Something from nothing

This link was offered to me when I said I had never seen a scientific peer reviewed paper that supports the premise of "something from nothing".

http://mukto-mona.net/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf

As a result of the existence of this paper, should I be impressed or does it fall short of describing how the universe came from nothingness. Is the explanation of nothingness satisfactory or not?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Great paper. The author made one glaring error. He never actually defined *nothing* but the way he yields the word suggests he means an *empty* *something* vs. an absence of everything and anything (which would be *nothing*).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Vilinkin model was an early inflationary proposal. After all these years [30] the model with empirical support is the Guth model of Eternal Inflation. The book linked is an early non-mathematical discussion of Guth's Inflationary Universe [great book about a great idea in it's early stages of theoretical development and the history of modern cosmology]. Click on the book cover, scroll down, and access Chapter 1 The Ultimate Free Lunch. You should be impressed with Villinkin's contribution to inflationary physics even though his tunneling model isn't correct.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...5244986/sr=1-1/ref=sc_b_1/104-8702670-1019101
In retrospect that wasn't a good choice of link since you can't read the entire chapter so I'll link this non-mathematical discussion.
Inflation and the New Era of High-Precision Cosmology
http://web.mit.edu/physics/news/physicsatmit/physicsatmit_02_cosmology.pdf

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thank you for the reviews and links.

I have read The Inflationary Universe and so I was happy to see the link to Guth's article addressing important new findings since the 1980's. I've seen the false vacuum analogy before and I don't exactly understand it, unless it is simply used in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. It seems to require the state of "real vacuum" as the precondition of the big bang? Is that the implication of the analogy, and if so doesn't it select one version of preconditions and ignore the concept that our big bang might have occurred within a pre-existing universe of more remarkable characteristics?

 

No. Not at all. Saying the universe was born of quantum tunnelling isn't much better than God did it.

 

The "ultimate free lunch" is dependent on a zero-energy universe. An eternal universe is only an infinite regress to avoid dealing with initial conditions, which has the same explanatory power as saying, "well...god just always existed". Even though eternal inflation postulates a future-eternal inflation, not all models equally postulate a past-eternal inflation. Unless we have reason to favor the latter, we must deal with initial conditions.

Whereas an ex nihilo creation, without a god, does not require any personified or capricious intent, just natural consequences of physical principles.

 

That's not what Guth's Eternal Inflation predicts. That's your opinion which isn't based on Eternal inflation science. It has nothing to do with hiding a God or any other nonsense you attribute to it.

 

Guth started with an instanton in a quantum scalar field. Then he asked the question 'what could happen if you applied the cosmological metric to the instanton in this quantum scalar field'. It's one of my favorite books. Lots of history on modern cosmology. Another favorite is Kip Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps with lots of history on gravitational physics. Both are non mathematical.

 

Kip Thorne's book is now on my list

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Any comment on my question about whether the "false vacuum" requires preconditions of a "real vacuum", and does that equate to the real vacuum being the precondition to the big bang (or did your reference to instatnon in the quantum scalar field answer that, over my head)?

 

Are you saying that past-eternal models of eternal inflation are the only accepted models?

Are you saying that Guth, or any reputable physicists, no longer lend any credence to Guth's "ultimate free lunch"?

And how on earth did you manage to wrangle "hiding a God" out of anything I said?

 

you could also try Lawrence Krauss - A Universe from Nothing. Non mathematical. and a few diagrams.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hi quantum_wave.

From my own perspective, since quantum theory posits that the greater the energy-mass content involved in a quantum-fluctuation "manifesting from nothing" event, the shorter the "payback" period and hence the more transient/evanescent the product of that event, my own question would be: given the long life of the Observable Universe Energy-mass "result", its 'payback period' should have been unimaginably 'short', such that what we see should not have had time to 'exist' in any meaningful way, let alone have time to expand and evolve as we observe now.

Does this quantum theory 'payback period' relation/principle apply to the universe as a whole, or not; and if not, why not?

Just a further question to add to yours for general comment, mate. Thanks. Cheers.

 

Thanks for that perspective. I hope someone picks up on it.

 

RC: Still thinking through your posit . . . . could be that at an earlier time (in the expansion history) the quantum fluctuation loci were more "crowded' (i.e., more dense), and perhaps then the payback period (PP) was of much shorter duration. As expansion increased, the PP increased in duration due to dilution of the quantum fluctuation mechanism. Just speculating here and will have to consider more in-depth about the ramifications ;might be totally off-base.

 

Read your own post

"An eternal universe is only an infinite regress to avoid dealing with initial conditions, which has the same explanatory power as saying, "well...god just always existed".

That's not why Eternal Inflation can't know the initial condition. You trolled me with nonsense but I'm not interested in your eternal obfuscation debate methodology. Been there done that.

 

Wow, that whole thing is one sentence.

"Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the universe (see galaxy formation and evolution and structure formation)." -wiki​

I guess asking some straight forward questions to determine what you are going on about is asking too much. It seems I have inadvertently knocked the pet theory chip off your shoulder. I know better than to try explaining anything through that haze.

I will just assume your answers are no, no, and no telling.

 

Thanks for your response.

BTW, my sentence is easily parsed following the punctuation, including the colon indicating the beginning of the consequent question in context of the preceding parts of that sentence.

Anyhow, while something can evolve as described therein, can you please explain how your wiki excerpt applies to my question about "payback time" being unimaginably short if the energy-matter feature appearing as a "quantum fluctuation" from "nothing" is energy-mass on the scale of the observable universal content?

The question was effectively: how can such a fluctuation exist long enough at all (let alone to evolve) before quantum-fluctuation "payback" principle/relation applies; or does it not apply, and if not why not? Can you help elucidate this aspect?

Thanks.

 

Thanks for your response.

Hmmm. Interesting 'take' there. My only question would be "where and what in" are the Loci located with respect to each other? Any posited "universe resulting" fluctuation must be 'singular'. More "loci" would imply a "multiverse" set of quantum fluctuations.

In any case, the question of "payback time" for that scale of energy-mass fluctuation 'feature' is not answered. Does the "payback" principle/relation apply or not; and if not, why not? That is still my main question added to quantum-wave's initial questions.

Thanks again for your interesting response.

 

"Where and what in?' . . . . everywhere . . . omnipresent, subquantum/subplanckian/undetectible (almost!) scale energy matix, perhaps a pre-universe, or underlying, condition from whence 'mass' derives via (one, or more?) mechanisms involving virtual photons and/or virtual particles (the latter, most likely, are the easiet route to 'mass) . . . .reminder . . . ALL of this is IMPO, of course.

Also, IMPO only, if there actually is a 'payback' period, at least as I understand your usage, it would be extremely short when virtual photons or virtual particles resorb to subquantum conditions. Payback period could however be extremely large (~13.8 by, hint!) if the virtual stuff becomes persistent mass in the observable universe. Final payback might be via blackholes?

 

When the observable universe is microscopic a lot occurs between, say, 10^−37 and 10^−11 seconds. That is an extremely small fraction of a second. Far too small a time for any measurement to determine a precise energy. Basically, the faster things happen, and over a smaller extent, the more quantum fluctuations can have a pronounced impact. They do not need to last any longer when quantum effects dominate.