The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

Post Reply New Topic

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.

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

Awesome post!

Although I think it probably should have been posted in the science forum.

Actually, after several seconds of thought, I fully understand why it is in PPR.

It could indeed have been, since the sum of all energy in the Universe is zero (mass being condemsed energy), but this further begs the question: why was more matter than anti-matter created?

Theories like this always say the universe came from nothing, but what they really mean is "nothing we can currently explain". Deep down, they know that chaos never produces order, so they keep stalling for time. I still love the quote from Aristotle: "nothing is what rocks dream about".

Incorrect. You clearly don't know anything about emergent properties of chaotic systems. Here, take a look at this article to learn the basics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

They have conclusively proved a little while ago that in a true vacuum quantum particles constantly come into and wink out of existence. Something from nothing has been proven within the laws of physics and has helped lead to this most recent finding.

By the way, chaos produces order quite a bit in nature. That is why the LAWS of physics we have discovered are scientific LAWS, and not scientific tendencies.

One thing many religions got right: From nothing we come, to nothing we return. Even if they seem to think that after nothing comes something; which is why I don't understand how you can have such a problem with the concept when it comes from the scientific community.

And to everyone out there that wants to understand how things actually work, has a pile of spare cash, and a has too much time on their hands:
I would highly recommend taking a Modern Physics course, but you should probably take Physics I & II, Calculus I & II, and maybe Differential Calculus first. A Radiation Science class might also be helpful. I would also recommend Quantum Physics, Electricity and Magnetism (definitely need Differential Calculus for that one), and/or maybe some physics courses on the properties of matter, properties of waves, properties of light, modern optics, heat transfer and fluid flow, chemistry and physical chemistry, and an intro to general engineering.
Or you could just go for an advanced physics degree if you throw in all the basic required classes in the arts, social sciences, english, psych, philosophy, economics, foreign language, etc.

Everything is physics.

Physicists of all flavors are in high demand at the moment, especially in the medical field. If you can churn straight through to a MS or PhD in Medical Physics and get board certified, you can pretty much name your salary. I am a non-certified Medical Physicist (so I don't make nearly as much) and I work for the federal government (being a STEM position means I make far less than my non-certified counterparts in the civilian world), but I'll still be sitting pretty once the student loans are paid off, which I might be able to do 3 years early.

Physicists are also highly sought after in many of the advanced engineering companies and university research departments. Semiconductor and superconductor engineering is a very lucrative business, and companies need huge teams of physicists to stay competitive (as do universities that make loads of cash off of their patenting of research). Not to mention all of the GPS companies trying to jump ahead of each other (although for that you would probably want to be highly specialized in the General and Special Theories of Relativity).

How come the energy sum is zero? Won't you need some negative energy for that?

Anyway, all the problems are not completly solved, there is still whatever determine the mathematical laws on which is based the Universe, (Laws based on informations.) and maintain them.

At the moment there actually appears to be more negative energy than positive energy, but physicists are having a hard time counting / calculating it all. They call it dark energy.

Regarding "why" the laws of the universe are as they are, I suspect that too will prove to have a rather mundane answer. In my opinion all mathematical formulae that can express a rich internal complexity are likely valid universes. In which case there are a countless number of universes; the vast majority of which would be unstable and have no life in them contemplating its own existence. The fact that we are here acknowledging our existence is merely testament to the fact we live in one of the universes for which the maths provides for a stable enough environment for life to evolve.

I have a theory that the big bang is from the leftovers of an alternate universe due to a black hole opening up in that alternate universe before then there was just empty space now its filled with what the black hole was sucking in. I know its not some magical invisible skydaddy from a book of fairytales depicting talking snakes and such.

What about those Bosons? Aren't they the God Particle?

I seriously wonder if the universe even has an origin. Maybe it just exists. We cannot wrap our head around it because we are accustomed to the concept of time as how we experience it on earth. It could just be an illusion. We think everything begins and ends simply because we see that occurring on earth.

This is some high-end math! My math major is looking rather useless right now, sadly, as I take a look at the paper. Some of the math maybe I could figure out but the physics is well beyond me.

I'm one of those amateurs who likes to read about this stuff but doesn't really "know" much. This is pretty advanced to me.

I'm not also not sure it makes sense to drag God into the argument when most of us barely even understand what this is about. Interesting nonetheless.

The God Particle was just a nickname given to the particle. As I recall it was some sort of "in joke" because it was proving very elusive to detect; however, detect it they did eventually (last year).

We can look at the universe and because light takes so long to reach us we are actually looking back in time the further we see. Thus we can extrapolate quite well. Especially with the microwave background radiation giving us the "signature" of the big bang explosion. The universe is a complex place but things are gradually dropping into place in our understanding. It is like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle but the pieces are formed of math. The problem as heavenlyabyss mentions is that the math is quite complex which means the layman can't grasp the essence of what it is saying. Much of the math is beyond me and I don't pretend to follow it myself, I can only go on the conclusions drawn by those who did the math.

I've studied this sort of thing a bit but still pretty much don't understand any of it. It's quite advanced

They start from (quantum) vacuum. I suppose you can have many expanding bubbles in that vacuum which give you multiverse. interesting that they dont mention the issue of baryogenesis

god never makes sense

Blimey.

Do they mean nothing like I mean nothing? As in, not a thing. Zilch. Squat. Nil. Nothingness as opposed to somethingness? Because I find it hard to conceptualise nothing, and so always realise I'm thinking of it as a thing. When it's no thing.

I kind of understand the potentiality idea.

See that's the problem with being confined to earth and solipsism. You cannot grasp something that isn't processed with your senses. This is why scientists insist on explaining everything mathematically and people have so much faith in mathematical formulas. They make up for these inadequacies.