Quantum Fluctuations ? A universe from nothing ?

Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quantum Fluctuations ? A universe from nothing ?

Anyone on here believes that the universe could have came about from a quantum fluctuation ?

Give your reasons

i personally believe so, because what puts the stop on the fluctuations ? Nothing and its entirely possible,

 

check out laurence krauss video on youtube on the topic


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
I personally believe in

I personally believe in eternal recycling universe that undergoes cycles of activity and inactivity. Big Bang was a moment of starting another cycle. I believe that matter will eventually dissolve, transcend back from lower dimensions to higher dimensions and eventually back to the source.

This is, because the fundamental nature of matter is n-dimensional, some could say divine, complete and it is only manifested as matter by putting it into  limitations. So it has a potential or tendency - specially if subjected to certain stimulation - to gradually return back to it's complete n-dimensional original state.

Philosophically speaking, omnipotence is only a potential, endless potentials, excluding any manifestation. Actual manifestation requires limiting the omnipotence, limiting potentials and to manifest just some of these potentials.

I'm in a philosophic mood today. I wonder if anything I wrote makes any sense. For a change Smiling

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 First off, the question is

 

First off, the question is oddly worded. Do I believe something that might be true but the proof of which has not yet been discovered? Well, no. At least not that way.

 

On the other hand, the idea is certainly not ruled out by any current observations, so it could well be the case.

 

What we do know is that quantum fluctuations happen all the time as the general background to the universe. At no small level either. I have seen several calculations on the matter but quite possibly as much as 10^100 electron volts per cubic meter. You don't notice it for reasons that are not dissimilar to the fact that one does not notice air. Even so, it is quite real.

 

With stuff constantly happening on that level, is it so hard to contemplate that once in a great long while, a universe forms? Well, since we don't really know just what has to happen for a universe to get started. In fact, it is possible that it is constantly happening. Either at places so distant that they are not normally going to be in causal contact or because of the general idea of starter universes being non-viable for one reason or another.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi Fred - interesting idea, this.

Adventfred wrote:

Anyone on here believes that the universe could have came about from a quantum fluctuation ?

Give your reasons

i personally believe so, because what puts the stop on the fluctuations ? Nothing and its entirely possible,

check out laurence krauss video on youtube on the topic

 

Sadly, given my pea-like brain, I don't fully understand what I'm not sure I believe in when it comes to this stuff. I like the idea of it tho' - particularly from the point of view of short circuiting the 'universe as a closed system' position.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
 Thanks for all the

 

Thanks for all the responses guys and yes to the first post i understand what you mean

 

Anyone look at the laurence kruass vid yet ?


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well, it might help if you

Well, it might help if you were a bit more specific on the video.  There are lots of them out there.  I did spend about half an hour watching him take down Behe and Dumbski but those are obviously not what you had in mind.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 590
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote: I'm in a

Luminon wrote:
 

I'm in a philosophic mood today.

Whoa!! That you are!! I think I understood what you've said but I don't buy it... it is way n-dimentional for me to grasp... It's a valid thought for me, though.

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote:Luminon

Teralek wrote:

Luminon wrote:
 

I'm in a philosophic mood today.

Whoa!! That you are!! I think I understood what you've said but I don't buy it... it is way n-dimentional for me to grasp... It's a valid thought for me, though.

Here it's simple, an object can be only in one dimension at a time, so just think of them all as bars on ladder to God.

"Dimension" is not always the same thing, I mean, time is not the same thing as space. Here it is more like a parameter of matter itself.
I'll give you an example. Such an object is like a propeller that spins too fast for you to see. But a propeller spins only around one axis. If it can spin around more axes at the same time,  it belongs to a different dimension. If you're an American, try to imagine this gyroscope thingy inside the smallest particles Smiling In any case, this is how I hope I understood the Calabi-Yau manifold Smiling

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 590
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Yes, yes... I'm not an

Yes, yes... I'm not an American and I'm not saying you're wrong also. What I say is that there are somethings that are beyond human comprehension. So that not even the best minds here can even envision. Metaphysics or even advanced mathematics reach the state of speculation sometimes. What is the truth anyway...?

In reality my beliefs have similarities to yours but I have no hard evidence for them... only some "facts" that seem to fit my opinions. Some of my ultimate opinions are not easily falsifiable.

