A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

Kylie said:

Seems to me that this is talking about the space that was created by the quantum fluctuations, not a space in which quantum fluctuations occur.

Click to expand...

"Quantum fluctuations" have to occur in something.

Radagast said:

And how did the "parent" universe begin?

Click to expand...

Exactly. That parent universe may yet exist within another bigger Universe.

There's really no way to find out how everything began unless you figure out a way to get out of all the Universe(s).

It somehow proves that nothing is real. Our reality could simply be a simulation inside a quantum computer.

timewerx said:

Exactly. That parent universe may yet exist within another bigger Universe.

Click to expand...

That's exactly multiverse theory: that there's an infinite chain (or tree) of individual universes.

But then the whole thing would be an eternally existing physical structure, with all the philosophical implications of that.

Kylie said:

Given that the authors specifically stated that they are working without space, time, or matter, I'm going to have to ask you to provide support for that claim.

Click to expand...

Tell you what: you can explain to me how fluctuations can occur in a quantum field without a quantum field existing.

One of the principle assumptions of Science is Ex nihilo nihil fit - nothing comes from nothing. The only way to get around this is to redefine 'nothing' into something, into an unstable quantum field without any particles. In that way, such silly titles like this one are created. It is an exercise in obfuscation, little more. Besides, the quantum states only collapse into particles on 'observation', as particles are only really quantum mechanical states, so functionally this is an argument for an Observer. You need a Hamiltonian Operator after all, as it requires Action.

*caveat though, no one really understands Quantum Physics.

Kylie said:

Why should I have to explain it to you? You've made claims and been totally unable to back any of them up.

Click to expand...

I have done.

Radagast said:

That's exactly multiverse theory: that there's an infinite chain (or tree) of individual universes.

But then the whole thing would be an eternally existing physical structure, with all the philosophical implications of that.

Click to expand...

I used to doubt the multiverse theory. But hard to deny other theories / facts / hard evidence that seem to support it.

One interesting theory involves a black hole and that the "singularity" is actually a seed for "mini Big Bangs" that occur inside a black hole. In time (after a very very long time due to time dilation), this singularity no longer exists and we have a Universe inside a Black hole.

Another interesting theory is that all the matter in our Universe is enough to create an Event Horizon (of a Black Hole) that is roughly the size of our own Universe. So we're practically living inside a giant black hole!

Still more extreme theories places the Universe within an elementary (subatomic particle) within a parent Universe! Or even a virtual particle. Energy behavior in the Universe at extra galactic scales mimics that of energy behavior at atomic / molecular scale which is unexpected, totally surprising for everyone.

This knowledge is actually being implicated many religions, including the Occult. The knowledge to "hack" the Universe and would have major implications in Quantum Mechanics as well.

Radagast said:

But then the whole thing would be an eternally existing physical structure, with all the philosophical implications of that.

Click to expand...

Nothing's real?

timewerx said:

Nothing's real?

Click to expand...

No, that's not one of the philosophical implications.

Radagast said:

That's exactly multiverse theory: that there's an infinite chain (or tree) of individual universes.

But then the whole thing would be an eternally existing physical structure, with all the philosophical implications of that.

Click to expand...

Oh, well. Creation ex nihilo was never an essential Christian doctrine, anyway, so there would be no serious theological implications.

I think that even if quantum theory allows time, space, energy - the whole shebang - to spring into being, that does not provide a complete and tidy explanation, all wrapped up in a bow. In fact, I suggest the mystery of existence is not diminished in the slightest by such a finding. The reason: we still have to have some kind of "explanation" for the existence of the very principles of quantum mechanics themselves. And I suggest to claim they merely exist without cause or explanation is an evasion.

This is not, of course, to suggest that positing that God created all things in any more of an explanation. Just like an appeal to the principles of quantum mechanics does not answer the ultimate riddle of existence, neither does a "God-did-it" claim.

At the end of the day, the very fact that anything exists at all - people, rocks, stars, space, time, quantum physics, or God - is, I suggest an insoluble mystery.

Radagast said:

"Quantum fluctuations" have to occur in something.

Click to expand...

I understand the appeal of thinking this way, but I do not think this claim is really that solid. You have earlier claimed, if I recall correctly, that these fluctuations must occur "in space". I see no grounds for drawing this connection. Take time, for example. It is very easy to think that time exists and "flows" even if there is no space. Now, I am not suggesting that time can necessarily exist without space (even though I think most people would believe this, at least up until the theory of relativity).

The overall point is that - while I have neither the time nor the qualifications to analyze the finding - I am confident that the authors would not make such a monumental blunder as you are implying they have made.

In any event, per my earlier post, I do not think the finding expressed in the OP really makes any fundamental inroads at what I think is the real problem here - providing any kind of "explanation" for why the universe exists. At best, the finding just gets a little closer to encountering the real mystery - why anything exists at all.

Not least, God (for some of us) and quantum mechanics (for others).

Kylie said:

Dropping this here for interest...

A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

And the actual paper: Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

(Here's a PDF version: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf )

Click to expand...

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 Dongshan and co.

Click to expand...

I hate to break the news to everyone, but after reading the article, it doesn't prove that "The Universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing". It claims that the Universe may have formed from a "Vacuum bubble" created by a "metastable false vacuum". That is not the Universe being formed "spontaneously from nothing".

Kylie said:

If you have a look at the actual paper, which I linked to in the opening post, the authors clarify:

"With the development of quantum cosmology theory, it has been suggested that the universe can be created spontaneously from nothing, where “nothing” means there is neither matter nor space or time, and the problem of singularity can be avoided naturally."​

Click to expand...

Seems to fit the possibility that God is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. Which the Bible suggests.

KWCrazy said:

From the link:
These guys have come up with the first rigorous proof that the Big Bang could indeed have occurred spontaneously because of quantum fluctuations.
Personally, I think "proof" and "could have" should not cohabitate in a sentence.
A fluctuation in the actions of subatomic particles could, in fact, create something from nothingness if you are so desperate for a process that you'll latch on to anything that seems plausible in relation to what you have chosen to believe.
It could happen, I guys. Why, just last week I went into my previously empty garage and a Porsche had materialized from quantum particles bringing forth something from nothingness. Of curse, the Porsche had one small disadvantage; it was on an entirely different plane of existence. So while I knew it was there, I couldn't see it, touch it or drive it. It remains there, nonetheless, in the infinity of mathematical improbabilities.

We call this a "lettuce sandwich." Here's the history behind that. A man goes to his neighbor and asks to borrow his lawnmower., His neighbor says, "It's not possible. I'm eating a lettuce sandwich." The man asks what that has to do with anything. The neighbor answers, if I don't want to loan my mower, any reason is as good as any other."

The unbelievers will latch on to this because, frankly, if you want to disbelieve the Bible one excuse is as good as another.

Click to expand...

Agreed. If someone claims they have "proof" that something "may" or "could" have happened, it isn't "proof".

Kylie said:

I asked you if you could point out where exactly they made their mistake. As in, you actually point out the specific point where they made their mistake, not some vague claim.

Click to expand...

I have a mathematical equation that "proves" women are evil.
Women = Time X Money
Because Time is money, Time = Money
Money =

Thus, Women = X
Thus, Women = squared
The root cancels out the square.
Thus, women = Evil.