Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Can cosmologist mathematicians compute all the way to absolute nothingness?

  1. Sep 23, 2011 #1
    Please be patient with me.


    Cosmologists compute all the way back to the big bang when there was just a very condensed point of energy from which time, space, whatever else came forth, and now we have -- to be humorous -- a nose in our face that does not fall off even if we sneeze very hard.

    Can any genius of a cosmologist mathematician compute still further on backward until he can now tell mankind that voila he has reached the point of absolute nothingness, and thus he has proven that the universe came from nothing, on the basis of his scientific cosmological mathematics, working on whatever empirical data like CMB in today's state of the universe.

    Please forgive me if I sound whatever like flippant, I am really very serious, because I notice that cosmologists-mathematicians can really work wonders of cosmic scales with scientific cosmological mathematics.



    Yrreg
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 23, 2011 #2

    Math Is Hard

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It's a question for cosmologists so I have moved it to the cosmology forum. -MIH
     
  4. Sep 24, 2011 #3

    Chalnoth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Calculating what happened at the earliest times is more of an empirical problem than a mathematical one. Basically, it's a question of which mathematics are correct at very early times, instead of just calculating from known mathematics.
     
  5. Sep 24, 2011 #4

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The short answer is no. Our best theories fail at t<1 [planck time].
     
  6. Sep 24, 2011 #5

    You mean that there is no kind of mathematics however a genius mathematician one is whereby the genius can compute from empirical data today all the way beyond the big bang to absolute nothingness?

    So, is it then the implication and thereby also the certainty that there is always something existing that is the universe even though it is very very very very dense insofar as our computation goes, which computation must be based on genuine true mathematics not any kind of mathematricks?


    Now, tell me, how can these guys like Stenger and Krauss and Hawking state that the universe came from nothing unless they have another meaning for nothing which is something but not nothing?

    In which case they have another meaning for lying, when everyone else understands lying as saying with one's lips what one knows in one's mind to be not the fact.


    Thus also they are really more grievous liars.


    But why do they want to lie so grievously?




    Yrreg
     
  7. Sep 24, 2011 #6

    Chalnoth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    If we use General Relativity as our theory of gravity, there is a singularity at t=0. This singularity is mathematical nonsense that cannot exist. It isn't matter of being better with the calculations: we need a quantum theory of gravity.
     
  8. Sep 24, 2011 #7

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You are missing the point. There is no guarantee mathematics conceals the ultimate solution - and it is absolutely certain all solutions are mathematically validi. Why do you think physicists would lie? Are you asserting they are so vain they need to twist the truth to fit their version of reality? I believe the vast majority of physicists are totally honest.
     
  9. Sep 24, 2011 #8
    respected sir i thought that tomorrow is change in today. what ever change in universe occuers today is depend on any law or law comes out after change occuers. i also want to know that at t=0 second we were not there but still we were there in another forms thene can we prdict from today that what will happen tomorrow. if we know all the things universe had and how all the things in the universe behave (means charactristics of all the things etc. gravity and al such things that exist in the universe) than we aree able to trace out future or not?
     
  10. Sep 24, 2011 #9
    But they do give opposite meaning to the word nothing to mean something but making people psychologically convinced that they mean absolute nothingness.

    If they appear to you, I refer to people like Stenger, Krauss, and Hawking, not to be lying to others, then they are lying to themselves or being dishonest with themselves.

    Now, why would they want to lie to or to be dishonest to themselves?



    Yrreg
     
  11. Sep 24, 2011 #10

    Chalnoth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    What are you going on about?
     
  12. Sep 24, 2011 #11

    256bits

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Short answer is "NO".

    Longer answer:
    I quote you "if we know all the things universe had and how all the things in the universe behave". What are all the things - all the star, all the planets, all the molecules, all the electrons, protons, quarks, all the people, all the interstellar dust and gases? You may need to first think about what you mean by all the things. And then think about how you would go about calculating how all these things behave and react to one another. Are you up to task to do the calculation by tomorrow? Do you think you could design a computer for you to do the calculation faster than what is happening in the universe itself?

    You are setting up for a reply I bet. But let me counter that. There are formulas that are used how molecules react to one another for example. . Another set of calculations may yield an answer to the gravitational force between stars. Thermodynamic equations can solve problems for heat engines and energy flow in gases. So scientists use one set of equations for a particular problem at hand. And no there is not a theory of everthing yet, and even if and when it is discovered, it still would not be the one to use to calculate say how many miles per gallen you get in your car from driving down the street.
     
  13. Sep 24, 2011 #12

    256bits

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think he means that if the moment (start) of the big bang can not be calculated to the exact second at t=0 ( but only to 0.000...1 seconds whatever that number is ) than how can anyone say what was there at the moment of the big bang. Then by thinking logically, how could anyone say the universe came out of nothing at t=0, if t=0 is not calculable. To the op, it would seem more speculative than scientific.
     
  14. Sep 24, 2011 #13

    Chalnoth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Well, if that's the case, and probably also if it isn't, the answer can be found in simply noting that plain language simply cannot properly describe a concept that is, at its core, mathematical. Because natural language simply can't probably describe these sorts of concepts, you'll end up with apparently contradictory statements just because different people make different choices on how to try to explain something which can't really be explained.

