• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

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

Yttrium

Mad Scientist
May 19, 2019
4,477
4,968
Pacific NW
✟307,728.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Well, at least now I know how creationists got their "something from absolutely nothing" mantra. For example:

Dark beginning - creation.com

Naturally, they're referencing the paper in the OP. Sigh. I guess I'll stop correcting them on "something from absolutely nothing", although it's not part of big bang theory. It can still be part of the grand atheist evolution conspiracy against Christianity, don'cha know.
 
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,654
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟119,577.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I find it hard to believe that the authors of this paper made such a fundamental error. I think it's far more likely that they know something about this that we don't.

A field is defined to be a function which has a value everywhere in space. So, if you want to use QFT to explain the universe's origin, you are more or less forced into conceptualising some kind of space which existed prior to the universe.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
A field is defined to be a function which has a value everywhere in space. So, if you want to use QFT to explain the universe's origin, you are more or less forced into conceptualising some kind of space which existed prior to the universe.

Perhaps you should contact the authors of the paper and ask them directly.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
42,125
45,240
Los Angeles Area
✟1,007,241.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Sorry, I'm late... (OK, nobody was waiting for me to show up)

I have to agree that there's a lot of equivocation about what 'nothing' is. And it's very much the same 'nothing' that Krauss refers to in A Universe from Nothing, and I have the same criticism.

FT.A "When a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum"

So it's not nothing, it's a metastable false vacuum - a place where quantum fields can take on values.

I didn't bother to check the math, because... well I'm long out of the game, and the actual result is not that surprising to me. If you have inflation, and it is caused by quantum instabilities, this result seems inevitable. So on the plus side, this is adding some additional detail to ideas that developed in the 80s and 90s (when I was in the game) with Andrei Linde and chaotic inflation, aka eternal inflation.

The false vacuum is eternal and quantum fluctuations cause little baby universes to bubble out of it. The math of inflation makes it so that these bubbles soon become disconnected from the main false vacuum universe, so each of them seems fairly self contained as 'a' universe. So looking back to the Big Bang, that event is where we bubbled off from the false vacuum, and a true singularity is avoided in this process.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I have to agree that there's a lot of equivocation about what 'nothing' is. And it's very much the same 'nothing' that Krauss refers to in A Universe from Nothing, and I have the same criticism.
It's certainly not the same "nothing" as the metaphysical "nothing" of Parmenides (ex nihilo nihil fit)
so beloved of creationists. That "nothing" is a useless abstract concept which need not concern us.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,640
3,846
✟299,438.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
It's certainly not the same "nothing" as the metaphysical "nothing" of Parmenides (ex nihilo nihil fit)
so beloved of creationists. That "nothing" is a useless abstract concept which need not concern us.

It's not nothing. That's all. There is nothing useless or abstract about the idea of nothing. If we leave the sophistry aside, everyone knows what nothing is.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
It's not nothing. That's all. There is nothing useless or abstract about the idea of nothing. If we leave the sophistry aside, everyone knows what nothing is.
LOL. Apparently it's an oxymoron. But of what use is it? If it is not abstract it must be concrete. Where or when has nothing in the sense you mean ever existed? Can nothing be said to exist at all?
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,640
3,846
✟299,438.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
LOL. Apparently it's an oxymoron. But of what use is it? If it is not abstract it must be concrete. Where or when has nothing in the sense you mean ever existed? Can nothing be said to exist at all?

References to absence occur in every language and are perfectly useful and relevant to everyday life. Further, reference to the absence of some particular usually brings with it the logic which allows us to refer to universal absence.

The sophistry that you're proposing is basically, "If language doesn't refer to a positive entity, then it doesn't count!" That's a great argument if you're uninterested in reality.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
References to absence occur in every language and are perfectly useful and relevant to everyday life. Further, reference to the absence of some particular usually brings with it the logic which allows us to refer to universal absence.

The sophistry that you're proposing is basically, "If language doesn't refer to a positive entity, then it doesn't count!" That's a great argument if you're uninterested in reality.
No, it's not an argument at all. I'm just making fun of metaphysics, which has no place in scientific discourse.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,640
3,846
✟299,438.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I'm just making fun of metaphysics, which has no place in scientific discourse.

