The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

Post Reply New Topic

Because we - unlike you - know how infinitely valuable basic science (which has no immediate practical application) is to scientific progress. It is extremely arrogant to assume that one can single out specific recent scientific results and pass judgement on their usefulness.

Illustration: Louis Pasteur revolutionized medicine and food production by looking at something as trivial as spoiled milk...

Also, the reason that people lack food or live in poverty is because the countries they live in are badly run. The technological possibility of feeding everyone is already here, we don't need more scientists for that. The global food production is already sufficient. It's just that some people eat a lot and other people have too little food.

Better be careful or the moderators will have your a**. Interesting that you seem so certain that a mathematical theory will have more use than devoting more time and money to finding cures for illnesses.Why do you want to push so hard on a theory that may never produce more than it consumes when there are countless advances to be be achieved through helping the sick?

What do you think led to the invention of the MRI medical scanner? Without pure science research (totally unrelated to medicine or other practical benefit) this invention would simply not have been a possibility. Despite your continued denial of the fact; pure science research leads to applications and technology. I'm done repeating this; you don't seem to understand science or how it works.

Well, the conversation seems to have died. I was just giving my opinion on how I believe science could be more completely used to help the world as did both of you. I respect your opinions and hope that you have respected mine. No hard feelings. Mazal tov!

I can do this all year....

In 1944, A mathematician and an economist came together to create a mathematical theory on how economic actors would act in situations where their utility would depend on the actions of other individuals. They invented the mathematical discipline of game theory. It had no practical implications at all at the time.

Yet, their work revolutionized the entire field of biology, and we wouldn't be able to explain the concept of natural selection, nor the existence - and treatment - of heritable diseases, without their work.

No one at the time had any knowledge about the significance of their work in 1944, because no-one could comprehend the long-term impact of their findings. It took decades of extremely brilliant minds like John Nash, John Maynard Smith, George Price, William Hamilton and Robert Trivers to truly demonstrate the magnitude of this work.

Exactly. Scientist should only address pressing issues (like try to run base metal into gold) and spend the next 2000 years accomplishing nothing.

Another aspect that you might want to consider. The science and technology already exists to feed everyone on the planet and to give healthcare to everyone so the majority live to a ripe old age. What is lacking is the political will to make this happen. 5% of the problems associated with disease, starvation and poverty can be solved with science and technology but 95% of the problems preventing this from happening are political.

I'm with the pure science guys on this . . . the implications of today's science aren't known, but that doesn't mean there won't be any. Knowledge and exploration are key to our progress as a civilization.

Getting back to the original post ...

The proof apparently starts with present physical phenomena, and works backwards towards a "big Bang origin".

My first thought was that to do this they would have to presume determinism to mathematically prove such a backward linkage. Having spent some time on WP, arguing for determinism on other forums, I find it interesting that the article uses something I never heard before of David Bohm's "quantum potential" theory of QM, so that QM can be viewed as deterministic.

The article mentions that this is a controversial theory, so it seems like many scientists will have a problem with this proof. The physicists who I have conversed with here never mentioned such a deterministic interpretation of QM, and based on the QM-is-probabilistic-states research going on at universities; it seems *very, very* controversial.

Any thoughts on this ? It sounds like the proof relies on a discredited theory, because determinism is necessary to make such backward linkage ?

Thank you, I am exceptionally interested.

==============================

Edit: Also, I take issue with the author on this paragraph:

"At the heart of their thinking is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. This allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations in what physicists call the metastable false vacuum".

I fail to see any connection between the HUP which is a mathematical relationship, and the creation of probabilistic particles. The author possibly is missing some detail.

The black hole was my navel, the universe sprang out of it and into existence in a quantum observation event when I gazed at it too long.

AspieOtaku: it amuses me when someone mocks the irrationality of religious 'skydaddies' after explaining how a magically scientific blackhole ' skydaddy' is somehow rational.

Well? we know black holese exist and have observed them through a telescope they suck in galaxies stars planets and light nothing can escape a black hole that we know of and we do not know what is on the other side my guess possibly another universe forming. There is no magical invisible man doing it a god cannot be observed or proven its existence religion is only a few thousand years old while the universe we live in is around 14 billion years old. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMUDXO4xkW8[/youtube]

That's the funny part... It's your guess! How is your guess anymore educated than someone who believes in sky daddies?
I have read several articles that show that it is probable that information and radiation DO escape from an event horizon and that a black hole will eventually dissipate.

Black holes are misunderstood creatures. If you placed a black hole with the mass of the sun at the center of the solar system, the planets would simply orbit around it. They do not suck anything into them unless said objects are too close; a black hole has no more mass than whatever objects it has devoured.

Furthermore, there's a limit to how much a black hole can suck in at a time. Too much, and we'll have a quasar that spews out matter.

Common sense says that black holes evaporate (or in some cases, they're devoured by larger black holes). This shouldn't even be up for debate.

This is splitting hairs. The universe itself is an abstraction we use to describe everything that exists (from elementary particles to galaxies--to time and space).



Since virtual particles always appear in pairs (one virtual particle and one virtual anti-particle)--and always anhilate each other if left undisturbed, there's really nothing that indicates multiple universes.



All the more reason not to support the multiverse theory. If (and that's a big if) there was a "here and now" before the Big Bang, it was probably very confined.



If they can't interact, then I'm going with Occam's Razor. The meaning of a true vacuum, is that there's nothingness, but in the sense that nothingness actually is something (eg. the sum of one positive and one negative integer with the same absolute value). If there's no time and space without the universe, and no "outside" the universe, then we do not need the multiverse theory, even though we can't rule it out completely either.

If nothing created one universe, is it far fetched to state that it created many other universes as well, maybe even an infinite number of them?