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.

Comments

Nothing?

[Anonymous Coward]

So quantum fluctuations are "nothing" then?

Re:Nothing?

[halivar]

And that's the paradox. There is ALWAYS the question "but what caused THAT?" with no ultimate answer more satisfactory than a meta-physicist can come up with.

Re:Nothing?

[Anonymous Coward]

there is always the question 'but what caused that'? really? there is "always" this question only if you continue to think about the world in the same mindset.

you don't have to search for an answer in the world through Newtonian glasses. "caused" implies causation. causation implies a before, and an after. first there is the cause, then there is its effects. abstract ideas like before and after are looking at the world from a point of view of LINEAR time.

if you truly study relativity, and i mean read Einstein's essays and not just the summary on wikipedia...you realize the linear view of time is just the way our electro-chemical computers (brains) process information. but in relativity, an atomic clock up in an airplane experiences time an a slightly different rate than you on the ground. since it is further from the earth. just think about that! imagine how warped and non-linerar time must really be, in a universe with supernovae and black holes! we can already measure two different RATES of TIME ITSELF just by using an airplane and an atomic clock. how crazy must the REAL story be? it will blow our minds in a thousand years when we understand it even better.

so anyway, my point is time is not linear. in fact, most science on cosmology shows that near the big bang...all rules about time and physics break down and make no sense. so why would you expect that, at that critical moment, time is linear and simple and easily understood? why do you insist that at that moment, anything caused anything else? i don't think it really worked that way. it's just that the true way it worked is so complex, we are only now beginning to try to wrap our minds around impossible ideas like how anything would work in a universe without "before" and "after".

i hope, instead of deciding that there is an un-solvable paradox, that you will continue to think about this stuff. don't give up. :)

"There are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in our philosophy." --Shakespeare's Hamlet

Re:Nothing?

[infinitelink]

there is always the question 'but what caused that'? really? there is "always" this question only if you continue to think about the world in the same mindset. you don't have to search for an answer in the world through Newtonian glasses. "caused" implies causation. causation implies a before, and an after. first there is the cause, then there is its effects. abstract ideas like before and after are looking at the world from a point of view of LINEAR time. if you truly study relativity, and i mean read Einstein's essays and not just the summary on wikipedia...you realize the linear view of time is just the way our electro-chemical computers (brains) process information. but in relativity, an atomic clock up in an airplane experiences time an a slightly different rate than you on the ground. since it is further from the earth. just think about that! imagine how warped and non-linerar time must really be, in a universe with supernovae and black holes! we can already measure two different RATES of TIME ITSELF just by using an airplane and an atomic clock. how crazy must the REAL story be? it will blow our minds in a thousand years when we understand it even better. so anyway, my point is time is not linear. in fact, most science on cosmology shows that near the big bang...all rules about time and physics break down and make no sense. so why would you expect that, at that critical moment, time is linear and simple and easily understood? why do you insist that at that moment, anything caused anything else? i don't think it really worked that way. it's just that the true way it worked is so complex, we are only now beginning to try to wrap our minds around impossible ideas like how anything would work in a universe without "before" and "after". i hope, instead of deciding that there is an un-solvable paradox, that you will continue to think about this stuff. don't give up. :) "There are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in our philosophy." --Shakespeare's Hamlet

The proper response is Einstein's: he became deeply troubled by the consequences of his theories because they implied a beginning when, in his own words, his god was "Spinoza's", i.e. Deus et Natura--God and Nature being one and eternal. Einstein's position was this way because the ancient idea of an omnipotent Sovereign creating ex nihilo was not reconcilable with world cruelty (like Spinoza--also a heretical Jew). But the science (as he understood it) implied just this--a universe with a finite beginning--even if we speak of multiverses and shift the frame...or try to use probabilities to cover-up the glaring fact that a natural universe does not, really, make natural sense--nor is it sensible to fuzz it up with "well our brains just work that way." Among the great advances is that there turns out to be a series of primes and that various mathematical formula seem to indicate that math (or number) is not, in another of Einstein's favorite books (what is math) "[merely] a creation of the human mind." Einstein by the way, ended-up rejecting (as total) his belief to follow the science, and the way things have played-out since, under testing his theories are largely correct (of course, with refinement-revisions). I find it funny how probabilities keep being used to mask and cover-up failures to find causes and that this procedure is being substituted for real science even at the most fundamental levels of inquiry--this is the very thing Einstein condemned with "God does not play dice." And for those who are hyper-precise...I know all of the above is way too impreicse but then, doing better would require a longer crazier rant subject to much more deconstruction.

Dishonesty

[MikeRT]

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.

The mathematics is only a model of the physics

[uberdilligaff]

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.

Turtles. Mofo'ing turtles all the way down.

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> Wouldn't there need to be "something" for the quantum fluctuations to take place in?

Turtles. Mofo'ing turtles all the way down.

Re:Try communicating

[jythie]

Words rarely mean 'the same thing', esp when you are talking about domain specific language with an explicit taxonomy/lexicon.

Re:Rules

[ledow]

Define "nothing". That's why you're confused.

Because a vacuum is "nothing". But there's energy and waves passing through it all the time.

To get "nothing", you have to remove the dimensions entirely so there's "nothing" to oscillate in at all.

In that case, what happens if a set of dimensions that we *can't* perceive as they aren't part of our reality exist out there? Is that "nothing"?

To us, "nothing" means nothing material or energy-based within the 3 dimensions we know and our time. That's quite a big nothing.

But outside of that, things still exist and we hypothesise that they might create universes like ours elsewhere. Hence it's not "nothing" at all. If fact, there might be billions of universes and a universe factory that pervades them all.

But, like a small child covering their eyes so you can't find them, just because we can't see them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Bullshit, as usual

[gweihir]

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.

Re:Logically only God could have created..

[gweihir]

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.

Intellectuals

[Art3x]

"There are some ideas so preposterous that only an intellectual could believe them."

--- George Orwell