Why Stephen Hawking says universe can create itself from nothing?


by big_bounce
Tags: hawking, stephen, universe
Chronos
Chronos is online now
#37
Feb26-13, 12:02 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,182
I notice you go to great lengths to avoid addressing real science issues by imposing logical constraints amenable with your world view, rbj.
Johninch
Johninch is offline
#38
Feb26-13, 05:25 AM
P: 96
Quote Quote by MathematicalPhysicist View Post
That's really simple.

If you create something from nothing then that nothing becomes something, cause if it were nothing then how did we got something?

As I said it's not logical, and we might as well start believe in witches and fairies if that's what we come to believe.
I don’t agree. I explained it and you ignored my argument. What’s wrong with it?

To repeat:
Creation is going on all the time in so called empty space, with matter and antimatter particles annihilating each other, as a natural process.
If a similar process occurred at the start of the BB without a perfect annihilation, we would be left with separate amounts of matter and antimatter, adding to zero.

By the division of an original nothing into two positive and negative parts, there is a creation, but it doesn’t have to offend any laws of physics or logic, does it?

I agree that two separate and opposite quantities equating to zero are not nothing, but my explanation answers your question of how we got something from nothing, does it not?

Quote Quote by Chronos View Post
I notice you go to great lengths to avoid addressing real science issues by imposing logical constraints amenable with your world view, rbj.
I don’t know if the logical constraints which you say rbj seeks to impose are biased by his world view.

However, I do think that it is very necessary that we impose rational and logical constraints when we are addressing science issues, otherwise we get these accusations of witches and fairies.
Scientific theories and hypotheses have to stand the test of logic as well as mathematics.

.
micromass
micromass is online now
#39
Feb26-13, 07:46 AM
Mentor
micromass's Avatar
P: 16,645
Quote Quote by Johninch View Post
Scientific theories and hypotheses have to stand the test of logic as well as mathematics.
Not at all. Scientific theories must only stand the test of experiment. If it turns out that experiment is incompatible with logic and mathematics, then logic and mathematics will have to change.
Johninch
Johninch is offline
#40
Feb26-13, 08:08 AM
P: 96
Quote Quote by micromass View Post
Not at all. Scientific theories must only stand the test of experiment. If it turns out that experiment is incompatible with logic and mathematics, then logic and mathematics will have to change.
It's difficult to make experiments in cosmology, particularly concerning the BB, so we have to fall back on observations and mathematics. Ideally all the information should match. But I don't see how we can exclude logic - you mean we don't have to think straight?

The main problem with your argument is that you seem to be ignoring the necessity to interpret the results of experiments, as if they all lead to obvious conclusions. Quite apart from quality problems in the execution in some cases.

.
micromass
micromass is online now
#41
Feb26-13, 08:48 AM
Mentor
micromass's Avatar
P: 16,645
Quote Quote by Johninch View Post
It's difficult to make experiments in cosmology, particularly concerning the BB, so we have to fall back on observations and mathematics. Ideally all the information should match. But I don't see how we can exclude logic - you mean we don't have to think straight?
You seem to be equation logic with thinking straight. Logic is a mathematical discipline with a very specific meaning.Furthermore, the current accepted logical system in mathematics is classical logic. This has already been shown not to model reality. So we already had to abandon (classical) logic and find a new kind of logic.

The main problem with your argument is that you seem to be ignoring the necessity to interpret the results of experiments, as if they all lead to obvious conclusions. Quite apart from quality problems in the execution in some cases.
I don't see how I ignored anything. In science, you make experiments and observations to test your theories. If eventually they seem to contradict the established theory (and if there are no errors), then the theory is wrong. This includes logic and mathematics. I see no a priori reasons why mathematics should be able to model this world. In fact, I speculate that it probably doesn't (but this is just a guess, I have no single shred of proof or evidence for it).
Mordred
Mordred is offline
#42
Feb26-13, 08:57 AM
PF Gold
Mordred's Avatar
P: 1,528
Quote Quote by marcus View Post
When inflation was first proposed, folks couldn't think of what might have caused it so they came up with all sorts of ideas like "quantum fluctuation" and "eternal" and "anthropic" (to explain why a quantum fluctuation would produce the right amount of inflation which would then conveniently stop). It was a large exercise of the imagination, which is certainly fine up to a point.
Guth strikes me as coming from an earlier era. But maybe he defines inflation for the general pubic. A lot has changed though. Guth, Hawking, Vilenkin, Linde don't write so much any more, or their papers don't get quite the same amount of attention. Here are some recent papers where inflation comes from *something*. There's growing interest in this (which again does not prove it's right.)
As stated I went and looked into the history of developments on the various inflationary/expansion models. After some extensive searching I realize what your saying in your previous post.