In this case your statement is particularly false, for the scientists in question are attempting to challenge a basic metaphysical truth. It is funny, though. I'll give you that. ;)
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
In this case your statement is particularly false, for the scientists in question are attempting to challenge a basic metaphysical truth. It is funny, though. I'll give you that. ;)
That's not how they view it. Metaphysical "truths" are conclusions of deductive logic. Conclusions of deductive logic have no standing in science unless they can be empirically verified.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,640
3,846
✟299,438.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
That's not how they view it. Metaphysical "truths" are conclusions of deductive logic. Conclusions of deductive logic have no standing in science unless they can be empirically verified.

The only reason this article has gained any traction, particularly on this forum, is because its title claims to contradict the old philosophical maxim, ex nihilo nihil fit. It is the scientists who have attempted to enter a metaphysical space. The philosophers are doing little more than rolling their eyes.

Beyond that, any modest student of the history of science understands the connection between metaphysics, physics, empirical observation, and modern science. Metaphysics didn't come about by way of magic or revelation.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
The only reason this article has gained any traction, particularly on this forum, is because its title claims to contradict the old philosophical maxim, ex nihilo nihil fit. It is the scientists who have attempted to enter a metaphysical space. The philosophers are doing little more than rolling their eyes.
So you don't think the "existence" of metaphysical nothing can be confirmed empirically? Real philosophers understand it to be an unfalsifiable proposition anyway.

Beyond that, any modest student of the history of science understands the connection between metaphysics, physics, empirical observation, and modern science. Metaphysics didn't come about by way of magic or revelation.
No, metaphysics is a discourse of deductive logic, nothing more.
 
Upvote 0

Sgt_Spanky

New Member
Jun 30, 2019
3
15
Winter Springs
✟1,766.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
I'll offer up a different possibility; that the universe didn't burst forth spontaneously from nothing but that it burst forth spontaneously from something we haven't yet, or possibly can't identify.

Since all of our science is based on what we understand of the laws that govern the universe and since the laws of the universe didn't exist prior to the Big Bang then how can we apply that understanding to any reality that we know when that reality didn't yet apply?

If Time, Space, and Matter didn't exist prior to the Big Bang then applying the laws of Time, Space, and Matter to explain their origin is like reviewing a book that hasn't been written yet. Problematic to say the least.

The universe came from something, it just hasn't been, and possibly can't be identified. What precipitated the Big Bang may be one of those questions that will simply never be conclusively answered. For this reason, it's perfect for religion to shoehorn an unproven God into it and just credit him for everything.

Problem is; since God is unproven then that attempt to explain it instantly falls apart. The Big Bang most likely happened, HOW it happened may not be provable.

Bu that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
30,682
15,140
Seattle
✟1,170,953.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
It's not nothing. That's all. There is nothing useless or abstract about the idea of nothing. If we leave the sophistry aside, everyone knows what nothing is.
Everyone also knows what a unicorn is. That does not mean it has ever existed.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,640
3,846
✟299,438.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Everyone also knows what a unicorn is. That does not mean it has ever existed.

Sure. I've never claimed that nothing existed. I'm just hoping that we can come to a more modest conclusion and agree that unicorns don't have three horns.

Ex nihilo nihil fit and creatio ex nihilo are two very different things. Conflating them won't do anyone any good.
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
30,682
15,140
Seattle
✟1,170,953.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Sure. I've never claimed that nothing existed. I'm just hoping that we can come to a more modest conclusion and agree that unicorns don't have three horns.

Ex nihilo nihil fit and creatio ex nihilo are two very different things. Conflating them won't do anyone any good.

The concept of nothing being used in the paper is spelled out. That it does not match your idea of nothing I do not see as significant.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,640
3,846
✟299,438.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
The concept of nothing being used in the paper is spelled out. That it does not match your idea of nothing I do not see as significant.

Lol. I could write a paper entitled, "New scientific research proves that 2+2=5." In the paper I would of course define "5" as "4". To the objectors I would reply, "The concept of '5' being used in the paper is spelled out. That it does not match your idea of '5' I do not see as significant." I would try to keep a straight face as I said this. :D
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
30,682
15,140
Seattle
✟1,170,953.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Lol. I could write a paper entitled, "New scientific research proves that 2+2=5." In the paper I would of course define "5" as "4". To the objectors I would reply, "The concept of '5' being used in the paper is spelled out. That it does not match your idea of '5' I do not see as significant." I would try to keep a straight face as I said this. :D

That's nice. Do let us know when you get your paper published. :oldthumbsup:
 
Upvote 0