As we know, many cosmologists argue that the Universe emerged out of nothing, for example Hawking-Mlodinow (Grand Design, 2010), and Lawrence Krauss, see http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/a-universe-from-nothing/. Most of their arguments rely on conviction that the Universe emerged out of vacuum fluctuations.
While that kind of argument may sound interesting, it is too weak argument in particular from the viewpoint of Quantum Field Theory. In QFT, the quantum vaccuum is far from the classical definition of vaccuum ("nothing"), but it is an active field which consists of virtual particles. Theoretically, under special external field (such as strong laser), those virtual particles can turn to become real particle, this effect is known as Schwinger effect. See for example a dissertation by Florian Hebenstreit at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.5965v1.pdf.
Of course, some cosmologists argue in favor of the so-called Cosmological Schwinger effect, which essentially says that under strong gravitational field some virtual particles can be pushed to become real particles.
Therefore, if we want to put this idea of pair production into cosmological setting, we find at least two possibilities from QFT:
a. The universe may have beginning from vacuum fluctuations, but it needs very large laser or other external field to trigger the Schwinger effect. But then one can ask: Who triggered that laser in the beginning?
b. In the beginning there could be strong gravitational field which triggered Cosmological Schwinger effect. But how could it be possible because in the beginning nothing exists including large gravitational field? So it seems like a tautology.
Based on the above two considerations, it seems that the idea of Hawking-Mlodinow-Krauss that the universe emerged from nothing is very weak. What do you think?
There are certain things in the universe, the existence of which no one can deny. At the same time, no one can prove their physical existence experimentally. The fundamnetal substance of the universe has this property. There is nothing in the universe that is not in a state of motion. Motion is one of the basis for experimental detection. The second basis for experimental detection is the interaction. The empty space does not have any motion nor does it interact with anything that is in motion. This is also the property of the fundamental substance of the universe which is summed up as existence, without motion and no interaction. So when this fundamental substance begins to move it gets detected as pairs of particle anti-particle. Gravity does not exist within the fundamental substance but it comes into existance between particle anti-particle pair when it is created. When the particle pair annihilate, the gravity disappear. This happens at Planck energy scale. At low energy same thing happens when matter anti-matter annihilate. When electron positron annihilate the charge between them disappear. Given below is a link to a quantum gravity theory which is based on these ideas and it generates entire table of standard model particles from a single formula. Therefore the idea of Hawking-Mlodinow-Krauss that the universe emerged from nothing is very weak.
Article Periodic quantum gravity and cosmology
Neither Quantum Field Theory (QFT) nor Quantum Space Time (QST) should be interpreted as saying that universe emerged out of nothing. Nothing in itself is just a projection or a hologram of a larger perspective or energy structures. Nothing by Nothingness creates infinite energy potentials and will result in mass energy equivalence or ungoverned energy transformation states.
The prime objective or direction of both QFT and QST should be not to dig into our primordial origin of universe rather to see the rate at which the universe is expanding in one end and condensing in the other end and the bidirectional velocities and how these hyperspace interact and interpolate in fields. Thus in the topological transformation fields, space times generate new energy structures. These will be measurable in terms of entropy and randomness and the photons, neutrinos and the intermittent quarks that traverse and transpose through these entropy matrices in nature.
Look at the phrase: "...the Universe emerged out of vacuum fluctuations". The verb 'emerged' means some kind of action, the word 'fluctuations' means another kind of action for a concept entitled nothing, thus 'nothing' has attributes (that allow it to fluctuate), so the whole argument is, at least, not well defined.
"Does Quantum Field Theory allow the Universe to emerge from nothing?"
In spite of this vague and non-technical question in QFT, if the " Nothing" could be interpreted as "vacuum" or "ground state" in physical sense, then in a mathematical physics language, the creation operators as one of the mainstay in QFT allows to "create" fermions" ( as building blocks of matter i.e. world ), from vacuum or in your words nothing.Hence after these corrections the answer is yes.
@Vikram, Arno, Demetris, Gokul, Christina. Thank you for all your answers, best wishes.
@Manouchehr. Thanks for your answer. Yes there are creation-annihilation operator in QFT, but still the vacuum is active, not just "nothing" in classical sense. Best wishes
@ Victor, So the term "nothing" should not be applied in the realm of physics, rather it can be applied as a common popular concept or in a philosophic view as an antonym to "existence" , or a mathematical concept in set theory, otherwise the question should be elaborated.
