I Universe from Nothing: Cosmological Theory Explained

[Narasoma]

Is there any cosmological theory which said that the universe came from "nothing"? And what I mean by "nothing" here is nothing at all, no space, no time, no matter even no laws of physics, then the universe suddenly came to existence.

 

[Derek Hart]

Probably not, since a universe emerging from absolute nothingness is a logical paradox within itself. I have always thought that since there is energy and matter now, there has to have always been some form of energy or physical information within the universe.

 

[phinds]

Is there any cosmological theory which said that the universe came from "nothing"? And what I mean by "nothing" here is nothing at all, no space, no time, no matter even no laws of physics, then the universe suddenly came to existence.

This topic is discussed here frequently. Take a look at the threads referenced at the bottom of this page.

 

[MarkJW]

Lawrence Krauss discusses this in the film THE PRINCIPLE. He also discusses his statement that the implications for evidence from the WMAP satellite indicates that the Earth is "truly in the center of the universe".

 

[phinds]

Lawrence Krauss discusses this in the film THE PRINCIPLE. He also discusses his statement that the implications for evidence from the WMAP satellite indicates that the Earth is "truly in the center of the universe".

I am confident that Lawrence Krauss did not say that the Earth is the center of the universe any more than that EVERY place in the universe is the center of the universe. Either he was talking about the Observable Universe or you misunderstood him.

 

[MarkJW]

I am confident that Lawrence Krauss did not say that the Earth is the center of the universe any more than that EVERY place in the universe is the center of the universe. Either he was talking about the Observable Universe or you misunderstood him.

https://www.edge.org/conversation/lawrence_m_krauss-the-energy-of-empty-space-that-isnt-zero

"But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the Earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the Earth around the sun — the plane of the Earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.

The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is imply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales."

 

[phinds]

As I said, he did not say that the Earth is the center of the universe. He has a bunch of "if"s and "maybe"s that do not lead to that conclusion. As he says, it's crazy, he just hasn't figured out yet how the data lends itself to any such interpretation.

 

[MarkJW]

As I said, he did not say that the Earth is the center of the universe. He has a bunch of "if"s and "maybe"s that do not lead to that conclusion. As he says, it's crazy, he just hasn't figured out yet how the data lends itself to any such interpretation.

He said the implication of the WMAP data (and this now extends to Planck as it has reproduced the observations) are that we are truly in the center of the universe. Take it as you will. See the movie where he talks about it. You are presuming form your understanding what Krauss said.

 

[Drakkith]

He said the implication of the WMAP data (and this now extends to Planck as it has reproduced the observations) are that we are truly in the center of the universe. Take it as you will. See the movie where he talks about it. You are presuming form your understanding what Krauss said.

I'm confused about what he's even referring to. How does the WMAP data show we might be at the center of the universe?

 

[phinds]

He said the implication of the WMAP data (and this now extends to Planck as it has reproduced the observations) are that we are truly in the center of the universe. Take it as you will. See the movie where he talks about it. You are presuming form your understanding what Krauss said.

No, I'm not presuming from what *I* know, I'm presuming from what *he* knows. Klauss is a very entertaining guy but a bit of a gadfly sometimes. He has a controversial theory that the universe came from nothing, but he certainly knows that the Earth is not at the center of the universe. Like most of these popularizers, he makes provocative statements in pop-science forums that he would NEVER make in a serious discussion with other physicists. I've heard every single one of them do that with the exception of Neil DeGrass Tyson and even he skates the edges sometimes.

 

[MarkJW]

I'm confused about what he's even referring to. How does the WMAP data show we might be at the center of the universe?

Read this, and see the movie, and let Krauss and the others in the documentary explain it.

 

[PeroK]

I'm tempted to say that if the Earth were at the centre of the universe, then it would have been blown up in the BIg Bang; but, perhaps I should refrain!

 

[PeterDonis]

Read this, and see the movie

Neither of those are acceptable sources. Can you find an actual peer-reviewed paper that makes the claims you are making? If not, it's out of bounds for discussion here.

 

[phinds]

Read this, and see the movie, and let Krauss and the others in the documentary explain it.

To follow up on what Peter said, that article is pop-science at its worst.

 

[Chronos]

The idea Earth [us] is the center of the 'observable' universe is inarguably correct given the premise of a finite and invariant speed of light.

 

[MarkJW]

Neither of those are acceptable sources. Can you find an actual peer-reviewed paper that makes the claims you are making? If not, it's out of bounds for discussion here.

Here are a couple of more mainstream ideas: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/PRESS/CMB_Huterer.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2459

 

[Ssnow]

First what is physically '' nothing'' ? Without matter ? Second what are the consequences that we can observe from this hypothesis ? I do not know I am very skeptical, on the origin of the universe we do not say much about the concepts we already know, I don't imagine on the concept of ''nothing''.

From another point of view mathematics can be created from nothing, if we define $0=\emptyset$, $1=\{\emptyset\}$, $2=\{\emptyset,\{\emptyset\}\}$, ... so all natural numbers ..., but mathematics is a language... I don't know if there is something in the reality similar to the empty set

 

[phinds]

The idea Earth [us] is the center of the 'observable' universe is inarguably correct given the premise of a finite and invariant speed of light.

No argument there but what does that have to do with this thread?

 

[secur]

Answering OP: Yes, you can guess that the universe was created from "nothing" - i.e. no matter / energy - by a quantum fluctuation, but you do need space-time to host this fluctuation. Then, going far beyond experiments, you can theorize that a space-time "bubble" can also be created this way; far-out speculation but there are theories (untested of course) that say this. However you can't speculate that the mechanism of quantum fluctuation itself fluctuated out of nothing. You have to assume some minimal laws of physics to get started. As far as I know.

 

[PeterDonis]

Here are a couple of more mainstream ideas: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/PRESS/CMB_Huterer.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2459

These describe the observations, yes, but they do not claim that the solar system actually is "at the center of the universe". They only say that cosmologists are still working on how to explain the apparent discrepancy between the current mainstream model (LCDM) and the observations. It could turn out that the current mainstream model will have to be changed; but it could also turn out that there is some systematic effect that is skewing the observations. We don't know at this point.

 

[rootone]

Mathematically the concept that 'nothing' (Zero) is equivalent to 1-1 makes sense.
Physically though, there is definitely a problem explaining where the 'minus' stuff went.

 

[AgentCachat]

Is there any cosmological theory which said that the universe came from "nothing"? And what I mean by "nothing" here is nothing at all, no space, no time, no matter even no laws of physics, then the universe suddenly came to existence.

There is no peer-reviewed paper or a cosmological theory, or rather conjecture, by a leading astrophysicist claiming that the universe appeared from nothing. When they seem to be saying that, they are asserting the universe appeared as a quantum fluctuation in the vacuum. This is different than "nothing".

 

[Ssnow]

Personally I am skeptical, define what is "nothing" in physics ?

 

[newjerseyrunner]

Personally I am skeptical, define what is "nothing" in physics ?

There was a great Isaac Asimov debate about exactly that:


Lawrence Krauss who's name came up here is even a panelist.

 

[Ssnow]

@newjerseyrunner thank you for the video, this clarify what is "nothing" in physics, at least for the actual knowledge...
very interesting debate

 

[Terry Coates]

Is antimatter the same as negative matter? If so could there be a space somewhere (like the center of our universe) where there is only negative matter? Then the laws of gravitation would still apply, and our positive matter would be relatively negative.

 

[AgentCachat]

Personally I am skeptical, define what is "nothing" in physics ?

Physics has never defined "nothing".

 

[newjerseyrunner]

Is antimatter the same as negative matter? If so could there be a space somewhere (like the center of our universe) where there is only negative matter? Then the laws of gravitation would still apply, and our positive matter would be relatively negative.

Only in terms of electric charge, in every other way antimatter and matter and identical.

There is also no center of the universe, imagine the universe as the surface of a sphere (not the volume) and expand the sphere from a point. See that no matter where you look from the surface of the sphere, no place is central, even though at some point in the past, it was all one point.

It's theoretically possible that we just happen to live in a part of the universe dominated by matter instead of antimatter, but the area we live in must be larger than the Hubble radius because astronomers have looked for areas of the universe that are antimatter dominated and they haven't found any. (They don't look for antimatter directly, since it looks exactly like matter, but there would be a boundary between the two areas which should produce gamma rays.

 

[Chronos]

Anti matter is expected to have the same kind of gravity as ordinary matter. In theory, you would need imaginary matter [matter with an imaginary charge] to generate anti gravity. While CERN'a AEGIS experiment is attempting to confirm the gravitational properties of anti matter, it is strongly expected to match theory. In the case of Imaginary matter, it appears to be purely imaginary - i.e., lacks any observational or theoretical support for its existence.