Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Feb 3, 2017.
Just making sure , clarifying .
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Under I. INTRODUCTION re OP article linked to at https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207v1 :
Indeed. Later under that intro section:
Well one puzzle that comes to my mind is how to reconcile above passage, with the WDWE eqn. (4). Which explicitly incorporates the spatial scale parameter a. SPATIAL PARAMETER. At the outset already assuming space exists! Hmm... should I take the remainder too seriously? Given it begins also with a metastable false vacuum having a higher potential i.e. energy density than the true vacuum. Which somehow does not self-gravitate to cause spontaneous implosions everywhere, rather than occasional bubble expansions.
A nice story. Which like many other variants, neatly ignores one particularly large elephant in the room. Information content. According to standard quantum theory information can never be created or destroyed - not even via so-called black holes. Combine that with the standard cosmological bubble universe picture. That has the bubble universe causally detached from it's 'womb' soon after birth, and thereafter forever. So where does all the colossal information content in our present universe get to be crammed into an initial Planckian or sub-Planckian sized bubble universe?
Something is drastically wrong here. If conservation of information is truly sacrosanct, kiss goodbye to any notion of a discrete spacetime with ~ Planck scale discreteness. At least if one also subscribes to the typical bubble universe scenarios.
But you have failed to answer my question to yourself and Yazata....
"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  non scientific, and  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] or a superfluous step if you will.
So despite the still speculative assumptions and questions remaining, does anyone really have any other scientific answer?"
In the meantime, here's some more professional comment on the "something from nothing" hypothetical, which again as I put to karen, is really the only scientific answer available.......
Can the Universe Create Itself?
J. Richard Gott, III and Li-Xin Li
Department of Astrophysical Sciences,
Princeton University, Princeton,
NJ 08544 (December 29, 1997)
The question of first-cause has troubled philosophers and cosmologists alike. Now that it is apparent that our universe began in a Big Bang explosion, the question of what happened before the Big Bang arises. Inflation seems like a very promising answer, but as Borde and Vilenkin have shown, the inflationary state preceding the Big Bang could not have been infinite in duration — it must have had a beginning also. Where did it come from? Ultimately, the difficult question seems to be how to make something out of nothing. This paper explores the idea that this is the wrong question — that that is not how the Universe got here. Instead, we explore the idea of whether there is anything in the laws of physics that would prevent the Universe from creating itself. Because spacetimes can be curved and multiply connected, general relativity allows for the possibility of closed timelike curves (CTCs). Thus, tracing backwards in time through the original inflationary state we may eventually encounter a region of CTCs — giving no first-cause. This region of CTCs may well be over by now (being bounded toward the future by a Cauchy horizon). We illustrate that such models — with CTCs — are not necessarily inconsistent by demonstrating self-consistent vacuums for Misner space and a multiply connected de Sitter space in which the renormalized energy-momentum tensor does not diverge as one approaches the Cauchy horizon and solves Einstein’s equations. Some specific scenarios (out of many possible ones) for this type of model are described. For example: a metastable vacuum inflates producing an infinite number of (Big-Bang-type) bubble universes. In many of these, either by natural causes or by action of advanced civilizations, a number of bubbles of metastable vacuum are created at late times by high energy events. These bubbles will usually collapse and form black holes, but occasionally one will tunnel to create an expanding metastable vacuum (a baby universe) on the other side of the black hole’s Einstein-Rosen bridge as proposed by Farhi, Guth, and Guven. One of the expanding metastable-vacuum baby universes produced in this way simply turns out to be the original inflating metastable vacuum we began with. We show that a Universe with CTCs can be stable against vacuum polarization. And, it can be classically stable and self-consistent if and only if the potentials in this Universe are retarded — which gives a natural explanation of the arrow of time in our universe. Interestingly, the laws of physics may allow the Universe to be its own mother.
What is something , what scientificaly , is something , pad ?
Any body , what scientificaly is something ?
The above paper also discusses the "baby universes" aspect, an idea I think first raised by Stephen Hawking....at least discussed in a book by him anyway.
What has this got to do with the OP ?
Obviously the paper discusses the "universe from nothing" aspect. What more do you suggest it has to do with the OP?
Well give us all , this Universe from nothing based on " baby universes " theory .
karenmansker said: ↑
That's exactly my point . . . . . NO-thing does NOT exist . . . .there is always SOME-thing! Sorry if my prior post seemed confusing
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?
Sure in Krauss's book, and the two or three papers I have given, a healthy amount of speculative stuff needs to be assumed and contemplated, but what about the extra baggage that one needs to accept if we go to the uniscientific ID aspect? omnipotent, all powerful, immortal being...how much more speculative and fantastic can you get? So why not, at least entertain the knowledge expressed by Krauss and the other papers I have listed, and agree much more needs to be worked on and pursued, as it obviously will. Perhaps one day a validated QGT may reveal more......until then, we really only have one scientific choice.
Not one pad .
Refer to alternative theory threads .
Einstein's Biggest Blunder , thread
No thank you...I'll leave the paranormal, supernatural, and anti science nonsense in your good hands, OK?
Anti-science nonsense ?
The thread in alternative theories , Einstein's Biggest Blunder , is all science , mathematics included .
What are you afraid of pad ?
No its not and won't be until its validated river.
How many times are you going to hide from that fact? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Then why keep posting ?
Yes, in hindsight as you have been proven to be a troll, perhaps I should desist in replying to your nonsense, and report you instead.
Probably not. The 'Why does existence exist' question seems to me to be a metaphysical question. The ultimate metaphysical question. It isn't really a scientific question at all. Our scientific methodologies don't even seem to apply to it.
That's why I've suggested that human beings may never know the answer. That's because trying to explain the totality of reality in terms of anything real would seem to be circular. But what other kind of explanation can we produce?
What's wrong with just being honest and admitting that we don't know the answer?
So this is all really an atheist sermon? A bit of preaching?
Atheists don't know the answer either, and they shouldn't try to mislead laypeople that they do, wrapping themselves in science's social prestige. Ultimately, it's just bullshit. It feeds public mistrust of science.
You're writing as if the only alternative to logically defective circular argument is conventional theism. That's a false dichotomy. It leaves out no end of unknown possibilities. I think that it's smarter to just say "I don't know".
As is often the case in these kind of arguments, agnosticism is the most intellectually sound position to take.
That doesn't mean that people need to remain silent. Obviously it can be fun to speculate about this problem and try to see if we can find some way out of the logical difficulties. But those speculations shouldn't be oversold or misrepresented as established truths.
Surely, you jest Yazata!
As per James R : "I27. The moderator team takes a dim view of propaganda, preaching, proselytising and evangelising. Engaging in these activities is not guaranteed to get you banned, but you do so at your own risk."
- from : http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-site-rules.142880/
So, you know that no 'reputable' member would ever Post any "atheist sermon", nor proffer "A bit of preaching".
Science, as 'played' by some 'Atheists', has absolutely no relationship to the Real Science as practiced by actual Scientists.
One of my Professors, years ago, iterated that Science was establishing exactly WHAT WE DO NOT OR CANNOT KNOW...
Too true, Yazata...but...this is sciforums...so...
No, simply a revelation of sound scientific thinking.
I didn't say they know the answer: I'm asking for a alternative scientific answer.
So you don't have a scientific alternative answer to the concept of a universe from nothing?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Separate names with a comma.