 

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Well, it might help if you were a bit more specific on the video.  There are lots of them out there.  I did spend about half an hour watching him take down Behe and Dumbski but those are obviously not what you had in mind.

 

Heres the like everyone

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo[/youtube]


Jeffrey (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I've seen the Lawrence

I've seen the Lawrence Krauss video and I am graduating with an undergraduate physics degree this year. This is the best theory existing for what the beginning of the universe looked like. Scientists can't actually create a vacuum, only something near to it, because the energy required to create a vacuum is enough energy for particle and anti-particle pairs to form (essentially E=mc2) which in turn fills up the vacuum (incidentally, it is also why there is a limit to the speed of light in a vacuum). Now scientists are trying to understand which of the many asymmetric processes in particle physics is responsible for that fact that are universe is dominated by particles over anti-particles (rather than equal proportions). So the natural state of the universe is there to be something, rather than nothing, and for that something to be rather randomly determined. The rules of physics explain why these particles form stable atoms and how we can get things like stars and planets.

Some comments mentioned string theory and manifolds and higher dimensions and other fantastic supplement to particle theory. The quantum-mechanical origin of the universe from nothing is not dependent on accepting these particularly fantastic version of particle theory: from what we do know for sure we get a universe from nothing. What these fantastic supplements attempt to do, among other things, is serve to explain why these particular rules of physics are the ones that exist, as opposed to a hypothetical rules of physics that might not create a universe from nothing. I am hesitant to subscribe to any one particular supplement to the standard model until there is more empirical data to back up the difference. I will say, however, these theoretical speculation is important for directing which experiments should be conducted as well as developing mathematical tools which simplify the data that we have.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrey wrote:I've seen the

Jeffrey wrote:

I've seen the Lawrence Krauss video and I am graduating with an undergraduate physics degree this year. This is the best theory existing for what the beginning of the universe looked like. Scientists can't actually create a vacuum, only something near to it, because the energy required to create a vacuum is enough energy for particle and anti-particle pairs to form (essentially E=mc2) which in turn fills up the vacuum (incidentally, it is also why there is a limit to the speed of light in a vacuum). Now scientists are trying to understand which of the many asymmetric processes in particle physics is responsible for that fact that are universe is dominated by particles over anti-particles (rather than equal proportions). So the natural state of the universe is there to be something, rather than nothing, and for that something to be rather randomly determined. The rules of physics explain why these particles form stable atoms and how we can get things like stars and planets.


I think there is a limit to speed of light in vacuum, because the electromagnetic forces are inherently limited, they're just not fast enough. Accelerating object gets properly burdened by the very force that propels it, therefore it can't reach the speed of light. It's like building a rocket with still bigger engines and fuel supply, that is too massive to lift itself. However, this does not mean that the speed of light is impassable. My information is, that string theory or M-theory allows to predict such states of matter, for which the light speed limit is considerably higher.  Then the only problem would be a conversion of matter into that state and back.

There also seems to be an assymetry in basic particles, they fluctuate between matter and antimatter state, but they remain in the matter state a tiny bit longer, so in long term it gives the universe almost devoid of antimatter.

Jeffrey wrote:
Some comments mentioned string theory and manifolds and higher dimensions and other fantastic supplement to particle theory. The quantum-mechanical origin of the universe from nothing is not dependent on accepting these particularly fantastic version of particle theory: from what we do know for sure we get a universe from nothing. What these fantastic supplements attempt to do, among other things, is serve to explain why these particular rules of physics are the ones that exist, as opposed to a hypothetical rules of physics that might not create a universe from nothing. I am hesitant to subscribe to any one particular supplement to the standard model until there is more empirical data to back up the difference. I will say, however, these theoretical speculation is important for directing which experiments should be conducted as well as developing mathematical tools which simplify the data that we have.

I think it is premature to talk about the universe from nothing, as long as there is the dark matter, for the existence of which there is an evidence. My sources say, that matter was created in Big bang as a precipitation from dark matter, which is basically the same as far as the Mendelejev's periodic table of elements is concerned.
So I'm curious about the Laurence Krauss opinion, I'm downloading his lecture now to listen to it later.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Is there any way how to say

Is there any way how to say something, so other people DON'T lose interest in the discussion? It's qutie troublesome, really. People would call me discussion-killer if that wouldn't involve continuing in the discussion.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.