ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Guest Blog

Guest Blog


Commentary invited by editors of Scientific American
Guest Blog HomeAboutContact

Is All the Universe from Nothing?

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



In March, a team of researchers based in Antarctica announced they’d detected gravitational waves, faint echoes from the first moments of the Big Bang. This discovery has enormous implications for cosmology, the world of physics and even our understanding of the future of our universe. My recent blog post about the BICEP2 project explored some of these, as does my upcoming article about cosmic inflation in the July-August issue of The Futurist.

The expansion of the universe. (Source: NASA)

These writings gave me a lot to think about regarding the origins of our universe. Invariably, when explaining the early evolution of the cosmos, one particular question always comes up: where did the singularity that started the Big Bang come from? For some time, many physicists and cosmologists have said it could be possible for our universe to have actually started from nothing – as wild and counterintuitive as that sounds. But without proof this seems like a statement of faith, impossible to prove or disprove and therefore outside the purview of true scientific discussion. Ever since Popper, we’ve said that falsifiability is the demarcation between what is scientific and what is not. It felt like this might be the point where the scientific method would have to give way to the origin stories of myth.

Or perhaps not.

Last month saw the publication of a paper that may be as important to our understanding of the Big Bang as was the detection of gravitational waves. A team from the Wuhan Institute of Physics and Mathematics in China has made the first rigorous mathematical proof that the Big Bang could have spontaneously generated from nothing. The Wuhan team, led by Qing-yu Cai, developed new solutions to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, which sought to combine quantum mechanics and general relativity in the mid-20th century.

A map of cosmic microwave background radiation. (Source: NASA)

According to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, quantum fluctuations in the metastable false vacuum – a state absent of space, time or matter – can give rise to virtual particle pairs. Ordinarily these pairs self-annihilate almost instantly, but if these virtual particles separate immediately, they can avoid annihilation, creating a true vacuum bubble. The Wuhan team’s equations show that such a bubble has the potential to expand exponentially, causing a new universe to appear. All of this begins from quantum behavior and leads to the creation of a tremendous amount of matter and energy during the inflation stage. (Note that as stated in this paper, the metastable false vacuum has “neither matter nor space or time,” but is a form of wavefunction referred to as “quantum potential.” While most of us wouldn’t be inclined to call this “nothing,” physicists do refer to it as such.)

This description of exponential growth of a true vacuum bubble corresponds directly to the period of cosmic inflation resulting from the Big Bang. According to this proof, the bubble even stops expanding – or else it may continue to expand at a constant velocity – once it reaches a certain size. Nevertheless, this is a very different version of inflation than those proposed by Guth, Linde and others, in that it doesn’t rely on scalar fields, only quantum effects. Still, this work dovetails well with that of the BICEP2 team, both discoveries having significant implications for our understanding of the universe and our future should they stand up to further inquiry.

A map of cosmic microwave background radiation. (Source: European Space Agency)

Given the quantum behavior of virtual particles in a vacuum as put forth in this paper, it’s reasonable to assume this hasn’t happened only this once, but rather many or potentially even an infinite number of times. The idea of a multitude of multiverses being generated by processes similar to those that gave rise to our own universe is not new. But this is the first time we’ve actually identified the mechanisms that may have been involved. In discussing this with one of the authors, Qing-yu Cai said he thinks their work “supports the multiverse concept.” Whether this process would result in the exact same physical laws that we see in our own universe remains to be determined, since according to these equations only limited conditions could result in an exponentially expanding true vacuum bubble.

Another idea that’s been discussed in the past is whether or not we could ever create new universes ourselves, perhaps using something like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). However, as Qing-yu Cai observed, “space-time of our universe is a whole, it cannot be divided into small parts arbitrarily, even at LHC.” Therefore, “it seems impossible to create new universes ourselves.”

