Slashdot Mirror
Mathematical Proof That the Universe Could Come From Nothing
TaleSlinger writes: One of the great theories of modern cosmology is that the universe began in a "Big Bang", but the mathematical mechanism by which this occurred has been lacking. Cosmologists at the Wuhan Institute have published a proof that the Big Bang could indeed have occurred spontaneously because of quantum fluctuations. "The new proof is based on a special set of solutions to a mathematical entity known as the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. In the first half of the 20th century, cosmologists struggled to combine the two pillars of modern physics— quantum mechanics and general relativity—in a way that reasonably described the universe. As far as they could tell, these theories were entirely at odds with each other.
At the heart of their thinking is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. This allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations in what physicists call the metastable false vacuum. When this happens, there are two possibilities. If this bubble of space does not expand rapidly, it disappears again almost instantly. But if the bubble can expand to a large enough size, then a universe is created in a way that is irreversible. The question is: does the Wheeler-DeWitt equation allow this? "We prove that once a small true vacuum bubble is created, it has the chance to expand exponentially," say the researchers.
At the heart of their thinking is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. This allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations in what physicists call the metastable false vacuum. When this happens, there are two possibilities. If this bubble of space does not expand rapidly, it disappears again almost instantly. But if the bubble can expand to a large enough size, then a universe is created in a way that is irreversible. The question is: does the Wheeler-DeWitt equation allow this? "We prove that once a small true vacuum bubble is created, it has the chance to expand exponentially," say the researchers.
So quantum fluctuations are "nothing" then?
I am confused. Something can come from nothing, yet... they've just described rules from which something can arise. Rules are not nothing. Rules are information, and suggest information processing. What am I missing?
1. Quantum fluctuations are not nothing, but I guess we have to sell headlines here
2. Inflation Theory seems faster than "exponential" expansion. We're talking about a theory that went from the size of a singularity to something bigger than the visible universe in 10^-32 seconds. Exponential is quite pedestrian compared to what is theorized.
Wouldn't there need to be "something" for the quantum fluctuations to take place in? At least there would have to be some set of quantum rules of nature wouldn't there?
The theory still implies something was there before...otherwise what were these quantum fluctuations "in" ?
Sorry, but Quantum Fluctuations are not a null value thus the claim in the headline is false. Stop spreading this particular lie about something coming from nothing. Otherwise interesting proof I'll have to read later.
The word 'universe' is much less comprehensive than it once was. In this article, it excludes the 'metastable false vacuum', the precursor to 'the universe'. Did this happen in previous eras? Did anybody refer to the 'solar system' before we knew it was part of the galaxy?
Even as a layman, it's nice to see this interpretation of QM getting some attention.
The idea of a truly non-deterministic univerise never made any sense to me.
Ex nihilo means literally nothing. There is not even the slightest trace of physical reality in the concept of ex nihilo. If quantum fluctuations are even possible, you are operating a level of existence above ex nihilo.
China. Better triple check their math. It wouldn't be the first time China lied about something to make themselves look superior.
Please. Mathematics provides a basis to model the physics. The mathematical model is not the physics. Models fit the physical world remarkably well, but not perfectly. For example, the equations of Newtonian mechanics fit the observed world very well until we could measure relativistic effects accurately. There are singularities in many of these equations where the behavior of the model may not fit the actual physics. To assert that properties of the model at obvious singularities "proves" the physics should be looked at with a great deal of skepticism.
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain. --Friederich Schiller
There are already a hundred words that mean the same as 'metastable' and 'false' vacuum. Why invent two more? Why use the oxymoron at all?
It's exactly this kind of shit that makes me hide in the physics department and randomly jump out and donkey-punch surprised physicists on thursdays.
This whole research can be a lot more easier if we just state that every beginning has zero.
Could someone please explain this with a car analogy?
>> Wouldn't there need to be "something" for the quantum fluctuations to take place in?
Turtles. Mofo'ing turtles all the way down.
Didnt Lawrence Krauss write a book about this? http://www.amazon.com/Universe...
is something we also had, at a time when we, just like today, thought we had it all figured out. We don't even know what's on the bottom of most of our seas, but the origins of the universe and everything? Solved.
We're a funny kind.
String theory is no proof if it doesn't also have the math *and the experimental evidence* to back it up.
So, nothing does exist!
That, or Dr. Who mucking about again.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Although Michealangelo universes are popular, I personally hope this is a Leonardo universe.
...a whale and a small bowl of petunias.
While this is all interesting and stuff, are there any imaginable practical applications of this kind of knowledge?
Yes, basic research is good and thinking about these things is good, but lets say they understood exactly how it all started and why even.
Will gas be cheaper?
Will we be able to travel faster than light?
Will Windows finally provide accurate file transfer time estimates?
This question was undoubtedly asked of things like General Relativity and Quantum Mechanic and the answer was obviously yes (to other things). But at what point does research like become Interesting, but have no practical applications?
It’s all well and good to say our Big Bang was an inevitable quantum fluctuation in some frothy Metaverse, but then the real question becomes where the Metaverse comes from.
