[URAIN]

Some people say universe originated from nothing, some reject this.

Is there any consensus about it in science. Or till no consensus?

(Please first say about science consensus and then your view.)

[CraigD]

IMO, since the late 1960s, there’s been a single strong scientific consensus agreeing with the Big Bang model’s description of how the universe we presently observe formed, about 13.7 billion years ago.

However, I’ve the impression your question, URAIN, is about the question “what existed before the Big Bang?” or the related “why did the Big Bang occur?”

On these questions, I think there are 2 main, competing consensuses:

• The Big Bang was a large scale quantum vacuum fluctuation. As Edward Tryon put in 1973 “the universe is simply one of those things that happens from time to time.” The “originated from nothing” position you call out in post #1.
  
• The Big Bang was the result of an interaction of bodies in a space with more spatial dimensions than the observed 3. A major family of theories holding this are known collectively as Brane Cosmology. One of many possible “some reject this” position called out in post #1.

Surprisingly, perhaps, for such a simple, seemingly profound question, I believe there’s a reluctance on the part of professional and serious armature scientists to put much scientific effort into answering the “origin of everything” question, because of the near impossibly difficulty of testing specific theoretical predictions about it. There’s simply not much practical value to answering the question, either for producing new and improved technology or guiding fundamental scientific research.

[URAIN]

Thank you for response (After a long gap we met)

CraigD, on 08 November 2011 - 09:35 AM, said:

However, I’ve the impression your question, URAIN, is about the question “what existed before the Big Bang?” or the related “why did the Big Bang occur?”

Yes, you are right.

CraigD, on 08 November 2011 - 09:35 AM, said:

As Edward Tryon put in 1973 “the universe is simply one of those things that happens from time to time.”

'time to time' do you mean, (long time) before big bang also universe has existed? and after end of this universe, again a universe will origin. (Does science world accept it?)

CraigD, on 08 November 2011 - 09:35 AM, said:

The “originated from nothing” position you call out in post #1.

It is opinion of Edward Tryon. Does science world has consensus about it?
Did this was not a violation of conservation law?

[Qfwfq]

Cosmogony is a metaphysical topic.

[CraigD]

URAIN, on 08 November 2011 - 10:44 AM, said:

CraigD, on 08 November 2011 - 09:35 AM, said:

As Edward Tryon put in 1973 “the universe is simply one of those things that happens from time to time.”

'time to time' do you mean, (long time) before big bang also universe has existed? and after end of this universe, again a universe will origin. (Does science world accept it?)

My own inexpert (but polished from frequent use ) interpretation of what Tyron meant is:

• According to quantum physics, the vacuum – a volume of space empty of all actual particles, matter or energy – is still described as containing an essentially infinite configuration of virtual particles.
  
• Nearly all the time, these virtual particles are undetectable. They can meaningfully be said not to exist.
  
• Rarely (with very small, but not zero, probability) however, some of these virtual particles are detected, and thus become actual. The Casimir effect is an example of this.
  
• When these rare events occur, they usually involve a small number of low total mass/energy particles.
  
• However, there is a very small, but not zero, probability of many virtual particles with high energy becoming actual.
  
• If you wait long enough, the probability of even a very low probability event occurring becomes large.
  
• So if you wait long enough, the universe at it existed at the beginning of the Big Bang will appear, with no classical mechanical cause, in what was previously an endless, absolute vacuum.

Quote

It is opinion of Edward Tryon. Does science world has consensus about it?

I believe the consensus is that the physics of Tyron’s paper (which was published in Nature, a well-respected journal in 1973 and today) about the idea is sound, but, as I alluded to earlier, as it can’t be tested by any practically imaginable experiments, or used to, say, make better or cheaper electronics, is not worth much.

Quote

Did this was not a violation of conservation law?

Many quantum physical effects violate classical mechanical conservation laws. This is why, in quantum physics, these laws are referred to as being “in the classical approximation” – they make accurate predictions on average, but aren’t absolutely inviolable.

[Qfwfq]

CraigD, on 08 November 2011 - 01:52 PM, said:

Many quantum physical effects violate classical mechanical conservation laws.

Well, not quite.

