The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

Page 8 of 8 [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

16 Apr 2014, 2:36 pm

Sherlock03 wrote:
Well, the conversation seems to have died. I was just giving my opinion on how I believe science could be more completely used to help the world as did both of you. I respect your opinions and hope that you have respected mine. No hard feelings. Mazal tov!


Another aspect that you might want to consider. The science and technology already exists to feed everyone on the planet and to give healthcare to everyone so the majority live to a ripe old age. What is lacking is the political will to make this happen. 5% of the problems associated with disease, starvation and poverty can be solved with science and technology but 95% of the problems preventing this from happening are political.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

16 Apr 2014, 3:24 pm

I'm with the pure science guys on this . . . the implications of today's science aren't known, but that doesn't mean there won't be any. Knowledge and exploration are key to our progress as a civilization.


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


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

16 Apr 2014, 4:18 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. :)


Getting back to the original post ...

The proof apparently starts with present physical phenomena, and works backwards towards a "big Bang origin".

My first thought was that to do this they would have to presume determinism to mathematically prove such a backward linkage. Having spent some time on WP, arguing for determinism on other forums, I find it interesting that the article uses something I never heard before of David Bohm's "quantum potential" theory of QM, so that QM can be viewed as deterministic. 8O

The article mentions that this is a controversial theory, so it seems like many scientists will have a problem with this proof. The physicists who I have conversed with here never mentioned such a deterministic interpretation of QM, and based on the QM-is-probabilistic-states research going on at universities; it seems *very, very* controversial.

Any thoughts on this ? It sounds like the proof relies on a discredited theory, because determinism is necessary to make such backward linkage ?

Thank you, I am exceptionally interested.

==============================

Edit: Also, I take issue with the author on this paragraph:

"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".

I fail to see any connection between the HUP which is a mathematical relationship, and the creation of probabilistic particles. The author possibly is missing some detail.



salamandaqwerty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,378

16 Apr 2014, 7:58 pm

AspieOtaku wrote:
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.


The black hole was my navel, the universe sprang out of it and into existence in a quantum observation event when I gazed at it too long.

AspieOtaku: it amuses me when someone mocks the irrationality of religious 'skydaddies' after explaining how a magically scientific blackhole ' skydaddy' is somehow rational. :lol:


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


AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

17 Apr 2014, 12:25 am

salamandaqwerty wrote:
AspieOtaku wrote:
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.


The black hole was my navel, the universe sprang out of it and into existence in a quantum observation event when I gazed at it too long.

AspieOtaku: it amuses me when someone mocks the irrationality of religious 'skydaddies' after explaining how a magically scientific blackhole ' skydaddy' is somehow rational. :lol:
Well? we know black holese exist and have observed them through a telescope they suck in galaxies stars planets and light nothing can escape a black hole that we know of and we do not know what is on the other side my guess possibly another universe forming. There is no magical invisible man doing it a god cannot be observed or proven its existence religion is only a few thousand years old while the universe we live in is around 14 billion years old. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMUDXO4xkW8[/youtube]


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


salamandaqwerty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,378

17 Apr 2014, 3:35 am

That's the funny part... It's your guess! How is your guess anymore educated than someone who believes in sky daddies?
I have read several articles that show that it is probable that information and radiation DO escape from an event horizon and that a black hole will eventually dissipate.


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


Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,118
Location: Scandinavia

17 Apr 2014, 8:10 am

Black holes are misunderstood creatures. If you placed a black hole with the mass of the sun at the center of the solar system, the planets would simply orbit around it. They do not suck anything into them unless said objects are too close; a black hole has no more mass than whatever objects it has devoured.

Furthermore, there's a limit to how much a black hole can suck in at a time. Too much, and we'll have a quasar that spews out matter.

Common sense says that black holes evaporate (or in some cases, they're devoured by larger black holes). This shouldn't even be up for debate.


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


Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,118
Location: Scandinavia

17 Apr 2014, 8:43 am

cannotthinkoff wrote:
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


This is splitting hairs. The universe itself is an abstraction we use to describe everything that exists (from elementary particles to galaxies--to time and space).

Quote:
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".


Since virtual particles always appear in pairs (one virtual particle and one virtual anti-particle)--and always anhilate each other if left undisturbed, there's really nothing that indicates multiple universes.

Quote:
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.


All the more reason not to support the multiverse theory. If (and that's a big if) there was a "here and now" before the Big Bang, it was probably very confined.

Quote:
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


If they can't interact, then I'm going with Occam's Razor. The meaning of a true vacuum, is that there's nothingness, but in the sense that nothingness actually is something (eg. the sum of one positive and one negative integer with the same absolute value). If there's no time and space without the universe, and no "outside" the universe, then we do not need the multiverse theory, even though we can't rule it out completely either.


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


Housedays
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 16 Sep 2013
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 114

17 Apr 2014, 1:04 pm

If nothing created one universe, is it far fetched to state that it created many other universes as well, maybe even an infinite number of them?



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,067
Location: temperate zone

17 Apr 2014, 2:04 pm

Housedays wrote:
If nothing created one universe, is it far fetched to state that it created many other universes as well, maybe even an infinite number of them?


And if nothing could create a universe- just think what SOMEthing could do!

One stray bottlecap from this universe might spawn a dozen universes!



salamandaqwerty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,378

17 Apr 2014, 7:08 pm

Kurgan wrote:
Black holes are misunderstood creatures. If you placed a black hole with the mass of the sun at the center of the solar system, the planets would simply orbit around it. They do not suck anything into them unless said objects are too close; a black hole has no more mass than whatever objects it has devoured.

Furthermore, there's a limit to how much a black hole can suck in at a time. Too much, and we'll have a quasar that spews out matter.

Common sense says that black holes evaporate (or in some cases, they're devoured by larger black holes). This shouldn't even be up for debate.


I think it is important that subjects like this are discussed; blackhole behaviors are far removed from common sense.
AspieOtakus misunderstanding of the behavior of blackholes led him to surmise that they are the the cause of reality. He had in effect made a creation myth out of this misunderstanding and then mocked the misunderstanding of our ancestors and their own creation myths.
When creation myths become religions then people will kill, often and with zeal to defend these misunderstandings.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.


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


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

18 Apr 2014, 1:02 am

GGPViper wrote:
Sherlock03 wrote:
Why is everyone being so touchy about this? I feel like I have incurred the wrath of religious fanaticism by simply suggesting that scientist could serve a better purpose by helping the sick and solving pressing practical problems.

Because we - unlike you - know how infinitely valuable basic science (which has no immediate practical application) is to scientific progress. It is extremely arrogant to assume that one can single out specific recent scientific results and pass judgement on their usefulness.

Illustration: Louis Pasteur revolutionized medicine and food production by looking at something as trivial as spoiled milk...


Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" addresses this very succinctly, in it he rues the death of basic science research in a world driven by profit and outcomes.

Also Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow address the advent of universe's in "The Grand Design" its just a shame that all most people know of the book is the last paragraph.

Then there is Rainbow Gravity


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx