Evidence that universe created itself

[sealybobo]

How do you know that?

We've had this discussion before. You don't know what you don't know.

 

[my2¢]

When our cartoon characters know more than us:

 

[ding]

Actually yes, that is precisely what big bang theory is. There existed stuff, that we cannot ever observe more than 10E-33 s before the big bang and the big bang happened to it. The stuff expanded rapidly.

So this stuff occupied a space of a proton according to Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, right?

Can you provide a theory on how it got there other than the leading theory which says it was created from nothing and explain how all of that cosmic background radiation got there?

 

[ding]

We've had this discussion before. You don't know what you don't know.

I know you can't answer the question I asked you about the cosmic background radiation. Any explanation for the origin of the universe must begin there. Can you tell me anything at all about the cosmic background radiation other than you just don't know?

What don't I know?

 

[ding]

C'mon sealybobo do some research into the origin of the cosmic background radiation and get back to me. The key things to research is what created that massive amount of radiation and just how massive is that radiation.

Anyone who is serious about understanding the origin of the universe would look this up on their own.

While you are at it you might research the universe being created with nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. And you might want to research paired particle production and how that relates to the quantum mechanics of false vacuums. Because all of this relates to the origin of the universe.

 

[zaangalewa]

it's not a myth. No one has proven that hypothesis wrong.

This mathematical plausible idea is not able to be proven in an experiment or any form of observation. Ignoramus. Ignorabimus. It's a wonderful idea - I love it - but we don't know. We never will know. What we are able to see is the part of the universe, which is observable.

 

[zaangalewa]

Not clear to me what utility the ratio has.
Dr. Carl Sagan said: "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."

I remember Albert Einstein said this: "Das Universum erkennt sich im Menschen selbst" - "The universe recognizes itself in the human being" (my own verbally translation). Another man of his time, [the] Mahatma Gandhi, said something like: "Recognize yourselve and you will recognize the universe". Both ideas are somehow combined in the "anthropic principle". Short: If someone has a mathematical idea about the universe, where he himself is not able to be born, then something is wrong with this idea.

But this is not only a system for research and mathematics. Ever thought about how blue eyed, blond and with muscles like the god "Thor" the Nazi-Toren (=the Nazi-insanes) had been? If they had taken serios their own totally idiotic Aryan concept then they had to do suicide on their own ... hmmm ... what they somehow had done - in the greatest extended suicide the world ever had seen.

Thank you for not being an ingrate. I amn't too.

Ingrate? ... I have not really a good idea what you like say with this word to me. Sounds not as if this would be a characteristicum of my own person.

 

[zaangalewa]

We know.
Einstein explained that while in our terrestrial (Newtonian) experience matter & energy are two separate things, that they can be converted, one to the other. That's what: E=M*C e 2 is all about.
When we detonate an atom bomb, or an H-bomb, we convert matter into energy.
Yet at particle accelerators like CERN, we've converted energy into matter. So Einstein's equation works both ways.

zw used the term "created". The process Einstein & I described is rather more a conversion than a creation.

We don't know "where from" the energy of our universe comes (wherein some energy froze out to matter) because as far as we are able to know it existed no "where from" (=space) and "come"(=time) in the beginning. As stupid as this might sound in the ears of many people: The most plausible idea in this context is in my eyes still the idea "god made the universe out of nothing" - what has by the way not any relevance for the Christian faith - because if god made it in another way, why not? We say with this idea that even in the nothing which was in the beginning existed something what is described in the bible with the sentence "In the beginning was the word ..."

 

[zaangalewa]

It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero.

So it not exists. <=> ¿division by zero in our thoughts? Afterwards is everything plaiusible. The question in this case is: "What ripped the nothing into a uninverse?"

So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created.

Spontanous? How - if it has no energy?

Because the net energy is always zero.

Aha. What do you do "spontanous" if you have nearly no energy?

The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter.

Mass curves the space - it is not the curvature of the space - it causes the curvature. The space is flat (what's proven).

There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe.

¿Which formation?

In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability.

Erhaltungssätze? Quantenamechanik? ... Wha do you say here? What is not "forbidden" (and what means "forbidden" in this context at all?) What do you say here?

So a closed universe can spontaneously appear

Space is flat, so the universe is not closed.

