A Universe from Nothing: Not that hard to understand.
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
Too true, Yazata!
Uh - h-h-h-h . . . . . It was just a joke, son!
To be able to reasonably contemplate this is in itself incredible I suggest.
In answer to your question I would say Flat, Open or Closed.
So far according to WMAP, the universe seems "Flat" within pretty small error bars, but also remembering that the apparent flatness of the observable universe, may be just as a small arc of a circle may appear flat when compared to the whole circle....just playing devil's advocate here.
That also predicts the universe is infinite in extent which often is questioned with regards to a beginning at the BB.
explained here better than I can......
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
A Universe with no boundary such as the Hawking/Hartle "No Boundary" proposal seems easy to understand, other then the fact that it predicts a "Closed universe" which is contrary to current evidence, as there does not seem to be enough matter to recollapse the universe as this no boundary suggests.
https://web.uvic.ca/~jtwong/Hartle-Hawking.htm
But still how anything began, scientifically can only apparently have one answer.
Yes, I saw the HAHA, but it was a legit and interesting question to answer.
I posted the following in another thread, but I believe it equally applies here with regards to the Universe and the applicability of the question......
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/scie...lain-the-meaning-of-life-with-edward-o-wilson
Biologist Edward O. Wilson, a two-time Pulitzer Prize recipient and the author of the new book The Meaning of Human Existence, knew that it was vital that he define "meaning" early on in his book, lest he be attacked by a hornet's nest of philosophers. Thus, he identifies the meaning of meaning as:
What are we and why?
Where do we come from?
Where are we most likely to be headed?
Wilson believes those questions cannot be explained with religion for two reasons. First, because every religious faith has a different creation story that, almost categorically, is in competition with every other creation story. Second, because every religious faith is a product of human culture. To assume that human culture can explain meaning is to put a whole lot of trust in introspection, yet Wilson says we can't discover meaning just by thinking about it. The facts lie elsewhere.
This is also why Wilson believes philosophy is ill-equipped to tackle the meaning of existence. In fact, the storied biologist has few kind words for the field as a whole:
"I like to say that most of philosophy, which is a declining and highly endangered academic species, incidentally, consists of failed models of how the brain works. So students going into philosophy have to learn what Descartes thought and then after a long while why that's wrong and what Schopenhauer might have thought and what Kant might of thought or did think. But they cannot go on from that position and historical examination of the nature of humanity to what it really is and how we might define it."
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/scie...lain-the-meaning-of-life-with-edward-o-wilson
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/scie...lain-the-meaning-of-life-with-edward-o-wilson
Biologist Edward O. Wilson, a two-time Pulitzer Prize recipient and the author of the new book The Meaning of Human Existence, knew that it was vital that he define "meaning" early on in his book, lest he be attacked by a hornet's nest of philosophers. Thus, he identifies the meaning of meaning as:
What are we and why?
Where do we come from?
Where are we most likely to be headed?
Wilson believes those questions cannot be explained with religion for two reasons. First, because every religious faith has a different creation story that, almost categorically, is in competition with every other creation story. Second, because every religious faith is a product of human culture. To assume that human culture can explain meaning is to put a whole lot of trust in introspection, yet Wilson says we can't discover meaning just by thinking about it. The facts lie elsewhere.
This is also why Wilson believes philosophy is ill-equipped to tackle the meaning of existence. In fact, the storied biologist has few kind words for the field as a whole:
"I like to say that most of philosophy, which is a declining and highly endangered academic species, incidentally, consists of failed models of how the brain works. So students going into philosophy have to learn what Descartes thought and then after a long while why that's wrong and what Schopenhauer might have thought and what Kant might of thought or did think. But they cannot go on from that position and historical examination of the nature of humanity to what it really is and how we might define it."
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/scie...lain-the-meaning-of-life-with-edward-o-wilson
The usual tactic of repetitious flooding somehow 'proving' something. See my #22, which is evidently beyond anyone's ability here to meaningfully counter or even comment on.
Oh c'mon now my old friend! You have given nothing that is not already known, and what ever you say actually is countered by many, as per the definition/s of nothing and the superfluous nature of any uneccessary IDer or such.
The simple fact remains, irrespective of what you say, a universe from nothing is really the only scientific solution open, despite the exact methodology being open for speculation, just as per abiogenisis..
You have a good day, ya hear!