Ultimately, this mathematical proof needs to be checked out by others and ideally put to some yet-to-be-determined tests. In the end, the work may or may not be accepted. That is, after all, how the scientific method operates. But if this proof should stand up to scrutiny, it will most certainly give us considerable new insights into the mechanisms that gave birth to our cosmos. The news of this past month demonstrates that the field of cosmology remains vibrant, with new ideas and discoveries regularly being made. Our universe and the physics at its foundation are incredibly complex and will continue to yield new knowledge about our past, present and future for a long time to come. Perhaps until the end of time.

Sources and Further Reading:

Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing. Dongshan He, Dongfeng Gao, Qing-yu Cai. Apr 4, 2014.

A Window on the Universe’s Distant Past and Future. Yonck, Richard. Mar 17, 2014.

The Origin of the Universe (text). Hawking, Stephen. Berkley lecture, Mar 13, 2007.

Inflation in Cosmology. Wikipedia.

Richard Yonck About the Author: Richard Yonck is a foresight analyst, author and speaker at Intelligent Future Consulting. He’s guided businesses through the ever-shifting technology landscape for over two decades and writes extensively about the future and emerging technologies for numerous publications. Yonck lives in Seattle, where he is currently working on his latest book, “The Future is Your Business,” a guide to anticipating and developing strategies for many of the future challenges businesses will face in the coming years and decades.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.






Comments 39 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. SJCrum 6:32 pm 05/22/2014

    In REAL PHYSICS, it is a fact that all things that exist HAVE TO follow all of the factual laws of physics. It is also a TOTAL FACT that the Big Bang totally violates the entire basic laws of factually true physics.
    Proof of this is that in a COMPLETELY EMPTY void of space that had to have existed in the beginning, it is TOTALLY REQUIRED for there to be NOTHING there. COMPLETELY EMPTY, PERIOD!
    With that totally correct fact, there is absolutely nothing at all there to, first, cause a bang, and secondly, anything to go bang. REAL physics says it is totally impossible for that type of bang theory to be truth.
    Another fact of physics is that all atoms, and therefore all matter, is ENTIRELY made by making all of the atoms for the universe stars and everything else, OUT OF, … nothing else but PURE ENERGY.
    At the smallest components of atoms is two types of sub-microscopic ENERGY BALLS, that don’t have a single bit of any SOLIDITY in them at all, and instead are nothing but totally invisible and also totally un-solid energy.
    By the way, proof of this is that during a nuclear explosion the crater holes after the detonations didn’t have any blast debris at all. And, in this mystery that they had then, the reason was because all of the dirt in the hole got changed back from its stored energy state of solid matter into just the energy type.
    The only reason people can see matter is because the atoms have their electrons radiate light that causes the energy to be seen. Think of a coffee table that has the electrons not radiating the light one minute and the next, they are turned off. What you would see is that the table is right there one second and fully, totally there, and the next second, its totally gone. But, if you reached out to touch it, BINGO, it’s as solid as ever. But, you still can’t see the sucker.
    As far as how we feel the totally not there atoms, solidified anyway, is that the atoms are made with repelling forces that causes them to be felt and known as being solid.
    By the way, the microscopic energy balls that have positive and negative magnetic charges in them, are used to make all protons and electrons, and those used to make atoms obviously. But, at the smallest level the balls are completely invisible and nothing but energy.
    So, as far as the Big Bang, unfortunately, that is totally absurd, and the real science of energy balls is easily fact and totally proven.
    As far as the real science of how matter is made, that is the equation of E=1/2MV2. That equation not only describes the making process mathematically, but the matter made has that equation as the kinetic energy equation of how all matter interacts with everything else. In addition to that, the equation also can be used to determine how much energy can be gotten by changing any “solid” matter back into just energy.
    So, again, the Big Bang is totally clueless as far as real physics fact, and reality.

    Link to this
  2. 2. SJCrum 6:35 pm 05/22/2014

    By the way, for one last comment, yes, all of the universe is FACTUALLY just from NOTHING. And, real physics requires it.

