The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

Page 3 of 8 [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

salamandaqwerty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2013
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,378

11 Apr 2014, 6:46 pm

TallyMan wrote:
Well I've been saying it for a number of years (as have many others) and now some physicists have come up with a mathematical proof that the universe could indeed have spontaneously formed from nothing. No gods required. We live in interesting times. :)

Quote:
What caused the Big Bang itself? For many years, cosmologists have relied on the idea that the universe formed spontaneously, that the Big Bang was the result of quantum fluctuations in which the Universe came into existence from nothing.

That’s plausible, given what we know about quantum mechanics. But physicists really need more — a mathematical proof to give the idea flesh.

Today they get their wish thanks to the work of Dongshan He and buddies at the Wuhan Institute of Physics and Mathematics in China. These guys have come up with the first rigorous proof that the Big Bang could indeed have occurred spontaneously because of quantum fluctuations.


https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/ed7ed0f304a3


Could not that mean there is no such thing as nothing?


_________________
Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does


leafplant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,222

11 Apr 2014, 6:48 pm

Also, if you can conceive of the inconceivable, does that mean there is no such thing as a paradox?


And, birds, what about the birds? Not to mention the dinosauri.



cannotthinkoff
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 324

11 Apr 2014, 7:08 pm

leafplant wrote:
Also, if you can conceive of the inconceivable, does that mean there is no such thing as a paradox?


And, birds, what about the birds? Not to mention the dinosauri.


sorry, your question makes no sense. is that some sort of philosophical disposition?

paradoxes in science mean something which turns out to be non-intuitive but nevertheless true, because human intuition is usually oversimplistic or situation is more complicated etc

as someone said birds fly because they have wings. if you want to know how wings function have to study aerodynamics.
what do you mean about dinosauri? some of them had wings too. are you asking about evolution?



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,108
Location: Scandinavia

11 Apr 2014, 7:17 pm

cannotthinkoff wrote:
Does anyone care to elaborate on the vacuum thing? How did that come to be?

Besides there's a very simple argument for a multiverse. If you can produce a universe with some sort of not extremely unique mechanism (which would be really hard to imagine happening) then you can produce as many universes as you want. Why is our universe special? This way you can explain all of the random things we have in our universe, such as properties of elementary particles, cosmological constant etc. These are so fine tuned for us to exist it's ridiculous, and it is reasonable that this happened randomly a lot until this instance was produced. Such universes would probably be unobservable, but it is a valid theory, self-consistent until a better one comes along.

This proof is primarily a demonstration that this can be proved in a self-consistent way. There is no reason to discard it at this point

This "expect" is just a word for a layman, really there are good sound reasons for "expecting"


Why is our multiverse (if there is one) special?

The universe originally meant "everything". An omniverse or multiverse just begs the question; if this sector that we call "the universe" originated at the Big Bang, how did the multiverse originate? How can multiple universes arise when there was no "before" the Big Bang? How can there be an infinite number of universes when time itself has only existed for 13.8 billion years? How can multiple universes exist when there's no "outside" the universe in a physical sense?


_________________
“He who controls the spice controls the universe.”


cannotthinkoff
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 324

11 Apr 2014, 7:37 pm

Kurgan wrote:
cannotthinkoff wrote:
Does anyone care to elaborate on the vacuum thing? How did that come to be?

Besides there's a very simple argument for a multiverse. If you can produce a universe with some sort of not extremely unique mechanism (which would be really hard to imagine happening) then you can produce as many universes as you want. Why is our universe special? This way you can explain all of the random things we have in our universe, such as properties of elementary particles, cosmological constant etc. These are so fine tuned for us to exist it's ridiculous, and it is reasonable that this happened randomly a lot until this instance was produced. Such universes would probably be unobservable, but it is a valid theory, self-consistent until a better one comes along.

This proof is primarily a demonstration that this can be proved in a self-consistent way. There is no reason to discard it at this point

This "expect" is just a word for a layman, really there are good sound reasons for "expecting"


Why is our multiverse (if there is one) special?

The universe originally meant "everything". An omniverse or multiverse just begs the question; if this sector that we call "the universe" originated at the Big Bang, how did the multiverse originate? How can multiple universes arise when there was no "before" the Big Bang? How can there be an infinite number of universes when time itself has only existed for 13.8 billion years? How can multiple universes exist when there's no "outside" the universe in a physical sense?


Sure lets have a fractalic structure of multiverses, so endless number with no edges. You could have a very rich structure of multiverses, but what do you mean our multiverse. a collection of universes is multiverse. what is our multiverse? why there would be a several? what would distinguish them, that's unnecessary complication and contrived meta description

if big bang is a quantum vacuum fluctuation bubble growth as in the article which you have clearly read...... than you can have as many bubbles as you want hence many universes hence a "multiverse". apparently there was before the big bang but not in a sense of space and time, but in a sense of quantum fields and this quantum nothingness and metastable vacuum. you can have space and time and particles popping into existence out of this nothingness purely by quantum chance and so why not any number of universes you want. they would not interact and so you cannot observe the others though (but its more complicated than that). so there is no before the big bang in a sense of time. its very dangerous to use human intuition here, you have to think conceptually. the meaning of vacuum is very difficult to understand. I could only try to explain (dont understand it properly) how these different universes may exist and what "outside" the universe could be mathematicaly. "physics" at this point becomes increasingly bizarre



salamandaqwerty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2013
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,378

11 Apr 2014, 7:42 pm

cannotthinkoff wrote:
leafplant wrote:
Also, if you can conceive of the inconceivable, does that mean there is no such thing as a paradox?