This question is like "Does God exists" whitout defining first what is meant by "God" and "exists". Define first "universe" and "nothing". If "Universe" is everything then it cannot be created by something including it, it would be a circular contradiction. If "nothing" is really nothing, it has no property so cannot create anything.
To get something from nothing you would have to have something like limited Spontaneous Generation where something very simple could come out of nothing. But once you had that effect, there is nothing stopping it from happening again and again. This would break energy conservation because it would mean that energy could be created not destroyed which would mean that the Universe was expanding and the amount of energy in the Universe was increasing. I have been playing with an idea of this called Unit Field Theory for a number of years but the mathematics involved are beyond me.
Does Quantum Field Theory allow the Universe to emerge from nothing?
Plain answer is NO. To say that nothing created something is simply illogical philosophically speaking. To say that creation operators acting on the vacuum may "create" fermions (matter) is misleading as far as QFT is concerned because this vacuum cannot and should not be equated to nothingness in the first place. Our QFT vacuum has an internal structure out of which when one operates on with appropriate operators (either fermion creation operators or boson creation operators) particles of certain mass and energy can be "created". This concept that nothing created something (or everything for that matter...) is simply a mythological nonsense that some people try to put on people with the subtle disguise of "scientific" leverage. As an addendum: "vacuum fluctuations" are impossible to happen without some kind of external perturbing agent to make it fluctuate. In other words, absolute vacuum is absolutely stable if left by itself.
The "creation" operation in QFT make sense when we impose second quantization, e.g. quantized harmonic oscillator to get both statistics and quantized presentation of energy and momentum representation, this operation is just a mathematical tool as well as the "addition operation" of simple numbers, However this mathematical tool may be reflected in some minds as "creation" of the world ! so the question is ill posed and no one can equate the "nothing" with "vacuum" unless there was a misinterpretation.
@Victor. The two possibilities (a) and (b) described by you for pair production can be replaced by following alternative. Imagine a unified field underlying the entire universe which does not have any boundary and which is motionless and does not interact with anything that moves. Since it does not have any boundary, the numbers zero and infinity does not have any meaning here. Before the beginning of the creation, the geometry did not exist because geometry is a part of creation. Similarly, gravity or any other force did not exit but there was one force which did exist about which later. We will call this unified field the unmanifest. Nothing can destroy this unmanifest because it does not interact with anything. It has existed through eternity and will exist through eternity to come. The minds of all living creatures become conscious because of the presence of the unmanifest. As the one sun illumines the whole world even so does this unmanifest illumine all bodies, sentient and insentient. When for some reason a mind of a creature loses its ability to absorb the life from this unmanifest, it becomes unconscious. So the unmanifest is a concept which is much higher than the consciousness. This unmanifest has another property which is called the WILL which is of the nature of a force. This property is also observed in the living beings on a much smaller scale. It is this force of WILL that is the cause of the motion in the motionless unmanifest which the physicists call vacuum fluctuation. At Planck energy level these vacuum fluctuations generate very cold particle pairs called Savitons each particle having energy of the order 10^19 GeV. There are 10^62 saviton pairs generated simultaneously with in a very small sphere of size 10^(-14) meter and travelling at velocity of light. Each Saviton is like Grandfather photon which is massless kinetic energy. Each Saviton is of size 10^(-35) meter which is like a cold particle of consciousness. These particles make up such a powerful (cold) Laser that our world has not seen anything like this. Immediately after creation, these 10^(62) cold particles collide with each other and create an inferno which is the Big Bang followed by inflation.
@Alfredo and Manouchehr, thanks for your answers. Yes creation operator is just mathematical device.
@Vikram. Thanks, that is interesting. Do you have a paper discussing your idea? Best wishes
Quantum Field Theory by itself does not explain how the Universe came into existence, more precisely how the Big Bang was triggered. Unfortunately, we do not have a complete theory encompassing gravitation and quantum phenomena, yet. For this reason, there are no good answers, yet, to questions of the sort "what was before the Big Bang", "how did the Universe come into existence", etc. I would like to advise you to ask more concrete questions!
@Victor and Manuel
Thanks for comments. Creation of Savitons and the nature of the Unmanifest are discussed in my article "Periodic quantum gravity and cosmology." A link to this article is provided in the first answer to your question. The WILL part is not included in this article because it makes the job of the editors and referees little difficult. This article is currently under peer review.
