A Universe from Nothing: Not that hard to understand.

Here's another paper

http://inspirehep.net/record/221659?ln=en

On the Creation of an Inflationary Universe From 'Nothing' in a Higher Dimensional Theory of Gravity With Higher Derivative Terms

Abstract (Elsevier)
The universe may been created from “nothing” as a quasi-de Sitter space-time, by a process of quantum tunnelling. The probability P for such a tunnelling process to occur is proportional to exp(−| S E |)m where S E is the euclidean action. The maximum probability corresponds to a configuration with S E = 0. This idea can be realized in a higher-dimensional theory of gravity with higher-derivative terms, in which a scalar field φ arises as the inverse radius function of the internal space. Subsequent evolution of the field φ may permit inflation.
 
paddoboy said:
Interesting discussions...Yet still no one can give any possible scientific alternative to a "universe from nothing"
Click to expand...
...and again, I cite a "possible scientific alternative to a "universe from nothing" "...
- see : https://richarddawkins.net/2016/03/no-big-bang-quantum-equation-predicts-universe-has-no-beginning/

By Lisa Zyga - " The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein’s theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a “Big Bang” did the universe officially begin.

Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

“The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there,” Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end." - https://richarddawkins.net/2016/03/no-big-bang-quantum-equation-predicts-universe-has-no-beginning/

also : http://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html
: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

- Full .pdf of "Cosmology from quantum potential" available for FREE : https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.3093v3.pdf

by : Ahmed Farag Ali - Center for Theoretical Physics, Zewail City of Science and Technology, Giza, 12588, Egypt. - Dept. of Physics, Faculty of Sciences, Benha University, Benha, 13518, Egypt.
and by : Saurya Das - Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Lethbridge, 4401 University Drive, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1K 3M4

"It was shown recently that replacing classical geodesics with quantal (Bohmian) trajectories gives rise to a quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation (QRE). In this article we derive the second order Friedmann equations from the QRE, and show that this also contains a couple of quantum correction terms, the first of which can be interpreted as cosmological constant (and gives a correct estimate of its observed value), while the second as a radiation term in the early universe, which gets rid of the big-bang singularity and predicts an infinite age of our universe."
- full .pdf available at Link : https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.3093v3.pdf
 
Again despite the existence of many alternative speculative papers, [that's OK, that's what science is about :)] The facts are that according to the evidence, the BB/inflationary model is the overwhelmingly supported model of the evolution of space and time, [henceforth known as spacetime]
GR of course continues to make its many validated predictions, most recently of course being BH's and gravitational wave confirmations.
Both stand as monuments to man's understanding of the universe and both at this time are the "going"models, despite the many speculative alternative papers speculating other scenarios including an infinite universe.

The fact remains, that based on current accepted evidence of a universe with a beginning [the BB] the only possible scientific answer is of course, ‘Creatio Ex Nihilo’
 
paddoboy said:
Again despite the existence of many alternative speculative papers, [that's OK, that's what science is about :)] The facts are that according to the evidence, the BB/inflationary model is the overwhelmingly supported model of the evolution of space and time, [henceforth known as spacetime]
GR of course continues to make its many validated predictions, most recently of course being BH's and gravitational wave confirmations.
Both stand as monuments to man's understanding of the universe and both at this time are the "going"models, despite the many speculative alternative papers speculating other scenarios including an infinite universe.

The fact remains, that based on current accepted evidence of a universe with a beginning [the BB] the only possible scientific answer is of course, ‘Creatio Ex Nihilo’
Click to expand...

So...
- From - James R's : http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-site-rules.142880/
"Propaganda, preaching, proselytising and evangelising
I21. Propaganda is loosely defined here as posts that have no aim other than to proclaim the superiority of one belief over another, particularly where the belief in question is the subject of controversy or argument. Examples include preaching one’s own religion as the only true religion, proclaiming that one’s favoured political party is superior to the opposing party, or proclaiming that one group is morally superior to another. The signature of propaganda is that it consists largely of a member expressing strongly held personal beliefs about things that can’t be proven, supposedly in the interests of achieving some important aim (e.g. world peace, governing the nation effectively, ensuring that people act morally).