Here is what I've found out.

false vacuum became old inflation later replaced by new inflation. Due to problems in new inflation it later became chaotic eternal inflation. There are other models that derived from the original false vaccuum. However all these models failed to solve one key problem that of pocket/multi universe formation.
As far as I can tell string theory is currently working with Guth I can't recall what string theory model is representative in this line of research DQ something lol. I don't follow string theory it makes my teeth ache.

This paper is the latest I could find that involved false vacuum
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3005

At first I thought of starting a new thread on it however I quickly realized that there are aspects in it that I don't quite agree with. However thats another topic.
rbj
rbj is offline
#43
Feb26-13, 11:11 AM
P: 2,265
Quote Quote by Chronos View Post
I notice you go to great lengths to avoid addressing real science issues by imposing logical constraints amenable with your world view, rbj.
Quote Quote by Johninch View Post
I don’t know if the logical constraints which you say rbj seeks to impose are biased by his world view.
besides that, i would like to know what real science issues i am going to great lengths to avoid. what are they? certainly not that "science" is about what is material and empirical. that real science issue is something that i push relentlessly.

perhaps it's that i don't afford "science" the totality of reality in my worldview. (i.e. i do not subscribe to the belief system of "Materialism" or "Physicalism". and, BTW, neither do John Polkinghorne, Freeman Dyson, or Owen Gingerich as best as i understand what they say and write.) is that it, Chronos?

However, I do think that it is very necessary that we impose rational and logical constraints when we are addressing science issues, otherwise we get these accusations of witches and fairies.
Scientific theories and hypotheses have to stand the test of logic as well as mathematics.
it looks like PF Mentor micromass has weighed in on this issue on the other side. and, from previous experience, i have to be careful not to say something that whoever admin doesn't like (Greg seems to be fine, but it's the captains under him).

anyway, having done work in science (only in acoustics - totally classical physics), engineering mathematics, and in logic, i must dispute a few things said here:

logic is not a sub-discipline of mathematics but it is the other way around.

i would disagree with this:

Quote Quote by micromass View Post
Scientific theories must only stand the test of experiment. If it turns out that experiment is incompatible with logic and mathematics, then logic and mathematics will have to change.
even when the experimenter is hallucinating? when the astronomer is peaking into his telescope and sees teapots or spaghetti monsters or even the same guy with a beard in Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel painting, he might need to question the empirical outcome of the experiment.

Quote Quote by micromass View Post
You seem to be equati[ng] logic with thinking straight.
he's not the only one. so did Aristotle (and quite a few others of his descent). might want to look up "logic" and "term logic" in wikipedia. (again, not to say that wikipedia is accurate in all things, but this looks reasonably decent.)

these formal rules of logic are solely about thinking straight. it's about applying consistency and about being clear about what a premise says and what it does not say.

Logic is a mathematical discipline with a very specific meaning.
perhaps logic in mathematics is a mathematical discipline, but otherwise that statement is false in that it is not sufficiently broad.

mathematics is about quantity (among other things like structure, but mainly about quantity). except in the boolean sense, logic need not be. and although quantity can be assigned boolean variables, it need not be. "value" is not exactly the same thing as "quantity".

logic, as a discipline, contains mathematics (when quantity is introduced to the discussion), and science (when the empirical and material are introduced to the discussion), and sociology, politics, and law (when human beings and human behavior are brought into the discussion), and, if i dare say so, religion (when notions of God and the metaphysical are brought into the discussion). and even this statement from me is also not sufficiently broad.
big_bounce
big_bounce is offline
#44
Feb26-13, 12:50 PM
P: 83
Quote Quote by rbj View Post
real "nothing" would be no physical quantity (what i like to call "stuff") and no relationships or law of interaction either. and no one around to behold it.
The link below is including so many physical quantities that exist in universe .
Can you prove these quantities came from energy ? or came from another quantity ?
If you can not , that mean they came from real "nothing" .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...cal_quantities
WannabeNewton
WannabeNewton is online now
#45
Feb26-13, 12:57 PM
C. Spirit
Sci Advisor
Thanks
WannabeNewton's Avatar
P: 4,933
This is what happens when you abandon a mathematical discussion and start arguing metaphysics and philosophy which are disciplines that go nowhere and terminate in pointless non mathematical / non empirical arguments and frankly Chalnoth hit the nail on the head many posts ago when he said "We don't know" as of now.
Chalnoth
Chalnoth is offline
#46
Feb26-13, 01:21 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 4,721
Quote Quote by big_bounce View Post
The link below is including so many physical quantities that exist in universe .
Can you prove these quantities came from energy ?
This statement makes no sense whatsoever. Energy is a physical property of matter (pedantically, it is a property of every quantum-mechanical field).

Quote Quote by big_bounce View Post
or came from another quantity ?
If you can not , that mean they came from real "nothing" .
This is also incorrect. Just because we don't know how these physical quantities arose, that doesn't mean that you get to automatically substitute your favored explanation in its absence.
Mordred
Mordred is offline
#47
Feb26-13, 02:12 PM
PF Gold
Mordred's Avatar
P: 1,528
Quote Quote by WannabeNewton View Post
This is what happens when you abandon a mathematical discussion and start arguing metaphysics and philosophy which are disciplines that go nowhere and terminate in pointless non mathematical / non empirical arguments and frankly Chalnoth hit the nail on the head many posts ago when he said "We don't know" as of now.
Well said I for one, like many others have gotten tired of the pointless bickering going on.
Debating is one thing, provided supporting articles, mathematics or reasonable analysis is included is one thing.
Personal based arguments is quite another.
If you have a problem with a model, then take the time to provide supporting evidence or problems with THAT given model.
If you look at this thread carefully enough some of the problems of false energy has been stated. The one that stands out the most is the problem of stopping the inflation.
That lead to a multiple of alternate modifications. Some of which I listed.
If I as NON scientist can spend the time looking for problems in a given model AND supply supporting material. Then so can anyone else.
Naty1
Naty1 is offline
#48
Feb26-13, 02:22 PM
P: 5,634
Chalnoth posted:

...These fluctuations are the ones that started the initial density perturbations which eventually grew to be the galaxy clusters and voids in our universe today. These are not the fluctuations which might have gotten inflation started, but rather the ones that were occurring as inflation was progressing.....
Are these necessarily different perturbations....??

In a very new series of papers from Ashtekar, et al, [recently discussed here] it seemed the authors had found consistent inflationary perturbations all the way back in the Planck regime.....


Using LQG ideas and techniques, we have extended the inflationary paradigm all the way to the deep Planck regime. At the big bounce, one can specify natural initial conditions for the quantum state Ψo that encodes the background homogeneous quantum geometry, as well as for ψ that describes the quantum state of perturbations. There is a precise sense in which generic initial conditions for the background lead to a slow roll phase compatible with the 7 year WMAP data....
[I think Marcus had started a thread referencing these papers, but I did not record the thread link..]


A Quantum Gravity Extension of the Inflationary Scenario
Ivan Agullo, Abhay Ashtekar, William Nelson
(Submitted on 7 Sep 2012)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.1609


The pre-inflationary dynamics of loop quantum cosmology:

Confronting quantum gravity with observations
Ivan Agullo, Abhay Ashtekar, and William Nelson

...Using techniques from loop quantum gravity, the standard theory of cosmological perturbations was recently generalized to encompass the Planck era. We now apply this framework to explore pre-inflationary dynamics. The framework enables us to isolate and resolve the true trans-Planckian difficulties, with interesting lessons both for theory and observations. Specifically, for a large class of initial conditions at the bounce, we are led to a self consistent extension of the inflationary paradigm over the 11 orders of magnitude in density and curvature, from the big bounce to the onset of slow roll.
julcab12
julcab12 is offline
#49
Feb26-13, 02:38 PM
P: 121
Certainly. Anything with "Nothing/create" are good catch phrases. Zero/uncertainty to entropy to universe. Might wanna check "The information as absolute" by S.V. Shevchenko, V.V. Tokarevsky.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712.