- through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing.

If space exists then it is mathematically possible that a universe is able to create a whole universe. But when we say the universe expands then we think that the space itselve expands. So if we go back in time then the space becomes more little and little and little and approximates to zero size. And if in this little space exist as many quantum fluctuations as it are existing in the same amount of space all around - did we anywhere in the titanic universe see a quantum fluctuation which creates the positive and negative energies of a new universe?

And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description

Is it? Did you read it? Did you understand it?

which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Exaclty. A circle was always a circle and never evolved. Since the universe is. But "before", where no before was - and no "where"? What to say about???

 

[zaangalewa]

Why isn't it possible? With God all things are +possible.

I said "That's not impossible." = "This is possible". Many Germans love double negations as for example "this is not ungreat" for the best we ever had seen.

 

[sear]

Can you provide a theory on how it got there other than the leading theory which says it was created from nothing and explain how all of that cosmic background radiation got there?

from sear's notes, according to author Simon Winchester:

Irish Bishop James Ussher claimed that the 6 Biblical days of creation began 9:AM Monday the 23rd of October 4004 BC.
And while this may be regarded by some as religious (Christian) doctrine, there is some contradictory evidence, including the fossil record. And because the fossil evidence refutes the 6 day creation idea, the doctrinal solution of "vis plastica" (plastic force) was created. This divine plastic force supposedly inserted fossils into rock to remind us of the omniscience and omnipotence of god. The fossils therefore were not, according to vies plastica (sp?), evidence of life in general or evolution [more gradual than 6 days] in particular. Instead they were claimed to simply be evidence of god’s presence in the universe.

 

[sear]

We don't know "where from" the energy of our universe comes (wherein some energy froze out to matter) because as far as we are able to know it existed no "where from" (=space) and "come"(=time) in the beginning.

BUT !!
To consider it a valid question we must interpret this question as an issue of chronology, of time, of sequence of events. Right?
If we consider time as something other than a continuum, then the concept of where did the material from the big bang come from is undefined, to the layman, meaningless.

Considered another way, the notion of the big bang is sudden change.
If the big bang was a change in space, nothing was there, not even nothing was there, and suddenly there was something where there hadn't been anything.
If a change in time?

 

[zaangalewa]

BUT !!
To consider it a valid question we must interpret this question as an issue of chronology, of time, of sequence of events. Right?
If we consider time as something other than a continuum, then the concept of where did the material from the big bang come from is undefined, to the layman, meaningless.

Considered another way, the notion of the big bang is sudden change.

A change of a nothing into a universe with space, time, energy, natural laws ...

If the big bang was a change in space,

The space itselve expands! So it was no space "before", where also no before was.

nothing was there, not even nothing was there,

And that's now the problem. What is a nothing if not even a nothing is in the nothing? What to do with this damned word? What we know is that we don't know anything about this what we are not able to say anything about.

and suddenly there was something where there hadn't been anything.
If a change in time?

There was no time. Time started with the universe. Your - and everyones - problem is that we use structures from the universe to try to describe what is not universe. Imagine you could find a way to find out only with the methods within your own body that you had once been a cell and you ask yourselve now what you was before you was this cell. An eye - a foot - a mouth - some hairs ... or nothing?

 

[ding]

from sear's notes, according to author Simon Winchester:

Irish Bishop James Ussher claimed that the 6 Biblical days of creation began 9:AM Monday the 23rd of October 4004 BC.
And while this may be regarded by some as religious (Christian) doctrine, there is some contradictory evidence, including the fossil record. And because the fossil evidence refutes the 6 day creation idea, the doctrinal solution of "vis plastica" (plastic force) was created. This divine plastic force supposedly inserted fossils into rock to remind us of the omniscience and omnipotence of god. The fossils therefore were not, according to vies plastica (sp?), evidence of life in general or evolution [more gradual than 6 days] in particular. Instead they were claimed to simply be evidence of god’s presence in the universe.

That doesn't address the formation of the cosmic background radiation but thanks for trying. I'm sure you gave it your best.

Do some research into the origin of the cosmic background radiation and get back to me. The key things to research is what created that massive amount of radiation and just how massive is that radiation.

Anyone who is serious about understanding the origin of the universe would look this up on their own.

