7 ms·

"A universe from nothing" by Lawrence Krauss presents the possibility of a universe without a beginning, even one containing "nothing", yet still be compatible

by iwwr 15y ago

"A universe from nothing" by Lawrence Krauss presents the possibility of a universe without a beginning, even one containing "nothing", yet still be compatible with present cosmology. My general impression is that by "nothing" he means "averaged out, zero energy" and with a set of laws (quantum mechanics) that can generate fluctuations. Out of these fluctuations you can have particles of various energy arising (which normally live short lives and decay back into nothingness). But given enough time you could have a large enough fluctuation that generates a big bang, followed by very long inflation and cooling. Equally so, you could have a fluctuation that winks all the known universe into a void, suddenly and without warning.

TeMPOraL 15y ago
I heard once on Oxford SciBar (I think that one - http://www.oxfordscibar.com/september-2011.html http://www.oxfordscibar.com/september-2011.html) a scientist who said that universe could really come from nothing, if all energy in it summed up to 0. EDIT BTW. Oxford SciBar is an awesome event, so if one lives or happens to stay in Oxford for some time, it's worth checking out.
craftsman 15y ago
I've always thought these "universe from nothing" statements are more than a bit deceptive if they mean "averaged out, zero energy". If there is some background with a set of laws that produce fluctuations, it's hard for me to see how that is nothing. But I'm no physicist. :)
- cristianpascu 15y ago
  I'm a Physicist, and it's not 'nothing'. :) Lawrence is engaged in a metaphysics program. He wants to show that atheism is intellectually justified as to the origin of the Universe, as they feel it is with the darwinian theory of origin of species.
  - derleth 15y ago
    > atheism is intellectually justified It is, and will be, until the people who believe in the supernatural provide solid evidence for their specific claims.
    - cheald 15y ago
      It's worth noting that the meaning of the very word "supernatural" precludes the possibility of solid evidence.
      - cristianpascu 15y ago
        I agree. People often mistake the two domains of reality. Just because the physical reality is given and closer to us, we can't rule out other forms of existence. And say that, somehow, a percentage of humans had some sort of experience of the supernatural. Then they pass on that information. Some believe them, some don't. It's a matter of confidence. Some of the ones that just believed in the first place, eventually get to also have those spiritual experiences. One could also make conjectures about the nature of those spiritual experiences: that they were illusions, hallucinations, or real experiences. But it can not be objectively verified. And there will always be a percentage of people what will not believe. Taking the exigence of objective, material verification of experiments in Physics to a field of subjective, psychological/spiritual experiences, seems to me to be a mistake.
        derleth 15y ago
        > Just because the physical reality is given and closer to us, we can't rule out other forms of existence. We can to the same extent I can rule out the existence of one million dollars in my bank account right now. > And say that, somehow, a percentage of humans had some sort of experience of the supernatural. If this is distinguishable from schizophrenia, they should be studied in earnest and learned from. > But it can not be objectively verified. Yes, it can. > Taking the exigence of objective, material verification of experiments in Physics to a field of subjective, psychological/spiritual experiences, seems to me to be a mistake. No. All reality is founded on the same laws. If there was something special about consciousness, it would have repercussions on every other facet of existence, and it would need to be studied on those terms.
sek 15y ago
The question would be then what the beginning of quantum mechanics is. They are also laws and why do they exist? The question "why" is probably wrong here, that implies a reason where we will never find one. These thoughts that we are a product of nothingness with fluctuations make me really feel weird. There is probably an eternity outside of our universe, something that we have to accept and that there is no reason for it.
- cristianpascu 15y ago
  The question "why" does not necessarily point to a purpose, although we can not 'a apriori' exclude that possible purpose from being there. You could see it as two folds answer: either the laws and this "nothing" simply exists, or something else created them. There's really no need to keep asking "what, then, created the creator", for simply things are the way they are and not necessarily as in the explanation we find satisfactory. It could be that the Universe has no creator (I personally find it highly improbable), it could be that it has one creator, or N. I can't be absolutely certain and we can't really check. All we can do is have an opinion/belief about it.
  - mangodrunk 15y ago
    >There's really no need to keep asking "what, then, created the creator", for simply things are the way they are and not necessarily as in the explanation we find satisfactory. The same thing could be said for anything and why wouldn't you just stop at the universe instead? >It could be that the Universe has no creator (I personally find it highly improbable) How is this improbable? Do you have evidence or something that would lead you to such a claim? Also, what do you mean by "creator"? >I can't be absolutely certain and we can't really check. All we can do is have an opinion/belief about it. How do you know this? Isn't that a claim of certainty that you said we don't have. If we don't have evidence or any logical reasons for something, then guesses aren't sufficient explanations.
    - cristianpascu 15y ago
      As I said, I have an opinion/belief. If I had evidence, it would be more than an opinion. But it's not. As for the certainty, no one so far has created a test, not even theoretically, to discern between a created and an uncreated thing. At least I'm not aware of any. Still, epistemologically, beliefs can be shown to be true, although they are not justified. Sometimes it's pure luck, some other times it's insufficient justifications. When I say it's improbable, it's a statement of belief. Not my intention to be persuasive.