My contribution on cosmological questions is here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264537258
plus references there in.
QFT is just another linear tool and, since our local universe seems to be locally flat (thanks Euclid!), all linear tools work fine for a wide range of the parameters involved. If you go below the Planck scale, all fail. Thus we have to declare our ignorance and not claim that a linear tool can answer such a general class of questions.
Thanks.
Article A new cosmological paradigm: universal locality
Almost all scriptures presupposes that God began the universe. The fact of the universe’s beginning points strongly to a Creator consistent with the scriptures God. Some atheists, following Hume, have asserted that something can begin without a cause, but this is not only unreasonable, it is arguably inconceivable. The ‘New Atheists’ have resorted to quantum bluffing to claim that something really can come from nothing. But they must equivocate about the word ‘nothing’. This really should mean nothing—no properties. However, their proposed quantum vacuum is not nothing; it must be something, with properties—e.g. the quantum vacuum, which is being bound by the laws of quantum physics, so that it can ‘fluctuate’.
Why not looking at it this way: The fact that "nothing" is not the QFT vacuum is exactly the reason why the universe could emerge from that. The QFT vacuum |QFT> has lower energy than "nothing" (|o>), hence the plhase transition from (o> to |QFT> would liberate large amounts of energy that in turn would populate spacetime with matter - by pair production.
By the way, that also might initially have caused the inflation because with increased volume of the 3D space the energy density would be reduced.
Suppose! time is fundamental
- quantum state of the universe really does evolve in time — i.e. that the Hamiltonian is not zero, it truly does push the state forward in time.. A wonderful and under-appreciated consequence of quantum mechanics is that, if this possibility is right (the universe truly evolves), time cannot truly begin or end — it goes on forever. Very unlike classical mechanics, where the universe’s trajectory through the space of states can bring it smack up against a singularity, at which point time presumably ceases. In QM, every state is just as good as every other state, and the evolution will go happily marching along.
- So what does this have to do with something vs. nothing? Well, as the quantum state of the universe evolves, it can pass through phases where it looks an awful lot like “nothing,” conventionally understood — i.e. it could look like completely empty space, or like some peculiar non-geometric phase where we wouldn’t recognize it as “space” at all. And later, through the relentless influence of the Hamiltonian, it could evolve into something that looks very much like “something,” even very much like the universe we see around us today. So if your definition of “nothing” is “emptiness” or “lack of space itself,” the laws of quantum mechanics provide a nice way to understand how that nothing can evolve into the marvelous something we find ourselves inside. This is interesting, and important, and worth writing a book about, and it’s one of the possibilities Lawrence discusses.
In 1983, we first succeeded in explaining the origin of the Big Bang as a phase transition of the space-time from the pregeometric phase to the physical one in the quantum field theory of pregeometry. The pregeometric phase is defined as the phase of the space-time in which the space-time metric vanishes or diverges. See the details in K.Akama and H. Terazawa, Gen.Rel.Gravit.15(1983)201. Therefore, quantum field theory does allow the Universe to emerge from nothing since neither the physical space-time in which the space-time metric is finite nor the physical matter was there before the the Big Bang. See also my recent review, H.Terazawa, arXiv:1202.1859v11(physics.gen-ph), 24 Mar 2014.
Hidezumi Terazawa
Center of Asia and Oceania for Science, Tokyo, Japan,
and Midlands Academy of Business and Technology, Leicester, U.K.
It is obvious that the "phase transition of the space-time from the pre geometric phase to the physical one in the quantum field theory of pre geometry" does not qualify for the assertion that our space-time came out from nothing. First, there can be no phase transition without some kind of energy input; second, the quantum field theory of pre geometry is not the same as "nothing".
Dear Victor Christianto:
I want to answer to your question by the definition of energy:
What will be your answer if some body asks you about the " meaning of energy"?
certainly you'll answer: " A source which never disappeared or appeared suddenly but only convert from one form to another form". this is the answer that every body knows and learned it in physics. By this definition we're not able to say that we didn't have any energy at a special time now the strike up of the Quantum is, with the meaning of " particle" and also try to discuss its differences from its definition in classical physics, in Quantum we define particle in this way : " A group of electromagnetic waves " and every one knows waves HAVE energy besides all of us which means :" the humans, the plants, the animals ... (the whole world)" , is made of a lot of particles which means " full of energy" , therefore we can declare that the whole world is " energy" and every part of this world is "A" part of this energy by Quantum, as a result by this definition, how can we say that " Our universe has been emerged from nothing?"
this universe never ever emerged from nothing because of the continual existence of " energy".
