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.
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.
>> Wouldn't there need to be "something" for the quantum fluctuations to take place in?
Turtles. Mofo'ing turtles all the way down.
Words rarely mean 'the same thing', esp when you are talking about domain specific language with an explicit taxonomy/lexicon.
Ok, so you don't actually have a car, but there is a parking lot, and you have pieces of cars and their antipieces (statistically, for every crankshaft, there is a crankshaft sized hole somewhere else), and given enough time a whole car worth of pieces appears in the parking lot, at which point the driver, who is now quite sick of having to watch where they are going due to the materialization of random heavy metal chunks in the air, can finally leave and get to their job at the car factory.
Oh, and probably something involving proprietary gas. All the cars made at the plant after this one all use Void brand gasoline and explode unexpectedly if you try using any other kind.
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.
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.
"There are some ideas so preposterous that only an intellectual could believe them."
--- George Orwell