• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The big bang, something from nothing?

Dell

Asteroid insurance?
Any one read the book by Lawrence Krauss "Something From Nothing"?

He is not pro string theory or the multiverse per se, but suggest there is energy in empty nothing space, that universes pop in and out of existence all the time on a quantum scale so fast that it can not be measured and not breaking laws of conservation of energy. But in the big bangs case enough energy and conditions causing the Higgs field kept the universe from collapsing and it became flat, thus inflation began, causing the reaction of creation of matter. That's just a crunched down paragraph of his explanation.

Reading that, wouldn't it imply time and space, though not like we see it, eternal?
 

j1i

Smiling is charity without giving money
Cosmic are mysterious
It is hard for us to emphasize things as a fact
Scientists use defaults and there are no correct measurements
Physics in the universe is quite different from Earth physics
The laws of physics are fragile and breakable with time
We retrun to the Scriptures (torah gospel, quran) and the only source is our faith, then we begin with it as a basic database in the absence of scientific facts

The theories of scientists are not accurate and sometimes illogical at the moment


This surah of the Qur'an is possible to describe or speak of the explosion

Do the disbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were one mass, and We tore them apart? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not believe?
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Any one read the book by Lawrence Krauss "Something From Nothing"?

He is not pro string theory or the multiverse per se, but suggest there is energy in empty nothing space, that universes pop in and out of existence all the time on a quantum scale so fast that it can not be measured and not breaking laws of conservation of energy. But in the big bangs case enough energy and conditions causing the Higgs field kept the universe from collapsing and it became flat, thus inflation began, causing the reaction of creation of matter. That's just a crunched down paragraph of his explanation.

Reading that, wouldn't it imply time and space, though not like we see it, eternal?

Ha ha what can one say if it is suggested that something pops out of Nothing, if it did, then it was not nothing. :D

It was a container, as what came, had to be contained.

Peace be with you
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Any one read the book by Lawrence Krauss "Something From Nothing"?

He is not pro string theory or the multiverse per se, but suggest there is energy in empty nothing space, that universes pop in and out of existence all the time on a quantum scale so fast that it can not be measured and not breaking laws of conservation of energy. But in the big bangs case enough energy and conditions causing the Higgs field kept the universe from collapsing and it became flat, thus inflation began, causing the reaction of creation of matter. That's just a crunched down paragraph of his explanation.

Reading that, wouldn't it imply time and space, though not like we see it, eternal?

Do you mean "A Universe From Nothing?" I have both read the book and watched the video:


I am not so sure if I agree with your short interpretation, I might have to review it again. One thing that he did show was that a universe from nothing does not violate the law of conservation of energy. The total energy of the universe is zero. Therefore a universe from nothing and a universe with a total energy of zero is not a problem.
 

Dell

Asteroid insurance?
I know you creationist have the bronze age answer for this... I expected flack flying in this area..

Math is an eternal concept because it just is, it didnt have to be created it just is. Same goes with The concept of General Relativity, it didnt have to be created, it just came with gravity and mass. Some things just are a natural constant.

Einstein pondered the cause and outcome of big bang probably couldn't have been anything different.
 

Dell

Asteroid insurance?
Do you mean "A Universe From Nothing?" I have both read the book and watched the video:


I am not so sure if I agree with your short interpretation, I might have to review it again. One thing that he did show was that a universe from nothing does not violate the law of conservation of energy. The total energy of the universe is zero. Therefore a universe from nothing and a universe with a total energy of zero is not a problem.
Yeah I have no doubt I'm missing something there. I'm not getting the total energy of zero vs energy at the big bang due to the energy in empty space. I'll have to watch and hope something sticks in the brain.. it's a little hard to see where he's going.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Yeah I have no doubt I'm missing something there. I'm not getting the total energy of zero vs energy at the big bang due to the energy in empty space. I'll have to watch and hope something sticks in the brain.. it's a little hard to see where he's going.
The answer is in the concept of negative energy. Positive energy is obvious to all of us, negative energy can be seen in gravitational potential energy. When they measure the curvature of the universe and find that as closely as they can measure it that it is flat that is telling us that the energy of the universe is zero since either a net positive or negative would cause a curved universe.

EDIT: For a better explanation than I can give with my limited knowledge I would ask @Polymath257 and some of the other real physicists here.
 
Last edited:

j1i

Smiling is charity without giving money
You've never studied Relativity in school?

Yes The curriculum in the UAE is identical to the American curriculum In particular scientific materials

I do not believe in the theory of relativity completely
I have objections because there are illogical things
I have a special vision and go further

Everything that can change Except the absolute truth is God

For example it was said that the speed of light was 300,000 km / s (186,000 mi / s)
angels were created from the light
The Qur'an tells that of maximum speed of winged angels can recorded


this is verse in Ways of Ascent surrah
Unto Him the angels and the Spirit ascend on a Day the duration of which is fifty thousand years.