And, birds, what about the birds? Not to mention the dinosauri.


sorry, your question makes no sense. is that some sort of philosophical disposition?

paradoxes in science mean something which turns out to be non-intuitive but nevertheless true, because human intuition is usually oversimplistic or situation is more complicated etc

as someone said birds fly because they have wings. if you want to know how wings function have to study aerodynamics.
what do you mean about dinosauri? some of them had wings too. are you asking about evolution?


I think leafy is making a clever and funny joke, :lol: I could just about hear her eye rolling hurumph from here


_________________
Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does


cannotthinkoff
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 324

11 Apr 2014, 8:04 pm

salamandaqwerty wrote:
I think leafy is making a clever and funny joke, :lol: I could just about hear her eye rolling hurumph from here

meh. not that funny. annoying



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 14,035
Location: Aux Arcs

11 Apr 2014, 9:21 pm

14 unanswered questions
1.Are the self and the universe eternal?
2.Are the self and universe transient?
3.Are the self and universe both transient and eternal?
4.Are the self and the universe neither eternal or transient?
5.Do the self and the universe have a beginning?
6.Do the self and the universe have no beginning?
7.Do the self and the universe have both beginning and no beginning?
8.Do the self and the universe have neither beginning nor no beginning?
9.Does the blessed one exist after death?
10.Does the blessed one not exist after death?
11.Does the blessed one both exist and not exist after death?
12.Does the blessed one neither exist nor not exist after death?
13.Is the mind the same as the body?
14.Are the mind and the body two separate entities?


_________________
"Security is mostly a superstition.It does not exist in nature,nor do the children of men as a whole experience it.Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure.Life is either a daring adventure,or nothing." Helen Keller


leafplant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,222

11 Apr 2014, 11:09 pm

cannotthinkoff wrote:
salamandaqwerty wrote:
I think leafy is making a clever and funny joke, :lol: I could just about hear her eye rolling hurumph from here

meh. not that funny. annoying



lol yeah, I excel at annoying. How would you express that, mathematically, and where did the annoyance originate? Was it always there or did you create it? Was it the product of interaction between yourself and another consciousness? Does it even exist or are we just extrapolating it from observable data?

If mathematics is the language of the Universe and the Truth, then express my particular individual person in an equation, such that whichever mathematician reads it anywhere in the world, would be as if they have met me in person and got to know me that way.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

12 Apr 2014, 1:44 am

leafplant wrote:
cannotthinkoff wrote:
salamandaqwerty wrote:
I think leafy is making a clever and funny joke, :lol: I could just about hear her eye rolling hurumph from here

meh. not that funny. annoying


lol yeah, I excel at annoying. How would you express that, mathematically, and where did the annoyance originate? Was it always there or did you create it? Was it the product of interaction between yourself and another consciousness? Does it even exist or are we just extrapolating it from observable data?

If mathematics is the language of the Universe and the Truth, then express my particular individual person in an equation, such that whichever mathematician reads it anywhere in the world, would be as if they have met me in person and got to know me that way.


The annoyance originates from cannotthinkoff's expectations for clear rationality.

We can discern:
1. You respond in unexpected ways.
2. The unexpected ways are unexpected because there is no clear rationality.
3. At least some of the time
4. You ponder abstract questions
5. You ask these abstract questions to make other people think, or pose them just to play "mind-bender" with people
6. You are apparently intelligent

To represent the above traits mathematically :

1. #3 is represented as a multi-function, probability distribution where we know your behavior at least some of the time.
2. #2 and #1 are represented as an irrational function (i.e., one that produces an irrational number) because your responses don't appear to have clear rationality
3. #4 and #5 are represented as an abstract function for "abstractness" ,
4. #5 #6 are represented as a "complex exponentiation" to represent the unknown if the apparent non-clear rationality has underlying meaning and also the ideas presented as so "mind-blowing". Think of expopentiating an irrational function and you lose your santity! :)
5. #5 and #6 further represented as depending on if we assume the non-clear rationality has underlying meaning, then the representative equation has a rational answer, if the effort is to play "mind-bender" with people, then the answer is irrational

Represented with symbols:
1. F(x) = P(X) + P(Y) - Probability of X behavior and Y behavior
2. F(x) = P(X) + P( IRR(Y) ) - Probability of X behavior and apparent non-rational Y behavior
3. F(x) = P(X) + P(IRR( f(z)) ) ) - Probability of X behavior and apparent non-rational Y behavior such behavior is abstract (represented as the abstract function 'f(z)')
4. F(x) = P(X) + P( e^IRR( f(z)) ) ) - Probability of X behavior and apparent non-rational Y behavior such behavior is abstract & complex (represented as a complex exp. 'e')
5. F(x) = P(X) + P( RAT(e^IRR( f(z)) )) ) - Assuming rational solution, then P(RAT( e^IRR( f(z)) )) ) = rational i.e. plug the irrational result into a RAT rational function to make it rational
6. F(x) = P(X) + P( e^IRR( f(z)) ) ) - Assuming irrational solution, then P( e^IRR( f(z)) ) ) = irrational

