A Universe from Nothing: Not that hard to understand.

[paddoboy]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207v1.pdf

Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing:

An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE). Explicit solutions of the WDWE for the special operator ordering factor p = −2 (or 4) show that, once a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially no matter whether the bubble is closed, flat or open. The exponential expansion will end when the bubble becomes large and thus the early universe appears. With the de Broglie-Bohm quantum trajectory theory, we show explicitly that it is the quantum potential that plays the role of the cosmological constant and provides the power for the exponential expansion of the true vacuum bubble. So it is clear that the birth of the early universe completely depends on the quantum nature of the theory.

I. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In summary, we have presented a mathematical proof that the universe can be created spontaneously from nothing. When a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially if the ordering factor takes the value p = −2 (or 4). In this way, the early universe appears irreversibly. We have shown that it is the quantum potential that provides the power for the exponential expansion of the bubble. Thus, we can conclude that the birth of the early universe is completely determined by quantum mechanism. One may ask the question when and how space, time and matter appear in the early universe from nothing. With the exponential expansion of the bubble, it is doubtless that space and time will emerge. Due to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, there should be virtual particle pairs created by quantum fluctuations. Generally speaking, a virtual particle pair will annihilate soon after its birth. But, two virtual particles from a pair can be separated immediately before annihilation due to the exponential expansion of the bubble. Therefore, there would be a large amount of real particles created as vacuum bubble expands exponentially. A rigorous mathematical calculation for the rate of particle creation with the exponential expansion of the bubble will be studied in our future work.

 

[paddoboy]

The above is supported by the following article in 2014:
https://phys.org/news/2014-08-what-is-nothing.html#jCp

Is there any place in the Universe where there's truly nothing? Consider the gaps between stars and galaxies? Or the gaps between atoms? What are the properties of nothing?

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2014-08-what-is-nothing.html#jCp

excerpt:

"So, imagine if you could remove all particles, energy, gravity… everything from a system. You'd be left with a true vacuum. Even at its lowest energy level, there are fluctuations in the quantum vacuum of the Universe. There are quantum particles popping into and out of existence throughout the Universe. There's nothing, then pop, something, and then the particles collide and you're left with nothing again. And so, even if you could remove everything from the Universe, you'd still be left with these quantum fluctuations embedded in spacetime".

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2014-08-what-is-nothing.html#jCp



And of course we have
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
that I have posted many times.

A Universe from nothing essentially is the only scientific explanation as to how and why we are here.

 

[karenmansker]

As I, too, have posted elsewhere . . . . 'nothing' is a nonsequiter . . . . there is always 'something', even if only (?) potential - e.g., potential vacuum fluctuations of 'something' (Hint: Energy field)

 

[river]

As I, too, have posted elsewhere . . . . 'nothing' is a nonsequiter . . . . there is always 'something', even if only (?) potential - e.g., potential vacuum fluctuations of 'something' (Hint: Energy field)

Nothing is the exact opposite of something .

Which can not be.

Karen , do you have netflix ?

 

[paddoboy]

As I, too, have posted elsewhere . . . . 'nothing' is a nonsequiter . . . . there is always 'something', even if only (?) potential - e.g., potential vacuum fluctuations of 'something' (Hint: Energy field)

There are quantum particles popping into and out of existence throughout the Universe. There's nothing, then pop, something, and then the particles collide and you're left with nothing again.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2014-08-what-is-nothing.html#jCp

But of course if you have another scientific answer, then be my guest.

 

[river]

There are quantum particles popping into and out of existence throughout the Universe. There's nothing, then pop, something, and then the particles collide and you're left with nothing again.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2014-08-what-is-nothing.html#jCp

But of course if you have another scientific answer, then be my guest.

Refer to alternative theories pad .

 

[exchemist]

There are quantum particles popping into and out of existence throughout the Universe. There's nothing, then pop, something, and then the particles collide and you're left with nothing again.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2014-08-what-is-nothing.html#jCp

But of course if you have another scientific answer, then be my guest.

Hmm, I think these are not real particles but what are called "virtual" particles, which means they are not really particles at all, just field disturbances that behave a bit like particles. How do these people convert virtual particles into real ones?

 

[karenmansker]

Nothing is the exact opposite of something .

Which can not be.

Karen , do you have netflix ?

Don't do netflix . . . .