I22. Propaganda wars are similar to flame wars, except in that they ostensibly involve argument about a topic. They are typically characterised by zealots on both sides of the argument who have no intention of listening to the opposing point of view, let alone possibly changing their minds. The result is invariably that members become frustrated and spin-off complaints to the moderators become rife.
...
I25. Proselytising is attempting to convert others to one’s own beliefs, often with threats of adverse consequences if one refuses to convert."
- From - James R's : http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-site-rules.142880/
 
The fact remains, that based on current accepted evidence of a universe with a beginning [the BB] the only possible scientific answer is of course, ‘Creatio Ex Nihilo’
Any universe without a beginning [as we know it] does not comply with the BB and GR cosmology

 
paddoboy said:
Again despite the existence of many alternative speculative papers, [that's OK, that's what science is about :)] The facts are that according to the evidence, the BB/inflationary model is the overwhelmingly supported model of the evolution of space and time, [henceforth known as spacetime]
GR of course continues to make its many validated predictions, most recently of course being BH's and gravitational wave confirmations.
Both stand as monuments to man's understanding of the universe and both at this time are the "going"models, despite the many speculative alternative papers speculating other scenarios including an infinite universe.

The fact remains, that based on current accepted evidence of a universe with a beginning [the BB] the only possible scientific answer is of course, ‘Creatio Ex Nihilo’
Click to expand...
Adding to that of course is the facts that with current knowledge and data,
science and cosmology has been able to reasonably speculate above and beyond, and while they certainly remain speculative, it seems obvious that within the framework of the BB, no matter what definition of nothing one chooses to prevail, the universe that we inhabit, essentially had a beginning [as we know it] and arose from that nothing. While various methodologies have been speculated such as multiverses, etc, we always will arrive back at "nothing"
This universe from nothing, by whatever methodology, is still the only legit scientific solution to what we see, despite the gnashing of teeth, wringing of hands and any other emotional outbursts by those that like to again raise those long held, unscientific ancient mythical beliefs from a period when humanity was still ignorant of the science in everything around him.

And while certainly any eternal universe is probably a preferred option, the same question arises, at least in my mind, as it does with any ID notion.
A creation/evolving/beginning from nothing has been amply explained via quantum effects,
As the title of the thread says> "A Universe from Nothing: Not that hard to understand" is far easier to understand then other scenarios.
 
paddoboy said:
despite the gnashing of teeth, wringing of hands and any other emotional outbursts by those that like to again raise those long held, unscientific ancient mythical beliefs from a period when humanity was still ignorant of the science in everything around him.

And while certainly any eternal universe is probably a preferred option, the same question arises, at least in my mind, as it does with any ID notion.
Click to expand...
And of course, for whatever reason, you cannot/will not Cite any of these alleged "gnashing of teeth, wringing of hands and any other emotional outbursts by those that like to again raise those long held, unscientific ancient mythical beliefs from a period when humanity was still ignorant of the science in everything around him."

paddoboy, it seems that, again for whatever reason, you refuse to engage in an honest, earnest and sincere discussion.

I will leave you to continue what appears to be nothing more than your own personal weblog.

-From Yazata's Post #55 : "...unverifiable speculations mustn't be misrepresented as authoritative scientific answers."
 
Any inference that any speculation is misrepresented as being authoritive is false.
Science is also about speculation reasonably asserted by professionals, and reasonable assertions are all that have been made.
No one has yet given any scientific alternative to a universe from nothing, that aligns with the BB and GR, and as yet, the BB and GR, still stand as overwhelmingly accepted models, as close to any supposed reality as any theory/s can be.

And even if in the not to distant future, a QGT should validate a universe with no beginning, the gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands will be even further pronounced for obvious reasons!;)


ps: As mentioned in another thread, My obvious non participation with a certain poster is because I have been advised quite a number of times to avoid such interactions for reasons if anyone is interested, that can be found in either "cesspool", "about the members", or "site feedback" by said poster and his unreasonable, and unjust criticism of myself and certain mods.
 
