A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

[phands]

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/ed7ed0f304a3

But that still leaves a huge puzzle. What caused the Big Bang itself? For many years, cosmologists have relied on the idea that the universe formed spontaneously, that the Big Bang was the result of quantum fluctuations in which the Universe came into existence from nothing.
[...]
That’s plausible, given what we know about quantum mechanics. But physicists really need more — a mathematical proof to give the idea flesh.Today they get their wish thanks to the work of Dongshan He and buddies at the Wuhan Institute of Physics and Mathematics in China. These guys have come up with the first rigorous proof that the Big Bang could indeed have occurred spontaneously because of quantum fluctuations.
The new proof is based on a special set of solutions to a mathematical entity known as the Wheeler-DeWitt equation.

Much more at the link - even seems to explain the cosmological constant. I hope it's true, and a useful theory....

 

[steve_bnk]

The problem is once you allow something from nothing, then pretty much anything becomes plausible even gods.

A mathematical system that allows for something from nothing is not a proof of anything.

I can create an electronic circuit or system that can be simulated and work mathematically, but can ever be physically built.

Likewise a mathematical cosmological theory is just that, a mathematical creation.

 

[phands]

The problem is once you allow something from nothing, then pretty much anything becomes plausible even gods.

A mathematical system that allows for something from nothing is not a proof of anything. .

I disagree - and you just asserting it isn't is not a reasoned argument. Nothing in there even approaches claims about gods.

I can create an electronic circuit or system that can be simulated and work mathematically, but can ever be physically built.

You can? Show me. I'm an electronic designer...been designing digital and analogue circuits in detail since the 1980s, including designing transistors at small geometries, where quantum effects, like gate tunnelling leakage is significant. What simulator will you use? I mean in the real world where we build hardware, so not mathematica,as you can put divide by zero errors in there with ease.

Likewise a mathematical cosmological theory is just that, a mathematical creation.

That's what they said about relativity and QM, but they've both been found useful in reality. GPS needs relativistic corrections, and semiconductor lasers rely on QM to work at all.

ETA: I hope that doesn't come off as aggressive or confrontational....if it does. I apologise.

 

[steve_bnk]

Science can provideno more substantive proof of cosmological origins than religion.They converge on the same point.


At some pointmathematical scientific speculation becomes philosophy.


Starting in the 60speople with science credentials began writing books using QM andmodern physics toallgedly prove all sorts of new age mysticalmusings. Life after death, telepathy, and so on.


I go with Popper,for something to be considered science it must be falsifiable.Something from nothing is not falsifiable.


A clam that at apoint on Earth g = 9.8m/s^2 is falsifiable. A claim thatelectrostatic force is inversely proportional to distance isfalsifiable.


If a golf ballmaterialized in front of you and hit you between the eyes, you haveno way to prove it came from no where.


It is not possibleto prove something can not come for nothing either. Andscientifically we can not prove the Abrahamic god does not exist.


A lot of what isconsidered popular science by the masses is more properly calledscience based philosophy for lack of a better term.


And at some pointcosmology crosses from objective science into a modern secular creation myth.


Pragmatically anyverifiable demonstration of a violation of the laws of conservationwould be the single most stupendous Earth shattering experiments in history.

Be as aggressive as you like, it is not a TOU violation

Relativity is falsifiable and has been validated in whole or part.

An regular argument form the paranormal folks in past treads.

Because science has been wrong before science not accepting proofs of paranormal does not men the paranormal does not exist. True,but it is nit a proof eiter.

Science does not explain everything, therefore the paranormal exists and I believe it does. Sure, but again one can postulate and believe anything.

Something from nothing invalidates the foundation of all science and technology, the laws of conservation.

 

[Underseer]

Uh, Steve? There is actual evidence that the universe did indeed come from nothing. Granted, it's weak and circumstantial evidence, but it's more than any other pre-big bang theory has going for it.

Maybe as we get more evidence, we'll find that the universe didn't come from nothing, but for now that's the direction the evidence seems to be pointing in, for better or worse.

 

[steve_bnk]

Uh, Steve? There is actual evidence that the universe did indeed come from nothing. Granted, it's weak and circumstantial evidence, but it's more than any other pre-big bang theory has going for it.

Maybe as we get more evidence, we'll find that the universe didn't come from nothing, but for now that's the direction the evidence seems to be pointing in, for better or worse.

What evidence?

As a skeptic andlong time engineer i rule nothing out keeping an open mind, however Iput something from nothing on a par with god-did-it.


Theist : I can't explain or understandit, must be god-did-it.


Scientist: I have reached the limit otof my ability to explain i'll just say it came from nothing.


Six of one half a dozen the other. Putscience in the title and do not invoke theism, and some people whojump all over creationism simply accept the outrageous as a truth.


If a pile of shit fell on your headfrom apparently nowhere, how would you prove it came from nothing?There is no possible way to prove it came from nothing.


Did it come from a bird in anotherdimension?


All experiment to today supports thelaws of conservation without exception. Nothing happens without acause which leads to the assumption of an eternal universe.

 

[steve_bnk]

I wrote a macro solving a simple secondorder differential equation to familiarize myself with Open OfficeCalc macros.


It is the well known equation for aseries resistor, inductor, capacitor electric circuit. I notice thatas I decrease resistance the circuit oscillates longer and longer. Iverify this experimentally.


