Mathematics of Creation

[ydoaPs]

Does anyone have a link to mathematical justification of Hawking's claim that nothingness can generate a universe?

[michel123456]

I don't.

But I have a suggestion to make. If something can arise from nothing, why not trying to make the reversal procedure, and make nothing from something. No kidding.

IIRC anihilation produces energy. So it's not nothing. We need pure anihilation.

Edited November 3, 2010 by michel123456

[imatfaal]

I am not sure that the mathematics is there yet - wouldn't it require an entirely new description of physical laws esp gravity? GR can't predict how the universe has emerged from the big bang. In the first instants (and I guess that means the very first instant) we would need a complete theory of quantum gravity for him to be able to provide the maths

[ydoaPs]

I am not sure that the mathematics is there yet - wouldn't it require an entirely new description of physical laws esp gravity? GR can't predict how the universe has emerged from the big bang. In the first instants (and I guess that means the very first instant) we would need a complete theory of quantum gravity for him to be able to provide the maths

IIRC, if you use imaginary time and treat it like a spacial dimension, then the singularity goes away.

[michel123456]

I am not sure that the mathematics is there yet - wouldn't it require an entirely new description of physical laws esp gravity? GR can't predict how the universe has emerged from the big bang. In the first instants (and I guess that means the very first instant) we would need a complete theory of quantum gravity for him to be able to provide the maths

 

I haven't read the book, but from articles, it seems Hawking is talking about M-theory.

[imatfaal]

I think he is talking about M-theory, multiple higher dimensions, and an overall theory of quantum gravity; I am out of my depth here, but I am pretty sure that the mathematical coherence of m-theory is lacking. there are few greater mathematicians than the physicists of m-theory but I believe the maths is still fragmented and contradictive in places. I stand to be corrected but we can do the maths of GR - but GR cannot apply in this case; we can use Harlte-Hawking states to smooth out the singularity but then we need a complete and consistent quantum gravity theory.

[pioneer]

The easiest way to create the universe from nothing is to begin at C. In a C reference, the infinite-eternal universe of an inertial reference is contained within a point-instant reference.

 

All you need to do is leave the distance aspect of the C reference unchanged, but make the time reference inertial. From this new reference the infinite-eternal universe of inertial reference will look like an eternal point in the new reference, since this new reference is a composite reference of both inertial (t) and C(d).

 

What we have created is time potential with respect to the C reference, since that point that should only last an instant is now given infinite time. The time potential of this point with C (C is the majority phase) will lower becoming finite time as it moves back to the instant. This release of the time potential will increase the potential in distance, so the point reference expands. Where the two potentials of d increasing and t decreasing meet, space-time reforms, heading back to C. This gives off potential from which the material of the universe forms in space-time. It too returns to C. Mass returns to energy or mass forms the C reference of the blackholes, etc,

Edited November 4, 2010 by pioneer

[ajb]

I am out of my depth here, but I am pretty sure that the mathematical coherence of m-theory is lacking.

 

Generally, not a lot is known about M-theory and especially outside of its low energy limit which is an 11 dimensional supergravity. We also know it contains branes of dimension 2 and 5, the so called M2 and M5 branes.

 

there are few greater mathematicians than the physicists of m-theory but I believe the maths is still fragmented and contradictive in places.

 

I am not sure about contradictory, unless you have some specific examples in mind?

 

There has been a bit of a renewal of interest in M-theory over the past few years. This is due to the ground breaking work of Bagger and Lambert and also Gustavsson who constructed an action that describes the a coincident pile of M2 branes. There has been much work on this and similar models since.

 

Including M5 branes has partially be done.

 

There is some very interesting algebraic structures behind these models: 3-Lie algebras.

 

I stand to be corrected but we can do the maths of GR - but GR cannot apply in this case; we can use Harlte-Hawking states to smooth out the singularity but then we need a complete and consistent quantum gravity theory.

 

Absolutely right, a proper understanding of the very early universe would require a quantum theory of gravity. M-theory may offer such a theory.

[Spyman]

Does anyone have a link to mathematical justification of Hawking's claim that nothingness can generate a universe?

What cind of nothingness can gravity exist and function in?

 

The authors write:

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_(book)

[imatfaal]

AJB - no I can't provide examples. IIRC In an introduction to a talk by Witten the host said that whilst the maths of string/m/s.string family of theories was beautiful and ground-breaking one of the reasons that there were many theories and branches was that the underlying assumptions in the maths varied and were incompatible with each other, and this gave hints of a deeper theory within which all the competing ideas would be unified (and perhaps physical unification would be forthcoming).

 

My knowledge runs out far before this in practice so I have to rely on vague assertions. Sorry. Will wrack my brains to remember the lecture - it was on the net, so once I remember I will post it.

[elas]

Does anyone have a link to mathematical justification of Hawking's claim that nothingness can generate a universe?

 

Does Hawking's define 'nothingness' in a scientific manner?

[michel123456]

Does anyone have a link to mathematical justification of Hawking's claim that nothingness can generate a universe?

 

After a few thoughts and reading some about S.Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow's book, I believe they are doing a great job. At the end M-theory may prove that nothingness is something so unstable that it cannot exist. That should be a definitive step forward in our understanding of the Universe. But I may be wrong on that.

[Spyman]

... nothingness is something so unstable that it cannot exist...

Quote of the Year.

[imatfaal]

Might steal that for a signature

[elas]

Quote of the Year.

 

That's why I ask my question, but perhaps you are wrong, surely QT defines nothing wherever it uses the term Zero Point; all that is needed is to grasp the full extent of the implications and origin of Zero Points.

Edited November 6, 2010 by elas

[IM Egdall]

I just got Hawking's book, so I am interested in this discussion. I know that in Quantum Mechanics there is this vacuum energy I think its called. And according to the Uncertainty Principle, a particle and its anti-particle spontaneously rise up out of nothing; that is out of the vacuum of "empty" space, then annihilate each other, and disappear. One particle has positive energy and one has negative energy, so their annihilation results in a return to zero energy. The time of existence for these virtual particles is determined by their mass/energy by the Uncertainty Principle, where the uncertainty in mass/energy times the uncertainty in time is always greater than or equal to Planck's constant divided by 4 Pi c^2. That's why they exist for such very short time periods.

 

So what does this have to do with M-theory and gravity? Does anyone out there know if the rise of virtual particles out of empty space is the basis for Hawking's creation of universes. And again, where does gravity come in, as proposed by M-theory?

Edited November 6, 2010 by I ME

[cypress]

Does anyone have a link to mathematical justification of Hawking's claim that nothingness can generate a universe?

 

Not sure why one would even bother to read it. "Nothing" doesn't generate anything. Nothing is absence of existence. Nothing has no agency. "Nothing can generate..." is an oxymoron.

 

Perhaps the universe was generated from a quantum fluctuation but then what generated the quantum field?

 

Perhaps cause does not apply to the universe, but then the principle of sufficient reason is invalid, and if it is invalid then the traditional arguments that lesser events within the universe require reason. If the entire universe requires no reason then all things need no reason. No need for abiogenisis no need for evolution, no need for science.

 

Math is a wonderful model, but it does not always model reality....

[michel123456]

Not sure why one would even bother to read it. "Nothing" doesn't generate anything. Nothing is absence of existence. Nothing has no agency. "Nothing can generate..." is an oxymoron.

 

Perhaps the universe was generated from a quantum fluctuation but then what generated the quantum field?

 

Perhaps cause does not apply to the universe, but then the principle of sufficient reason is invalid, and if it is invalid then the traditional arguments that lesser events within the universe require reason. If the entire universe requires no reason then all things need no reason. No need for abiogenisis no need for evolution, no need for science.

 

Math is a wonderful model, but it does not always model reality....

 

IMHO "nothing" is an abstract, not a physical reality. The void that we encounter in the Universe is far from being "nothing". The void is full as an egg. What we call "nothing" has never been observed anywhere, since we always observe "something". The concept of "nothingness creating something" is the search of physical reality arising from an abstract (IMHO again), and IMHO againagain, it is not the right way to go. The right way to go consists IMHO againagainagain to examine exactly what are the properties of this "nothingness" and to exclude it defenetly from the physical world, stating for example that "nothingness cannot exist" for α.β.γ... reasons. This would erase the word 'creation' once for all from the scientific language. At the risk of course to change actual cosmological explanations. IMHO againagainagainagain.

Edited November 6, 2010 by michel123456

[cypress]

IMHO "nothing" is an abstract, not a physical reality. The void that we encounter in the Universe is far from being "nothing". The void is full as an egg. What we call "nothing" has never been observed anywhere, since we always observe "something".

 

The universe is a something, I agree. However Hawking seems to be claiming that this something se call the universe can be generated from nothing. Your suggested definition of nothing seems to be a something.

 

The concept of "nothingness creating something" is the search of physical reality arising from an abstract (IMHO again), and IMHO againagain, it is not the right way to go.

 

Yes I agree Hawking's approach does seem to be wrong.

 

The right way to go consists IMHO againagainagain to examine exactly what are the properties of this "nothingness" and to exclude it defenetly from the physical world, stating for example that "nothingness cannot exist" for α.β.γ... reasons.

 

I think I agree that it seems more correct to describe the cause of the universe as a something rather than nothing and to attribute properties to it.

 

This would erase the word 'creation' once for all from the scientific language. At the risk of course to change actual cosmological explanations. IMHO againagainagainagain.

 

hmm, I don't understand what you said here.

 

IIRC, if you use imaginary time and treat it like a spacial dimension, then the singularity goes away.

 

Yes imaginary things treated as real can make lots of difficulties go away.

[michel123456]

I think I agree that it seems more correct to describe the cause of the universe as a something rather than nothing and to attribute properties to it.

 

The 'cause" of the universe may simply be its irreducibility: less than the universe is nothing, nothing cannot exist, there is the Universe.CQFD (QED)

[cypress]

The 'cause" of the universe may simply be its irreducibility: less than the universe is nothing, nothing cannot exist, there is the Universe.CQFD (QED)

 

 

Yes a philosophical answer to this scientific question is likely all that can be provided and if so adds to the notion that Hawking's proof is not worth much.

[Sisyphus]

Not sure why one would even bother to read it.

 

Hawking's proof is not worth much.

 

Your opinion on this subject on which you are admittedly completely ignorant is noted.

[cypress]

Your opinion on this subject on which you are admittedly completely ignorant is noted.

 

I admitted ignorance as to why someone would take Hawking seriously on this particular point. I do however have some knowledge of this topic. Perhaps you might address some of the issues I raised rather than throwing out red herrings. Perhaps you can explain how absence of existence, lacking agency, can cause something. Perhaps you can explain why "nothing can generate..." is not an oxymoron.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Perhaps Hawking's book should be allowed to explain itself.

[michel123456]

In any case it is rather stupid to throw opinons on a book you have not read.

Mea culpa, I acted stupidly too.