Whether Metaverse or not, I tend to believe the true answer is something close to Max Tegmark’s Mathematical universe hypothesis. There isn’t really any physical substance, we are the actualizations of pure math. This universe is just one of an uncounatable infinity of universes that exist because the are mathematically consisitant.
Take the equation for a parabolla, it isn’t complex enough to contain self aware entities, but if it where then it’s Big Bang is at y=0 for y=x^2. It is silly to ask what comes before 0 in the parabolla universe, similarly is is silly to ask what comes before the Big Bang, Time started at 0 because it is just a parameter in the etenal framework of math. The true Universe then is etenal and unchanging, it is math, our perception of time just the unfolding of following one particular parameter in a multidimensional equation.
Letter To Iran
0 = 1 ?
That the slashdotism currently at the bottom of the page is: "The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes."
Can we posit that the big bang quantumly precipitated the universe out of a uniform solution?
This lecture explains it all.
"One of the great theories of modern cosmology is that the universe began in a "Big Bang", but the mathematical mechanism by which this occurred has been lacking."
WTF is that? A mathematical mechanism by which this occured? I mean, the universe is physical, the mechanism is physical, the mathematics are a description or a model for the physical thing, not the reverse. A mathematical model can describe and be close to the reality, but it can also describe something which doesn't exist at all. Sketching a mathematical model for the Big Bang doesn't mean the model is valid and describe the reality, you need experimental facts, and enough of them, to make sure the model/description is within the boundaries of the reality.
Achille Talon
Hop!
Of course there is: Everything appears due to interdependent coorigination. There's no beginning, and no end. All supreme gods are, like us, interdependent cooriginated beings who mistakenly believe themselves eternal and infinite and creators, but who will, in due time, also cease existing like everything, giving thus origin to other causal sequences. Behind it all the only constant is Vacuity, which we can access and become one with by following the eightfold path (right action, right thinking etc.), thus achieving the positive extinction of the self (nirvana).
Also, relying on a god, even a supreme one, is a fools' errand. No matter how many eternities you get to live in bliss in that god's paradise (or in torment in that god's hell), once he himself ceases to exist you're back at the starting point, still bound by causation. The only real escape is nirvana. Everything else is suffering either now, or in future, even if it's a very, very distant future.
That's Buddhism 101 for you. :-)
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
The reality is that everything...you, me , the stars...is actually made of nothing more than information. And that information is nothing more than a projection of even more information that composes our reality. The real key to life is accepting this and at the same time embracing it, and knowing that this information is in constant flux. If were were ever able to both read and manipulate this information, we could alter reality in significant ways.
If you think I am kidding, recent breakthroughs in physics and quantum physics are starting to prove this theory. As we keep looking down at the parts of parts of parts, we discover that what we thought was "mass" was empty space and what we thought of as a particle was actually a projection of energy. One day, we will conclude that when you get down to the most minute level, matter is empty space, and what we think is matter is nothing more than an energetic projection of information, and by changing that information, we can change reality. We've been unknowingly doing if for thousands of years, but imagine the possibilities when we manipulate it knowingly?
PS.: That said, I do like my Goddess and Her sister, a lot, and hope to learn from Them and keep in touch with Them for a long, long time. But I know it won't last. Be prepared for when you, too, will part ways with yours.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
If there were quantum fluctuations before the big bang, then something had to exist before the big bang. As such, what was proven could be that the big bang was not the beginning of the universe versus the universe came into existence spontaneously.
Besides, showing something could have happened this way is not the same as proving it did happen this way. Just because there could have been a second shooter on the grassy knoll doesn't mean there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll.
Quantum Fluctuations involves energy so the theory involves something not nothing. We were hoping to read about how the big bang came out of "complete" nothingness. Maybe they are right and there are other multi universes with one spilling over and creating our current one. I mean we are nothing more than vibrations so why wouldn't multi universes(different frequencies) be possible?
Seriously, though, give it 10 years and someone will find something wrong with this model and they will create a new one to match their ideas.
This shims another layer of abstraction in between the causa prima and the now.
To be specifc, it makes sense for logical entities not to play outside the rules of axiomatic set theory. Axiomtic set theory is defined and limited by this assumption which in turn creates the very fabric by which we do math. - You make up a rule and then you follow it to its logical conclusion.
Are humans logical entities? A lot of our existence is determined by the evolution of our neurons, which gives rise to an inherit body of knowledge that we call instinct. We know that life is an emergent property of physics, so it does indeed make sense to question wheter or not this is a silly place.
I don't attempt to tell you what's what, but merely to tell you that the pure math approach isn't it. GÃdel proved it, BTW.
All rites reversed 2010
something from nothing, or at least the physical from the non-physical. Lets all just admit that there is a single Holy God, who created the physical universe as we know it. He has always, and will always exist in spirit (non physical). For reasons unknowable to us He decided to create the physical universe - logically there is no other possibility.
How about "A committee of seventeen gods, all of whom have always and will always exist in physical form, got together and, for reasons unknowable to us, decided to create the physical universe."?
