An answer to the "universe from nothing" question

I recently became aware of a theory that may answer that question. It was on a special about Stephen Hawking . Basically, he said at the moment of the Big Bang the universe was a super dense particle, or singularity, smaller than a proton. It randomly exploded to become the known universe. He goes on to say that the universe has only two things, energy and space. Based on Einstein's work matter is also a form of energy. There are positive energies (stars, planets, comets) and negative energy (gravity). When all these energies are added together the resulting sum of the entire universe will! So there you are. There is still nothing.

Of course any bible-thumper will declare that the stupidest thing they ever heard.

Views: 821

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

James, that theist's dependence on the free will argument tells me he might have been a catholic. He might also have gone to a Jesuit school.

I did two years at a Jesuit high school and heard their reliance on free will.

I later heard that they had been the pope's hit men. I have no difficulty with the idea that when they could no longer dispose of non-compliant people that way, they turned to debate.

The least tractable people I know are biblical literalists and elderly Catholics--both men and women.

And a few BB cosmologists.

eric, one BB enthusiast described the "nothing" as a kind of lumpy gas.

I didn't ask him to explain.

A cosmologist?

Maybe, since he thinks little of cosmology.

Hm-mm, could he have studied cosmetology and confused it with cosmology?

Yes, he thought the bouffant do was from another planet.

Take the et from cosmetology and it becomes cosmology.

Then et starred in a movie.

B Fletcher: Love the attitude of the first sentence and had a thought: as you say, "science leads where it will." This is in contradistinction to religion, which leads nowhere. Religion is (literally: Moses) set it stone. God exists because I [the Bible] says so. People build an entire belief system on one of the logical fallacies: circular reasoning. At least the scientist goes on looking and questioning. Not even when she has abundant evidence of some theory does she say, "That's it. That's truth."

Not even when she has abundant evidence of some theory does she say, "That's it. That's truth."

Insufficient evidence has led to ego battles.

I read of one that took place in the early 1900s after a dinosaur hunter placed the wrong skull on a dino's neck. The story was that while he chaired the department he didn't want to replace it with the correct skull another dino hunter had found. 

I read too of Euclidean geometers who in the middle 1800s didn't want to acknowledge parallel lines on non-Euclidean surfaces.

The Big Bang theory does not imply the universe suddenly appeared from nothing. 

Cosmologists try to understand what happened "before" the Big Bang. 
If "before" the Big Bang really means anything. Time is one dimension of spacetime, and the nature of time may be different near the Big Bang - because when the universe was so incredibly dense, spacetime may have been very different from the way it is now.
There are lectures on Youtube by Roger Penrose and other cosmologists on "Before the Big Bang".   If you type Before the Big Bang in Youtube's search box, a lot of interesting videos come up. 

The Big Bang theory does not imply the universe suddenly appeared from nothing.

One BB enthusiast told me the BB started a Planck second after the expansion began.

How can answers to "What happened before the BB?" be anything but imagined "goddidits"?

Who on those videos can claim to have more than imagined evidence?

BTW, the above "goddidits" is a metaphor; don't assume a literal god.

How can answers to "What happened before the BB?" be anything but imagined "goddidits"?

Because there may be evidence in our current universe of what was "before" the Big Bang. 

The videos about "before the Big Bang" are about theories by cosmologists.  Loop quantum gravity, Roger Penrose's "conformal cyclic cosmology".  Maybe others. 

Nobody knows right now, of course.  Once there's a consistent theory of quantum gravity with good evidence supporting it, cosmologists might have a better idea of what happened "before" the Big Bang.

The reason I put "before" in quotes is that spacetime might change so drastically right near the Big Bang, that it becomes 4-dimensional space instead of 3 space dimensions plus one time dimension. 

If time turns into another space dimension near the Big Bang, then the universe isn't coming "from" something in the past. 

Or maybe there are other exotic possibilities. 

I read a popular book on loop quantum gravity, Once Before Time by Martin Bojowald, where he writes of how time could step through the Big Bang.  "Steps" because time is quantized at that tiny scale. 



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service