• 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!

Something from Nothing

Emi

Emi

Proud to be a Pustra!
LegionOnomaMoi said:
I didn't say it didn't (although I did ask what kind of energy). What I objected to was

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.


Physics.


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".

Your assertion runs counter to it.


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.
Click to expand...
From my understanding, when the big bang occurred all the matter and energy that we have in our universe was present. I've looked at several sources just now, and they all say that same thing. Mind if I look at the sites or articles you're viewing? I'd love to understand the topic with more certainty.
 
LegionOnomaMoi

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Emi said:
Mind if I look at the sites or articles you're viewing?
Click to expand...
Amoroso, R. L., & Rauscher, E. A. (2009). The Holographic Anthropic Multiverse: Formalizing the Geometry of Ultimate Reality. World Scientific.
Basdevant, J. L., & Rich, J., Spiro, M. (2005). Fundamentals in nuclear physics: From nuclear structure to cosmology. Springer.
Bojowald, M. (2007). What happened before the Big Bang?. Nature Physics, 3(8), 523-525.
Chow, T. L. (2007). Gravity, black holes, and the very early universe: an introduction to general relativity and cosmology. Springer.
Dmitry S.. Gorbunov, & Rubakov, V. (2011). Introduction to the Theory of the Early Universe: Hot Big Bang Theory. World Scientific.
Earman, J. (1995). Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers, and Shrieks-Singularities and Acausalities in Relativistic Spacetimes. Oxford University Press.
Foffa, S. (2003). Bouncing pre-big bang on the brane. Physical Review D, 68(4), 043511.
Gasperini, M. (2008). The Universe Before the Big Bang: Cosmology and String Theory. Springer.
Kawasaki, M., Kohri, K., Moroi, T., & Yotsuyanagi, A. (2008). Big-bang nucleosynthesis and gravitinos. Physical Review D, 78(6), 065011.
Lemoine, M., Martin, & J. Peter, P. (2010). Inflationary Cosmology (Lecture Notes in Physics Vol. 738). Springer.
Lidsey, J. E. (2002). The Bigger Bang. Cambridge University Press.
Mathews, G. J., Kajino, T., Yamazaki, D., Kusakabe, M., & Cheoun, M. K. (2014, May). Origin of matter and space-time in the big bang. In ORIGIN OF MATTER AND EVOLUTION OF GALAXIES 2013: Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Origin of Matter and Evolution of Galaxies (OMEG12) (Vol. 1594, pp. 5-11). AIP Publishing.
[see other contributions to that volume]
Schade, H., & Kämpfer, B. (2009). Antiproton evolution in little bangs and in the Big Bang. Physical Review C, 79(4), 044909.
Sidharth, B. G. (2005). The Universe of Fluctuations: The Architecture of Spacetime and the Universe (Fundamental Theories of Physics). Springer.
Wald, R. M. (1992). Space, Time, and Gravity: The Theory of the Big Bang and Black Holes. University of Chicago Press.

There are more (including others I've quoted and cited here over the years), but I'm sick of typing and deciding which papers to include (most of the papers don't reflect my view and get into theoretical models from string theory to "big crunches"). Also, very few of the sources I have are intended for popular readers, although I've tried to include any popular science books I have that aren't garbage I bought to review or that are fairly simple. Alas, none of the articles/papers fall into this category.
 
LegionOnomaMoi

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You might try some titles from Springer's Astronomer's Universe series (e.g., The Music of the Big Bang, The Cosmic Microwave Background, The Universe Before the Big Bang, Origins, etc.). They're fairly elementary but are subject to the kind of editorial review academic journals and series are.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
LegionOnomaMoi said:
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).
Click to expand...
Anything along this line is going to be controversial, no doubt, but most cosmologists that I have read do tend to think that there was something (singularity) prior to be BB with mathematical estimates of it being present-day atom-sized or pearl sized. One of them (I can't remember which) hypothesizes that singularity may have been a by-product of a black hole that spit our minute "universe" out.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
LegionOnomaMoi said:
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).
Click to expand...
I'm going to have to question this because the expansion is relatively uniform with one "slight" bulge. Outside sources being injected would make the expansion much more haphazard.

Even though it's obviously very difficult for us to picture all being in a small "microscopic space", we have to remember that our projection of such tends to be relative to what we see now.
 
M

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
q konn said:
Show me any evidence of something from nothing, otherwise, the argument is essentially over.
Click to expand...

The 1 comes from 0. The 0 and the 1 have a boolean interchangeable mathematical relation.

Creatio ex nihilo, and, ex nihilo, nihil fit.

creation from nothing, and from nothing comes nothing.