    Link to this
  3. 3. SJCrum 6:50 pm 05/22/2014

    By the way, a good science thing that should be enormously thrilling in Physics 101, university level, is the following.
    In the equation E=1/2MV2, why does the very interesting “1/2″ exist in it? Cool, huh, and it certainly is NOT in that equation just by accident. Instead, it’s got a terrifically huge physics reason to be there. And, the real matter-making process uses it entirely.
    For another item, why does the “squared” part exist in the equation also? The answer is for the same exact reason.
    As for the science, the way atoms are made is that two, extremely huge energy bubbles are made in the cores of galaxies, (the Bubble Nebula, on the web shows one perfectly) and the process in a nut shell has those two streaking through space to then collide head-on into each other. The science is that the velocity building up is kinetic, moving, energy, and when they hit head-on, that energy is changed into sub-microscopic, stored, energy balls.
    The second point about the “squared” part is that the two bubbles are magnetically attracted toward each other, and while that occurs, the velocity is constantly squaring. So, that is the answer to that.
    As for the “1/2″ part, when the head-on collision occurs, it causes two outward blasting explosion cones, and this then causes the total energy to be divided in half, and therefore “1/2″.
    For information also, all of this process is able to be seen on Hubble Space Telescope images.

    Link to this
  4. 4. Lacota 9:49 pm 05/22/2014

    If the metastable false vacuum has no space then how can virtual particles separate? What were those particles?

    Link to this
  5. 5. jtdwyer 6:30 am 05/23/2014

    “According to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, quantum fluctuations in the metastable false vacuum – a state absent of space, time or matter – can give rise to virtual particle pairs. Ordinarily these pairs self-annihilate almost instantly, but if these virtual particles separate immediately, they can avoid annihilation, creating a true vacuum bubble. The Wuhan team’s equations show that such a bubble has the potential to expand exponentially, causing a new universe to appear. All of this begins from quantum behavior and leads to the creation of a tremendous amount of matter and energy during the inflation stage. (Note that as stated in this paper, the metastable false vacuum has “neither matter nor space or time,” but is a form of wavefunction referred to as “quantum potential.” While most of us wouldn’t be inclined to call this “nothing,” physicists do refer to it as such.)”

    The meaning of the question “Is All the Universe From Nothing?” – and all other variants – hinges on the meaning on ‘nothing’.

    Where did the vacuum energy (the “metastable false vacuum”) come from? I think this must be considered ‘something’ – thereby making the proper question: “Is All the Universe From the Metastable False Vacuum?”

    Link to this
  6. 6. DarrenAIW 7:04 am 05/23/2014

    Physics, whether real or otherwise, is the brain’s interpretation of what the human being experiences, and attempts to extrapolate into what it then calls “fact”

    Link to this
  7. 7. SJCrum 6:09 pm 05/23/2014

    To jtdwyer – the science of physics is the study of how matter, which is a “something” interacts with other “somethings”. “Nothing” on the other hand is a TOTAL lack of any somethings.
    The precise point of the article title was how can “ANYTHING” happen in a COMPLETE EMPTINESS when there factually isn’t “ANYTHING AT ALL” existing?
    Note that one law of physics states that a body at rest stays at rest UNLESS something causes that body to move. This is the exact opposite of the stated law, but it exists as solid fact as fact can get.

    In the end, when a vast void of EMPTY space is completely empty, if there is NOTHING existing to move, and also NOTHING there to move that, THEN nothing moves AT ALL. In fact, the laws of physics demands that it is impossible for something at all to happen, UNLESS something EXISTS that causes it.
    As for the theorized quantum items, where did they come from? The answer is they didn’t because it is impossible for them to just POOF into existence, and without anything causing the poofing.
    Think of the factual situation of, if you are sitting on your front porch waiting for a new Corvette to just instantly be there, what is the science that says that is totally impossible under real physics? IT CANNOT, PERIOD.
    So, the real science is SOMTHING that describes the universe being created by having it start from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the very beginning.
    And, the quantum theory totally fails that start completely. So, NOTHING means NOTHING THERE AT ALL.

    Link to this
  8. 8. SJCrum 6:21 pm 05/23/2014

    To DarrenAIW – With all due respect, the science of physics is the study of all PHYSICAL properties and interactions of matter. It’s all physical, and involves the reality of how everything that exists actually works by real science methods.
    On the bad side, physics is not proven by any theories, or even by mathematic equations or calculations UNLESS any of those totally prove a physical physic’s item to be factually real and true.
    The point of this is that no one can just say a physics item is true by just thinking a math calculation says it should be true, therefore, it is. In real science, it has to go way beyond just a math assumed truth. Math can prove things, but present-day mathematical theories aren’t real physics fact at all.
    And, what is thought of in brains alone as far as being true by just that alone is only baseless theory. On the other hand, real physics can be proven by factual science evidence, and is.
    So, unfortunately, you are beating a dead horse.

    Link to this
  9. 9. Bill_Crofut 10:00 am 05/24/2014

    Re: “For some time, many physicists and cosmologists have said it could be possible for our universe to have actually started from nothing – as wild and counterintuitive as that sounds. But without proof this seems like a statement of faith…A team from the Wuhan Institute of Physics and Mathematics in China has made the first rigorous mathematical proof that the Big Bang could have spontaneously generated from nothing.”

    Is a mathematical construct supposed to be a substitute for evidence?

    As a Traditional Roman Catholic, there is no question in my mind that the universe was indeed created from nothing:

    “In the beginning God created heaven, and earth…. Let all the earth fear the Lord, and let all the inhabitants of the world be in awe of him. For he spoke and they were made: he commanded and they were created.”

    [THE BOOK OF GENESIS, 1:1, THE BOOK OF PSALMS, 32:8-9. Catholic Bible. (c) 2000 CD. Douay Rheims Translation. Murray, KY: A production of Catholic Software]

    Link to this
  10. 10. lavaroy 9:04 pm 05/25/2014

    True, JT. The MFV would be Something, not Nothing. There has to be Time, at least, to “give rise” to anything. Not to mention a gigantic Potential Energy. So if it has Time and Energy it’s already the Universe.

    Link to this
  11. 11. ikjyotsinghkohli 11:38 am 05/26/2014

    Actually, there really is no such thing as “nothing” in the context of physics or cosmology. In the context of physics, “nothing” is a vacuum, which is not nothing, in the context of creating universes from nothing, that nothing is what is known as superspace, which is not nothing either. I wrote about these things in my rebuttal of Krauss’ book: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.6091

    Link to this
  12. 12. SAULT18 12:47 pm 05/27/2014

    Wow, this article attracted the Creationists like moths to a flame…

    Sorry Bill, but the words of a 3,000-year-old book are meaningless in a scientific discussion. Seriously, it doesn’t contain one SINGLE insight about the wider world / universe / etc. that was beyond the mindset of the Bronze Age shepherds that wrote it. I mean, if it would have said “boil water before drinking it” or “wash your hands before doing surgery or helping deliver a child” I would be right there with you preaching to the choir. But it doesn’t, and if there was some kind of diety in the sky trying to communicate to us, it definitely doesn’t care about hundreds of millions of unnecessary deaths due to waterbourne diseases and infections. So the only possibilities are that this angry sky god doesn’t exist or is so oblivious to human suffering that there is no way it cares about you personally and all that other jazz that religions say to make you feel special for joining them.

    Old, dusty religious tomes are not very helpful when trying to understand our modern world. In fact, if given the chance, fundamentalists would use religion and people’s faith as a club to beat back scientific progress, critical thought and free expression. It’s happened before and is showing a troubling resurgance in some areas of the globe.

