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

[Kylie]

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 )

 

[Ana the Ist]

Pretty interesting stuff.

 

[zippy2006]

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

A quantum field is not nothing. How many times does this obvious fact need to be stated?

 

[Occams Barber]

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

I won't pretend to understand this stuff, but I am happy that 'the beginning' now appears to have a more solid theoretical underpinning.

Now, who's going to volunteer to go and explain all this stuff to Dad?
OB

 

[Kylie]

A quantum field is not nothing. How many times does this obvious fact need to be stated?

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."​

 

[timewerx]

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

Okay, but how did quantum fluctuations came into being in the first place?

These things are not absolutely equal to nothing.

The presence of quantum fluctuations before our Universe began would actually suggest, another Universe is already existing before Big Bang and our Universe formed within it.... And who created that Universe?

How we arose from quantum fluctuation also have dire, mind-boggling implication....That our Universe is nothing more than an exceedingly tiny virtual particle within another Universe which is infinitely bigger in comparison.

That means eventually, our whole Universe would simply vanish or cease to exist at one point.

Our Universe might also be nothing more than artificial particles created in particle accelerators like those at CERN.

The possibilities are endless!

 

[KWCrazy]

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.

 

[Radagast]

Dropping this here for interest...

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

Not something that's really amenable to mathematical proof.

A quantum field is not nothing. How many times does this obvious fact need to be stated?

Indeed. If there's a pre-existing quantum field, then there is already a universe.

The authors of this paper initially define "nothing" as "neither matter nor space or time," but then go on to assume that space (with the possibility of quantum fluctuations) already exists.

Not a particularly impressive piece of work.

 

[Yttrium]

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

And yet a quantum flux would work really well with an intelligent creator. Just sayin'.

 

[Kylie]

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.

I think it's more along the lines of a proof that a plate can break if you drop it. Doesn't mean the plate was dropped, doesn't mean the plate was broken, but it does mean that if we do have a broken plate, we don't need to invoke something supernatural to explain it.

 

[Kylie]

Not something that's really amenable to mathematical proof.

On what do you base this?

Indeed. If there's a pre-existing quantum field, then there is already a universe.

The authors of this paper initially define "nothing" as "neither matter nor space or time," but then go on to assume that space (with the possibility of quantum fluctuations) already exists.

Not a particularly impressive piece of work.

Why do you assume that the fluctuations require space?

 

[Radagast]

On what do you base this?

On a deep understanding of mathematics.

Why do you assume that the fluctuations require space?

Because fluctuations require something to fluctuate in.

The kind of speculation in the paper potentially fits in with the idea of an infinitely branching "multiverse," where pockets of vacuum spawn of new "universes." However, the overall universe (multiverse) is then an eternally existing structure, and you have to deal with the philosophical implications of that.

 

[Kylie]

On a deep understanding of mathematics.

Thenb, since I have provided a link to the actual paper, you should have no problem with pointing out the exact bit of mathematics that they made their error in.

Would you care to do that?

Because fluctuations require something to fluctuate in.

So you are claiming that they are assuming space despite the fact they specifically stated that their calculations do not require space, matter, or time.

The kind of speculation in the paper potentially fits in with the idea of an infinitely branching "multiverse," where pockets of vacuum spawn of new "universes." However, the overall universe (multiverse) is then an eternally existing structure, and you have to deal with the philosophical implications of that.

On what do you base this conclusion?

 

[KWCrazy]

I think it's more along the lines of a proof that a plate can break if you drop it.

No, it's closer to saying that a broken plate can appear if you drop nothing because nothing could become anything.

 

[timewerx]

The authors of this paper initially define "nothing" as "neither matter nor space or time," but then go on to assume that space (with the possibility of quantum fluctuations) already exists.

Not a particularly impressive piece of work.

Agreed!

Quantum fluctuations isn't nothing. It rather proves that a universe (another one) already exists when our Universe came out of Big Bang.

Very likely our Universe is existing within another "parent" universe.

Ironically the Bible and some Jewish myths / Kabbalah, Gnostics seem to implicate this fact. I've known this for quite some time now.

I'm simply waiting for an article to prove my hunch. This actually just brought us closer to the truth!

 

[Radagast]

Thenb, since I have provided a link to the actual paper, you should have no problem with pointing out the exact bit of mathematics that they made their error in.

Speaking generally, the fact that certain equations have a solution does not necessarily mean that certain things happened in the real world.

Speaking specifically, they assumed the existence of space in their mathematics.

So you are claiming that they are assuming space despite the fact they specifically stated that their calculations do not require space, matter, or time.

Yes, the mathematics doesn't match the blurb. In particular they assume a prior "false vacuum."

On what do you base this conclusion?

On knowing something about current cosmological models.

 

[Kylie]

Speaking generally, the fact that certain equations have a solution does not necessarily mean that certain things happened in the real world.

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.

 

[Radagast]

Very likely our Universe is existing within another "parent" universe.

And how did the "parent" universe begin?

 

[Radagast]

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.

2nd para, 2nd sentence "According to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, a small empty space, also called a small true vacuum bubble, can be created probabilistically by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum" assumes the prior existence of space.

And to speak of a sequence of events assumes the prior existence of time.

 

[Kylie]

2nd para, 2nd sentence "According to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, a small empty space, also called a small true vacuum bubble, can be created probabilistically by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum" assumes the prior existence of space.

And to speak of a sequence of events assumes the prior existence of time.

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.

"According to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, a small empty space, also called a small true vacuum bubble, can be created probabilistically by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum..."