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."

18 of 612 comments (clear)

  1. If you make this a proof of God... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... I will punch you in the face.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    1. Re:If you make this a proof of God... by marcello_dl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nothing that breaks the rules can be proven as breaking them, from the inside. What if the exception is part of the rules?

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    2. Re:If you make this a proof of God... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Funny

      If gods of our ancestors were so all powerful, why do they seem to have a messaging problem?

      Can create vast amounts of items but has trouble communicating his views to others? God is a Geek!!!

      Just be glad that he's not very good at messaging. Then God would be from Marketing. The Lord of All Creation coming from Marketing? Not that would be scary!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:If you make this a proof of God... by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've always been surprised at people who give consideration to the simulation argument, but none to God. If we're living in a simulation (which I think is decently probable, relativity and wave/particle duality being emergent properties of programming kludges to save cycles), then this simulation was created by someone. That someone would be omnipotent and omniscient with regards to this reality, exists outside of this reality, and created this reality. That's the definition of God. God is the Programmer.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    4. Re:If you make this a proof of God... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are supposed to read it and think "people should act this way",

      Yes, with the genocide and the slavery and the misogyny and the mock executions of sons by their fathers, what a fine world it would be if we followed the moral example of the Bible.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    5. Re:If you make this a proof of God... by pitchpipe · · Score: 4, Funny

      So the guy at the PC said to himself "Thank you for nothing, guys" and went making himself coffee.

      Actually the guy at the computer decided to torture those little fucks for the rest of eternity for being so presumptuous, because he loved them unconditionally.

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    6. Re:If you make this a proof of God... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 4, Funny

      When people believe in gods that can't invent wireless camera phones

      Yeah, because if it suddenly started raining iPhones in 5 A.D., that totally wouldn't have turned anybody into gibbering lunatics.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    7. Re:If you make this a proof of God... by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      , I could easily design a better and more just system

      For some value of "better." You have no idea what the Programmer's motive and design goal is. We simulate un-perfect worlds all the time. This could all be a game of World of Warcraft for higher dimensional beings. Azeroth is a pretty fucked-up place because if it were all peaceful and just the game would be boring. We would have no more understanding of the Programmer than my WoW character has of me.

      We simulate our own universe, too, to try to understand it better. This could just be a much, much more high-fidelity simulation of the Programmer's universe.

      It could even be an experiment to see if simulated beings, shown a perfect paradise and expelled from it could, left to their own devices, re-create that same paradise after being shown an example of perfect love and sacrifice. In that case, Jesus was the Programmer's avatar in this reality, and Christianity is true.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    8. Re:If you make this a proof of God... by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm never sure if I want there to be an afterlife or not. And I'm Catholic. I have faith in God, but I can never know.

      Really, what bothers me more than anything is the concept of hell. The exact nature of hell isn't really laid out in the Bible. It's described as being cut off from God and his goodness, permanently, which would be torment to us who were created by Him. But that doesn't tell you if it's really lakes of fire and demons with pitchforks (which was really just Dante's depiction that inspired everyone who came after), or if it's just some shitty shanty town...or if it's this reality we're in right now. But, if it is the whole 'torturing forever' thing, first thing I'm doing when I get to heaven is I'm tugging on God's cape and saying, "hey, can we get those people out of there?" I have no idea how I'm supposed to party forever in heaven with Jesus if there's even one soul suffering in hell.

      While I have faith in God, I also kinda hope I'm wrong and there's simply nothing after death, because I would rather have there be nothing for me than torture for anyone.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  2. Quantum fluctuations != nothing by MadTinfoilHatter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?"

    1. Re:Quantum fluctuations != nothing by Ricyteach · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Physicists seem to have a curious definition of "nothing" (see Lawrence Krauss' book).

  3. "Proof" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:"Proof" by uberdilligaff · · Score: 4, Informative

      Extraordinarily well said. The mathematical model is NOT the actual physics. It is only a very useful abstraction that happens to fit very well with the observed state of the physical world today. To the extent that the mathematical model helps us understand the physical universe, it is quite useful. Extrapolating the model back to its mathematical origin (the zero point) does not "prove" that the universe exploded into existence as an infinitesimal point at time 0. It should raise suspicions that the model might not be quite such a good fit to the conditions that existed at that time as opposed to the conditions that prevail today, 14+ billion years later.

      --
      Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain. --Friederich Schiller
  4. So "nothing" has quantum fluctuations by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  5. It's not proof of God by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:Nothing by jythie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, adding 'zero' to the number system was a pretty big deal about nothing.

  7. Get something about math proofs. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Math proofs are based on a set of axioms or starting assumptions. All the mathematical proofs are simply inevitable consequences of the axioms, that is all. Every mathematical proofs say, "this is consistent with your original assumptions". That is all, nothing more, nothing less.

    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
  8. Re:Something from nothing? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Funny

    they cut & paste from the Web

    So that's why huge amounts of Wikipedia have gone missing!

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.