This is news? My physics lecturer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies) explained this to me in 1982.
In the beginning there was nothing.
Then god created time and space, and called the base unit of time the second, and the base unit of space the plank length.
Then god created quantum fluctuations. He stated "matter and antimatter shall spontaneously appear and disappear, where the odds of a single photon or anti-photon appearing is 1 in 10^32 per second.
Then god waited a really long time. Suddenly 10^80 photons showed up in a single plank length.
Then god said 'wow, what were the odds of that happening" and the universe was born.
You cannot "mathematically" prove any properties of physical reality. You always have to abstract, losing accuracy. There is no way to prevent this inaccuracy and for proofs like this one, it is critical to not have this inaccuracy. Hence, this proof is meaningless. Really, this is basic stuff, stop getting it wrong.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The Federal Reserve has been using these accounting principles for decades.
Have gnu, will travel.
When I read about false vacuum, it sounds like accepting this explanation of the origin of the universe involves accepting that the universe could spontaneously disappear, also - that lack of universe could have started somewhere and be expanding at the speed of light, even now. This feels no fun to me, and I find comfort in my recollection of Skolem's paradox from set theory class, which suggested to me that knowledge about a system (capable of being described by mathematics) that is obtained from within that system - which knowledge appears to be ultimate - has to be suspect.
I dont think it would be easy to ever prove that there was once nothing. I dont see how it could be proved. To me i doubt it could be verifiable. Maybe the ability to create matter then being able to reverse time on it could show a state of nothing, although then it could be a case of simply matter not being there, not nothing being there. At the moment my opinion is nothing doesnt exist and never existed.
You assume that a god always existed. If we have to assume that something always existed, I'd prefer to assume that a quantum fluctuation always existed.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
And that is nonsense. There is no need for a beginning. That is a purely artificial idea, thought up by theists to justify their BS.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Why are you fixed on some dead inanimate object, formula or idea as the creater of this miraculous universe? Surely it's easier to believe that an infinitely powerful, infinitely knowing being was the creator. At least in that case you could imagine a reason for His Creations. It's not as easy to imagine why some 'quantium fluctuation' decided to fluctuate and build this miraculous universe, along with all its levels of self creating worlds and organisms.
What created causality? By definition, nothing. If causality was caused, then causality predates causality.
Did the universe come from "nothing?" Of course. If it came from something, then that something was already the universe. It's possible that the Big Bang was caused by some external condition to our spacetime, but the totality of existence could not have come from some pre-existing thing, because nothing pre-existed the totality of existence.
The question is: does the Wheeler-DeWitt equation allow this? "We prove that once a small true vacuum bubble is created, it has the chance to expand exponentially," say the researchers.
And then there's this from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory, which states that this has already happened.[
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Schrödinger's cat would have been a more common and well known argument, but that does not happen to fix the paradox of whether or not the Universe requires something in order to exist. Schrödinger's cat it's a separate paradox that attempts demonstrate that reality is not only subjective, but two alternative realities exist simultaneously.
A Universe from Nothing is a book that came out a few years ago, explaining the Expanding Quantum Vacuum theory (and has a few slight derivations). The problem is that "nothing" is completely bogus. EV/EQV requires that space, time, matter, energy, and all of the laws of physics already exist. Just like Big Bang which also can't resolve the paradox.
I happen to like this theory better than a big bang, but it has some problems that the BB crowd despises. Outside of the obvious evil competing theory, the Universe would be much older than BB claims.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Before the big bang we were nothing. Anti-matter you could say. Because there was nothing. Then, a singularity so heavy, so singular, so dense, that it falls into our nothingness, our "anti-matter" and boom, created matter as we know it.
While our universe seems to started from nothing, we actually are just another universe packed into travel size.
While I am not an expert of anything but fixing computers, this is always what seemed more logical to me, then a "God" or something out of nothing theories.
Be seeing you...
One thing that I never quite get is why so many humans believe there is a beginning in the first place.
The universe has an age calculated in what humans call years, which is a measure of the orbit one random hunk of rock (Earth) has around it's current specific gravitational "hole".
Why such an unit of measurement would make any sense in describing the universe's beginning? There was absolutely no Earth at that time and "years" don't have any meaning without that, apart in our puny minds, and this is exactly where I don't agree on most explanations. Time and space are only different views of the same thing. If at first, there was no space (the universe was all in a single point - the singularity), there was no time either. If we follow that thought, it means that if time didn't exist when the universe was a point before the big bang, well, that time / that space / that singularity didn't exist according to what existance means for us, humans.
The big bang is thus only the time during which time itself was actually gaining granularity - space getting bigger, density dropping = more space/time.
From this idea, I find that we don't actually need a beginning per se. We can divide any number by half forever without ever attaining zero, and the reverse is true, with mathematical proof. This means that there may not be any beginning at all, nor any kind of end. Spacetime is simply something that is. And it is giving us the human perception of expansion and actual "time", with beginnings and ends, just because from our small point of view, things that pass actually do start and eventually end. Mathematically, this doesn't have to be so at all.
