Universe From Nothing Revisit

[IM Egdall]

I think the "Universe Created from Nothing" idea is based on:

- observations which tell us the universe is "flat", in other words it has overall net zero space time curvature (Cosmic Microwave Background etc.)

- general relativity, which says that in a flat universe the total gravitational energy (negative) is cancelled out by the total non-gravitational mass/energy from stars, cosmic dust, dark matter, dark energy etc. (positive).

- Thus the net energy of the universe is zero.

 

I objected to this in an earlier post because it seemed to me that this only applies to the VISIBLE universe, that is the part of the universe we can see. (We cannot see the rest of the universe which is so far away that its light has not had time to reach us.)

 

In addition, per inflation theory we observe a flat universe because the entire universe underwent an exponential expansion very shortly after the big bang (By entire universe I mean the observable and unobservable universe.)

 

So our observable universe is a flat region within a most likely highly curved entire universe. So the "universe from nothing" idea is suspect.

 

I asked these questions in an e-mail to physicist Lawrence Krauss. He said "you are correct that our observable universe is flat, and we cannot say more than the local grav. energy in our observable universe is zero." So I thought I had made a good point. But then he added, "I would argue that this goes a long way toward justifying our universe from nothing because it suggests inflation happened." Then he added " Moreover, total energy of any universe may be zero in a global sense. It is only well defined for a closed universe, for which it is definitely zero." (He told me he'd address all in detail in his new book.)

 

OK, so here are my questions: If inflation gives us a possible method for creating a universe out of nothing, then how come it happened AFTER the big bang. Was the big bang created out of nothing too? And if the total energy "is only defined for a closed universe", how can we talk about it for a flat or open universe. THis all seems a bit muddled to me. Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

Edited January 31, 2011 by I ME

[LightHeavyW8]

Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

 

The history of the Big Bang Theory is most instructive as an exploration into the philosophy of civilizations and cultures, imho. Abbe Georges Lemaitre proposed his Theory of the Primordial Atom in 1927, and one Albert Einstein was, shall we say, somewhat skeptical?

 

Einstein, while not taking exception to the mathematics of Lemaître's theory, refused to accept the idea of an expanding universe; Lemaître recalled him commenting "Vos calculs sont corrects, mais votre physique est abominable"[4] ("Your math is correct, but your physics is abominable.")

 

 

LHW

[Spyman]

Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

I don't think he ment that inflation was a method for creating a universe out of nothing, I would guess he ment it more like it is an indication of thats how it did happen, although I don't understand how inflation itself can tell whether the BB started from nothing or from something.

 

Secondly the total energy for an infinite universe is more elusive to define than for a finite closed one, however I must confess I don't understand how he can claim that a closed universe must have definitely zero total energy either.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Spyman

[alpha2cen]

I think the "Universe Created from Nothing" idea is based on:

 

Universe from Nothing is wrong. This theory seems like against Pasteur experiment.

There is something from the beginning.

Before Universe or before before Universe there was something.

If there were nothing all, nothing would happen forever.

Edited February 1, 2011 by alpha2cen

[36grit]

Universe from Nothing is wrong. This theory seems like against Pasteur experiment.

There is something from the beginning.

Before Universe or before before Universe there was something.

If there were nothing all, nothing would happen forever.

 

 

Vacuum enery. Nothing is only nothing on average. Nothing is something. A positive times A negative equals 0, in time. I watched some video's on QED on youtube where the physicist stated that somehow energy is borrowed from the future. This same energy can create virtual particles that exist for a very short time. They also said that protons are manipulated by this same energy. I don't think it's really called vacuum energy, but that was my simple interpretation of what he was talking about.

Edited February 9, 2011 by 36grit

[alpha2cen]

Nothing is only nothing on average. Nothing is something.

 

We can not see Dark Matter now. And we can not see Dark Energy, either.

If there were an life organism which is composed of Dark Matter, the organism would think us blind matter organism.

The blind organism might think nothing exist at the beginning of the Universe.

But the DM organism may think there exists nothing from nothing.

Whose thought is right? The answer is decided after we find DM matter.

[IM Egdall]

Vacuum enery. Nothing is only nothing on average. Nothing is something. A positive times A negative equals 0, in time. I watched some video's on QED on youtube where the physicist stated that somehow energy is borrowed from the future. This same energy can create virtual particles that exist for a very short time. They also said that protons are manipulated by this same energy. I don't think it's really called vacuum energy, but that was my simple interpretation of what he was talking about.

 

Do you have a link to this YouTube video?

[steevey]

Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

 

Well, since the universe before the big bang supposedly had a wave function, and supposedly was a function of 0 volume, however, it still had probabilities of existing because of the function. So the universe would have arose out of the improbability of existence itself, would would sort of explain why every other piece of matter is also waves of existence, since everything would just be a sort of derivative of that same wave.