So, I conclude you are represented as a multi-function probability distribution such that your apparent non-clear rationality is represented abstractly, and further the abstractness is wrapped in a "complex exponentiation" because we cannot tell if said abstract, apparent non-clear rationality has a rational meaning , or not If rationality, then the entire function thus far has a rationalizing function applied, if not then it does not, and stays irrational. :D



Last edited by LoveNotHate on 12 Apr 2014, 2:14 am, edited 2 times in total.

babybird
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 36,894
Location: Top deck of the funny bus....blowing bubbles

12 Apr 2014, 2:09 am

Last year when I was travelling around I met a man in Amsterdam.

The man was some kind of physicist or something and we was talking about all this kind of stuff.

Anyway, we got on to this nothing business and because we was a bit worst for wear, we was trying to untangle what nothing actually is.

It was a really good day, one of the most worthy of remembering.


_________________
I can't say that I have ever shat on my own doorstep.

Woof Woof! Cheep Cheep!


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,662
Location: temperate zone

12 Apr 2014, 3:44 am

Much ado about nothing!

Thing is that matter in its commonplace state is not much more than nothing itsself.

Consider the stars- they average six light years apart.

Then within a solar system the planets are far apart relative to their sizes ( the distance between the earth and the sun is more than a 100 times the diameter of the sun, and more than 10,000 times the diameter of the Earth.

Land on earth, and look around and you see things made of matter composed of a varying mixtures of atoms and empty space. The distances between atoms in a rock are much greater than the size of the atoms themselves. If you took away the empty space between atoms in your body you would be the size of the head of a pin. The reason you cant walk through walls is not because the atoms in your body slam into the atoms in the wall, but because of the electric fields put out by the electrons on the outer shells of atoms. The wall's atoms and your atoms repel each other because of their common negative charge without the atoms actually touching each other.

Then look at the atoms themselves: electrons orbit around the nucleus of protons and neutrons. The distances between the subatomic particles within the atom relative to the actual sizes of the particles is gigantic-comparable to the ratios of interplanetary distances to the sizes of the planets. So even an atom is composed mostly of "nothing"- empty space.

Only when you form neutron stars, and black holes, you really have "something". The matter collapses with such force that it squeezes out the nothing (ie empty space) between subatomic particles.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,662
Location: temperate zone

12 Apr 2014, 3:47 am

leafplant wrote:
Also, if you can conceive of the inconceivable, does that mean there is no such thing as a paradox?


And, birds, what about the birds? Not to mention the dinosauri.


Are you suggesting that its a "paradox lost"?

Or are you saying that there is a "bird of paradox"?



TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

12 Apr 2014, 3:56 am

cannotthinkoff wrote:
if big bang is a quantum vacuum fluctuation bubble growth as in the article which you have clearly read...... than you can have as many bubbles as you want hence many universes hence a "multiverse". apparently there was before the big bang but not in a sense of space and time, but in a sense of quantum fields and this quantum nothingness and metastable vacuum. you can have space and time and particles popping into existence out of this nothingness purely by quantum chance and so why not any number of universes you want. they would not interact and so you cannot observe the others though (but its more complicated than that). so there is no before the big bang in a sense of time. its very dangerous to use human intuition here, you have to think conceptually. the meaning of vacuum is very difficult to understand. I could only try to explain (dont understand it properly) how these different universes may exist and what "outside" the universe could be mathematicaly. "physics" at this point becomes increasingly bizarre


That's how its likely to be. If there was a single universe with a single set of constants for speed of light, gravitational and other forces etc, then it is extremely unlikely we'd exist as the universe would be too unstable. Evidence points to the laws of physics being the same across our particular universe. The obvious solution is that there are many, perhaps an unlimited number of universes, each totally independent of the other and each having their own time and laws of physics and their own reality. The vast majority would be unstable and not produce the environment necessary for life to evolve. The fact that we are here discussing this issue means that we are within one of the stable universes.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,612

12 Apr 2014, 8:53 am

So what it's saying is that the whole of reality is just a "someone divided by zero" error? :lol:



Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

12 Apr 2014, 9:51 am

TallyMan wrote:
Well I've been saying it for a number of years (as have many others) and now some physicists have come up with a mathematical proof that the universe could indeed have spontaneously formed from nothing. No gods required. We live in interesting times. :)

Why is it significant that spontaneous formation does not require the presence of the divine? I don't understand the opposition. Isn't science human's attempt to explain the divine? I'm sure God doesn't mind us finding out some of his secrets. He's got lots more.


_________________
People are strange, when you're a stranger
Faces look ugly when you're alone.
Morrison/Krieger