    Link to this
  13. 13. SAULT18 12:50 pm 05/27/2014

    SJCrumb,

    Your ignorance of scientific principles and Physics in general has led you far off the deep end. Please try to look up Cosmology on Wikipedia or watch some physics videos on Kahn Academy or something before posting anymore trollish comments.

    Link to this
  14. 14. Bill_Crofut 10:39 am 05/28/2014

    SAULT18,

    Re: “…the words of a 3,000-year-old book are meaningless in a scientific discussion.”

    THE PROPHECY OF ISAIAS (c. 785 B.C.)

    40:22. It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth,
    and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that
    stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them
    out as a tent to dwell in.

    [Catholic Bible. (c) 2000. Douay Rheims translation. Murray, KY: A production of Catholic Software]

    How did the prophet Isaias know the Earth was a globe? It would seem to me safe to eliminate the notion that he had reviewed the data from one of the NASA Earth observation satellites. What would be your guess?

    Link to this
  15. 15. kebil 6:27 pm 05/28/2014

    S Crum says “Proof of this is that in a COMPLETELY EMPTY void of space that had to have existed in the beginning, it is TOTALLY REQUIRED for there to be NOTHING there. COMPLETELY EMPTY, PERIOD!
    With that totally correct fact, there is absolutely nothing at all there to, first, cause a bang”

    Here, you have shown very nicely that not only did you not comprehend the article, you have grave misconceptions about the entire big bang.

    First, there was not an empty space, a void, for anything to happen in. There was nothing, not space, no matter, no time, no energy. To understand how something can come from nothing all you need to remember is that -1 plus 1 equal zero. That is an extremely simplified version.

    Second, the term “big bang” is not meant to be a descriptive term for how this universe began. It was coined to mock the idea of this model of the universe springing from nothing (not from a vacuum, from nothing, the vacuum is something – it is space and time). There was no “banging”, nothing banged together, and nobody who has every understood what the theory says would ever describe it as things banging together.

    Also, I appreciate you use of all caps, it is a shorthand way of showing that it is your emotions, and not intellect, that are propelling your comments. Thank you.

    Link to this
  16. 16. kebil 6:30 pm 05/28/2014

    Also, Crum, if the blast hole from a nuclear explosion was the result of the mass being turned into energy, there would have been little Earth left after the first test. In a nuclear explosion, only grams of matter are converted into energy. The amount of energy that would result from a complete conversion of a craters worth of mass into energy would be more than devastating, it would be world ending.

    Link to this
  17. 17. kebil 6:43 pm 05/28/2014

    Bill Crofut – I believe that the more accurate translation is “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth” KJV, or for the NIV “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth”. I have not heard of a version that uses “globe”. Please edify me and let me know which version you are citing.

    Link to this
  18. 18. kebil 6:45 pm 05/28/2014

    Crofut – I mean, other than the singular Douay-Rheims Bible. Why do all the other versions use circle, or are they all wrong?

    Link to this
  19. 19. Bill_Crofut 10:32 am 05/29/2014

    Yours is a good question. The Douay Rheims is the oldest English translation of Scripture; translated from the Latin Vulgate (Latin being the official language of the Church). Why Latin? It’s a dead language; the meanings of words don’t change. The King James Authorized Version followed closely the completion of the Douay Rheims. My copy of the KJAV contains the Books labeled “Apocrapha” (Deuteo-Canonical in the Douay Rheims). The typical KJV translations available today, in my experience, do not contain the “Apocrapha.” That indicates the KJV has been truncated over time. Given that, it seems no mystery to me that the KJV will contain additional errors (i.e., circle instead of globe). Perhaps all the other versions use circle because they’re based on the KJV (that includes many, if not all, of the modernist “Catholic” translations).

    Link to this
  20. 20. rshoff2 12:34 pm 05/29/2014

    I still believe that nothing comes from nothing. We must continue to search upstream. We may not understand what is that ‘something’ from where the universe came but it came from something none the less.