One of the possible points of view is that conservations are really just highly peaked distributions, but when they say highly peaked, they really mean highly peaked. Anyway these topics are very complicated and any outline without mathematical rigour should be taken with a grain of salt; you hear so many sloppy depictions around that they start to replace the more accurate ones, adding to the vast confusion. It gets to the point where one may as well say the Big Bang happened after God had eaten too many beans...

This post has been edited by Qfwfq: 27 January 2012 - 06:00 AM
Reason for edit: dumb typo

[URAIN]

I am not remembering clearly, but I try. Once I was read that Einstein also once said that this universe is always in cyclic (origin and end of universe). Then after some time he felt this was a fault by him, about his statement.

Recently I heard that second law of thermodynamics(usable energy converts to unusable energy, energy not reversible in quality) also does not obey the universe origin is 'time to time'.

[CraigD]

Qfwfq, on 09 November 2011 - 03:13 AM, said:

CraigD, on 08 November 2011 - 01:52 PM, said:

Many quantum physical effects violate classical mechanical conservation laws.

Well, not quite.
...
Anyway these topics are very complicated and any outline without mathematical rigour should be taken with a grain of salt; you here so many sloppy depictions around that they start to replace the more accurate ones, adding to the vast confusion. ...

Good and important point, I agree. In self-parody illustration, quoting my 2nd favorite line from Futurama:

As Deepak Chopra taught us, quantum physics means anything can happen at any time for no reason.
- Professor Farnsworth, from Bender’s Game

Also importantly, I think, is that an extravagant universe-size violations of conservation of mass-energy in the classical mechanical sense is precisely what Tyron and other “nothing cosmogonists” are proposing with the “vacuum genesis” hypothesis “the universe is a large-scale vacuum energy fluctuation.”

I would love to amplify this idea with mathematical rigor, but ... well, embarrassingly, and I’m sure unsurprisingly to folk who know me here at hypography, my mathematical physics skills are modest, fairly typical of a Math undergrad who focused his science electives in Physics, then spend a quarter century programming computers and forgetting much of what little he learned. I flatter myself to think that if I really buckled down and studied, I could elevate my writing to that of a PhD physics pro, but this is really just conceited fantasy, and almost certainly not gonna happen.

Meanwhile, I’m curious to hear what anyone with real quantum physics chops makes of Tryon’s and others’ old idea. There’s a smattering of writing about it, much noting that Tryon’s brief sketch of the physics of it required , which is now believed to be nonphysical, but as best I can tell, the idea remains viable, and sadly under-discussed.

[URAIN]

CraigD said:

I believe the consensus is that the physics of Tyron’s paper (which was published in Nature, a well-respected journal in 1973 and today)

Please tell me how is the 'Physics Today' magazine compared to Nature (If I would like to share my views, I intended to share through this magazine)

Please give response to my above post. (About Einstein statements about 'time to time' origin and how second law of thermodynamics works with the 'origin' of universe.)

[CraigD]

URAIN, on 10 November 2011 - 05:42 AM, said:

Please tell me how is the 'Physics Today' magazine compared to Nature.

Physics Today is essentially a news periodical that focuses primarily on physics and engineering subjects. It’s not a scientific journal, so rarely contains original research, rather its articles are usually follow-ups to research published in scientific journals, or general commentary. Although I consider it a very high quality publication, articles submitted to it and written by its staff writers aren’t required to follow the usual rules for scholarly papers, not be rigorously peer reviewed. To the best of knowledge, Tryon or other “nothing cosmogonists” have not had articles published in it.

Nature is a scientific journal publishing papers in most of the scientific disciplined, not just Physics. It’s widely considered the best and most prestigious scientific journal, and according to studies, its articles are more cited by other journals than any other single journal.

Quote

(If I would like to share my views, I intended to share through this magazine)

There’s no requirement at hypography that only a specific magazine or journal be referenced. I recommend you not restrict yourself to any single source of information.

Though most magazines and many journals have sections where nearly any person may have their short letters published, these sections are usually restricted to letters commenting on recently published articles in that publication. I don’t think you’ll be able to use Physics Today to share your views on subjects such as this threads.

Quote

Please give response to my above post. (About Einstein statements about 'time to time' origin and how second law of thermodynamics works with the 'origin' of universe.)

Albert Einstein speculated ca. 1930 that the universe might begin with the usual Big Bang event, expand due to the outward momentum of its parts, then due to gravitational attraction, fall back together in a “Big Crunch” that creates the initial conditions for the next Big Bang. According to this model, these cycles might go on forever.