by iwwr 15y ago

TeMPOraL 15y ago

I heard once on Oxford SciBar (I think that one - http://www.oxfordscibar.com/september-2011.html http://www.oxfordscibar.com/september-2011.html) a scientist who said that universe could really come from nothing, if all energy in it summed up to 0. EDIT BTW. Oxford SciBar is an awesome event, so if one lives or happens to stay in Oxford for some time, it's worth checking out.

craftsman 15y ago

I've always thought these "universe from nothing" statements are more than a bit deceptive if they mean "averaged out, zero energy". If there is some background with a set of laws that produce fluctuations, it's hard for me to see how that is nothing. But I'm no physicist. :)

cristianpascu 15y ago
I'm a Physicist, and it's not 'nothing'. :) Lawrence is engaged in a metaphysics program. He wants to show that atheism is intellectually justified as to the origin of the Universe, as they feel it is with the darwinian theory of origin of species.
- derleth 15y ago
  > atheism is intellectually justified It is, and will be, until the people who believe in the supernatural provide solid evidence for their specific claims.
  - cheald 15y ago
    It's worth noting that the meaning of the very word "supernatural" precludes the possibility of solid evidence.
    - cristianpascu 15y ago
      I agree. People often mistake the two domains of reality. Just because the physical reality is given and closer to us, we can't rule out other forms of existence. And say that, somehow, a percentage of humans had some sort of experience of the supernatural. Then they pass on that information. Some believe them, some don't. It's a matter of confidence. Some of the ones that just believed in the first place, eventually get to also have those spiritual experiences. One could also make conjectures about the nature of those spiritual experiences: that they were illusions, hallucinations, or real experiences. But it can not be objectively verified. And there will always be a percentage of people what will not believe. Taking the exigence of objective, material verification of experiments in Physics to a field of subjective, psychological/spiritual experiences, seems to me to be a mistake.
      - derleth 15y ago
        > Just because the physical reality is given and closer to us, we can't rule out other forms of existence. We can to the same extent I can rule out the existence of one million dollars in my bank account right now. > And say that, somehow, a percentage of humans had some sort of experience of the supernatural. If this is distinguishable from schizophrenia, they should be studied in earnest and learned from. > But it can not be objectively verified. Yes, it can. > Taking the exigence of objective, material verification of experiments in Physics to a field of subjective, psychological/spiritual experiences, seems to me to be a mistake. No. All reality is founded on the same laws. If there was something special about consciousness, it would have repercussions on every other facet of existence, and it would need to be studied on those terms.

sek 15y ago

The question would be then what the beginning of quantum mechanics is. They are also laws and why do they exist? The question "why" is probably wrong here, that implies a reason where we will never find one. These thoughts that we are a product of nothingness with fluctuations make me really feel weird. There is probably an eternity outside of our universe, something that we have to accept and that there is no reason for it.

cristianpascu 15y ago
The question "why" does not necessarily point to a purpose, although we can not 'a apriori' exclude that possible purpose from being there. You could see it as two folds answer: either the laws and this "nothing" simply exists, or something else created them. There's really no need to keep asking "what, then, created the creator", for simply things are the way they are and not necessarily as in the explanation we find satisfactory. It could be that the Universe has no creator (I personally find it highly improbable), it could be that it has one creator, or N. I can't be absolutely certain and we can't really check. All we can do is have an opinion/belief about it.
- mangodrunk 15y ago
  >There's really no need to keep asking "what, then, created the creator", for simply things are the way they are and not necessarily as in the explanation we find satisfactory. The same thing could be said for anything and why wouldn't you just stop at the universe instead? >It could be that the Universe has no creator (I personally find it highly improbable) How is this improbable? Do you have evidence or something that would lead you to such a claim? Also, what do you mean by "creator"? >I can't be absolutely certain and we can't really check. All we can do is have an opinion/belief about it. How do you know this? Isn't that a claim of certainty that you said we don't have. If we don't have evidence or any logical reasons for something, then guesses aren't sufficient explanations.
  - cristianpascu 15y ago
    As I said, I have an opinion/belief. If I had evidence, it would be more than an opinion. But it's not. As for the certainty, no one so far has created a test, not even theoretically, to discern between a created and an uncreated thing. At least I'm not aware of any. Still, epistemologically, beliefs can be shown to be true, although they are not justified. Sometimes it's pure luck, some other times it's insufficient justifications. When I say it's improbable, it's a statement of belief. Not my intention to be persuasive.