Something from Nothing

[Aupmanyav]

.. from the void (as in Genesis)

That is not a good example. People believe God was there.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And yet, we have no examples of nothing to examine, so how can we declare what can or cannot proceed from nothing?

"In a universe with zero curvature, the local geometry is flat. The most obvious global structure is that of Euclidean space, which is infinite in extent. Flat universes that are finite in extent include the torus and Klein bottle. Moreover, in three dimensions, there are 10 finite closed flat 3-manifolds, of which 6 are orientable and 4 are non-orientable. The most familiar is the aforementioned 3-Torus universe.

In the absence of dark energy, a flat universe expands forever but at a continually decelerating rate, with expansion asymptotically approaching zero. With dark energy, the expansion rate of the universe initially slows down, due to the effect of gravity, but eventually increases. The ultimate fate of the universe is the same as that of an open universe.

A flat universe can have zero total energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe#Universe_with_zero_curvature

Zero energy equates to universe from absolute nothing.

 

[First Baseman]

That is not a good example. People believe God was there.

It was a "void" before God "was there."

 

[ak.yonathan]

"In a universe with zero curvature, the local geometry is flat. The most obvious global structure is that of Euclidean space, which is infinite in extent. Flat universes that are finite in extent include the torus and Klein bottle. Moreover, in three dimensions, there are 10 finite closed flat 3-manifolds, of which 6 are orientable and 4 are non-orientable. The most familiar is the aforementioned 3-Torus universe.

In the absence of dark energy, a flat universe expands forever but at a continually decelerating rate, with expansion asymptotically approaching zero. With dark energy, the expansion rate of the universe initially slows down, due to the effect of gravity, but eventually increases. The ultimate fate of the universe is the same as that of an open universe.

A flat universe can have zero total energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe#Universe_with_zero_curvature

Zero energy equates to universe from absolute nothing.

That would solve the problem of how something came from nothing. There was never 'something', there was nothing in the beginning and there is still nothing now.

 

[Thief]

That is not a good example. People believe God was there.

yeah ....Genesis seems to point that out.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That would solve the problem of how something came from nothing. There was never something, there was nothing in the beginning and there is nothing now.

That could be true. Let science find more about it. Existence could just be a phase of non-existence. More than three thousand years ago RigVeda said exactly that.

"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm

It was a "void" before God "was there."

Thief contradicts your view. However RigVeda agrees to that.

6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm

 

[First Baseman]

Thief contradicts your view. However RigVeda agrees to that.

6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm

I simply restated what is in Genesis. I don't hold reliable any other writing about creation and I do not consider Hindu texts to be sacred.

 

[Aupmanyav]

They may not be divine but they do have some good points.

 

[First Baseman]

They may not be divine but they do have some good points.

Granted it is possible.

 

[ak.yonathan]

It seems that I have fallen behind in my reading of scientific material, apparently a lot of physicists now believe that something came from nothing as the result of a quantum fluctuation.

 

[Thief]

It seems that I have fallen behind in my reading of scientific material, apparently a lot of physicists now believe that something came from nothing as the result of a quantum fluctuation.

yeah well.....some scientists will say anything to avoid using the word.....god.

 

[First Baseman]

yeah well.....some scientists will say anything to avoid using the word.....god.

Isn't that the truth.

 

[ak.yonathan]

yeah well.....some scientists will say anything to avoid using the word.....god.

Hmmm... interesting assertion, although I still don't think that science has disproved that God exists. It may have removed the need for a creator, but it does not, in my humble opinion, prove in any way that God doesn't exist.

 

[Thief]

I've seen recent science documentaries entertaining the idea of a God.

they push the notion .....and then leave it to the audience.

 

[Willamena]

We can conceptualize a pink rabbit, but that does not mean it ever existed.

But there is no question that nothing ever existed.

 

[Emi]

There was something always. Every bit of energy in existence was present before the big bang. However, the question of how it initiation in a sense is still unknown.

 

[metis]

There was something always. Every bit of energy in existence was present before the big bang. However, the question of how it initiation in a sense is still unknown.

This is what most cosmologists think is likely, according to Leonard Susskind.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

This is what most cosmologists think is likely, according to Leonard Susskind.

Leonard Susskind admits his view is controversial, as he not only accepts the anthropic principle but a multiverse cosmology. The big bang theory is still the most widely held position (and inflationary cosmologies are the same as the big bang or expansion).

There was something always. Every bit of energy in existence was present before the big bang.