I think that NO-thing is more likely the opposite of EVERY-thing within the context of the origin of the universe and its cosmology, as we understand it.
Its also a fun exercise to cogitate on NO-thing, ANY-thing, SOME-thing, EVERY-thing, etc . . . . . so . . . I guess EVERY-thing comes from NO-thing?

 

[karenmansker]

There are quantum particles popping into and out of existence throughout the Universe. There's nothing, then pop, something, and then the particles collide and you're left with nothing again.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2014-08-what-is-nothing.html#jCp

But of course if you have another scientific answer, then be my guest.

So . . . . . . 'popping into (what) and out of (what)? . . . . nothing? Surely this has not yet been "proven" . . . .'tis only hypothtetical, with perhaps math predictions. So, within this 'nothing' what is the 'substance' (general, not mass-related usage) from whence this 'something' comes? If such is the actual case, I'd hypothesize that the 'substance' is likely an energy (or magnetic?. EM?) field potential that becomes perturbed (imbalanced) by the fluctuation, creating (note the term!) a cascade effect that may persist (becomes real), or may not persist (thus a virtual entity). [I will link to your reference ASAP]

 

[paddoboy]

Hmm, I think these are not real particles but what are called "virtual" particles, which means they are not really particles at all, just field disturbances that behave a bit like particles. How do these people convert virtual particles into real ones?

Doesn't Hawking radiation do that?

 

[paddoboy]

So . . . . . . 'popping into (what) and out of (what)? . . . . nothing? Surely this has not yet been "proven" . . . .'tis only hypothtetical, with perhaps math predictions.

I believe each and every article I have linked to, all say it is still speculative karen.
It still seems to me to be far more realistic than other non scientific ID arguments. Like I said, ignoring all non scientific arguments, is there really any other methodology left?

 

[Yazata]

Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing:

An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given.

No rigorous proof can be given. Any proof would have to derive its conclusion from initial assumptions. And if one is beginning with nothing, then initial assumptions have been ruled out.

I. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In summary, we have presented a mathematical proof that the universe can be created spontaneously from nothing.

No, no,no,no. In their scheme, the universe is supposedly emerging from "metastable false vacuum" after the invocation of various abstract principles of theoretical physics. Those obviously aren't nothing.

I don't doubt that this kind of work is interesting and maybe even valuable, but it's being misrepresented and oversold. It's more along the lines of trying to spin the universe out of minimal physical assumptions (an empty vacuum apparently) while assuming that all of the relevant principles of physics still hold good.

 

[exchemist]

Doesn't Hawking radiation do that?

Good point. There is something on Wiki about gravitation of black holes being able to "boost" virtual particles into being real ones. But it does not give any details. I don't pretend to know how this works.

It is important I think to keep in mind that "virtual" particles are not real particles. If they were, they would not be virtual.

 

[karenmansker]

Looked at your link Paddoboy. I pretty much agree with their analysis, but they still do not adequately address the nature of the 'nothing' which contains nothing. I believe they are on the right track (IMO) regarding field potential(s) within their 'nothing' (pre-universe?). I've done a few back-of-the-envelope calculations that indicate the static energy potential of this nothingness (energy density ED) should be about 1 x1oE-160 ergs/cc). ED of the observable universe calculates (based on assumed rest mass energy equivalence) to be about 1x10E60. This indicates (to me) that there is one hell of a lot of energy potential existant within the 'nothing' to continue expanding the observable universe for a considerable length of time. H-m-m-m-m . . . perhaps the universe expands to maintain balance with the net energy conversion from nothing to something?

 

[paddoboy]

Looked at your link Paddoboy. I pretty much agree with their analysis, but they still do not adequately address the nature of the 'nothing' which contains nothing. I believe they are on the right track (IMO) regarding field potential(s) within their 'nothing' (pre-universe?). I've done a few back-of-the-envelope calculations that indicate the static energy potential of this nothingness (energy density ED) should be about 1 x1oE-160 ergs/cc). ED of the observable universe calculates (based on assumed rest mass energy equivalence) to be about 1x10E60. This indicates (to me) that there is one hell of a lot of energy potential existant within the 'nothing' to continue expanding the observable universe for a considerable length of time. H-m-m-m-m . . . perhaps the universe expands to maintain balance with the net energy conversion from nothing to something?