Dear Professor Alfredo T. Suzuki,
1)The phase transition from the pregeometric phase to the physical one could occur as a quantum fractuation without any need of energy. See the details in our paper, K.Akama and H.Terazawa"Pregeometric Origin of the Big Bang", Gen.Rel.Gravit.15(1983)201.
2)The quantum field theory of pregeometry is not the same as "nothing" but a more fundamental theory of gravitation in which Einstein theory of general relativity can be taken as an approximate and effective theory at low energies or at long distances. See the details in my recent review, H. Terazawa, arXiv:1202.1859v11(physics.gein-ph), 24 Mar 2014.
With my best wishes, Sincerely yours, Hidezumi Terazawa
@Mahsa,
That is why limited spontaneous generation (Something from nothing) requires energy conservation not to include a limit on the creation of energy. If it were truly nothing, not even energy would exist. Either energy can be created or there never was a time when nothing existed.
Dear Prof. Hidezumi Terazawa,
Thank you for your clarifying comments.
Yes, I can agree wholeheartedly that the main point is to recognize that although a phase transition in that case may happen without the concourse of energy input, the quantum field theory of pre geometry cannot be equated to "nothing". It is impossible that nothing can generate something. QFT of pre geometry could be viewed as a more fundamental underlying structure of the universe from where other structures may have emerged.
With best wishes,
Alfredo T Suzuki
@Masha. There are two properties of energy which are unique. One is that it can never be destroyed. And second is that it is always in motion. Everything in the universe is a form of energy and there is only one exception to this law. That is consciousness. Consciousness has four properties. One is that it can never be destroyed. Second is that it is perfectly motionless. Third is that it does not interact with energy. And fourth is that it is a unified field underlying all individual conscious mind. Mind can be destroyed but consciousness can never be destroyed. It is the mind that becomes conscious or unconscious.
So in reality there are only two things that exist in the universe. One is energy in motion and second is motionless consciousness and neither can ever be destroyed. Now it becomes easy to see that when motionless consciousness begins to move it becomes energy and vice versa. So the universe emerged from a unified field of consciousness which is like empty space to human senses.
Dear Mrs. Mahsa
I do not understand the words:" in Quantum we define particle in this way : A group of electromagnetic waves "....!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Today, all approaches to quantum gravity ( as example : physics of Black hole, string theory , GUP,....) is indicative of the fact that in the Planck period after the Big Bang (10^-43 second), we must have changed all our common notions of fundamental concepts such as space , time , energy and etc .
- "Beginning" cosmologies typically attempt to replace the Big Bang singularity of classical general relativity with some sort of quantum-mechanical event, and often go by the name "quantum cosmology. These models imagine that spacetime is a classical approximation to some sort of quantum-mechanical structure.In particular, time may be just an approximate notion, useful in some regimes but not others. Near the Big Bang is an obvious candidate for an era in which time loses its conventional meaning. The important ingredient is then a "boundary condition" that describes the state of the universe at the moment when time is first an intelligible concept. The most famous example is the "no-boundary proposal" of Hartle and Hawking, which constructs the state of the universe by integrating over all possible Euclidean geometries with no other boundaries. By "Euclidean" we mean geometries in which all four dimensions are spatial, in contrast to the "Lorentzian" geometry of spacetime with its distinction between timelike and spacelike directions. One occasionally speaks of "imaginary time," a phrase that has probably not increased the total amount of understanding in the universe.
- A provocative way of characterizing these beginning cosmologies is to say that "the universe was created from nothing." Much debate has gone into deciding what this claim is supposed to mean. Unfortunately, it is a fairly misleading natural-language translation of a concept that is not completely well-defined even at the technical level. Terms that are imprecisely defined include "universe," "created," "from," and "nothing."
- The problem with "creation from nothing" is that it conjures an image of a pre-existing "nothingness" out of which the universe spontaneously appeared – not at all what is actually involved in this idea. Partly this is because, as human beings embedded in a universe with an arrow of time, we can't help but try to explain events in terms of earlier events, even when the event we are trying to explain is explicitly stated to be the earliest one. It would be more accurate to characterize these models by saying "there was a time such that there was no earlier time."