While you are at it you might research the universe being created with nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. And you might want to research paired particle production and how that relates to the quantum mechanics of false vacuums. Because all of this relates to the origin of the universe.

 

[ding]

BUT !!
To consider it a valid question we must interpret this question as an issue of chronology, of time, of sequence of events. Right?
If we consider time as something other than a continuum, then the concept of where did the material from the big bang come from is undefined, to the layman, meaningless.

Considered another way, the notion of the big bang is sudden change.
If the big bang was a change in space, nothing was there, not even nothing was there, and suddenly there was something where there hadn't been anything.
If a change in time?

[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf

 

[ding]

So it not exists. <=> ¿division by zero in our thoughts? Afterwards is everything plaiusible. The question in this case is: "What ripped the nothing into a uninverse?"



Spontanous? How - if it has no energy?



Aha. What do you do "spontanous" if you have nearly no energy?



Mass curves the space - it is not the curvature of the space - it causes the curvature. The space is flat (what's proven).



¿Which formation?



Erhaltungssätze? Quantenamechanik? ... Wha do you say here? What is not "forbidden" (and what means "forbidden" in this context at all?) What do you say here?



Space is flat, so the universe is not closed.



If space exists then it is mathematically possible that a universe is able to create a whole universe. But when we say the universe expands then we think that the space itselve expands. So if we go back in time then the space becomes more little and little and little and approximates to zero size. And if in this little space exist as many quantum fluctuations as it are existing in the same amount of space all around - did we anywhere in the titanic universe see a quantum fluctuation which creates the positive and negative energies of a new universe?



Is it? Did you read it? Did you understand it?



Exaclty. A circle was always a circle and never evolved. Since the universe is. But "before", where no before was - and no "where"? What to say about???

[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf

 

[zaangalewa]

[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf

The title is wrong. It should be "Spontanous creation of the universe from vacuum." A vacuum is not nothing, that's why they are able to calculate this. What I don't understand is what they understand under a "false vacuum" in which a bubble of "true vacuum" appears thanks of Heisenberg.
Physicists use often an since ever existing and never ending space in their calculations. But this is not what the theory of relativity tells us. It tells us the space expands on its own. Everything started about 13.8 billion years ago ... from nothing = not from anything what we are able to say (or calculate) anything about.

 

[ding]

The title is wrong. It should be "Spontanous creation of the universe from vacuum." A vacuum is not nothing, that's why they are able to calculate this. What I don't understand is what they understand under a "false vacuum" in which a bubble of "true vacuum" appears thanks of Heisenberg.
Physicists use often an since ever existing and never ending space in their calculations. But this is not what the theory of relativity tells us. It tells us the space expands on its own. Everything started about 13.8 billion years ago ... from nothing = not from anything what we are able to say (or calculate) anything about.

As near as I can tell the distinction is that in a false vacuum paired particles pop into existence, annihilate each other and leave behind radiation as per E=mc^2.

Relativity can only describe what happens to the universe after it appears.

Are you sure relativity tells us that space expands on it's own?

 

[zaangalewa]

As near as I can tell the distinction is that in a false vacuum paired particles pop into existence, annihilate each other and leave behind radiation as per E=mc^2.

Relativity can only describe what happens to the universe after it appears.

Are you sure relativity tells us that space expands on it's own?

As far as I am able to be sure: Yes. I don't know why the space expands - but if I think about then it means we live in an universe where we always will see an expanding universe - independent where we are. So if we will travel through the universe we are always in the middle and the universe will still expand from all points into all directions. This means the universe is without edge or border and all points are always in the middle - totally independent where we are. When I understood this the first time my spontanous reaction had been to say: "Typically god".

 

[ding]

I don't know why the space expands - but if I think about then it means we live in an universe where we always will see an expanding universe - independent where we are. So if we will travel through the universe we are always in the middle and the universe will still expand from all points into all directions. This means the universe is without edge or border and all points are always in the middle - totally independent where we are. When I understood this the first time my spontanous reaction had been to say: "Typically god".

Space expands because the paired production annihilations released tremendous amounts of energy and set the remaining matter particles in motion which resulted in the universe expanding.

Yes, space time is curved.

I marvel at God's creation every day.