This as a Muslim shows that there is something other than light equivalent to the speed of light which is the Spirit

We'll do a calculation
365 days in 50 years equals 18250000

18250000 * 24* 300,000 km/s Equal to the potential speed of angels


also
this is story of king Solomon when he said
38. He said, “O notables, which one of you will bring me her throne before they come to me in submission?”
39. Astalwart of the jinn said, “I will bring it to you before you rise from your seat. I am strong and reliable enough to do it.”
40. He who had knowledge from the Book said, “I will bring it to you before your glance returns to you.” And when he saw it settled before him, he said, “This is from the grace of my Lord, to test me, whether I am grateful or ungrateful. He who is grateful, his gratitude is to his own credit; but he who is ungrateful—my Lord is Independent and Generous.”

In less than a second
The palace moved from Yemen to Palestine
 
Last edited:

Altfish

Veteran Member
Cosmic are mysterious
It is hard for us to emphasize things as a fact
Scientists use defaults and there are no correct measurements
Physics in the universe is quite different from Earth physics
The laws of physics are fragile and breakable with time
We retrun to the Scriptures (torah gospel, quran) and the only source is our faith, then we begin with it as a basic database in the absence of scientific facts

The theories of scientists are not accurate and sometimes illogical at the moment


This surah of the Qur'an is possible to describe or speak of the explosion

Do the disbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were one mass, and We tore them apart? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not believe?
I look forward to the paper that you will produce explaining all this.

Meanwhile, I'll listen to the likes of Mr Krauss and his hypothesis.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I know you creationist have the bronze age answer for this... I expected flack flying in this area..

Math is an eternal concept because it just is, it didnt have to be created it just is. Same goes with The concept of General Relativity, it didnt have to be created, it just came with gravity and mass. Some things just are a natural constant.

Einstein pondered the cause and outcome of big bang probably couldn't have been anything different.

No bronze age answer needed, there has been a guide given in the late 1800's to early 1900's

I came across the "Tablet of the Universe" a few years ago and what stood out for me is that a Void is impossible. That quote will follow this thought which one needs to consider;

"...The discoveries made by earlier philosophers and the views they held were not established upon a firm basis or a sound foundation for they wished to confine the worlds of God within the smallest compass and narrowest limit and were quite unable to conceive what lay beyond; even claiming that there was neither void nor matter, but merely nothingness. This view is at variance with and contrary to all the divine truths and heavenly secrets. Indeed, if thou dost compare the ideal world to the human world and apply spiritual principles to physical matters thou wilt discover that this view is flimsier than a spider's web, because, just as the luminous spiritual worlds are sanctified above computation or limitation, so too are the physical worlds in this vast immensity of space. This is a secret of which God hath apprised His servants through His grace and mercy in order to demonstrate the idleness of the fancies of those who disbelieve in God, and to expose the baselessness of the arguments of those who are wandering blindly in their heedlessness, that the edifice they have built out of their vain imaginings may crumble and their profitless pursuits be discredited and fall into disrepute...."

"....Know then that, as hath been clearly handed down in the accounts of old, these great orbits and circuits fall within subtle, fluid, clear, liquid, undulating and vibrating bodies, and that the heavens are a restrained wave because a void is impossible and inconceivable. All that may be said is that the celestial bodies and the material bodies of the ethereal regions differ in respect of some of the substances and elements from which they are constituted, the quantities and proportions of these that go into their composition, the peculiar characteristics causing the difference in the outward effects of these bodies, and the properties that emanate from them in rich abundance. The celestial bodies that surround the material bodies also differ one from another in respect of subtlety, fluidity, and weight. It cannot be otherwise for a void is impossible....."

Peace be with you
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I know you creationist have the bronze age answer for this... I expected flack flying in this area..

Math is an eternal concept because it just is, it didnt have to be created it just is. Same goes with The concept of General Relativity, it didnt have to be created, it just came with gravity and mass. Some things just are a natural constant.

Einstein pondered the cause and outcome of big bang probably couldn't have been anything different.

Some more information that nothing does not exist, it is all contained;

"...The existence of a container implies the existence of something contained; what is contained can hardly be other than a body, but the bodies of the celestial spheres are in the utmost degree of subtlety, lightness and fluidity as bodies may be of diverse kinds: solid like rocks, malleable like metals and minerals, fluid like water and air. Lighter still they may be of a kind that ascends heavenwards, such as that which is used in dirigibles; and lighter than all of these are fire, electricity and lightning. All of these are bodies in reality, but some of them are weightless. In like manner thy Lord hath created in these vast heavens manifold bodies without limit or number, which the minds of men can neither compute nor encompass. Souls are bewildered when they attempt to understand them and confounded by a mere glimpse of them...."

