- #1
- 2,953
- 1,498
Hi guys,
I was thinking about something, due to Hawking's new book "The grand design". I didn't read it completely, but the book argues that it is perfectly consistent that a universe is made "out of nothing",
Every now and then I come across the Hammoch physicist, which states about this:
I am surprised about this last "We know already for ages that the formation of our universe out of nothing is a perfectly viable and consistent hypothesis." Why is this consistent? How can it be consistent that a universe forms out of a state ("nothing", whatever that may be) of which we don't have a single clue what the laws of physics are? And how wide-spread is this idea among cosmologists and high-energy physicists in general?
It is argued, also by Hawking, that the universe perhaps has "zero energy"; the negative gravitational energy cancels the other forms of energy. But doesn't GR say that energy is absolute, contrary to classical physics and quantum field theories?
I'm curious about your thoughts about this! :)
I was thinking about something, due to Hawking's new book "The grand design". I didn't read it completely, but the book argues that it is perfectly consistent that a universe is made "out of nothing",
Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.
Every now and then I come across the Hammoch physicist, which states about this:
What's this fuzz all about?
It all boils down to a media frenzy around a quotation declaring God unnecessary for starting up the universe:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist [..] It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
But again: why this hype? We know already for ages that the formation of our universe out of nothing is a perfectly viable and consistent hypothesis. In fact, given the constraints of the various cosmological observations, I know of no other workable alternative hypothesis.
I am surprised about this last "We know already for ages that the formation of our universe out of nothing is a perfectly viable and consistent hypothesis." Why is this consistent? How can it be consistent that a universe forms out of a state ("nothing", whatever that may be) of which we don't have a single clue what the laws of physics are? And how wide-spread is this idea among cosmologists and high-energy physicists in general?
It is argued, also by Hawking, that the universe perhaps has "zero energy"; the negative gravitational energy cancels the other forms of energy. But doesn't GR say that energy is absolute, contrary to classical physics and quantum field theories?
I'm curious about your thoughts about this! :)