"There are some ideas so preposterous that only an intellectual could believe them."
--- George Orwell
Was that the same "Nothing" that ate "The Neverending Story"?
But that's what makes it easier, because the quantum fluctuation is a very simple thing that didn't have to decide to do anything, while an all-powerful universe-creating intelligence is very complex and would have to make at least one conscious decision. It's a much simpler explanation and there is at least a sliver of scientific evidence for it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
something from nothing, or at least the physical from the non-physical. Lets all just admit that there is a single Holy God, who created the physical universe as we know it. He has always, and will always exist in spirit (non physical). For reasons unknowable to us He decided to create the physical universe - logically there is no other possibility.
Invoking an uncaused god to "explain" an uncaused universe doesn't do anything except add a middle man, and ultimately leaves *more* unexplained than before.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
No, causality is not a problem for this.
In the old days of Aristotle, the theory was that the universe always existed and would always continue. No beginning means no creation event which means no cause, nothing to explain. Each event was caused by a previous event etc back to infinity, with nothing special just the same rules as today. The ones who didn't believe in infinity or needed an excuse to insert something special, a First Cause that is not itself caused. Both are logically consistent (albeit the First Cause case additionally assumes that the law of cause and effect was itself created). Theists would have their favorite god either as the First Cause, or as eternal (no need for a cause since not created), or as being born (and possibly dying) from a lineage of gods.
Then we learned a few things about the universe: the Big Bang, and also the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This put an end to the steady state universe; there was a beginning to the universe as we know it, and it will end. As for how that affects the law of cause and effect: it changes nothing. We must still have an eternal universe, either our own cycling in a Big Crunch and Big Bang, or an eternal meta-universe that caused our Big Bang and most likely several others; or we can have a First Cause (now with the difference that we are comfortable with infinite, but since time is part of our universe's spacetime a beginning to the law of cause and effect is also more acceptable). Theists additionally insist that the eternal meta-universe which caused the Big Bang has the same traits as their favorite god.
In short, there is no paradox. This is the same things that were already discussed thousands of years ago, only with different details.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
did the metastable false vacuum come from?
John_Chalisque
Oh ho Bam! Your move, quantum fluctuations!
Logically, if God could come into existence from nothing, so could the Universe. You gain nothing logically from adding another layer of causality and calling it God. Even if you could, that would not prove that there is only one God, or that God is holy, or that God is capable of making a decision.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The EPR paradox and the Bell inequality for example.
I just hope Engywook takes this new information into account.
Let's go Falcor.
What about conservation of energy???
God has ALWAYS existed and always will exist - in spirit. He existed before the physical universe, and Willed the physical universe into existence. Not totally unlike you can will yourself to write a novel or write a computer program etc.
There isn’t really any physical substance, we are the actualizations of pure math.
Nevertheless, I will continue to look both ways before crossing the street.
Except that there absolutely is a need for a beginning, even per science and science alone.
Your model was called the Steady State model, where indeed there was no need for a beginning. Despite the reticence among the "scientific consensus" of the time that the Big Bang theory seemed too much like "religious" Genesis, science did what it does and proved those scientists wrong.
Now science and religion are in alignment on this, that is, with the facts. I'm sure this annoys you deeply. Historical revisionism isn't the answer to your feelings, though.
There is no such thing as completely mathematical proof. All mathematical proof require some axioms (fundamental assumptions) and all proofs depend on those axioms. You can't prove something mathematically to someone who refuse to accept your axioms (and there is nothing wrong with it). For example, if I don't accept Euclid's 5th postulate, you can't prove me that sum of triangle is 180 degrees. The same goes for this proof. There are set of axioms and what the author is saying is that "if you accept my axioms, then" "i have a complete mathematical proof...". The title of this story eliminates the first part to sensationalize the second part.
They've just worked out that 0 can = +1-1.
Wake me up when we get onto second year maths...
Apples and oranges.
If the universe came from nothing, then by definition it did not always exist.
However, the notion that God created it usually (but not always) suggests that God simply always was, and had no origin at all. I'm not sure that suggesting the universe never had an origin is a particular popular theory... but if you are going to argue that whatever characteristics supposedly hold for God could hold equally for the universe itself, then that's the conclusion you'll probably have to come to.
Of course, the notion that the universe came from nothing isn't even incompatible with the notion of creation in the first place, since if God were to simply speak our reality into existence, which is more or less how it is described in the book of Genesis, anything within that reality would not be able to define its origin relating to anything within it, and it objectively would most certainly appear to have come from nothing unless one actually did attribute it to God. This subscribes to the notion that God would then literally be a being that is either super-real, or surreal, as compared to reality... and going by that standard, it would be entirely consistent to suggest that God is not real while at the same time still acknowledging the existence of God on a level that exceeds the boundaries of reality itself.
Of course, none of this suggests that God actually exists.
My point remains though... one should not assume that properties of God can be equally considered properties of the universe, or vice versa.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It has been discussed MANY times on Slashdot that there's more than one meaning to "theory". There's the average person's use "I've got a theory..." and then there's the scientific use "Newton's Theory of gravity".