This is that Tablet, to which I think will become a future guide. It is a provisional translation, so it may change a little.

Tablet of the Universe

Peace be with you
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Any one read the book by Lawrence Krauss "Something From Nothing"?

He is not pro string theory or the multiverse per se, but suggest there is energy in empty nothing space, that universes pop in and out of existence all the time on a quantum scale so fast that it can not be measured and not breaking laws of conservation of energy. But in the big bangs case enough energy and conditions causing the Higgs field kept the universe from collapsing and it became flat, thus inflation began, causing the reaction of creation of matter. That's just a crunched down paragraph of his explanation.

Reading that, wouldn't it imply time and space, though not like we see it, eternal?
That sounds interesting. Very well be because you when we see nothing and say there's nothing, maybe things are actually just too small to detect.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
First of all, there are *many* proposed descriptions of what (if anything) happened 'before the Big Bang'. NONE have any actual observational support, so should be regarded as pure speculation, although based on laws of physics we either know or suspect.

What Kraus has popularized, but others pointed out quite long ago, is that gravitational energy (curvature) has to be considered as negative energy if we want to do large scale energy calculations. Otherwise, the curvature of spacetime alone makes it tricky to even define 'the total energy of the universe'. Also, the amount of gravitational energy associated with a given mass exactly balances the energy from that mass according to E=mc^2. That means on this scale, to total energy is zero.

The second piece of this puzzle (according to Krauss and others) is that even empty space will continually have quantum level fluctuations, with particle/anti-particle pairs being produced, and destroyed at a predictable rate. If one of these fluctuations, statistically, got 'out of hand', the idea is that you would get a 'hot bubble' with the characteristics of the early Big Bang.

This all happens in a background space-time called 'Anti-DeSitter space', which is always expanding exponentially, is infinite in extent, and has no beginning. So, yes, a background space-time is assumed in this model. But it is one with no beginning, and with nothing other than quantum fluctuations in it (i.e, a vacuum).

It should be emphasized that this is just *one* model out of many being studied. It shows that the laws of physics that we know *allow* the universe to come 'from nothing' in the sense of coming from a space-time with a vacuum. But, there is a *great* deal we do not understand about quantum gravity, even in the case of a vacuum. In particular, a naive calculation leads to a cosmological constant (which is a sort of vacuum energy density) that is 120 orders of magnitude off what we observe. NOBODY understands what is going on here.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
The Big Bang is FACT
Now, what happened in the first milli-seconds is still up for debate; but the Big Bang (although it may not have been a bang) is accepted science, it explains so much of what is happening in the Universe.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
From what we now know about quantum mechanics, more cosmologists now believe we are likely part of a multiverse and, if that were to be true, then we need to change some of our thinking.

For example, it is hypothetically possible that our universe may have been spit out of a black hole as part of Hawking radiation, thus just a extremely small particle that began expanding (the "BB") 13.8 billion year ago. This is just one hypothesis though.
 

Dell

Asteroid insurance?
First of all, there are *many* proposed descriptions of what (if anything) happened 'before the Big Bang'. NONE have any actual observational support, so should be regarded as pure speculation, although based on laws of physics we either know or suspect.

What Kraus has popularized, but others pointed out quite long ago, is that gravitational energy (curvature) has to be considered as negative energy if we want to do large scale energy calculations. Otherwise, the curvature of spacetime alone makes it tricky to even define 'the total energy of the universe'. Also, the amount of gravitational energy associated with a given mass exactly balances the energy from that mass according to E=mc^2. That means on this scale, to total energy is zero.

The second piece of this puzzle (according to Krauss and others) is that even empty space will continually have quantum level fluctuations, with particle/anti-particle pairs being produced, and destroyed at a predictable rate. If one of these fluctuations, statistically, got 'out of hand', the idea is that you would get a 'hot bubble' with the characteristics of the early Big Bang.

This all happens in a background space-time called 'Anti-DeSitter space', which is always expanding exponentially, is infinite in extent, and has no beginning. So, yes, a background space-time is assumed in this model. But it is one with no beginning, and with nothing other than quantum fluctuations in it (i.e, a vacuum).

It should be emphasized that this is just *one* model out of many being studied. It shows that the laws of physics that we know *allow* the universe to come 'from nothing' in the sense of coming from a space-time with a vacuum. But, there is a *great* deal we do not understand about quantum gravity, even in the case of a vacuum. In particular, a naive calculation leads to a cosmological constant (which is a sort of vacuum energy density) that is 120 orders of magnitude off what we observe. NOBODY understands what is going on here.
Thanks for the informative reply, exactly what I was looking for...
 
Top