Hmm...so...Posting more "ad hominem attacks", "allegations" and "casting aspersions" toward "a certain poster" is your idea of "obvious non participation"...

Meh, it is your Weblog
 
The paper featured in the op still says it all, particularly in the highlighted bit..... .....
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207v1.pdf

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.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Just as the maths of GR predicted gravitational waves and BH's

 
In essence then what should be asked is "How can a universe come out of nothing'' not "Why can't a universe come out of nothing".
And at least an attempt has been made to answer that.
 
paddoboy said:
The paper featured in the op still says it all, particularly in the highlighted bit..... .....
Click to expand...

...and of course you read the paper referenced in the ^above^ Post #102 (and 'featured' at Richard Dawkins website!! : https://richarddawkins.net/2016/03/no-big-bang-quantum-equation-predicts-universe-has-no-beginning/) says...what...paddoboy?
...and of course you read it...
- from James R's "Sciforums site rules" : http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-site-rules.142880/
"H12. If you ask another member for evidence, be prepared to read the information that he or she provides for you. Don’t claim that evidence has not been provided just because you didn’t take the effort to read it."


...maybe you could re-read the ^above^ Post #102...
of course you could also read the Full .pdf of "Cosmology from quantum potential" available for FREE : https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.3093v3.pdf

paddoboy said:
In essence then what should be asked is "How can a universe come out of nothing'' not "Why can't a universe come out of nothing".
And at least an attempt has been made to answer that.
Click to expand...

Regardless, the questions you have actually asked were :
- your Post #23 - "But really, is there any other scientific methodology as to how the Universe/spacetime came to be?" and "So despite the still speculative assumptions and questions remaining, does anyone really have any other scientific answer?"
- your Post #30 - "What I'm trying to say again, unless one choses to invoke the unscientific concept of ID, and the multitude of questions that arise from such, what other aspect of how the universe came to be do we have?"
- your Post #40 - "So you don't have a scientific alternative answer to the concept of a universe from nothing?"
- your Post #45 - "And yet as I have asked many times, and yet is still unanswered, do you or anyone else have any other scientific alternative?"
- your Post #90 - (not really a question, but...) "Again, all I need is a viable scientific alternative to the universe from nothing."
- your Post #97 - (again, not really a question, but...) )"simply again because no other scientific answer exists to explain where or how the universe came into existence, other than ‘Creatio Ex Nihilo’ "

So...all of those questions (and also the not really questions, but...) have been addressed and answered, paddoboy...

...but, it is your Weblog, so...

...maybe these are a few questions that should be answered :
1.) - Why must a Universe come out of nothing?
2.) - Why must the Universe come out of anything?
3.) - Why can it NOT BE that the Universe has simply always existed?
 
Last edited:
As mentioned before, the overwhelming model of universal evolution, the supreme model if you like is the BB/Inflationary model. and of course GR.
While many papers are written and probably many more will be written, the above at this time is the situation.....That requires a beginning as we understand it.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning/
Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning
Cosmologists use the mathematical properties of eternity to show that although universe may last forever, it must have had a beginning.

The Big Bang has become part of popular culture since the phrase was coined by the maverick physicist Fred Hoyle in the 1940s. That’s hardly surprising for an event that represents the ultimate birth of everything.

However, Hoyle much preferred a different model of the cosmos: a steady state universe with no beginning or end, that stretches infinitely into the past and the future. That idea never really took off.

more at link......

the arxiv paper:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658.pdf

Did the universe have a beginning?
Audrey Mithani, Alexander Vilenkin

Abstract
We discuss three candidate scenarios which seem to allow the possibility that the universe could have existed forever with no initial singularity: eternal inflation, cyclic evolution, and the emergent universe. The first two of these scenarios are geodesically incomplete to the past, and thus cannot describe a universe without a beginning. The third, although it is stable with respect to classical perturbations, can collapse quantum mechanically, and therefore cannot have an eternal past.