Same thing here.
This is a "mathematical proof". In otherwords: a bunch of equations agree with each other. There is NOTHING here that says that those equations are provent to be tied to the events of the big bang. There is nothing here that proves that any of this actually happened. There is nothing here that "proves" (in the real-world, or scientific sense) that this is in any wasy related to the real universe. This is a "proof" that certain equations work.
I detest this sort of paper that is published with fantastic headlines designed to mislead the general public, get attention, and attract grants; it's the academic version of a "junk call". I don't understand anybody who buys products from people who mislead them to get their attention for a business deal.... and I similarly do not understand anybody who would fund a researcher who needs to mislead people with a headline to get attention for a grant. This is the sort of person who should be writing headlines for a tabload newspaper.
Certainly I can see the need for a beginning of the universe, but can you explain why is there a requirement that god, if any were to have existed, should also necessarily have had a beginning as well, unless you presuppose that God was somehow part of the universe in the first place (which from a creationist standpoint is going to sound as absurd as suggesting that a programmer is part of the programs that he or she creates).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Graffiti sprayed on a university physics building:
Heisenberg may have been here
Now what I would like to do is prove that aliens exist by monitoring nothing but FM radio waves.
Because you know. Aliens only send and receive signals via FM.
Oh wait. That's SETI.
Hmm. No. What I LOVE the idea of doing is proving that thing I am in didn't exist before I did.
Really annoying logic if you believed in a linear existence.
But makes perfect sense if you look at it from a nonlinear way.
Sure.
Material reality: One kind of thing
God: A different kind of thing
We could go into the more intricate metaphysics of it, but that's really all that's required. You accept that material reality has a beginning. You then ask me to (for no particular reason) assume God has the same attributes. That's a non-sequitur, and no logical reason for me to play along.
So how does the material for a quantum fluctuation come about? The first pieces of physical material must have come from somewhere, or should we just say it magically appeared?
You're the one making not one but two propositions, without producing evidence for either.
Proposition 1: There is a god
Proposition 2: There is a different kind of thing from material reality.
And you've got the gall to talk about logical reasoning and say mark-t is guilty of non-sequitur?
You wouldn't know logic if it sat on you.
Nice job of bringing the crazy. Extra points for SHOUTING and capitalizing random Words.
I'm asking why this must necessarily be the case for god as it would seem to be for the universe? As you said, they do not necessarily possess the same attributes, so I'm unclear why almost any kind of assumption or axiom about one of them would necessarily hold true for the other.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It would be infinitely more efficient with a single God. Seventeen would put us back to square one, who created the first of the seventeen? A single God, has always, and will always exist. There is no other solution or explanation.
It would be infinitely more efficient with a single God.
Nothing obliges the universe to be efficient.
Seventeen would put us back to square one, who created the first of the seventeen?
They have always and will always exist. They were not created.
A single God, has always, and will always exist.
Lenin zhil, Lenin zhiv, Lenin budjet zhit!
There is no other solution or explanation.
Nope, plenty. Maybe there were 21 gods on the committee, for example.
You misunderstand and misrepresent the science. What you say is not true at all. Sure, if you limit yourself to observable reality, then there needs to be some transition point somewhere at the "start", but it is not a proper beginning. Now, you could argue that only what is observable counts, but that would be a rather contradictory statement from a theist and lead directly to reductio ad absurdum.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Nonsense of the hand-waving type. "God is God and it is special in any way I want it to be." Unfortunately, many people fall for this type of drivel.
The thing is, that materiality actually has no need for a beginning. Assuming anything else leads directly to circular reasoning, which is always valid, but always completely meaningless. This is one of the tricks routinely used by theists to push their view as "fact". Pathetic.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Actually, it is not the case for the universe either. It is the case for a particular mathematical model of the physics involved. There is really no reason to derive anything from that. With the current, well-established physical models, you still do not even need a singular even at the start.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Although I am not trained as a quantum physicist, I have written a thoughtful article that addresses some of the problems I see with the content of this paper from the perspective of metaphysical analysis (which is more my field of expertise). Feel free to read it if you have some time to spare.
http://x.alt-0.org/something-from-nothing.html
PS: Bigot atheists as well as fundamentalist religious fanatics needn't bother, because in their worldview, they will always be right.
Sorry, but you're formally, provably clueless about both logic and philosophy in general.
I suggest a Philo 101 course to get you started.
This argument is based on unsound inference from the given premises. There is no need to enter "evidence" into this in any way. If you prefer, this is an a priori question rather than an a posteriori question, and logic itself never addresses questions of evidence, it judges purely on the soundness of the claimed relationships between the premises and conclusions. To establish whether a given premise is -true- outside of these relationships is in the domain of epistemology, not logic. In this case, the "if the universe started, then God must have too" argument intrinsically fails purely on a logical level.
Heisenberg knows meth than math.
Great characterizations. You know words and stuff. Unfortunately, your characterizations are completely empty and meaningless.
