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

[Kylie]

I have to agree that there's a lot of equivocation about what 'nothing' is.

To be fair, the authors do define exactly what they mean when they say "nothing".

"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..."

 

[Speedwell]

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.

Creationists seem to like doing it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

To be fair, the authors do define exactly what they mean when they say "nothing".

"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..."

They also say "When a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum"

The false vacuum is a place (i.e. spacetime) where quantum fields can have nonzero values (i.e. matter).

 

[SelfSim]

'Nothing' is still a conceptual (idealised) model (QFT).

Models are conceptualised and may be invoked in order to explain something ... and in this case, it is: the possible origins of the observable universe.
What follows from this, is not the same process that religion follows .. because models like QFT are already used to construct other testable physical models which make predictions, which then successfully test out.

'Nothing' itself, thus becomes a testable model which uses idealisations coupled with the logic of our minds, articulated in the semantics and proof operations of math.

All of this requires a mind though .. and not something which exists independently from one.

 

[Kylie]

They also say "When a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum"

The false vacuum is a place (i.e. spacetime) where quantum fields can have nonzero values (i.e. matter).

As I've said before, you'll have to contact the authors, since I am in no way qualified to speak on this subject.

 

[sjastro]

Not only is space-time "mandatory" for a false or true vacuum but in recent years an idea taken from a mathematical universe (as opposed to a physical or cosmological universe) is an anti-de Sitter space inside the vacuum bubble.
Anti de Sitter spaces are unstable to small perturbations such a passing gravitational wave distorting the space-time.
The instability is theorised as being the driving force behind vacuum decay.

 

[SelfSim]

Not only is space-time "mandatory" for a false or true vacuum but in recent years an idea taken from a mathematical universe (as opposed to a physical or cosmological universe) is an anti-de Sitter space inside the vacuum bubble.
Anti de Sitter spaces are unstable to small perturbations such a passing gravitational wave distorting the space-time.
The instability is theorised as being the driving force behind vacuum decay.

So then, 'spacetime', 'true and false vacuum bubbles', 'anti-de Sitter space', 'perturbations', 'gravitational waves', 'mathematical universes' and 'ideas' are all also, 'nothings'!

Cool! .. (And why would it ever be any other way?)

 

[Speedwell]

So then, 'spacetime', 'true and false vacuum bubbles', 'anti-de Sitter space', 'perturbations', 'gravitational waves', 'mathematical universes' and 'ideas' are all also, 'nothings'!

Cool! .. (And why would it ever be any other way?)

They can be regarded in that way and still not be the metaphysical "nothing."

 

[SelfSim]

They can be regarded in that way and still not be the metaphysical "nothing."

Sure .. and metaphysics ain't science .. Those terms only have meanings in theoretical science, so metaphysics is more or less irrelevant in coming to an understanding of what they mean .. as well as in understanding their implications.

'Nothing' is still a mind model (which form the basis of cognition).. and models can be described by terms which have meanings which in this case are provided by theoretical physics.