When I make the resistor zero theoscillation in simulation appears to run forever.


Eureka I shout jumping up and down, Ihave proven perceptual motion is theoretically possible.


But have I? All's I have to do is findreal parts that have no resistance, which I am unable to find...but Imaintain it is theoretically possible in the face of the naysayerswho say perpetual motion machines are impossible.


There is a theory that shows how an FTLwarp bubble can be created about a space ship, if energy in theequations takes on a negative value....all I have to is find someform of energy that has a negative value...no problem. I'm abeliever.


In QM virtual particles are modeled ascoming and going to and from nothing. I believe in pairs to avoidconflicting with conservation. The keyword is virtual.


Does the theory prove something comesfrom and to nothing?


Or is it just a clever mathematicaldevice to make the theory work?


You can copy the script into a macro and run it, plot the second two columns that appear in the spreadsheet. For Excel it will have to be modified for the sheet outputs.

REM ***** BASIC *****


Sub Main


Dim n As integer
Dim Doc As Object
Dim Sheet As Object
Dim Cell As Object
Doc = ThisComponent
Sheet = Doc.Sheets(0)


C = 10e-6
R = 0
L = 300e-3
dt= 200e-6
vr = 0
vI = 0
vc = 0
i = 0
t = dt
n = 0
for n = 0 to 200 step 1


vl = 12 - vc - vr
di =(vl/L) * dt
i = i + di
vr = i * R
dvc = (i * dt)/C
vc = vc + dvc
t = t + dt






Cell = Sheet.getCellByPosition(0, n)
Cell.Value = n
Cell = Sheet.getCellByPosition(1, n)
Cell.Value = t
Cell = Sheet.getCellByPosition(2, n)
Cell.Value = vc




next


End Sub

 

[skepticalbip]

A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

This seems to be a good example of the difference between pure math and physics.

In math, it is taken for granted that the assumptions made in the argument are true so, from these assumptions, a proof can be derived.

In physics, initial assumptions are subjected to question and testing but physics does not offer proofs, only conditional verification of the assumptions.

I guess the question is what assumptions were accepted as true in the “mathematical proof that the universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing”.

 

[ramoss]

What do you mean by 'nothing'. The 'nothing' described by Lawrence Krauss and the nothing described by theists and philosophers are at odds with each other.

 

[Underseer]

What evidence?

As I said, it's weak and circumstantial evidence, but it's still more evidence than any other explanation has.

If you want more info, I would suggest Krauss' book A Universe From Nothing.

Here's a lecture if you prefer to watch a video for free (obviously goes into less detail):

As a skeptic andlong time engineer i rule nothing out keeping an open mind, however Iput something from nothing on a par with god-did-it.


Theist : I can't explain or understandit, must be god-did-it.


Scientist: I have reached the limit otof my ability to explain i'll just say it came from nothing.

That's not how science works at all, but I suppose you can be excused for not understanding that given that you are an engineer.

There are a large number of "pre-big bang" hypotheses and new ones are being generated at a fairly high rate. While Krauss and Hawking clearly support creation ex nihilo with an actual singularity at t=0, that is their opinion and not the consensus opinion of physicists and cosmologists. If you ask most physicists, the answer you will get is "there is no consensus opinion" or "I don't know," which is the correct answer to give in this circumstance.

No one is claiming to know the answer in the absence of proper evidence (not even Krauss and Hawking if you grill them on the issue). That's not how science works. That's how religion works, and it may be how your practice of engineering works, but it is not how science works.

 

[steve_bnk]

As I said, it's weak and circumstantial evidence, but it's still more evidence than any other explanation has.

If you want more info, I would suggest Krauss' book A Universe From Nothing.

Here's a lecture if you prefer to watch a video for free (obviously goes into less detail):




That's not how science works at all, but I suppose you can be excused for not understanding that given that you are an engineer.

There are a large number of "pre-big bang" hypotheses and new ones are being generated at a fairly high rate. While Krauss and Hawking clearly support creation ex nihilo with an actual singularity at t=0, that is their opinion and not the consensus opinion of physicists and cosmologists. If you ask most physicists, the answer you will get is "there is no consensus opinion" or "I don't know," which is the correct answer to give in this circumstance.

No one is claiming to know the answer in the absence of proper evidence (not even Krauss and Hawking if you grill them on the issue). That's not how science works. That's how religion works, and it may be how your practice of engineering works, but it is not how science works.

I've done enough science, experiments, and modeling to know how science works. It is why I reject the claimof something from nothing.


Science is not infinitely 'scientific' and objective, and such extrapolations are shaky at best as to probability of matching reality.


Creating mathematical virtual conditions to make a theory or technique work is common. Method OfImages. Creating non-existing virtual software states in controlsystems.


The fact that virtual partcles appear to solve a problem mathematically in a theory does not mean virtualparticles are real.


The problem is lacking a broader view and understanding jumping to a conclusion based on a science snippet.


You still have not answered the basicquestion. How would you know if a particle came from nowhere? It cannot be done any more than proving or disproving god.

Even if some god like being manifested itself, we would have no way of knowing if it was advanced technology or 'the god'.

 

[ramoss]

One point I will bring up is the Lawence Krauss is doing some equivocation here , because what he describes as NOTHING is not the 'VOID' that the theologists and philosophers describe as nothing. His nothing is a seething amount of quantum potential.. and that , strictly, isn't quite 'nothing'.