    Link to this
  21. 21. rshoff2 12:37 pm 05/29/2014

    For example, glancing at the picture in the article, Quantum Fluctuations occurred before the instantaneous expansion. If this is true, then something pulled the trigger to set off Quantum Fluctuations. What could that have been? Beats me. I still imagine that we are in the midst of the explosion. It hasn’t finished yet.

    Link to this
  22. 22. rshoff2 12:44 pm 05/29/2014

    This kind of statement frustrates me. ” …impossible to prove or disprove and therefore outside the purview of true scientific discussion. ”

    Why? Because it is not a balanced scale between one or the other. One does not exist at all!

    For example, I could say it’s impossible to prove or disprove that popcorn transcends into another dimension and appears as frogs. Does that merit comparison to the idea that that is not possible?

    Link to this
  23. 23. SAULT18 1:29 pm 05/29/2014

    rshoff2,

    You seem to not understand how science works. Hypotheses have to be testable, otherwise they are just ideas which can be as distant from the truth as we can manage with our sometimes wild imaginations. Science is only interested in determining truth given what is known or knowable through experiment and calculation. Your analogy concerning popcornmight be possible if we discover n-dimensional frogs or what have you, but since there is no evidence for it right now, and we have no testable hypotheses that can explain how this would work, it is indeed a waste of time to try and prove such fanciful ideas.

    Link to this
  24. 24. rshoff2 1:56 pm 05/29/2014

    Sault, with all due respect, science is a human invention. It works the way we agree it works. :-) I understand much.

    Link to this
  25. 25. rshoff2 1:58 pm 05/29/2014

    It’s not only a waste of your time to work on my popcorn frog theory, but it would lead you down the wrong path to a dead end. Because the idea is based on fallacy. It is not based directly or indirectly on any premise that has been proven.

    Again, I don’t like ice-cream. Do you really think that means I dislike it? Think again.

    Link to this
  26. 26. rufusgwarren 6:00 pm 05/29/2014

    You lost me at “bubble”

    Link to this
  27. 27. Builder 2010 9:14 pm 05/29/2014

    Whether is comes from nothing or something, it still begs the question of what was before that? It’s probably one of the reasons why all scientists are not atheists. Agnostics… probably. What it just happenstance that the singularity point of nothingness decided to begin to inflate. What was the trigger?

    They claim that the universe has no end and therefore no center, but the idea of a bubble inflating would describe to me a very specific center and therefore it must be somewhere. It also implies that there’s an edge to the expanding universe sphere. What is that edge like. The light radiating out in all directions from quasars on the leading edge of the expansion, where does it go when it’s moving outward (away from us)?

    Could there be another reason for the background radiation besides the “big bang”? What if it’s just the collective noise of a quadrillion stars in as many galaxies. Maybe is like the murmur you hear when there’s hundred of people talking in a restaurant. If there’s no proof of the bang, then maybe the steady state theorems are correct after all.

    Link to this
  28. 28. magneticnorth50 9:14 pm 05/29/2014

    This discussion is amusing .
    SJCrum said: “In REAL PHYSICS, it is a fact that all things that exist HAVE TO follow all of the factual laws of physics ” and then SJCrum concludes :

    “By the way, for one last comment, yes, all of the universe is FACTUALLY just from NOTHING. And, real physics requires it.”

    Two very big problems – science has absolutely no idea of what ” Real Physics were at 0 + 3 Planck seconds after the Big Bang or , if you will “The Inflation ” ,or what those Physical Laws may have been , and science never will . And since no one has any idea of what those real physics are or were , how can one possibly conclude that ” all of the Universe is FACTUALLY just from NOTHING ?
    All of Science as well as Creationists have simply found clever ways of saying “We just don’t know ” . And chances are we never will , because what we know or even will know of Physics can not look back beyond those Planck seconds after the Big Bang / Inflation . This is where Science must give way to the Philosophical , for not even Occam’s Mighty Razor can shed any glimmer of light on the question because there is no simple or logical ,scientific or philosophical hypotheses to stab at . Something from nothing is illogical and so far impossible . Fluctuations in a DeSitter Vacuum model is a wild guess and the Casimir Experiment /Effect does not in fact show that to be a possibility .At this same point, Creationists and Physicists are in the same boat [ ONLY as far as the question of the Origin of the Universe ] At the end of the day we are all “agnostic ” regarding the Origin of the Universe .

