Cosmologists assume that natural quantum fluctuations allowed the Big Bang to happen spontaneously. Now they have a mathematical proof.
One of the great theories of modern cosmology is that the universe began in a Big Bang. This is not just an idea but a scientific theory backed up by numerous lines of evidence.
For a start, there is the cosmic microwave background, which is a kind of echo of the big bang; then there is the ongoing expansion of the cosmos, which when imagined backwards, hints at a Big Bang-type origin; and the abundance of the primordial elements, such as helium-4, helium-3, deuterium and so on, can all be calculated using the theory.
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 title is misleading. As always, this gets down to the definition of 'nothing'. 'The Big Bang could have occurred spontaneously because of quantum fluctuations' just move the question one step back, as one could ask - where did quantum fluctuations come from?
In my experience (I did a lot of reading, as a philosopher of religion) usually one side argues that 'nothing' is 'really' nothing and therefore nothing could come out of it, while the other argues that 'nothing' is a 'something with intrinsic properties, such as quantum fluctuations'.
If you are interested in the debate between this two positions, you could watch this debate between William Lane Craig (who argues for the first position) and Sean Carroll (who holds the latter):
On October 27 2014 18:11 SixStrings wrote: Jesus fuck, we're two posts in and you already start dragging religion into this?
Man, get lost...
Why so hostile? I'm not draggin religion in it, I am simply stating the point of views involved in the contemporary debate about the beginning of the universe.
@SoSexy: It's not nothing, it's metastable false vacuum. ;P There's already some work about that iirc. You make it sound like going a step back is pointless, don't spam with shit, we're not dealing with philosophy/religion here, we're dealing with physics/mathematics - step by step.
From what I can see after a quick skimming, it's a fairly simple proof. They don't explain a few things in detail. Dunno, I'm probably not qualified to comment on it, but it's kinda neat and simple. Not sure if some flaws will come out after reviews and public scrutiny.
edit: if there's religion in it, it's not a debate. it's a waste of time. haven't watched the video, but since one guy is a christian something/philosopher, I highly doubt it will be enlightening.
Finally we have a nice thing going on about the creation of universe itself (!!! ffs), and you come in and spoil it with bullshit, that's not actually related to the OP in any real way.
Like it or not, topics like the beginning of the universe emply a vast range of philosopical concepts (being, nothing, existence, coming into being) which are being discussed since Thales and are not bullshit.
Therefore, I will give my opinion anyways and I won't be silenced by your bad manners. If you want to discuss with me, bring it to PMs, here we discuss the thread.
It is bullshit compared to this actual article. Thales and others have just talked and not provided any tangible apparatus for the creation of universe.
While philosophy is nice and all, it's not really "concrete".
As for you calling us impolite, I consider your "polite" posts actually impolite towards this subject, science that went into this and the OP. Do you know how much effort and "real" thinking went into all this before coming to this step? Do you know how many benefits humanity gained from it? Your post belittles that.
I have no intention of "discussing" it with you lol. Waste of time, especially since you have shown no real knowledge on the subject, and wish to discuss something that's not really related to the OP.
Fluctuations is a concept of nothingness that describes the nothingness is actually unstable on its own. It flactuates so it brings energy into existence or disappears same energy in the same amount. This happens a lot in the vacum. The definition of nothingness and philosophical explanations does not really matter that much here. Science moves step by step unlike religious concepts.
Besides you can make the same argument about any form of godlike being. The "what is before it?" paradox will always be there unless we get to a circle like explanation of everything. Discussing this kind of stuff without enough information is useless and impatient, it will lead you to wishful thinking and decieving yourself.
Well, but he's right, you need to have proper definitions of what you're talking about before calculations make any sense, that's not even "philosophical" it's just that you can't apply logic if you don't know what you are talking about. The thing is, you can't talk about before the big bang, because time exists only if matter exists, so it's a valid question to ask what should have fluctuated. Why do reasonable people get offended by someone mentioning philosophy so easily offended and can't just keep an open mind?
On October 27 2014 18:49 Chairman Ray wrote: I'm kinda curious about this topic, so can we all do our part in not letting this thread get closed?
They're basically using relatively simple cosmological and quantum mechanics stuff, then connected it, to show it can be used to show that the universe can be created out of false vacuum fluctuations. Obviously, a lot of work went into getting to the stuff I call "simple", and it seems simple when you use it, but getting to some of it in the first place can be anything but simple.
As it's relatively simple (at least it seems so to me, maybe I'm wrong), we shouldn't wait too long until someone of note (or more of them) reflect on it to support it (or not).
@post above: we're not discussing philosophy here. we're discussing science. we're not discussing how/why the false/true/whatever vacuum exists. we're discussing what comes out of it. once this step is over with, we go on to the next step, even though there's already people doing that and some explanations exist (which somewhat solves your issue with definitions).
I, for one, am really interested in the end of their conclusion where they say they'll look at rates of particle creation while that first expansion is going on, and if it can generate the amount of particles that are present today. That should be fairly enlightening, and could probably give us a rough estimation on various "constants" that we can connect to each other.
You guys sure arent polite. There is actually a lot of philosophy involved in quantum physics on various levels. Just not the kind of philosophy commonly associted with the word. I am talking about question from the areas of philosophy of math, science, methodology etc. There is no science-philosophy oposition. Philosophy is science (well the part of it that matters at least).
On October 27 2014 18:51 TzTz wrote: Well, but he's right, you need to have proper definitions of what you're talking about before calculations make any sense, that's not even "philosophical" it's just that you can't apply logic if you don't know what you are talking about. The thing is, you can't talk about before the big bang, because time exists only if matter exists, so it's a valid question to ask what should have fluctuated. Why do reasonable people get offended by someone mentioning philosophy so easily offended and can't just keep an open mind?
Because we can only describe nothingness as we know it. And everybody knows it that we describe it as we know it. Bu we also know that fluctuations exist and happening. So telling "there is no nothingness" just for the sake of it and not providing any math or some sort of system behind it is useless. I mean this is a science thing, if you want to put some idea there you need to do it in sicence's way.
On October 27 2014 19:06 Cynry wrote: Could someone point to a document explaining or explain himself what is a false/true/whatever vacuum ?
From what I know, false and true vacuums are states of lowest possible energy. Basically the closest thing we can get to 'nothingness' but not nothingness because absolute nothingness cannot exist in physics.
EPT
