DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
That literally is the question being asked by this thread.
So, an answer that simply restates the question does not accomplish anything.
A Universe from Nothing: Not that hard to understand.
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
So, an answer that simply restates the question does not accomplish anything.
My post#320 does answer the question and better yet my post #318 .
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Q: Can the universe come from nothing?
A: Something can't come from nothing.
I guess this thread is done then.
It should be .
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
that I have posted many times.
"In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.
The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.
What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.
Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.
Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.
If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours".
A Universe from nothing essentially is the only scientific explanation as to how and why we are here. Some though need to redefine their concept of nothing.
that I have posted many times.
"In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.
The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.
What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.
Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.
Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.
If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours".
A Universe from nothing essentially is the only scientific explanation as to how and why we are here. Some though need to redefine their concept of nothing.
I guess I will but that's OK. It's not like I haven't been wrong before. Last time I think was 1943 at my first birthday when I thought the candle was icing
No problem
Nearly holiday time
Ivor Bigun
Registered Member
I really admire people who can admit they have been wrong.
As a child, I didn't understand rain, but I knew that God lived in the clouds and would need to use the bathroom.
I was wrong on all counts.
I used to think that the Big Bang theory cannot be right.
If enough matter come together, you get a black hole.
I "learned" that nothing can come out of a black hole.
If all the matter in the universe was together it would form the biggest black hole possible.
The Big Bang theory says that everything started as a highly condensed, incredibly hot small object.
That sounds like the very definition of a black hole.
So how could it explode ?
See, I was wrong.
Because it did !
Ivor Bigun
Registered Member
You seem to have a very good summary of Big Bang Cosmology.
There are, of course, four puzzles.
Where did the laws of Physics come from ?
Why have such complicated Chemistry ?
What caused the Big Bang ?
What caused Inflation?
Why can't some people count?
Still working on those.
Not my summary but as given in the link, attributed to Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff
The laws of physics are simply scientific descriptions that we continually observe, and that arose at the BB. All physical processes, and reactions depend and are governed by these laws. Or put even more simply, if the universe and its laws were not as is, we probably would not be here talking about them.
You mean how Abiogenesis and evolution resulted in humans? That's simply the way it is: Or refer to the laws of physics.
We don't really know. But please refer to the following excellent video re similar questions on science for a much clearer and revealing answer and only 7.5 minutes long.
See previous video.
Again a universe from nothing, [while accepting that some people's definition of nothing may need revising] is in reality the only scientific answer, other then the possibility of an infinite universe.
Another video by another "great" is called for here.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
14.7 billion years of chemical actions and reactions.
The earth alone has produced about; 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical reactions during it's relatively short lifetime.
Watch this excellent presentation by Robert Hazen. Start viewing @ 25:20
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Almost all mammals can count, IOW. know the difference between more or less of something.
Some Lemurs can count faster than humans. They just don't count by the numbers, 1 2 3 4....etc.
Yet the theory is based on something
Any theory is supported or debunked on the evidence available. That's why the BB/Inflationary model stands as generally accepted and others like the Electric/Plasma hypotheticals fall by the wayside.
You carried on with useless rhetoric is all I can see.
And of course as the excellent article suggests anyway, it is based on much scientifically evaluated speculation. The methodology is in question certainly, but what is not in question is that scientifically speakingthe universe did arise out of nothing or a infinitely preexisting quantum foam. Again one's definition of nothing needs to be redefined. That rules out any paranormal supernatural nonsense of course.You carried on with useless rhetoric is all I can see.
Nothing does need to be redefined at all .
All your posts arguements are based on something and the mathematical balance between matter and anti-matter , both of which are something .
Nothing again does NOT need to be redefined .
My definition of nothing stands sound .
Incorrect. Some people will see nothing as really nothing, no time, no space, no quantum vacuum, no fluctuations etc...scienctists see nothing as the quantum vacuum which seems to have existed eternally. So yes people do need to redefine what nothing is, if it is at all possible
That's nice.