Einstein and most other cosmologists abandoned oscillating universe models as improved astronomical data showed that the expansion of the universe is not decreasing, nor due to classical mechanical momentum, and because of theoretical difficulties explaining how, in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy could gradually decrease during the contraction leading up to, or be abruptly reset during, the Big Crunch.

Some more recent, and complicated, cyclic models, most of them in the domain of string and brane theory. All have significant difficulties, are not widely accepted, and are only distantly related to the old Big Crunch models.

[URAIN]

CraigD, on 10 November 2011 - 07:13 AM, said:

Physics Today is essentially a news periodical that focuses primarily on physics and engineering subjects. It’s not a scientific journal, so rarely contains original research, rather its articles are usually follow-ups to research published in scientific journals, or general commentary. Although I consider it a very high quality publication, articles submitted to it and written by its staff writers aren’t required to follow the usual rules for scholarly papers, not be rigorously peer reviewed. To the best of knowledge, Tryon or other “nothing cosmogonists” have not had articles published in it.

Nature is a scientific journal publishing papers in most of the scientific disciplined, not just Physics. It’s widely considered the best and most prestigious scientific journal, and according to studies, its articles are more cited by other journals than any other single journal.

Thank you for guidance. I will think about it.

CraigD, on 10 November 2011 - 07:13 AM, said:

I recommend you not restrict yourself to any single source of information.

I have not cleared. Please extend one or two lines.

CraigD, on 10 November 2011 - 07:13 AM, said:

Albert Einstein speculated ca. 1930 that the universe might begin with the usual Big Bang event, expand due to the outward momentum of its parts, then due to gravitational attraction, fall back together in a “Big Crunch” that creates the initial conditions for the next Big Bang. According to this model, these cycles might go on forever.

Does singularity theorems of Hawkings and Penrose are different than this. I heard that these theorems says that it is impossible to indefinitely extend the timelike godesics into past. Then what about these cycles?

How we apply second law of thermodynamics for origin of next universe?

[Michael Geil]

The universe is like a working chemical experiment which is attempting to create sentient life from its chaos. Much lile other living creatures, the result is the entity escapes its womb. The possibilities are nearly endless but the simplest answer is generally the most correct. To me the simplest is exactly what you see. The universe is trying to create order out of chaos which indicates a cycle of life. Before the universe was something that wanted more from nothing. The universe is more alive than we are.

[LaurieAG]

Hi Urain,

URAIN, on 13 November 2011 - 05:53 AM, said:

Does singularity theorems of Hawkings and Penrose are different than this. I heard that these theorems says that it is impossible to indefinitely extend the timelike godesics into past. Then what about these cycles?

'The Nature of Space and Time', a book of a lecture series by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, is a good reference. But the structure of the underlying elementary calculus reveals the connections between and the limitations of each individual conception.

Quite simply, the limits, from -infinity to +infinity, of a function y = x is an indefinite integral whose answer is undefined.

(1) If the limits are not infinite the answer changes from undefined to zero and the integral becomes an improper integral.

(2) If the limits are symetric and the function is a sub function of a higher level cyclic function (field/waveform, i.e. (1)), with at least 1 cycle, then the integral can also equal zero and be considered improper even if the limits are infinite (or imaginary but symetric).

(3) If you combine (1) and (2) together you get the basic framework for BB theory.

In 'The Nature of Space and Time', the Wick Rotation (multiply t(ime) by i where i = imaginary unit, square root of -1) is used to translate elements of Minkowski space to their Euclidian space equivalents (if they exist).

Restricting the number of cycles in (2) to 1 through (1) seems like much ado about nothing.

[sigurdV]

Michael Geil, on 13 January 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

The universe is like a working chemical experiment which is attempting to create sentient life from its chaos. Much lile other living creatures, the result is the entity escapes its womb. The possibilities are nearly endless but the simplest answer is generally the most correct. To me the simplest is exactly what you see. The universe is trying to create order out of chaos which indicates a cycle of life. Before the universe was something that wanted more from nothing. The universe is more alive than we are.

Could You expand and/or extrapolate? We might be visiting the same bar

[david50]

I just ran across this site that might help you... www.thesomervillehypothesis.com

sobon50