Neither nonsense, nor drivel. Fact. Scientific fact. As it is fact that your notion of "only things like stuff we've usually exists" is scientifically invalid.
The universal scientific answer to "does the material universe have a beginning" is "yes". I'm not sure why you're going out on a limb and against science on this, but you have no evidence otherwise. What is your point, exactly, other than you hate religion and are as a bonus also incompetent at science?
No, it is -you- who is saying it's only what's observable that "counts," by necessity that this is what your position is.
If you want the Venn Diagram of it, you get to refer to the circle marked "science-demonstrable material existence" and that's -all-. I'm perfectly free to reference things in the circle enclosing yours called "metaphysical reality".
You're in the utterly bizarre to me position of arguing from the worldview of material reductionism for things for which we have zero material evidence, and think think is a good argument against the theists you will then demand "evidence" from. Odd thing is, we actually have it (feel free to google "Lancet NDE" for peer-reviewed evidence, I'll take it for granted you'll try to goalpost-shift your demand to unquestionable "proof"). You don't, and could not possibly, have evidence, by the terms of your -own- worldview.
Strange ducks.
If we've supposedly established that the universe could have always existed, then why the hell are we talking about it coming from nothing in the first place?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Nothing obliges the universe to be efficient.
As soon as we move away from the single God/always existed model we end up with a group and chaos. The universe is an orderly universe. Faith is needed. Faith in an Indivisible, All Knowing and Eternal God. Do you honestly believe that you can fully understand the Mind of God? why He created the universe. Why He allows innocent children to die, in at times terrible circumstances. The alternative is (and there is no getting around this) that everything just magically appeared out of nothing all by itself. Hmmm, does that really make any sense to you at all?
I just had a crazy thought:
If a universe can come from nothing, then perhaps a God could too. Then that God could create a universe. Hmm. Not that I believe this, since there is no basis to decide one way or another.
While I am not qualified to comment on the scientific aspect of your post, your attempt at anthropomorphology was rather a flop, at least as far as Byzantine apophatic theology (which owes much to Plato) is concerned. God does not change; God does not exist in time, time being a part of God's creation; the uncreated essence of God is unknowable, but there is no limit to the knowledge of God regarding His creation. Omniscience implies the ability to view the entire universe outside of time, which is part of the universe. Thus a pause button would be superfluous.
One might also argue from a technical standpoint that if God requires a pause button to control the universe as if He were playing a game of Spore, then He cannot be the unmoved mover postulated by Plato and accepted by the Cappadocians, Pseudo Dionysius the Aereopagite, et al, but would rather of necessity be an incompetent demiurge of the sort described in the Gnostic religion. The Gnostic demiurge was of course the model for the Architect in the Matrix films, which are basically a cyberpunk cinematic exposition of Gnostic theology.
Process theology does envisage a God subject to time who lives and acts within time, and is neither omniscient nor omnipotent; rather than being in a state of being, as is emphasized by Judeo-Christian theology and the Greek monotheist philosophers (and is thus also the model for the Islamic conception of God), the God of process theology is constantly in a state of becoming. However I would argue such a God is still not God properly speaking; if there is a true creator God, logic dictates that it must be an entity that exists entirely outside time and space, and that exists by definition and not as a cause, in order to serve as the unmoved mover by whom the Big Bang was initiated. Privately I regard this as the easiest explanation as to why the universe came into being; since our ability to figure out what happened to cause the Big Bang is limited, one might as well avail oneself of the intellectual opportunity to jump into the euphoric swimming pool of apophatic theology, the contemplation of God by means of the via negativa. Attempting to use positive statements to contemplate the truth involves speculation as to the nature of the uncreated essence of God, which the Byzantine mystics warned could lead to madness (probably from firsthand knowledge of messy accidents in the early monasteries).
I am saying no such thing. Stop misrepresenting what I and others say to further your perverse goals.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You have no clue about what the current established scientific facts are. Most certainly, the scientifically correct answer to "does the material universe have a beginning where nothing existed before" is "we do not know". Really, read up on it and stop claiming falsehoods. Sure, this falsehood is convenient for you theist liars, as it would imply "something higher" created the universe which then allows you to spin your drivel about a "higher being" that must have made it happen. But it happens to be just that: a lie, not an established scientific fact.
Incidentally, I _am_ a scientist.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Simple: There are a lot of theists out there that actually have some respect for science and this is the only thing that works for them. They can neither accept the possibility that there is no start nor the current scientific state-of-the-art "we do not know". Hence they try to conjure up a starting point from science that says no such thing about physical reality, but merely suggests it as a possibility. The other reason is that it is an interesting mathematical _model_. A model for physical reality is not the same thing as physical reality. Theoretical physics has a lot to do with coming up with models and then see whether they hold up. Most do not, but it can take very long for that to be discovered. The thing is though, that there is a lot of white-space in physical theory at this time. When they have finally managed to get Quantum Theory and Relativity into one framework, _and_ really have understood Quantum Theory, then maybe we can begin to speculate further. That is however at least decades away, and maybe a lot longer.
