Can cosmologist mathematicians compute all the way to absolute nothingness?

[DaveC426913]

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

All things are boiled down and simplified for their audience. The boiling is often not done by the experts.

If you are interested in more than a passing explanation of cosmology, pick up the right books, and don't believe everything you read in a New York Times science piece. Remember the intended audience.

 

[Chalnoth]

Are you saying that "the energy density of this tiny piece of space time" contains a form of energy which can "condense" into particles of matter. So matter could be viewed as a kind of twisted up space time?

Not quite. The way inflation can be understood is as follows:

1. Start with a small region of space-time dominated by an inflaton field.
2. This inflaton field drives a rapid accelerated expansion of space, causing it to expand by at least a factor of around 10^30 in a tiny fraction of a second.
3. At some point, the inflaton field reaches its minimum potential energy, at which point the field decays into a very hot thermal bath.
4. This thermal bath can be thought of as the start of the "big bang": at that point the standard big bang theory takes over. It expands and cools, and the matter we are familiar with condenses out of the hot soup.

 

[Tanelorn]

Thanks Chalnoth, I will try to understand these 4 steps

I have spent a lot of time trying to get to the bottom of the characteristics of empty space and I recently surrendered to the modern view that space is completely empty of anything physical. ie. It is all particles or matter and force carriers. So I am uncertain how inflating space gives rise to matter, or is the matter supplied by the inflation field?

By hot soup do you mean a normal plasma, or perhaps quark gluon plasma (quarks can't exist on their own so it probably can't be that) or perhaps something else? There isn't much space to fit that much matter in unless matter particles are all point like particles like the electron. I read recently that the electron is infinitismal in size.

 

[nazarbaz]

I suspect that we're not understanding the problem. The two solutions are not mutually exclusive, even if they are equally disturbing.
What does it mean to live in an 'eternal' universe or multiverse with no beginnings and no endings ? It could undermine the very idea of causality. And how could we conceive of a cosmos coming ex nihilo, from nothing, even if it's not the absolute void.
Very fundamental questions we can't seriously answer with notions like 'God'.

 

[Chalnoth]

Thanks Chalnoth, I will try to understand these 4 steps

I have spent a lot of time trying to get to the bottom of the characteristics of empty space and I recently surrendered to the modern view that space is completely empty of anything physical. ie. It is all particles or matter and force carriers. So I am uncertain how inflating space gives rise to matter, or is the matter supplied by the inflation field?

Basically, as the space expands, the inflaton field retains approximately the same energy density. It acts, in other words, very much like vacuum energy. So you start with a teeny tiny bit of inflaton stuff with a very high energy density, and after inflation progresses for a little while, you end up with significantly more of this inflaton stuff, but still with an extremely high energy density. The inflation itself, in other words, dramatically multiplies the total amount of energy in the inflaton field*. Then, when inflation stops and that stuff decays, you get universe filled with hot, dense matter.

By hot soup you do mean plasma, or perhaps quark gluon plasma (quarks can't exist on their own so it can't be that) or something else? There isn't much space to fit that much matter in unless matter particles are all point like singularities like the electron.

At the time that inflation ended, I'm not entirely sure it would be cool enough to be a quark-gluon plasma. Remember that this stuff has to both produce dark matter and the matter/anti-matter asymmetry of our universe, neither of which has yet been observed in our most powerful particle accelerators. So it has to have been significantly hotter than we have yet touched in our accelerators.

* I'm playing fast and loose here with the term "energy". There is no non-arbitrary definition of it here. But on rigorous way to define things shows that this energy comes from gravitational potential energy, so that during this process the total energy always remains zero.

 

[Tanelorn]

nazarbaz, welcome to the PF. Yes I agree these very top level questions about the Universe are very difficult to grasp, perhaps in a similar way to Quantum Mechanics. Feynman said he is confident that no one understands QM, I don't know if that is an exageration.

Thanks Chalnoth I will try to understand what you have said.

 

[yrreg]

I suspect that we're not understanding the problem. The two solutions are not mutually exclusive, even if they are equally disturbing.
What does it mean to live in an 'eternal' universe or multiverse with no beginnings and no endings ? It could undermine the very idea of causality. And how could we conceive of a cosmos coming ex nihilo, from nothing, even if it's not the absolute void.
Very fundamental questions we can't seriously answer with notions like 'God'.

Very good. How about with the notion of the totality of existence? This is a conceptual shopping bag of cosmic dimensions where we put in everything that man can have a discourse on even just within himself. Next, we postulate that within this shopping bag there is only matter of all kinds, whether it exists in just concepts in man's mind or in the objective reality of matter outside man's mind. Even concepts in man's mind are matter. In short matter is being, or matter and being are convertible. Everything is matter even mind.

Now, mathematics is a discovery and/or invention of man's mind, mathematics is also matter. My question to the mathematicians here who are also into scientific cosmology and can understand the mathematics of scientific cosmologists is:

It is possible to compute backward all the way to nothingness so that no more matter is left, absolutely nothing paradoxically speaking remains, neither man nor his mind, absolutely no matter whatever, NOTHING left. If you can understand me, tell me without any cop out words saying nothing at all, tell me with just a yes or no.

For myself I will say no, it is impossible to compute all the way back to nothingness, no matter whatever (understanding matter and being are convertible). No mathematics can do that or no mathematician can do that unless he is into false mathematics or incoherent and inconsistent mathematics.

[ Next time I introduce a thread in the philosophy board, I will first look up a published philosopher who has some text related to my quest, then I might be able to have people in the same orientation that I am into. ]

Susma

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Even concepts in man's mind are matter.
In short matter is being, or matter and being are convertible.
Everything is matter even mind.

The mind is an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence" .

It is possible to compute backward all the way to nothingness so that no more matter is left, absolutely nothing paradoxically speaking remains, neither man nor his mind, absolutely no matter whatever, NOTHING left.

Well man's mind is only as old as man, so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human" show that particles with mass didn't exist until 1e-12 to 1e-6 seconds after the big bang.

Also please note yrreg that science and physics aren't just mathematics.

 

[Drakkith]

If you can understand me, tell me without any cop out words saying nothing at all, tell me with just a yes or no.

You don't seem to understand the basics of science, so I don't think your question is valid.

 

[DaveC426913]

It is possible to compute backward all the way to nothingness so that no more matter is left, absolutely nothing paradoxically speaking remains, neither man nor his mind, absolutely no matter whatever, NOTHING left.

The answer is no.

We do not have models that describe the universe at that level of energy. Our models break down.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The OP has been answered. Thread Locked.