In informational conception the unique fundamental essence that exists is absolutely infinite Set “Information”, which include, for example, subset “Matter”; all what one sees is/are “words”.
Any element of the Set contains the Set totally because of to define the element is necessary to point out all differences of given element from every other element in the Set. The element “nothing” is only one of the Set’s elements –i.e. dynamical null set.

'Nothing' is fairly complicated stuff. You have to define nothing in specific way. The idea of "nothing" stems from this notion of a collection and analogous to empty set. So we can think of "nothing" as a term describing the set itself and not a necessity of zero in mathematical language. The universe might came from uncertainty. Nothing can only make sense if given limitations but can be use in both accounts.

Nothing is our imaginative construct to make sense of specific order in a specific task. It is associated with the mathematicians new concept of "zero" (as a number without any magnitude). It is a formal "nothing", like zero, but made up of +1 and -1, or equal amounts of positive and negative charges, or even completely balanced forces which give the appearance of zero activity, and, of course, many others of similar ilk.

To say that the universe came from nothing is a "fair assumption" relative to what we 'currently' know to a certain (v) degree of confidence.
rbj
rbj is offline
#50
Feb26-13, 02:41 PM
P: 2,265
Quote Quote by WannabeNewton View Post
... and frankly Chalnoth hit the nail on the head many posts ago when he said "We don't know" as of now.
it hadn't been the instances when Chalnoth says "We don't know" that i had ever disputed what he/she said.

it was, in fact, the instances when he should have said "We don't know", and said something quite different (and virtually diametrically opposite) that i took issue with what he said. at least in the other multiverse thread.
Mordred
Mordred is offline
#51
Feb26-13, 02:42 PM
PF Gold
Mordred's Avatar
P: 1,528
I read that article before the other thread you mentioned. I ran into the problem of finding references to Bunch-Davies vacuum. As a result I've been having trouble understanding it. Anyone have a good reference link?

Edit a couple of posts occired while I wad typing I am referring to the last post by Naty
big_bounce
big_bounce is offline
#52
Feb26-13, 02:55 PM
P: 83
Quote Quote by Chalnoth View Post
This statement makes no sense whatsoever. Energy is a physical property of matter (pedantically, it is a property of every quantum-mechanical field).


This is also incorrect. Just because we don't know how these physical quantities arose, that doesn't mean that you get to automatically substitute your favored explanation in its absence.
Best to say just kinetic energy is a property of matter , because energy is a quantity which comes in many forms .
Anyway see the figure from University oregon :
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/...o_mass_Uni.gif

We know matter has charge , momentum .
Can you explain how momentum and charge and other quantities came from pure energy universe ?
If there was nothing expect energy these quantities came from what ?
Naty1
Naty1 is offline
#53
Feb26-13, 02:59 PM
P: 5,634
I ran into the problem of finding references to Bunch-Davies vacuum.
Here is something I recalled from bapowell:
Post #38, here...

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...es#post3848630


It is true that any particles hanging around at the start of inflation were most certainly redshifted away, exponentially diluted by inflation. However, it's not this simple, because if there are particles present at the start of inflation, then the fluctuations are not born in the vacuum as per the standard density perturbation calculation. If the initial state was thermal rather than vacuum (known as the Bunch-Davies vacuum), then the perturbations are affected; in particular, power is suppressed on large scales (see http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0508070). Non-vacuum initial states can also generate non-Gaussian temperature fluctuations: http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.1302.

Now, the reference that Marcus linked to is to my knowledge rather novel, having to do with the stimulated generation of quanta during inflation on account of the presence of particles at the beginning. So, even though the original particles are redshifted away, their presence induces measurable effects on the evolution of perturbations.
If the negative gravitational pressure of inflation 'got stuck' briefly on an energy plateau, why not other factors conducive to particle production..like,maybe, virtual particles of the vacuum??.....antimatter?? were NOT diluted...
The virtual particles are not diluted because they are continuously being created!.........
Mordred
Mordred is offline
#54
Feb26-13, 03:19 PM
PF Gold
Mordred's Avatar
P: 1,528
Thanks Naty that thread you posted is a great help


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Stephen Hawking's did god Create the Universe discovery documentary Cosmology 45
I was watching Stephen Hawking Into the universe and he was talking General Physics 12
Stephen Hawking Science & Math Textbook Listings 0
Stephen Hawking Does DDR General Discussion 6
"The Universe In a Nutshell" by Stephen Hawking General Physics 4