Thanks for confirming you have no answers to what I posed in #22. One or two others here with an actual grasp of physics might have tried though.Oh c'mon now my old friend! You have given nothing that is not already known, and what ever you say actually is countered by many, as per the definition/s of nothing and the superfluous nature of any uneccessary IDer or such.
The simple fact remains, irrespective of what you say, a universe from nothing is really the only scientific solution open, despite the exact methodology being open for speculation, just as per abiogenisis..
You have a good day, ya hear!
Interesting extract from......
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-all
Space-time, from no space and no time
From tiny things like atoms, to really big things like galaxies. Our best theory for describing such large-scale structures is general relativity, Albert Einstein's crowning achievement, which sets out how space, time and gravity work.
Relativity is very different from quantum mechanics, and so far nobody has been able to combine the two seamlessly. However, some theorists have been able to bring the two theories to bear on particular problems by using carefully chosen approximations. For instance, this approach was used by Stephen Hawking at the University of Cambridge to describe black holes.
One thing they have found is that, when quantum theory is applied to space at the smallest possible scale, space itself becomes unstable. Rather than remaining perfectly smooth and continuous, space and time destabilize, churning and frothing into a foam of space-time bubbles.
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."
What's more, if it's possible for these bubbles to form, you can guarantee that they will. "In quantum physics, if something is not forbidden, it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability," says Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts.
"It turns out that a flat universe is crucial. That's because only a flat universe is likely to have come from nothing".
"Everything that exists, from stars and galaxies to the light we see them by, must have sprung from somewhere. We already know that particles spring into existence at the quantum level, so we might expect the universe to contain a few odds and ends. But it takes a huge amount of energy to make all those stars and planets.
The energy of matter is exactly balanced by the energy of the gravity the mass creates
Where did the universe get all this energy? Bizarrely, it may not have had to get any. That's because every object in the universe creates gravity, pulling other objects toward it. This balances the energy needed to create the matter in the first place".
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-all
Space-time, from no space and no time
From tiny things like atoms, to really big things like galaxies. Our best theory for describing such large-scale structures is general relativity, Albert Einstein's crowning achievement, which sets out how space, time and gravity work.
Relativity is very different from quantum mechanics, and so far nobody has been able to combine the two seamlessly. However, some theorists have been able to bring the two theories to bear on particular problems by using carefully chosen approximations. For instance, this approach was used by Stephen Hawking at the University of Cambridge to describe black holes.
One thing they have found is that, when quantum theory is applied to space at the smallest possible scale, space itself becomes unstable. Rather than remaining perfectly smooth and continuous, space and time destabilize, churning and frothing into a foam of space-time bubbles.
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."
What's more, if it's possible for these bubbles to form, you can guarantee that they will. "In quantum physics, if something is not forbidden, it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability," says Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts.
"It turns out that a flat universe is crucial. That's because only a flat universe is likely to have come from nothing".
"Everything that exists, from stars and galaxies to the light we see them by, must have sprung from somewhere. We already know that particles spring into existence at the quantum level, so we might expect the universe to contain a few odds and ends. But it takes a huge amount of energy to make all those stars and planets.
The energy of matter is exactly balanced by the energy of the gravity the mass creates
Where did the universe get all this energy? Bizarrely, it may not have had to get any. That's because every object in the universe creates gravity, pulling other objects toward it. This balances the energy needed to create the matter in the first place".
Grok'd!!
...like Yazata Posted in #55 : "...unverifiable speculations mustn't be misrepresented as authoritative scientific answers."
Last edited:
Last edited:
Right. Right. But just as a reminder: http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3431206/
Would you rather those here take notice of the equally unverifiable, unqualified, and misrepresentations from some of the populace of this forum, open to any Tom, Dick and Harry? [with agendas obviously] rather then the data, and opinions of professionals such as Linde and Krauss?
I think I prefer my answers from those [Linde and Krauss] rather than others that in most cases are simply applying their "god of the gaps" and ID fanaticism.
HAHAHAHA!! any Tom, Dick, Harry (and me!', I guess) . . . You should also read some of John D. Barrow's manuscripts.Would you rather those here take notice of the equally unverifiable, unqualified, and misrepresentations from some of the populace of this forum, open to any Tom, Dick and Harry? [with agendas obviously] rather then the data, and opinions of professionals such as Linde and Krauss?