- The important point is that we can easily imagine self-contained descriptions of the universe that have an earliest moment of time. There is no logical or metaphysical obstacle to completing the conventional temporal history of the universe by including an atemporal boundary condition at the beginning. Together with the successful post-Big-Bang cosmological model already in our possession, that would constitute a consistent and self-contained description of the history of the universe.
- Nothing in the fact that there is a first moment of time, in other words, necessitates that an external something is required to bring the universe about at that moment. As Hawking put it in a celebrated passage: "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end, it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" (S.W. Hawking (1988), A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam), p. 156.)
Dear Prof. Hidezumi Terazawa:
Thanks for your answers. You wrote: "In 1983, we first succeeded in explaining the origin of the Big Bang as a phase transition of the space-time from the pregeometric phase to the physical one in the quantum field theory of pregeometry. "
My requests:
a. Would you mind to send me your 1983 paper? Because I do not have access to GRG journal. My email is [email protected]
b. Do you mean that pregeometric phase transition is something like self-organized criticality? Yes i have heard that some physicists argue that self-organized criticality can be triggered without any cause.
c. You also wrote that pregeometric quantum field theory also assumes that vacuum is not the same with "nothing". Please clarify.
Your comments will be appreciated. thanks and best wishes
Dear Prof. Victor Christianto,
a. You may be able to have an access to any one of my papers by putting " find a terazawa, h" in inspirehep.net.
b. Suppose that it had been over-cooled before the Big Bang, and the phase transition of the space-time occured due to a quantum fractuation, which is somehow different from "self-organized criticality".
c. The vacuum is not the same as "nothing" in a sense that it is virtually filled with matter-antimatter pairs, which is the origin of all the fundamental forces including gravity in the quantum field theory of pregauge and pregeometry. See the details in my recent review, H. Terazawa, arXiv: 1109.3705v5(physics.gen-ph)10 Feb 2012.
With best regards, Yours, Hidezumi Terazawa
What is "nothing" is a philosophical trick question or maybe even methaphysical... (see for example Heidegger's “What is Metaphysics?”).
I believe that what Krauss and Hawking have in mind is that you do not need a Deus ex machina to 'contrive' the universe. To the champions of QFT I would remind a comment I've heard on Philosophy Talk by John Perry which amounts to saying that if QFT has existed before the universe then we are dealing with theologies (rather than sciences). In my mind we could subject the 'universe from nothing' theory -- especially as it hinges on fluctuations and uncertainties, to the Gettier problem test by challenging it as a JTB -- see http://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html. Personally, I'd rather have the universe pop out of some Pregeometric Origins than handed down from a devious deity
http://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html
@Prof. Hidezumi Terazawa: thank you for your answers, I will try to find your 1983 paper.
@Rainer: It is okay if you do not like the questions that I asked. But I try to ask questions in order to find out the scientific limit to answer questions which in the past belong to philosophical questions. Cf course, ideas by Prof. Terazawa and others on mechanism of Big-bang have been largely ignored so far, but I want to discuss whether Quantum Field Theory indeed provides the answer on the mechanism of Big bang. If you are interested on PreBigBang theories, see https://www.ma.utexas.edu/mp_arc/c/12/12-18.pdf. And so far all the answers given in this forum make the discussion interesting. Best wishes
@Prof. Jurg Frohlich: you are right that Quantum field theory by itself does not give explanation on how the Universe come into existence. But there are scientists such as Andrey Grib who works on early universe based on quantum field theory, see for instance: http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0505140v1.pdf.
Back in 2009, i read at a glance a book by Grib, Mamayev, and Mostepanenko discussing Vacuum quantum effect in the strong field (St. Petersburg, 1994). Hopefully these informations will help anyone interested. Thanks
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0505140v1.pdf
Actually the "Vacuum" can also be described as each point as a equal cancellation of positive energy and negative energy electrons with one going below the speed of light and one above the speed of light canceling energies of each other. The equation of energy for particles above light can found at: http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/468/2148/4174.abstract and a correction and improvement here: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/265643274_Extended_principle_of_relativity_beyond_speed_of_light_and_a_method_to_push_particles_beyond_the_speed_of_light .