No rigorous proof can be given. Any proof would have to derive its conclusion from initial assumptions. And if one is beginning with nothing, then initial assumptions have been ruled out.



No, no,no,no. In their scheme, the universe is supposedly emerging from "metastable false vacuum" after the invocation of various abstract principles of theoretical physics. Those obviously aren't nothing.

I don't doubt that this kind of work is interesting and maybe even valuable, but it's being misrepresented and oversold. It's more along the lines of trying to spin the universe out of minimal physical assumptions (an empty vacuum apparently) while assuming that all of the relevant principles of physics still hold good.

My point is rather simple. Yes a heap of speculative argument being put as anyone can see. But really, is there any other scientific methodology as to how the Universe/spacetime came to be?
The only other alternative I can see is [1] non scientific, and [2] in my opinion anyway, raises many many more questions then it answers.
As Carl Sagan put it, why invoke another unecessary step? [or words to that effect]
So despite the still speculative assumptions and questions remaining, does anyone really have any other scientific answer?

 

[paddoboy]

Good point. There is something on Wiki about gravitation of black holes being able to "boost" virtual particles into being real ones. But it does not give any details. I don't pretend to know how this works.

It is important I think to keep in mind that "virtual" particles are not real particles. If they were, they would not be virtual.

https://phys.org/news/2010-12-theoretical-physics-breakthrough-antimatter-vacuum.html

Theoretical physics breakthrough: Generating matter and antimatter from the vacuum
December 8, 2010
Under just the right conditions -- which involve an ultra-high-intensity laser beam and a two-mile-long particle accelerator -- it could be possible to create something out of nothing, according to University of Michigan researchers.

At the heart of this work is the idea that a vacuum is not exactly nothing.

"It is better to say, following theoretical physicist Paul Dirac, that a vacuum, or nothing, is the combination of matter and antimatter -- particles and antiparticles. Their density is tremendous, but we cannot perceive any of them because their observable effects entirely cancel each other out," Sokolov said.



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2010-12-theoretical-physics-breakthrough-antimatter-vacuum.html#jCp

 

[river]

Don't do netflix . . . .

I think that NO-thing is more likely the opposite of EVERY-thing within the context of the origin of the universe and its cosmology, as we understand it.
Its also a fun exercise to cogitate on NO-thing, ANY-thing, SOME-thing, EVERY-thing, etc . . . . . so . . . I guess EVERY-thing comes from NO-thing?

How does NO-thing exist ?

 

[paddoboy]

It is important I think to keep in mind that "virtual" particles are not real particles. If they were, they would not be virtual.

found this interesting.....
http://www.milanzivic.com/2016/11/fringe-dream-of-virtual-particles.html
"But seriously and Sci-fi aside, let's see why virtual particles are one of those quantum properties I think we still wait to understand fully. First of all, they are not really virtual per se, they differ from real particles only by their short existence in time. Aside from that, they can have some or even all properties of the real particles, including mass, but so far it is not really possible to observe virtual particles due to their short life. However, in sub-atomic world, virtual particles are often found in diagrams invented by Richard Feynman that revolutionized theoretical physics by their simplicity to explain what was really happening during the quantum events".
and this extract.....
"Well, I am not pretending that I understand what really happens in the universe, but mainstream science of the current date says, and I am trying to paraphrase it, that all that is around us and within us and at any point in time is just one soup of various fields. Like the Higgs field I talked about once earlier on the blog. Or gravitational field. Or in this post story and this particular case electromagnetic field. Any field, by definition is a region in space (and time?) that is affected by some force. At any point in the field. It also means that field is a region in space that contains energy. Now, electromagnetic field is not something that can occupy certain part of the space. It is literally everywhere. It is fundamental field that is actually in the background of the entire universe and not just in places with matter. Everywhere. Even in the vacuum where nothing tangible exists. Some places contain more energy than another with vacuum being a place with the electromagnetic field in its lowest energy state. Not zero. Now, keep with me, it gets interesting - let's compare this field with actual soup that is always boiling".
http://www.milanzivic.com/2016/11/fringe-dream-of-virtual-particles.html

 

[paddoboy]

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html

 

[karenmansker]

How does NO-thing exist ?

That's exactly my point . . . . . NO-thing does NOT exist . . . .there is always SOME-thing! Sorry if my prior post seemed confusing