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?
Math is irrelevant. Also,
In the first half of the 20th century, cosmologists struggled to combine the two pillars of modern physicsâ" quantum mechanics and general relativityâ"in a way that reasonably described the universe. As far as they could tell, these theories were entirely at odds with each other.
And now these are not? Is there a quantum theory of gravitation that was tested? Right...
As I said before, math is irrelevant. String Theory proves it. There is infinite number of constructs you can create to model the universe from first principles. But since that means there are infinite number of first principles, you can't know which one is correct. The only solution is to measure things - you know, physics. Then build your "theory of everything" from the other end, from results towards first principles.
This also means if your theory does not make observable predictions, it is just an exercise in math.
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.
Thus, proof there is a God.
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.
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.
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
Merhaba arkadalar siteniz oldukca güzel bir site. sizleride kendi siteme beklerim http://www.sohbetcet.net
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!
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?
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
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.
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"?
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!
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???
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Heisenberg knows meth than math.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
So does this mean a physics grad student can use the "metastable false vacuum at my thesis" excuse?
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.