As the vacuum can be represented as cancelling particles above the speed of light and below the speed of light, a slight perturbation in this equilibrium can lead of positive energy photons and a greater perturbation to a electron-positron pair. If the space-time is modeled as photon trajectories as in this paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266143448_Matter-light_duality_and_speed_greater_than_light then the whole space-time and matter can arise out of slight natural perturbation from a perfectly balanced Vacuum/Universe.
A 0 or vacuum is not a mere zero but a perfect balance of canceling energies, which have an automatic tendency to get perturbed (because the phase of the matter wave cannot perfectly cancel) and generate non-zero matter and space-time.
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/468/2148/4174.abstract
Article Extended principle of relativity beyond speed of light and a...
Article Matter-light duality and speed greater than light
Thank you Victor for posting this question which has led to so many interesting answers and so much worthwhile information. I certainly do not at all agree with the one who started sermoning you on what RG is meant for and that you were asking something that was metaphysics and all that. How narrow and biased people can be!
Please keep asking such questions.
Thanks and regards,
Rajat
@Rajat: thank you for your appreciation. I also learned many new perspectives that I never thought of before, such as pregeometry model of Prof. Terazawa. Best wishes
Victor, Nothing can come from nothing. The universe may have begun from a cosmic quantum, which emerged from a cosmic quantum field, which emerged from... See http://www.superluminalquantum.org/cosmicquantum
Victor you have hit the nail on the head concerning the problem of infinite regress. I go into detail in dealing with this question. See: Chapter 1 of my co-authored book at:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/163371933/From-Microbits-to-Everything-Universe-of-the-Imaginator-Volume-2-The-Philosophical-Implications
Potential existence is not "nothing". A condition having no existence and no potential for existence would really be "nothing", and nothing could come from it.
Some people unwittingly confuse physics with methaphysics (i.e. mythology). There is no such thing as an "unambiguous empirical evidence confirms that something (existence) does indeed come from nothing (non-existence)." That is pure mythology!
I would prefer to call it philosophy. Not all knowledge is empirically verifiable. Can you prove empirically that your mind exists? I didn't think so.
@Nadeem, Richard, Manuel, Alfredo: thank you for all your answers. Best wishes
Dear Dr. Alfredo T. Suzuki: would you mind to give url of your papers explaining your ideas?
Dear Victor,
I have no url where I have put my ideas. Sorry about that.
Dear all contributors: allow me to share here a summary of our discussion in this forum. Hopefully this summary will help anyone interested and motivate further study. Thank you for sharing your opinions. I do appreciate all of your answers. best wishes
Dear Manuel, if you ask me how did the vacuum fluctuation come to exist? My answer is: I do not know. Perhaps this question belongs to Pregeometry, but i am not so sure. Best wishes
listening to Nati Seiberg at the Breakthrough Prize symposium, "What is QFT?" may suggest that maybe we are missing some fundamental insights. Until then Theology may answer the metaphysical questions about nothing and beginning...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi3e0HVxlFo
Dear Victor Christianto, Your explanation is logical and perfect:
"a. The universe may have beginning from vacuum fluctuations, but it needs very large laser or other external field to trigger the Schwinger effect. But then one can ask: Who triggered that laser in the beginning?
b. In the beginning there could be strong gravitational field which triggered Cosmological Schwinger effect. But how could it be possible because in the beginning nothing exists including large gravitational field? So it seems like a tautology."
You are right!
Nothing is nothing, something is something. My opinion: Nothing can happen without coded information.
A “valami” és a “semmi” is olyan létezők, amelyeket nem tudunk közvetlen érzékelni, mint fogalmakat.
Ahhoz, hogy a semmiről beszéljünk, léteznie kell valaminek, ami ha nincs, akkor van a semmi.
Tudomány-ellenes- és nem logikus állítás azt mondani, hogy a világegyetem a semmiből keletkezett, indokolva azzal, hogy a most mérhető pozitív- és negatív energia összege zéró. Valamikor semmiféle energia nem létezett, csak a vákum energiája, de ennek közvetlen kimutatása ősi, eredeti állapotában lehetetlen.