I think I prefer my answers from those [Linde and Krauss] rather than others that in most cases are simply applying their "god of the gaps" and ID fanaticism.
"rather than others that in most cases are simply applying their "god of the gaps" and ID fanaticism".
To add, obviously forums such as this are the only outlet these turkeys have.
Laugh it up fuzzball!If there is one fanatic here, you will probably recognize him when looking in the mirror.Would you rather those here take notice of the equally unverifiable, unqualified, and misrepresentations from some of the populace of this forum, open to any Tom, Dick and Harry? [with agendas obviously] rather then the data, and opinions of professionals such as Linde and Krauss?
I think I prefer my answers from those [Linde and Krauss] rather than others that in most cases are simply applying their "god of the gaps" and ID fanaticism.
Only if you my friend are blocking the view!
It's quite factual Karen...Cosmological data, speculation/s, theories and knowledge do not originate or are born on science forums.
The cosmologists/physicists such as Linde, Krauss, and company, are at the coal face...It's quite easy for upstarts to come on a science forum, and driven by agendas [which a lot are] deride these reputable people.
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept02/Kinney/paper.pdf
COSMOLOGY, INFLATION, AND THE PHYSICS OF NOTHING
Abstract
These four lectures cover four topics in modern cosmology: the cosmological constant, the cosmic microwave background, inflation, and cosmology as a probe of physics at the Planck scale. The underlying theme is that cosmology gives us a unique window on the “physics of nothing,” or the quantum-mechanical properties of the vacuum. The theory of inflation postulates that vacuum energy, or something very much like it, was the dominant force shaping the evolution of the very early universe. Recent astrophysical observations indicate that vacuum energy, or something very much like it, is also the dominant component of the universe today. Therefore cosmology gives us a way to study an important piece of particle physics inaccessible to accelerators. The lectures are oriented toward graduate students with only a passing familiarity with general relativity and knowledge of basic quantum field theory.
Conclusion
We have come a long way in four lectures, from Einstein’s misbegotten introduction of the cosmological constant at the beginning of the last century to its triumphant return today. Einstein’s blunder is now seen as the key to understanding the very beginning of the universe, as represented by the theory of inflation, as well as the universe today, dominated by the mysterious dark energy that makes up more than two thirds of the entire mass of the cosmos. I have tried to convince you of two things: first, that the study of the early universe is particle physics in a very real sense, and second that apparently exotic theories of the early universe such as inflation (and perhaps even elements of string theory or some other variant of quantum gravity) are predictive and testable. It is a difficult business, to be sure, compared to the clean physics at, say, an e± collider, but what we learn about fundamental theory from cosmology is in many ways complementary to the lessons learned from more traditional particle physics.
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept02/Kinney/paper.pdf
COSMOLOGY, INFLATION, AND THE PHYSICS OF NOTHING
Abstract
These four lectures cover four topics in modern cosmology: the cosmological constant, the cosmic microwave background, inflation, and cosmology as a probe of physics at the Planck scale. The underlying theme is that cosmology gives us a unique window on the “physics of nothing,” or the quantum-mechanical properties of the vacuum. The theory of inflation postulates that vacuum energy, or something very much like it, was the dominant force shaping the evolution of the very early universe. Recent astrophysical observations indicate that vacuum energy, or something very much like it, is also the dominant component of the universe today. Therefore cosmology gives us a way to study an important piece of particle physics inaccessible to accelerators. The lectures are oriented toward graduate students with only a passing familiarity with general relativity and knowledge of basic quantum field theory.
Conclusion
We have come a long way in four lectures, from Einstein’s misbegotten introduction of the cosmological constant at the beginning of the last century to its triumphant return today. Einstein’s blunder is now seen as the key to understanding the very beginning of the universe, as represented by the theory of inflation, as well as the universe today, dominated by the mysterious dark energy that makes up more than two thirds of the entire mass of the cosmos. I have tried to convince you of two things: first, that the study of the early universe is particle physics in a very real sense, and second that apparently exotic theories of the early universe such as inflation (and perhaps even elements of string theory or some other variant of quantum gravity) are predictive and testable. It is a difficult business, to be sure, compared to the clean physics at, say, an e± collider, but what we learn about fundamental theory from cosmology is in many ways complementary to the lessons learned from more traditional particle physics.
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept02/Kinney/paper.pdf
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
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.