    Link to this
  29. 29. magneticnorth50 9:18 pm 05/29/2014

    btw – did someone here mention ” beating a dead horse ” ?

    Indeed .

    Link to this
  30. 30. rufusgwarren 10:48 pm 05/29/2014

    I’m betting we have not defined the possibilities of “nothing” using what we know. It’s easy to define multiple mathematical ways to equal nothing with something; but, the God moment, that’s sort of tricky. Should we need to accumulate something and reach a threshold, or it has always been nothing and still is nothing and the universe is so large that any singularity may exist. However, the last should have cause and limitation or else be another treatise on magic.

    You know if everything happens at once and took zero amount of time, there’s an infinite power of nothing. Or what we see as subatomic particles are really and entire universe just like our own but forever invisible as a function of scale. And the summation of all matter over an infinite universe will always show a zero density. So how do we look at nothing, as a function of scale, relative to all time, or time is an illusion?

    We can think anything we wish, but until someone shows me a toroid swirling in space with an infinite mass and particles leaving before they enter and that within a loop actually creates matter, then I will accept GR.

    Link to this
  31. 31. Steven 12:11 am 05/30/2014

    So if I understand the article, there was “nothing” or “0″ before the “Big Bang” or the start of the known universe.
    Apparently there was infinite nothing before that or nothing extended forever, everywhere.
    Apparently the consensus is there was just a point that set off or initiated the “Big Bang”.
    I’m not sure how the “Big Bang” started from a point source in the infinite “nothing”.
    Couldn’t the “Big Bang” have started from a big or infinite point or essentially infinite nothing.
    If there’s nothing, then I don’t see how a point source can be differentiated from an infinite source, coming from the infinite nothing. The infinite nothing would be uniform throughout, so if the big bang emerges from the uniform, infinite nothing, it would leave the uniform cosmic background microwave radiation we observe today.
    Although this is a different viewpoint on the origin of the “Big Bang”, the inflationary period seems to violate the speed of light speed limit we observe in our current universe. I still think this is a problem with the inflationary model.

    Link to this
  32. 32. Edgod1 6:19 am 05/30/2014

    If you want a mathematical formula for how you get something out of nothing, try zero divided by zero. Zero divided by anything is zero. Anything divide by zero is infinity. But 0÷0 is usually referred to by mathematicians as undefined, but I say it is any number you want between 0 and infinity.
    It is said that before the universe there was chaos. For conceptual purposes, consider chaos as being like virtual particles. These particles annihilate each other to create a particle of order. These order particles also destroy chaos particles, so that over time you start with all chaos, and at the other end all order.
    Now chaos can also be seen as synonymous with evil. I define good as that which promotes life, and evil as that which does the opposite, it seeks to go in the opposite direction of time’s arrow. One has to refine the definition of good to include biological diversity; it would not be good if we created billions of humans but destroyed every other creature in order to do so. So it is similar to the utilitarian principle, it is a system that produces the maximum benefit for the maximum number of species. Now we can consider order as being more or less the complexity of the system.
    Considered from the time of the Big Bang we had an initial state of all energy, then the condensation of hydrogen atoms, and through star formation the other elements in the periodic table. These in turn formed unicellular creatures, then multicellular creatures, and finally social animals. I think that one day we may be able to describe the complexity, or order level of something, by the power of a number. Being a layman, I had not heard of Claude Shannon until recently, but I believe his concept of bits echoes this to some extent.
    I also think this contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, but that second law seems to match my definition of evil. The second law contradicts our very existence, if it was true we wouldn’t be here. It predicts that ultimately the same temperature will exist throughout the universe, and nothing will be able to live. An analogous thing to the second law is a teenager’s bedroom; it will progressively become untidier and untidier. But you must ask the question: Why? Because it is easier just to leave objects anywhere, but to put them in their place, in order, requires thinking about where its proper place is and putting it there. In other words, it requires intelligence. Now this can be extended to the universe, applied intelligence can be the way to ultimately beat the second law. Thus, in the scheme of things, intelligence is a force of nature.