A téridő megjelenésével a vákuum energiája is megváltozott és ma is változásban van, mint minden létező. Pillanatnyi létezéssel bíró civilizációnk nem tud kideríteni minden végtelen számú, kisléptékű- és nagyléptékű változást. Látjuk a csillagok változásait, a szupernova-robbanásokat, galaxisok egyesülését és Hubble felfedezte a a lassulva táguló Univerzum döbbenetes és nem véletlen, döntő változását: az Univerzum 8-9 milliárd évvel ezelőtt gyorsulva tágulásra váltott, sőt a legutóbbi kutatások szerint a gyorsulás egyre nagyobb mértékű és még sok nagyszerű felfedezés, kísérleti bizonyítás az anyag valódi tulajdonságairól. De a nyitott kérdések száma végtelen.
A vákuum energiája honnan jött létre?
Semmi nem “öröktől fogva való”, minden, ami anyag, vagy az anyag megjelenésének lehetőségét hordozza: valamikor nem volt, lett és most van!
Az “örökké” létező anyag a tudományos gondolkodáshoz méltatlan elképzelés, mert véges agyunkkal fel sem fogható, legfeljebb sejthető, hogy mit jelent ez, létezni kezdet és vég nélkül, örökké? Ez a filozófiai gondolat nem fér bele a valődi tudományba.
De ha fel is tennénk ezt a képtelen gondolatot, hogy a vákuum energiája “öröktől” fogva van, akkor is világos, hogy
Csak egyetlen, bizonyos, nem véletlen fluktuációból jöhetett létre olyan gravitációs szingularitás,
amelyből kirobbant a mai téridő az ősi energia-hullámokkal, majd az Infláció leállása pillanatában megjelentek a kvark-gluon folyadék, a kvarkpárok, protonok...etc. a bennük kódolt információkkal.
Miért éppen az a bizonyos fluktuáció járt ilyen óriási következményekkel, és miért nem egy másik?
Mert csak ez az egy fluktuáció volt információval kijelölve különleges folytatásra, csak ez az egyetlen egy nem tűnt el újra a láthatatlan részecskék tengerében.
A szingularitás mibenléte is érinti a "semmi" és "valami" kérdését. Hiszen a szingularitás energiája végtelen nagy “valami”, térfogata pedig végtelen kicsi “semmi”. Csakis a benne kódolt, az ősrobbanást időzített pillanatban létrehozó információról mondhatjuk, hogy az biztosan valami és nem semmi, mert minden valamiért, ami létezik, ezek a kezdeti feltételekben kódolt információk a felelősek. Ezeket pedig csak egy Különleges Információ tudta kódolni a a vákuum-. a szingularitás energiájába.
Tehát a semmi semmi, a valami valami, és a Világegyetem nem a “semmiből”, hanem éppen a “Mindenből” jött létre: és a “Minden” csak információ lehet, mert már régen tudományos tény, hogy információ nélkül nincs semmi keletkezés, fejlődés, változás.
Please, read:
Article A létezés és az idő. A „semmi” és a „valami”. "Miért van egy...
@Nyamadi, encodee infornation is required but it need not be physical information.
Please see my article for this:
September 2018NeuroQuantology 16(9):34-45
DOI: 10.14704/nq.2018.16.9.1258
Also see this article for remarks on ex nihilo creation.
June 2012NeuroQuantology 10(4):629-645
DOI: 10.14704/nq.2012.10.4.592
A universe can be created from nothing without any external laser or strong gravitational field. In QFT vacuum real particles can be created and annihilated thereafter provided their lifetime dt and energy dE satisfy the uncertainty relation, roughly dtdE~h where h is the Planck constant.
Owing to the uncertainty relation, borrowing a small amount of energy (dE~0) from vacuum is allowed for a long time. According to some estimates the total energy (including negative gravitational energy) of our Universe is precisely zero or very close to zero. Hence, if the Universe is created as a quantum fluctuation its lifetime can be almost infinite.
Dear Victor,
You may be interested in a possibility of a universe emerging from "almost" nothing not grouded on QFT, but on Maxwell's initial interpretation of electromagnetism:
Michaud A. (2017) Gravitation, Quantum Mechanics and the Least Action Electromagnetic Equilibrium States. J Astrophys Aerospace Technol 5: 152. doi:10.4172/2329-6542.1000152
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf
Best Regards, André
I agree with you.
Nothing means no anything, no theory, no mathematics, no physics, no space, no time, no vacuum, no thoughts, no minds, no consciousness at all.
Quantum fluctuations are absolutely not nothing.
If we have to assume something, no matter how tiny it is or whether it is physical or non-physical, then we are talking about the evolution of the universe not the beginning of the universe.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Theoretical Physics