Register to reply 
Why Stephen Hawking says universe can create itself from nothing? 
Share this thread: 
#37
Feb2613, 12:02 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 9,387

I notice you go to great lengths to avoid addressing real science issues by imposing logical constraints amenable with your world view, rbj.



#38
Feb2613, 05:25 AM

P: 96

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? 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. . 


#39
Feb2613, 07:46 AM

Mentor
P: 18,086




#40
Feb2613, 08:08 AM

P: 96

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. . 


#41
Feb2613, 08:48 AM

Mentor
P: 18,086




#42
Feb2613, 08:57 AM

P: 1,857

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. 


#43
Feb2613, 11:11 AM

P: 2,251

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? 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 subdiscipline of mathematics but it is the other way around. i would disagree with this: 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. 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. 


#44
Feb2613, 12:50 PM

P: 83

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 


#45
Feb2613, 12:57 PM

C. Spirit
Sci Advisor
Thanks
P: 5,447

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.



#46
Feb2613, 01:21 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,782




#47
Feb2613, 02:12 PM

P: 1,857

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. 


#48
Feb2613, 02:22 PM

P: 5,632

Chalnoth posted:
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..... 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 preinﬂationary dynamics of loop quantum cosmology: Confronting quantum gravity with observations Ivan Agullo, Abhay Ashtekar, and William Nelson 


#49
Feb2613, 02:38 PM

P: 151

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. 


#50
Feb2613, 02:41 PM

P: 2,251

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. 


#51
Feb2613, 02:42 PM

P: 1,857

I read that article before the other thread you mentioned. I ran into the problem of finding references to BunchDavies 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 


#52
Feb2613, 02:55 PM

P: 83

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 ? 


#53
Feb2613, 02:59 PM

P: 5,632

Post #38, here... http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...es#post3848630 


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 Textbooks  0  
Stephen Hawking Does DDR  General Discussion  6  
The Universe In a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking  General Physics  4 