My favorite quote on this one:
"This observationally-based conclusion has led to the current theory that most, but not all, astronomers accept for the origin of the Universe — that at some time in the past all the energy in the Universe was concentrated at a point, a point with no volume that scientists refer to as a singularity. That is a challenging idea. The implication of it is that, at the instant the Universe came into being, space did not exist and time did not exist! Once again we are in the position that we cannot imagine or understand what this means...This theory, called the Big Bang theory, postulates that starting from the singularity the Universe expanded so creating space and also creating time. Like any sensible person you will ask the question, “What was the state of affairs before the Big Bang?”, to which you will receive the answer, “There is no such thing as before the Big Bang because time did not exist until the Big Bang occurred.” You might try again with the question, “Into what did the Universe expand?”, to which the answer is, “There was no space for the Universe to expand into since the only space that existed was what it created as it expanded.” (italics in original; emphasis added)
Woolfson, M. M. (2009). Time, Space, Stars, & Man: The Story of the Big Bang. Imperial College Press.

A point with 0 volume is nothing, and can contain nothing (not even energy). After immediately after the big bang, it is STILL not true that every bit of energy in existence was present. The laws of physics break down rather completely here too (technically, we can't really say anything about the dynamics of the big bang during the first 10^43 seconds). At about the time we can start talking about the state of the universe, the laws of physics still aren't working as all matter behaves like light (expansion requires or forces everything to move at the speed of light, which shouldn't be possible for matter). Not even the four fundamental forces existed.

Of course, this is natural. To think that all the stars, planets, moons, "energy" (which kind?) etc., in the entire universe could fit into a microscopic space is ridiculous. Whatever expanded was not the sum total of all the "energy" or anything else in the universe, but existed quite differently (and quite differently at different instants).

 

[Emi]

Leonard Susskind admits his view is controversial, as he not only accepts the anthropic principle but a multiverse cosmology. The big bang theory is still the most widely held position (and inflationary cosmologies are the same as the big bang or expansion).


My favorite quote on this one:
"This observationally-based conclusion has led to the current theory that most, but not all, astronomers accept for the origin of the Universe — that at some time in the past all the energy in the Universe was concentrated at a point, a point with no volume that scientists refer to as a singularity. That is a challenging idea. The implication of it is that, at the instant the Universe came into being, space did not exist and time did not exist! Once again we are in the position that we cannot imagine or understand what this means...This theory, called the Big Bang theory, postulates that starting from the singularity the Universe expanded so creating space and also creating time. Like any sensible person you will ask the question, “What was the state of affairs before the Big Bang?”, to which you will receive the answer, “There is no such thing as before the Big Bang because time did not exist until the Big Bang occurred.” You might try again with the question, “Into what did the Universe expand?”, to which the answer is, “There was no space for the Universe to expand into since the only space that existed was what it created as it expanded.” (italics in original; emphasis added)
Woolfson, M. M. (2009). Time, Space, Stars, & Man: The Story of the Big Bang. Imperial College Press.

A point with 0 volume is nothing, and can contain nothing (not even energy). After immediately after the big bang, it is STILL not true that every bit of energy in existence was present. The laws of physics break down rather completely here too (technically, we can't really say anything about the dynamics of the big bang during the first 10^43 seconds). At about the time we can start talking about the state of the universe, the laws of physics still aren't working as all matter behaves like light (expansion requires or forces everything to move at the speed of light, which shouldn't be possible for matter). Not even the four fundamental forces existed.

Of course, this is natural. To think that all the stars, planets, moons, "energy" (which kind?) etc., in the entire universe could fit into a microscopic space is ridiculous. Whatever expanded was not the sum total of all the "energy" or anything else in the universe, but existed quite differently (and quite differently at different instants).

according to the theory itself, energy did indeed exist in the singularity. So I'm not sure what you're getting at. Your opinions are obviously different from mine, but I do support the big bang theory.
Of course, I'd be very interested to know what your viewpoint is of how the universe started?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

according to the theory itself, energy did indeed exist in the singularity.

I didn't say it didn't (although I did ask what kind of energy). What I objected to was

Every bit of energy in existence was present before the big bang

It is absolutely not true that "every bit of energy in existence" (taken literally, in the information-theoretic sense, or metaphorically) was present even after the big bang, let alone "before" it.

So I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Physics.

Your opinions are obviously different from mine

I'm not giving my opinion. I'm giving the most accepted model according to physics. Of course, in no model is it even possible for "every bit of energy in existence" to be "present before the big bang".

but I do support the big bang theory

Your assertion runs counter to it.

Of course, I'd be very interested to know what your viewpoint is of how the universe started?

I tend to stick to the strict big bang theory. That is, the evidence is compelling that a violent explosion resulted in everything that we know that exists with the exception of space, time, or spacetime (depending upon the ontological status of spacetime). The big bang theory is consistent both with the origin of "space" and an expansion into space extending infinitely. The same is true for "time", only time is much more difficult to define (even now) than space.