3 Did the universe have a beginning?
At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes.2 Here we have addressed three scenarios which seemed to offer a way to avoid a beginning, and have found that none of them can actually be eternal in the past. Both eternal inflation and cyclic universe scenarios have Hav > 0, which means that they must be past-geodesically incomplete. We have also examined a simple emergent universe model, and concluded that it cannot escape quantum collapse. Even considering more general emergent universe models, there do not seem to be any matter sources that admit solutions that are immune to collapse.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
 
Another important aspect, as a supplementary to the previous is at.....

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-all

In other words, little bubbles of space and time can form spontaneously. "If space and time are quantized, they can fluctuate," says Lawrence Krauss at Arizona State University in Tempe. "So you can create virtual space-times just as you can create virtual particles."

and more importantly the following.....

"It turns out that a flat universe is crucial. That's because only a flat universe is likely to have come from nothing".
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Flat spacetime, or the geometry of our Universe is pretty well decided without too much disgreement and as detailed from the data from WMAP experiment in particular.
 
exchemist said:
Yes please. I respect Dawkins in his field of expertise, but his opinions on things such as cosmology are invariably tainted with his religious mission to promote physicalism, which he does naively, without apparently having understood the requisite philosophical context.
Click to expand...
Sorry exchemist, I missed that reply.....
I did think I had made it clear, that all Dawkin's does is introduce Krauss, nothing else.
 
paddoboy said:
Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning
Cosmologists use the mathematical properties of eternity to show that although universe may last forever, it must have had a beginning.
...
the arxiv paper:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658.pdf

Did the universe have a beginning?
Audrey Mithani, Alexander Vilenkin

Abstract
We discuss three candidate scenarios which seem to allow the possibility that the universe could have existed forever with no initial singularity: eternal inflation, cyclic evolution, and the emergent universe. The first two of these scenarios are geodesically incomplete to the past, and thus cannot describe a universe without a beginning. The third, although it is stable with respect to classical perturbations, can collapse quantum mechanically, and therefore cannot have an eternal past.

3 Did the universe have a beginning?
At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes.2 Here we have addressed three scenarios which seemed to offer a way to avoid a beginning, and have found that none of them can actually be eternal in the past. Both eternal inflation and cyclic universe scenarios have Hav > 0, which means that they must be past-geodesically incomplete. We have also examined a simple emergent universe model, and concluded that it cannot escape quantum collapse. Even considering more general emergent universe models, there do not seem to be any matter sources that admit solutions that are immune to collapse.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Click to expand...

So...Q. - "Did the universe have a beginning?"
A. - "At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes."
Ergo : "Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning"

...wait a second...what was that 2 in : "At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes.2"
could it possibly have something to do with : "[2] A. Borde and A. Vilenkin, Eternal inflation and the initial singularity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3305 (1994) [gr-qc/9312022]."
...and of course you read and fully understood : https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9312022.pdf
You know, where it clearly stated : "It is shown that a physically reasonable spacetime that is eternally inflating to the future must possess an initial singularity."
So, of course you noted the "4 Assumptions, A B C and D" that were made?
- see "Eternal inflation and the initial singularity" by Arvind Borde and Alexander Vilenkin -
- The Full .pdf can be read for FREE at this Link : https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9312022.pdf

..but, it seems to be your Weblog, so...
 
paddoboy said:
Interesting discussions...Yet still no one can give any possible scientific alternative to a "universe from nothing" :) :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Indeed, no, we can't.

But........ nor can Krauss!

That's the point, Paddo. Even Krauss himself admits this, if you read the Pigliucci article.
 
exchemist said:
Indeed, no, we can't.

But........ nor can Krauss!

That's the point, Paddo. Even Krauss himself admits this, if you read the Pigliucci article.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand...What I have said is that no other scientific explanation in line with current beliefs and data, is available, other than a universe from nothing.
 
exchemist said:
Indeed, no, we can't.

But........ nor can Krauss!

That's the point, Paddo. Even Krauss himself admits this, if you read the Pigliucci article.
Click to expand...
paddoboy said:
You misunderstand...What I have said is that no other scientific explanation in line with current beliefs and data, is available, other than a universe from nothing.
Click to expand...
And if no other alternative can be given, to a universe from nothing, than what is left?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top