The totality of the universe is nothing.

An action has an equal and opposite reaction, signifying a totality of nothing. So you have action and reaction, something, while it is still nothing.
 
First Baseman

First Baseman

Retired athlete
Mohammad Nur Syamsu said:
The 1 comes from 0. The 0 and the 1 have a boolean interchangeable mathematical relation.

Creatio ex nihilo, and, ex nihilo, nihil fit.

creation from nothing, and from nothing comes nothing.

The totality of the universe is nothing.

An action has an equal and opposite reaction, signifying a totality of nothing. So you have action and reaction, something, while it is still nothing.
Click to expand...

But you have to have a something in order to have an action or reaction. Else you have a reaction to nothing, which is really just nothing at all.
 
Emi

Emi

Proud to be a Pustra!
LegionOnomaMoi said:
Amoroso, R. L., & Rauscher, E. A. (2009). The Holographic Anthropic Multiverse: Formalizing the Geometry of Ultimate Reality. World Scientific.
Basdevant, J. L., & Rich, J., Spiro, M. (2005). Fundamentals in nuclear physics: From nuclear structure to cosmology. Springer.
Bojowald, M. (2007). What happened before the Big Bang?. Nature Physics, 3(8), 523-525.
Chow, T. L. (2007). Gravity, black holes, and the very early universe: an introduction to general relativity and cosmology. Springer.
Dmitry S.. Gorbunov, & Rubakov, V. (2011). Introduction to the Theory of the Early Universe: Hot Big Bang Theory. World Scientific.
Earman, J. (1995). Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers, and Shrieks-Singularities and Acausalities in Relativistic Spacetimes. Oxford University Press.
Foffa, S. (2003). Bouncing pre-big bang on the brane. Physical Review D, 68(4), 043511.
Gasperini, M. (2008). The Universe Before the Big Bang: Cosmology and String Theory. Springer.
Kawasaki, M., Kohri, K., Moroi, T., & Yotsuyanagi, A. (2008). Big-bang nucleosynthesis and gravitinos. Physical Review D, 78(6), 065011.
Lemoine, M., Martin, & J. Peter, P. (2010). Inflationary Cosmology (Lecture Notes in Physics Vol. 738). Springer.
Lidsey, J. E. (2002). The Bigger Bang. Cambridge University Press.
Mathews, G. J., Kajino, T., Yamazaki, D., Kusakabe, M., & Cheoun, M. K. (2014, May). Origin of matter and space-time in the big bang. In ORIGIN OF MATTER AND EVOLUTION OF GALAXIES 2013: Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Origin of Matter and Evolution of Galaxies (OMEG12) (Vol. 1594, pp. 5-11). AIP Publishing.
[see other contributions to that volume]
Schade, H., & Kämpfer, B. (2009). Antiproton evolution in little bangs and in the Big Bang. Physical Review C, 79(4), 044909.
Sidharth, B. G. (2005). The Universe of Fluctuations: The Architecture of Spacetime and the Universe (Fundamental Theories of Physics). Springer.
Wald, R. M. (1992). Space, Time, and Gravity: The Theory of the Big Bang and Black Holes. University of Chicago Press.

There are more (including others I've quoted and cited here over the years), but I'm sick of typing and deciding which papers to include (most of the papers don't reflect my view and get into theoretical models from string theory to "big crunches"). Also, very few of the sources I have are intended for popular readers, although I've tried to include any popular science books I have that aren't garbage I bought to review or that are fairly simple. Alas, none of the articles/papers fall into this category.
Click to expand...

This is actually very helpful. Thank you for going out of your way to share these with me, I appreciate it greatly :)
 
LegionOnomaMoi

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
metis said:
I'm going to have to question this because the expansion is relatively uniform with one "slight" bulge. Outside sources being injected would make the expansion much more haphazard.
Click to expand...
I didn't say anything about something being injected. But the law of conservation of mass and energy didn't hold right after the big bang.
 
LegionOnomaMoi

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
First Baseman said:
So he should have known better.
Click to expand...
"Whatever exists is singular, totally so, and any composition would result in a singular being composed of many singulars. Neither could there be any relations between such singulars seen as really distinct from the singular objects involved. Such relations would themselves be singulars, and there could be no end to such a process. It was another way for Ockham to dispense with any necessity in a created order and to insure that creation was totally dependent on both the absolute and ordinary power of God." (emphasis added)
Klocker, H. (1996). William of Ockham and the Divine Freedom (2nd Ed.). Marquette University Press.

What should he have known better about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top