of existence. What happens when there is a lot of nothing? 1 atom per cubic meter, per cubic kilometer over millions of light years?
Even then there is still space-time. What happens when there "nothing" means no matter, no energy, and no space-time?
Or, what happens when the universe expands to the extent that the visible universe contains no matter, and the CMB has cooled to a hundred negative powers of 10 or more. Does space-time lose meaning?
The impression I get from current physics is that "nothing" is unstable. Has anyone studied "nothing" sufficiently to show that there is not some effect proportional to the amount of "nothing". Of course, how do you even talk about a quantity of "nothing"? But, what if the more "nothing" there is, the greater the so called quantum fluctuations, such that something is inevitable.
0 + 0 = 0
0 - 0 = 0
0 * 0 = 0
0 / 0 = infinity! There it is!! The big bang!!!
If all the universe is a vacuum, it could well have arisen out of nothing.
A proof that a hypothesis might be right!
Also, see the eighteenth voyage from "The Star Diaries" by Stanislaw Lem. It might have been used in the proving process. :-)
The best, and really only, answer I know for that question is the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. It says the universe is a purely mathematical structure that exists in an abstract, logical sense because by definition, it must exist. That's a hard concept to wrap your brain around, but it's the only approach I know of with even a hint of being able to answer your question. It gives you existence without needing God, quantum fluctuations, or anything else to bootstrap it. And so far, it's the only game in town.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
as throwing your hands up in the air and saying "it came from nothing because I don't want to think about what could've been before"
The paper defines nothing as "there is neither matter nor space or time", which sounds pretty empty to me.
:(
It does assume that there's a quantum state that has some probability to create a vacuum bubble. They further show(*) that there's a probability for that bubble to grow exponentially.
(*) Well, that's at least what they state. My physics-fu is too weak to follow the math they show as proof.
Knowing that I will one day stand before God to answer for how well I lived out my faith is a fearful thing
You don't know that. The human brain plays funny tricks on us on occasion and this false certainty is one of those tricks.
The rational mind would ask "Why have faith in this particular thing?" God obviously doesn't need us to have faith in him whether or not he exists. We don't need to have faith in God either. When we do want or need faith, just about anything constructive works.
The only thing that needs that faith is the belief itself. In order for a belief to persist, someone needs to believe the belief.
"One of the great theories of modern cosmology is that the universe began in a Big Bang. It's backed up by numerous lines of evidence, such as the cosmic microwave background and so on"
'over enormous scales of time (beyond 10^100 years), distance ceases to be meaningful as all mass breaks down into extremely red-shifted photon energy, whereupon time has no influence, and the universe continues to expand without event. This period from Big Bang to infinite expansion Penrose defines as an aeon. The smooth “hairless” infinite oblivion of the previous aeon becomes the low-entropy Big Bang state of the next aeon cycle`
Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe
That is Hitchhiker's Improbability drive!
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
in that the universe seemingly must exist for us to perceive it
Specific intelligence are apparently limited by many things whether the size of the brain/processor, or the materials it is made of, or the amount of energy to run it. But more than that, the though processes seem to be shaped by some combination of evolutionary pressures and chance (or possibly even design, like if we are living in a simulation). So, an extension of what you are suggesting is that all those shaping forces in some sense may limit the kind of ideas we can have about the universe as well as the questions we might think to ask about everything. I wrote my undergrad thesis in Psychology related to this topic in 1985 called "Why Intelligence: Object, Stability, Evolution, and Model".
A related book from a database perspective:
"Data and Reality" by William Kent
http://www.bkent.net/Doc/darxr...
"Data and Reality illustrates extensively the pitfalls of any simplistic attempts to capture reality as data in the sense of todayâ(TM)s database systems. The approach taken by the author is one which very logically and carefully delineates the facets of reality being represented in an information system, and also describes the data processing models used in such systems. The linguistic, semantic, and philosophical problems of describing reality are comprehensively examined⦠The depth of discussion of these concepts, as they impact on information systems, is not likely to be found elsewhere.⦠the value of this book resides in its critical, probing approach to the difficulties of modeling reality in typical information systems... it is very well written and should prove both enjoyable and enlightening to a careful reader. -ACM Computing Reviews, August 1980"
There are other possible implications as well if we are living in a simulation -- although it is still possible we may live in the simulation but our minds could also not be of it (like a human can play a video game without the video game simulating the player's mind).
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Mathematics would be an axiom for this wouldn't it?
So you believe, then, that when you die, it's to the worms and that's that? No afterlife? Do you believe you have a soul? Are you your body or are you in your body?
It's not a matter of what I believe since mere belief doesn't shape reality to this degree. I simply have no basis for believing or not believing in those things and I can't simply make them go the way I want by wanting. If I have a soul or if there is an afterlife is something I can deal with as such time as it becomes relevant.
Take a minute and think about these things...
I could think about them till the heat death of the universe and I wouldn't come any closer to having answers.
So my answer is this. Remember the Serenity Prayer.
One word?!?
They say the big bang event could happen, but with what probability during a time period? If we consider eternity, it is amazing it happened only once.
Or perhaps there have been mini big bangs inside our known universe? Or other universes beyond what we can observe?
"quantum fluctuations?"
I just can't prove it, cosmologically speaking.
....Take, say, a bagel, for instance. The bagel didn't come out of nowhere. The bagel didn't create itself. The logical conclusion is the bagel was created. Extrapolate that out to the vastness of the universe. There is a creator.
Or perhaps, more precisely, there is a baker
oh go away. that is such an immature and stupid rationale. are you still a teenager who thinks they can think?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
First off, nothing can be created from nothing.
Oh, by "nothing" you didn't mean "nothing" you meant "quantum fluctuations". Well, that clears things up, except for this:
"Quantum Fluctuations" > "Nothing"
You look for consequences of the theory. Things that would happen as a result of this, but which you won't expect otherwise.
A great example being the recent announcement by the BICEP2 people. The theory they were working on was inflation - which made the maths work on paper, but happened billions of years ago so was hard to test. But the theory predicted that inflation would have caused an "imprint" of gravitational waves in the microwave background radiation, something unlikely to happen otherwise - and these people were able to detect this imprint.
This is how science works sometimes. The theoretical physicists come up with a theory, the mathematicians prove it is possible and the experimental physicists find some consequence of the theory that can be tested.
... and you can't even find Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370?
I'm trying to understand the OP's acceptance of the openly flawed basal logic of the paper. The paper depends on the potential occurrence of a "small true vacuum bubble" created per Heisenberg's theory in what is called a "Metastable False Vacuum" - By definition, the insertion of the word "False" immediately destroys the OP's premise that this describes something coming from nothing. This theoretical "metastable false vacuum" is not nothing. It is by definition "Something" which mathematically appears to be "nothing". All that this paper seems to have proven is that theoretically, if there was something that looked like nothing, something could theoretically have come from it. This brings us (unsurprisingly) no closer to any proof that something could come from nothing. Of course, brilliant idiots the world over will jump on this paper, just like they jumped on the concept of a "Metastable False Vacuum" to tout their "proof" that despite the fact that everyone with a grain of common sense understands that nothing comes from nothing, they know that we are wrong.