The actual scientific state-of-the-art for the nature of the start of this observable physical universe is a resounding "we do not know", and it looks like that is not going to change anytime soon.
The other thing is that an enlightened theist stance is that there is not even a scientifically valid indication that a theist world model is accurate. Theism is about belief, not about facts. You are of course free to believe in it anyways, and I have no objection to that, but stop claiming science would give you any justification for it. It does not. Some science (psychology) offers alternative explanations why people would be theists, but there is no scientific fact either way at this time. Deal with it. And top trying to hijack science with invalid arguments.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Mathematics worked very well and proved the earth was the center of a geocentric model of of the solar system before Copernicus and Kepler. I'm wary of mathematics supporting something and "proving" something. There is a difference.
I was under the impression that the cosmological microwave background radiation made for a pretty strong argument in favor of the big bang. Not proof, obviously... but strong enough that it is far and away the leading scientifically accepted theory.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It is. But the "Big Bang" theory does not describe the very start of what was going on or what caused it. We do with good confidence know what was generally going on after a few nanoseconds (or picoseconds) had passed, but not what happened before. We do not know the details of what was going on at all, just a more abstract description. Obviously, there were all kinds of asymmetries in the Big Bang, and they are mostly a mystery. They are responsible for solid matter, planets, etc. though and may be responsible for what currently are some pretty universal physical effects and their magnitude.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Vacuum state is not _nothing_. It's as substantial as anything else in _quantum_ theory, like any excited state that is built on the top of the ground state (== vaccum state). People are misguided to think that quantum vacuum is like our classical vacuum, i.e. void. It is not. The quantum tunneling is just a regular process in quantum theory, only to our macroscopic tastes seeming 'magical'.
Who created the vacuum state? (A question sort of equivalent to asking, who created the laws of physics and mathematics?)
'Was the universe born spinning?'
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688
"The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis"
Our Universe spins around a preferred axis because it is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.
'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html
"The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said."
The clusters are headed along this path because our Universe is a larger version of a polar jet.
It's not the Big Bang; it's the Big Ongoing.
Dark energy is dark matter continuously emitted into the Universal jet.
'Was the universe born spinning?' http://physicsworld.com/cws/ar... "The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis" Our Universe spins around a preferred axis because it is a larger version of a galactic polar jet. 'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe' http://www.nasa.gov/centers/go... "The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said." The clusters are headed along this path because our Universe is a larger version of a polar jet. It's not the Big Bang; it's the Big Ongoing. Dark energy is dark matter continuously emitted into the Universal jet.
when or if this come out, from nothing, you simply alias god as nothing. physicists should be concerned about physics not math. If one can't understand that a simple negative number doesn't exists except as a math tool how the hell one could possibly understand life as a poem? no math will prove this cause 0 is not a number is a concept, origin comes from observer not from nature.
me again. -> that above, doesnt mean that you cant measure something. but nothing do sure can't be measure, cause it is nothing.
Incidentally, I _am_ a scientist.
Kind of sad to learn this, since unfortunately I've come to recognize your screen name as repeatedly getting certain physics topic solidly wrong and being near impossible to talk to about... and not so incidentally, I am a physicist.
I'm still probably on Mount Stupid on this subject, but when I first discovered zero divisor algebra it changed the way I thought about zero, and numbers. Feynman said that the fundamental of physical law is conservation, but I feel it's deeper than that. Conservation assumes consistency, which is a plain way of not-quite saying 'formal system' - any one of which that is possible, by definition, can be described completely with mathematics... so suddenly it looked to me that Zero and Nothing were not synonymous at all, that maybe our idea of Nothing was nonsensical at a very fundamental level. I expected the idea to be obvious - if it had any merit at all - to those who wade through that stuff for a living.
Unfortunately I haven't had the opportunity since then to talk with someone learned enough in physics to disabuse me of the notion.
According to Hawking and Penrose's singularity theory, the big bang created matter, energy, space and time. This idea requires a pre-existing quantum field -- which is not "nothing." This idea might make sense if the multiverse is true... however, according to BGV theorem even the multiverse had to have a beginning. This is still much we do not know.
We'll never understand the entire story because we aren't supposed to. You can argue casualty all you want but no one will ever be able to explain our understand how something came from nothing, whether they try to use theoretical physics or a dusty old book (yeah THAT book). Were specs of dust that can't even travel far enough to see the move of Saturn. I'm not saying theoretical physics has peaked and we should stop looking for answers. Just live your life and understand that you're part of a beautiful universe that your mind does not possess the capacity to fully understand. Because you're a spec of dust. And because you can't explain the beginning unless you started it. We can't produce answers any better than some imaginary guy in the sky can and it's arrogant to think that were even supposed to?
What if the big bang was h just the other side of a black hole? There you go, another 5000 years of theoretical physics.
Why is it ok to assume "always" for God and not material? Seems like you are irrationally holding one to a higher standard.