    Underneath it all, there is a mathematical description which is consistent and is widely agreed-upon in the scientific community. If you see what seems to be an inconsistency, it's almost certainly because of this language barrier.
     
  15. Sep 24, 2011 #14
    From the title, I'm guessing the question is “Are there mathematical models that can go back to the Big Bang?”

    Not certain about references to “genius” or “grievous liars” :uhh:
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2011
  16. Sep 25, 2011 #15

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This is all word salad ... pass the sauce.
     
  17. Sep 25, 2011 #16

    dst

    User Avatar

    Something like the CTMU perhaps?
     
  18. Sep 25, 2011 #17

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Yrreg please provide specific quotes within context and with references from where you got them that these people say the universe sprang from nothing.

    Current cosmological models only go back to one unit of Planck time after the big bang.
     
  19. Sep 25, 2011 #18

    Chalnoth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Pretty sure the CTMU is just crackpottery dressed up in somewhat more sophisticated than average language.
     
  20. Sep 26, 2011 #19
    Agreed. I gave it all of 3 minutes and it didnt help me understand the U any better.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2011
  21. Sep 26, 2011 #20

    Actually I started this thread in the philosophy board, but it has been moved to this place because of the word cosmologist, I guess.


    What am I about?

    Will they lock up this thread if I tell what I am about?

    Here, I am about getting people to notice that socalled scientific but atheist cosmologists are making monkey of language, using the word nothing but understanding something, like the universe came from nothing, so that ordinary people will come to think that the universe according to science did come from nothing, so there is no God creator needed whatsoever.


    But if scientists be also philosophers even though atheist, they will realize that no matter how they come to conclude about the material universe can be broken up into particles, and forces, and laws of physics whatever, all the components of the physical material universe put together still cannot make up the universe that is the factual universe in reality outside and beyond their scientific observation and experimentation and mathematical models, so that all the summation of the material or physical components of the material universe will not be equivalent to the reality of the factual universe as to produce a nose in man's face.


    [ To moderators, don't lock this thread, move it back to philosophy. ]




    Yrreg
     
  22. Sep 26, 2011 #21

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Your thread is not suitable for the philosophy forum. See its guidelines;
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=459350
    Only if the thread conflicts with the rules that you agreed to when you signed up;
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380
    I repeat my earlier post; provide quotes as to where these people did this, and in context. Current understanding does not dictate that the universe started from nothing. If you see this on TV or other places it is usually because the person saying it either doesn't know what they are talking about or are getting the point across poorly.
    I have no idea what you are on about here. Please be clearer and do not stray into your religious beliefs or personal over-speculative theories as I suspect you may be doing.
     
  23. Sep 26, 2011 #22
    Well, thanks for the info about how to get a thread started in the philosophy board.

    I will look up references to cosmologists who state that the universe came from nothing.

    By the way, you have not come to cosmologists who state that the universe came from nothing but all the time they mean something instead of nothing?

    Okay, I will steer away from religions, but God needs not be only relevant in religions, it is also relevant in physics, only not for the contemporary physicists who happen to be atheist.


    I will now look for links to cosmologists stating that the universe came from nothing but understanding all the time that it is not nothing but something.


    Coming back to the title of the thread, Can cosmologist mathematicians compute all the way to absolute nothingness?

    They have computed to time equal zero, and I guess also space equal zero, but what about the whole material universe?

    As far as I know they go all the way back to the point of some very very very dense energy thing from which time and space and everything else arose or sprang from.

    On that consideration they can say that there was a state of the universe when it was outside time and space, and therefore at the risk of sounding religious though it is still physics, it was eternal at that state.




    Yrreg
     
  24. Sep 26, 2011 #23

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Do not post unscientific, unfalsifiable claims here. I have never come across a scientist who said such a thing in peer reviewed literature.
    We cannot say anything about the nature of before the big bang or even meaningfully address whether or not the question makes sense. Current models only go so far, there are proposed models that may explain the big bang but they as yet have no evidence.
     
  25. Sep 26, 2011 #24
    Now that I am looking for them I could not find them. I have been looking for quotes from celebrity scientific cosmologists stating that the universe came from nothing, I have to admit that I have not come to any in that short busy period of time this morning, but according to their adoring representatives or fans who speak knowingly about what they (the celebrity scientists) hold, that is their position -- I am referring to the atheist scientific cosmologists.

    If they don't really mean that the universe literally came from nothing, why don't they come out in public before the media to tell the public that they don't really mean the universe came from nothing, but are just exaggerating, because it must always come from something; but they keep quiet.

    Here is what I read in a New York Times science piece:




    Yrreg
     
  26. Sep 26, 2011 #25

    Chalnoth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I am an atheist cosmologist, and I will state unequivocally that we do not know, and at this point cannot know, that our universe came from nothing. In fact, it is far more likely that our universe was born from some other universe than it came from nothing.

    Your presumptions are just plain wrong.

    Finally, nearly all of the science that appears in the popular news media is wrong. It pays to be very skeptical of anything that appears in the popular press.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook