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?
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" ?
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.
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
The nothing they are referring to is mass-energy. I think that basically they have mathematically confirmed the theory that a cold, empty false-vacuum universe could spontaneously spawn a bubble of stable true vacuum filled with the seething energy that eventually cooled to become the universe we see today.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
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.
Words rarely mean 'the same thing', esp when you are talking about domain specific language with an explicit taxonomy/lexicon.
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.
...a whale and a small bowl of petunias.
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?
"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.
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.
I damn well hope so.
Otherwise a) it's not science, b) it makes for a very boring universe.
The nothing they are referring to is mass-energy. I think that basically they have mathematically confirmed the theory that a cold, empty false-vacuum universe could spontaneously spawn a bubble of stable true vacuum filled with the seething energy that eventually cooled to become the universe we see today.
OK, but could a false vacuum universe spawn a lower energy false vacuum universe filled with energy, that could spawn a true false vacuum universe?
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
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.
I, for one, am thankful that people through history pursued 'pointless' research such as the motion of the heavenly spheres, the strange phenomenon known as electricity and though experiment involving looking at one self in a mirror approaching light speed.
Goodbye Slashdot. You've changed.
This is news? My physics lecturer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies) explained this to me in 1982.
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.
You are missing that their claim is nonsense. They take a mathematical model that seems to fit reality and then claim things derived from that model apply to reality. That is not how it works, mathematical models are always inaccurate to some degree.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
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.
It's been considered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum#Vacuum_metastability_event
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.
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...
"There are some ideas so preposterous that only an intellectual could believe them."
--- George Orwell
and that is exactly how science advances , by standing still ..
"There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"
Gasoline was originally a "worthless" byproduct of kerosene production.
Electricity was first useful for nothing more than cheap tricks (Ben Franklin trying to electrocute a turkey in front of an audience, etc).
Atomic research was first thought to be interesting, but of no practical value (we'd never be able to split or fuse them, etc).
Are you seeing a pattern yet?
The problem is we need to define what "nothing" is. We currently seem to define it as "the absence of something in space", but that seems wrong. It seems that space itself seems to be "something".
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
I'm not going to believe that a mathematician proved that without a cite, and then I'm going to look at the proof and find what you're not telling us.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The point however, is that now we've addressed one of the major questions as to whether this family of theories is viable - certainly the mathematical possibility doesn't imply that something is true, but an impossibility would suggest strongly that it was false.
As for your sphere, if you could manipulate it in 4 or more dimensions I suspect performing such a trick on a 3D sphere wouldn't be particularly difficult. I don't know if that applies to this example, but my point is that *mathematicians* frequently discard the confines of the physical universe - pure logic is their playground, and if the rest of us eventually come up with insanely profitable uses for some of their discoveries, well then perhaps that's reason enough to pay mathematics professors to play in their sandbox. How much value has been derived from the usage of addition? Calculus?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
No, the claim makes sense. It's a claim that the laws of physics as we know them allow a Universe to appear out of nothing. That's a useful result.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You've got to wonder what such a thing would look like - if it's only expanding at nearly the speed of light then we should get lots of warning as it consumes distant galaxies. I would imagine that stars and maybe planets would largely survive the transition, at least as uldradense energy concentrations, so do you suppose radiation could travel fast enough to escape, or is there reason to believe that the surface would be expanding faster-than-light as viewed from within the new universe. Would we see a black drape being dragged across the universe, or a wall of fire as whole galaxies explode?
And if, as they claimed there, the new universe is destined to be extremely unstable, I have to ask what happens when it destabilizes?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
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
Thanks, I'd never considered "remove(ing) the dimensions". It helps a lot!
What about conservation of energy???
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.
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.
Presumably a false vacuum would be different from nothing.
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'
Maths is an axiomatic system, it is accurate by definition. The universe is not axiomatic therefore if there are inaccuracies in it's mathematical description they are a fundamental property of the universe itself, not maths.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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?
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'
P=NP
No, it does not say that. Because that specific detail could be altered without altering the model used to any significant degree. It is just mathematically a tiny bit simpler to do it this way, but that does not imply anything about reality.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Simple: If you look at the model, you see that a similar model that does not stipulate "nothing" at the start, but "something of the same properties for the purpose at hand" works just the same and delivers just the same results. Really, this is mathematics, not physics what these people are doing.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
That is self-referent. There is no reason to assume the universe even has fundamental properties that are "exact" in the axiomatic sense. The trick mathematics does use here is that even completely nonsensical axioms can be taken as truth and derive a (completely meaningless) mathematical theory from them.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
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.
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.
Heisenberg knows meth than math.
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'
It's very mind bending, isn't it? Notice how we can't help but to try and grasp at words to describe that which has no relation to our reality. What is "cold" and "empty" in relation to nothing? Coldness is a condition that has meaning only in the universe. Not in a nothing, or "false vacuum" whatever that is. Likewise, emptiness typically means a lack of objects in a space. But once again, without any space in the first place, what the heck does "empty" mean?
Our minds just can't deal with this shit. Like the question:
"Where is the universe?"
Is a perfect vacuum in "space" something, or nothing? I mean, is the item: space, a something or a nothing?
My sense is that the article is talking about a different sort of "vacuum" than space with zero pressure (with or without energy), but rather a, a, a,
There is no way to express what they are talking about without using words that apply only to things in the universe, including the space vacuum.
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.
I did read it. But apparently you do not get what I am saying. If variant X is preferred for a quite unrelated reason, then the specific properties different from variant Y have exactly zero information value. Nothing at all.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I see my argument flies right over your head. Nothing I can do about this, but you could fix your education.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
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.
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.
'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.
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.
We're not discussing a lack of space here - just a lack of space with the same physical laws as ours.
Traditional vacuum would be space unoccupied by any traditional mass or energy - not even passing photons. However, as I understand it, it would still be filled with a fluctuating quantum field, spawning self-annihilating pairs of "virtual particles" and the like (conceptually particles created from nothing but an energy "I owe you" which must be "paid back" in a very short order - yes, QM is weird). "True vacuum" then refers specifically to this field is being in the lowest possible energy state. If; however, it is only in a local minimum state (like being in a pit on the side of a hill - you could go lower, but you'd have to climb out of the pit first) then you have a "False vacuum". Space appears to be empty, but there is quantum field energy in it that could theoretically be extracted.
The process they describe is that in an empty universe containing only a false-vacuum, the normal quantum fluctuations could eventually do something so unlikely that one tiny fleck of the quantum field in that universe would transition to true vacuum, in the process using the change in quantum field energy to spawn "real" particles. It is then expected that adjacent points in the false vacuum field would be immediately catalyzed to make the same transition - much like water flowing into the hole left by a bucket, and the resulting chain reaction would form an expanding bubble in which the quantum energy field had transitioned to a minimum, but space was filled with freshly created particles. And since those particles were created in place from the false-vacuum energy, the initial distribution would be perfectly uniform - just as how all the evidence suggests our own universe began. A "big bang" which doesn't spread "stuff", but just a new, more stable state in the quantum field, with the "stuff" all being spawned in-place as a side effect.
Where it gets a little frightening is that there's currently no particular reason to believe our universe is actually a true vacuum - we could be just the most recent step as the universe tumbles slinky-like down the vacuum energy staircase. And the first warning we'd get that the next stair was coming would be as we were annihilated by the expanding surface of the new "big bang".
Basically, in terms of a creation myths, we've created a physics-and-mathematically consistent chapter in which the universe we see today could have arisen spontaneously given only an empty universe with a non-miniumum quantum field energy. It doesn't address the question of where *that* universe came from, but it dramatically simplifies the nature of The Beginning. Other chapters have proposed mechanisms by which an empty universe could be created, including how a potentially infinite number could have spawned from a single original, timeless "seed universe", each spawning their own time arrow in the process. At present there's no great reason to believe any particular one of the many competing stories, but every time we tease out further details of the nature of the early universe it allows us to discard some stories and get hints as to which of the remaining are most likely, letting us mix and match the various "chapters" to construct a story that matches the evidence as closely as possible, and gives us hints about where to look for further evidence to confirm or deny our understanding.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
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.
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
So does this mean a physics grad student can use the "metastable false vacuum at my thesis" excuse?
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