    Link to this
  33. 33. magneticnorth50 8:18 am 05/30/2014

    Hey , for all that science knows and what theoretical physics is actually capable of calculating according to Laws of Physics that can be known , anyone’s guess is as good as the next man’s . No laboratory , nor Collider , nor detection device or resulting data , will ever be capable of providing an answer to the How or Why of the Origin of the Universe .We can describe what we see ,and on a sub atomic level what we don’t see and make mathematical calculations to describe the same , but all in our existing Universe , but only as we experience it locally from our local position .

    Link to this
  34. 34. milnik 1:12 pm 05/30/2014

    When we imagine how we humans came into being, if we can say that we are created out of nothing? It should be that the universe was created before our appearance. If he came from nothing, then we can not know where it rises, as occurs and why, do not even know who we are and what our role in our existence. But we are all over the universe, and we know exactly how the universe began, although there have never been any time we were born. But when we say, it’s all so, as science confirms, poor universe trembled and not upon us, because we are much stronger than him, and when we are angry enough, we can chase him back to where he came from. These experts seem to hide from us that they were born before the universe and that they were in the role of midwifes at the birth of the Big Bang (meaning great stupidity). Maybe they are, to him, tued navel and that is the point from which the universe is growing. What sensible man, a more developed individual consciousness may agree with such inconsistencies, as it has this theory. It should be several hundred pages of text to see so unrealistic. This is something like the Big Bang, is nothing but a dangerous contamination of our individual consciousness and the consciousness of mankind.

    Link to this
  35. 35. rshoff2 8:16 pm 05/30/2014

    Builder, We don’t know what state existed before, therefore that cannot be a supportive argument for god. It lends itself only to our ignorance.

    Link to this
  36. 36. magneticnorth50 11:40 pm 05/30/2014

    Indeed rshoff2 ,there is no supportive argument for God nor for any theoretical hypotheses that has been or yet to be expounded . Both scientist and mystic will remain ignorant .The Theory of Everything is a scientific pipedream . Although Science has done a magnificent job of describing the present existing Universe , it’s origin and the how and why of it all will remain inscrutable . Nihilo Ex Nihilo is a fact , until proven otherwise .

    Link to this
  37. 37. scanate 10:52 pm 06/9/2014

    What if galaxies are not rotating in space as a spiral of independent components but the space that it occupies is rotating. Components are locked in a disc or bubble of rotating space-time? The core and outer boundary would appear to rotate at a common velocity. No need for dark matter to account for missing gravity. Just a crazy thought.

    Link to this
  38. 38. NICKPM 2:07 pm 06/15/2014

    In order to have a quantum fluctuation, you must have energy. Where did the energy come from?

    Link to this
  39. 39. NICKPM 8:18 am 06/16/2014

    And I must disagree that this is not a supportive argument for God. I would argue like Aquinas: there must have been what he called a “Prime Mover”. To get from absolute “nothingness” to where there is something (anything!) takes a superior intelligence that can only come from outside the system who can set the rules for the system. There is no other logical inference you can make. Something cannot come from absolute nothing; there must have been an intelligent intervention by an intelligence from outside the system.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Holiday Sale

Black Friday/Cyber Monday Blow-Out Sale

Enter code:
HOLIDAY 2014
at checkout

Get 20% off now! >

X

Email this Article

X