Learn to love Alaska
For me personally it hasn't always been 'for God' as you put it. All I ask is that you try to have a little objectivity when discussing these topics, you can see the state of open and objective conversation by looking at the my rating for this topic (troll). Belief in God is still very high in the US, many scientists do actually believe in God because they ultimately realise that there is no other realistic possibility. For instance have you ever, or can you concieve of inanimate material creating completely new material from nothing. The idea of that is just so comical that the idea of an Omnipresent God becomes far more reasonable. Its actually an evolutionary process in thinking for someone to go from a materialistic world to a God centered world.
That the soul of a mathematician for sure will raise to heaven, while the soul of a physicist would stay in his body in eternity ... - amen ?! - or not amen ?! - ...
AFAIK this is exactly what the standard theory already said in the 1980s: That the big bang was originated because of quantum fluctuations.
I assume that I am missing something here. What's the difference with the standard modern inflationary theory ?
-- 29A the number of the Beast
Ancient Indian sages knew this...hope this knowledge is globalized..the rat race gets slowed down..yoga and meditation spreads more...
The notion that God always was is usually proposed as a belief without any particular evidence. Therefore, the idea of God has no explanatory power. If you believe in God, fine. If not, fine. Don't pretend that some idea of God makes understanding the Universe simpler, because it doesn't. Any odd property God can have the Universe can have.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
And, having made definite statements, would it be too much to hope for any actual evidence or reasonable argument for those statements?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
come from nothing that is.
Before Abraham was, I AM.
Which proves that GOD is the GREATEST Magician of all times. HE sent his beloved son, Jesus, showed that power, his first "magic" was changing water into RED Cabernet Sauvignon just by thought .. Fed thousands with 5 breads and 3 fishes, healed without medicine ...Gathered thousand without seeking leadership.
Oh Lord forgive them, as they don't know what they are talking about
Amen
The evidence is all around us, it's just that our minds and hearts have been corrupted which prevents us from actually seeing the miracle of what we are seeing. No matter what scientific (man centered) argument you or anyone can conjour up it all boils down to one fact that both you and I should be able to agree on: all the matter you see in the physical universe came from somewhere. Now you can believe that is magically appeared from nothing, or you can have faith in God who is our real Father and creator of all things. It doesn't take much to see that a grand designer must have been involved in the creation of all this miraculous work. The other option is that something came from nothing and started designing everything you see including humans, which are a monumental miracle (it's just you don't see it). So even from a probability stand point the creator argument is going to win out. but what is really required is faith.
So does this mean a physics grad student can use the "metastable false vacuum at my thesis" excuse?
The material for the quantum fluctuation was a true vacuum bubble - that's about as close to nothing as you can get. Again if we should assume that something magically appeared, "nothing" is far simpler than "universe-creating old man in the sky."
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
OK, a universe is created from a rapidly expanding true vacuum. But where does the matter come from to make it all... matter?
Wow, is it that hard? We can do that with a basic equals sign.
Nothing
0 = 0 suddenly nothing becomes an equation. You can do anything to an equation as long as you do the same to each side.
100 + 0 = 0 + 100
The only caveat, it requires 'someone' to form an equation from nothing and it requires 'someone' to do something to both sides.
A vacuum needs a container otherwise there wouldn't be anything to hold the vacuum. Where did the container come from? One of the things that athiests get hung up on is their vision of God as an old man with a beard sitting on a throne looking down and directing us. That imagine misleads people who have no deep knowledge of God, the image describes Gods essential attributes but it's obviously not a perfect way to see Him as all analogy fails at some point. God is of pure Spirit, Spirit is not physical and doesn't come under any of the same laws of physical matter so you can't judge and understand Him by the same laws of the physical universe although His image can be seen within the physical universe as somewhat analogous to His true Being and Character. If you are a true person of science you'll keep the door open for God because within his famework science can explain and help us get a better understanding of Him and help us live better lives (and worse depending), you have to see begin to see everything within the context of a God centered world.
Actually, nothing is the perfect container for a vacuum. There's nothing to allow it to escape or fill it. As such the natural contents of nothing would be a vacuum - otherwise it wouldn't be nothing, would it?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
okay so you are playing word games. Is it worth out time. Really? You said there was a vacuum, that IS something, and you said that. If you have nothing then where did the universe and all the miraculous material come from? instead of lying to youself and playing word games try to actually think it through first.
Ah, that lame argument for the existence of God, specifically your lack of imagination. You can't think of how this happened by itself, and therefore God must have done it. Yeah, I've seen that one.
Science, in this case, is not human centered. Religion tends to be a lot more human-centered.
Nor do we agree that something can't come from nothing. That's one of the important parts of this discussion, and you're assuming it rather than arguing for it.
Returning to your argument, I assume you agree that the Universe isn't obviously perfect. It therefore is not evidence for any sort of perfect God. (I'm not saying a perfect God would not have created an imperfect Universe for some reason, but that imperfection is not evidence of perfection.) There is also no evidence of any God having stuck around. Even if your argument were valid, you'd have proved nothing more than some mighty being that kicked a Universe into being and then, for all we know, went away and ignored it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes