The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

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

cannotthinkoff
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

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

11 Apr 2014, 1:35 pm

Hopper wrote:
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.


i think they start from metastable false vacuum

there are no particles in quantum vacuum but it has energy (but is at absolute zero), which has to correlate with some properties of our universe (so for instance these bubbles in the paper which grow into universe, have characteristics which translate into cosmological constant). vacuum has fields

as i understand people generally dont have a clear idea of what this vacuum is



cannotthinkoff
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

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

11 Apr 2014, 1:40 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Hopper wrote:
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.


science isnt constrained by HUMAN inadequacies and the common language

studying maths has opened my mind a lot, and allowed me a framework to understand our reality much better

you can experience truth by using your mind, i.e. maths, thats the sixth sense if you will. you can grasp a lot of amazing stuff and then go and test it in a laboratory.

also how else you would explain stuff but mathematically. words are cumbersome and worthless and out common life analogies stiff and restricted.

faith doesnt factor in, its all very very logical and smart, elegant and simply amazing!!

takes a lot of hard work and dedication to understand though. worth it



TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

11 Apr 2014, 1:42 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Hopper wrote:
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.


That and the fact that mathematics does actually describe reality. Even when common sense goes out of the window when dealing with fast moving or large objects and time dilation (relativity) or tiny objects and small distances (quantum physics) mathematics describes reality so precisely we use it to calculate how to design the most bizarre of devices such as high density microprocessors where quantum behaviour is put to use. Things like quantum uncertainty where an electron position cannot be known with certainty is put to use to make it appear the other side of what should be an insurmountable barrier (quantum tunnelling). Common sense cannot comprehend these things, but the mathematics describes them admirably.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

11 Apr 2014, 1:48 pm

cannotthinkoff wrote:
studying maths has opened my mind a lot, and allowed me a framework to understand our reality much better


One of the "eye-openers" for me while studying physics was the graph of velocities against sizes/distances. Picture a logarithmic based graph going from the quantum small to the size of the universe on one axis and on the other axis zero velocity up to the speed of light. You can draw a tiny square on this graph corresponding to the realm of human common sense i.e. the sizes we are familiar with (say 1 mm to a few miles) against velocities of zero to maybe a hundred miles/hour. The mistake humans make is to extrapolate beyond their tiny square of experience on this graph and try to apply it to other areas of it. Common sense fails completely at the extremes of the reality. Mathematics allows us to explore these other regions and develop theories that explain what our extended senses (scientific instruments) tell us. Wish I could find an example of this graph on the internet to illustrate this point.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


TheBicyclingGuitarist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,332

11 Apr 2014, 1:52 pm

There have been many times in the past few hundred years where predictions of descriptions of reality come from maths that may go against "common sense," but when the measurements are made it is found that the equations do describe reality as we can measure it. And as TallyMan points out, the scale of direct human perception compared to the range beyond our senses is staggering.


_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008


Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,117
Location: Scandinavia

11 Apr 2014, 2:51 pm

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
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".


But it's not chaotic; the universe is incredibly fine-tuned. Virtual particles are actually both orderly and obvious once you understand them. The more you understand about the universe, the more orderly it gets. The notion that the universe appeared out of nothing is only half the truth; once you understand how it can arrise from nothing, you'll at least see that it's theoretically possible. Imagine the exact opposite of many objects cancelling each other out.


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


TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

11 Apr 2014, 3:05 pm

Kurgan wrote:
... Imagine the exact opposite of many objects cancelling each other out.


That's how I picture it. I don't know how accurate my mental picture is:

In the "beginning" there was nothing, 0.

But 0 = +1 + -1

So there is now something where there was nothing.

The maths these guys have done is to show (in effect) that 0 can spontaneously become +1 + -1.

Quite simple when you look at it like that.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,175
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

11 Apr 2014, 3:06 pm

TallyMan wrote:
Tollorin wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
It could indeed have been, since the sum of all energy in the Universe is zero (mass being condemsed energy),[...]

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 did not meant the laws of the Universe, we can always conceptualize other universes with differents laws, like stronger gravitation or a different speed of light. What I meant is the structure on which are based those laws; mathematics and informations. Universes are (If they are many.) built on mathematic, but on what is built mathematic? Why the theorem of Pythagor and why pi is 3.14159... and so on? This remain a mystery beyond the realm of modern science, and possibly forever beyond, as it's beyond it's vocabulary.



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,117
Location: Scandinavia

11 Apr 2014, 3:09 pm

There's no proof or evidence of any other universes existing, and if you ask me, it's comparable to the aether of Ancient Greece.


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


Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,117
Location: Scandinavia

11 Apr 2014, 3:10 pm

TallyMan wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
... Imagine the exact opposite of many objects cancelling each other out.


That's how I picture it. I don't know how accurate my mental picture is:

In the "beginning" there was nothing, 0.

But 0 = +1 + -1

So there is now something where there was nothing.

The maths these guys have done is to show (in effect) that 0 can spontaneously become +1 + -1.

Quite simple when you look at it like that.


It's actually very plausible and obvious if you look at it that way. :)


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


TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

11 Apr 2014, 3:15 pm

Tollorin wrote:
I did not meant the laws of the Universe, we can always conceptualize other universes with differents laws, like stronger gravitation or a different speed of light. What I meant is the structure on which are based those laws; mathematics and informations. Universes are (If they are many.) built on mathematic, but on what is built mathematic? Why the theorem of Pythagor and why pi is 3.14159... and so on? This remain a mystery beyond the realm of modern science, and possibly forever beyond, as it's beyond it's vocabulary.


In my opinion the fundamental basis of reality IS mathematics. Even if no universe existed, one could still argue the validity of mathematics and the validity of Pythagoras' theorem for right angled triangles on a flat plane. Mathematics itself is built on basic logical aphorisms such as 1 + 1 = 2. Mathematics is universal and non-changing. An alien in a distant galaxy would also deduce the same Pythagoras theorem except it may be called Zorg's theorem :lol: However you look at it, the roots and basis of the universe appear to be mathematical. Mathematics is outside of time (its rules don't change over time). It is outside of physical reality too and yet is the basis of physical reality. If there is such a thing as a prime mover it isn't a god, it is mathematics.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


leafplant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

11 Apr 2014, 3:45 pm

Why are birds able to fly?



TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

11 Apr 2014, 3:49 pm

leafplant wrote:
Why are birds able to fly?


Because they've got wings. :P


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

11 Apr 2014, 4:19 pm

I would always be skeptical of these "proofs".

For example, I posted a few months ago about the "Heisenberg Uncertainty principal" HUP is formula wherein scientists see the electron behavior forming as a probability distribution, and just assume such probability distribution in their "proof" of the HUP. Sure, this is how nature appears to work, but I don't see assuming what you see to be true as a "proof".

See here, http://www.tjhsst.edu/~2011akessler/notes/hup.pdf

Notice buried in the proof : "We should expect the classical momentum to be the average value, and other values to be less probable - in other words, some sort of probability
distribution. Specifically, the normal distribution, meaning probability Pk = Ake􀀀(k􀀀k0)=(22k)".

Math should not "expect" anything. Just prove it. "Expect = Assume"

This might be the same type of reasoning for this proof. A lot of "we expect" or "it is possible" ...



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,117
Location: Scandinavia

11 Apr 2014, 4:27 pm

Before you can prove something, you need to expect it. Anaximander believed that all life had evolved from a common ancestor in the ocean, long before anyone had gathered any evidence of evolution.


_________________
“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, 6:39 pm

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"