Something out of Nothing

[Cyclostrophic]

Hi all,

There's a great deal that I still have to learn, but having a basic grasp of the fundamentals of TBB, i'm struggling to understand (or even accept) how something could have started from nothing. Now much of my limited knowledge, admittedly, comes from those Discovery Channel documentaries. I know, I know... they do tend to go a bit overboard to take in those of us with a casual interest. However, during the second, and final, part of the "How the Universe Works" documentary, there was no fancy example or an understandable comparison given for the something out of nothing thoery. I accept everything that happened after and it did all make sense. But this first moment, when space and time begin... It just can't happen out of nothing, surely ?

At the moment i'm leaning more towards the idea of a cyclical universe where it all eventually collapses in on itself and the energy from this would kick start TBB over and over again.

An ever-expanding universe would just lead to cold, dark and empty nothingness... and I cannot accept this something from nothing theory. Unless any of you can make it easy to understand ?

Apologies if I have made any glaring errors or missed the obvious. Be gentle, it's a new path of discovery for me.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Hi Cyclostrophic, Welcome to Space.com.

This is a duplicate of about a half dozen other discussions on the same subject...it's always a good idea to spend a little time reading before starting a new topic, as suggested in the Community Guidelines. This will be merged into one of the other threads; I'll let you know which one.

Meteor Wayne

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

While MW decides let me say 2 things :

1) This is more a Space Science or Physics forum type of question.

2) The BB theory doesn't say the Universe came from nothing. It doesn't address the question of where the initial singularity came from. It just says that at the beginning of time for this Universe all the "stuff" was contained in a very, very, very small volume and that said stuff has been expanding ever since. OK, that's a bit simplistic but there ya go.

 

[Cyclostrophic]

I see. I was taken in a bit by this documentaries direction. I shall endeavour to be more open to other interpretations.

Apologies for the duplicate thread and the posting of it in the wrong section. I did have a look around, but couldn't find anything specific relating to my question.

 

[neilsox]

This kind of gets into philosophy. 1 We can assume eternal = no beginning and no end. 2 We can assume organization of something into what we have 13.7 billion years ago, but a beginning is desired for what was organized which puts us back to choice 1.
A third choice at some point of time, something was made out of nothing. 4 We can postulate God, but what was He made out of? which also takes us back to choice 1, unless you know a 5 th possible explanation? Unbelievers typically choose 3 something made out of nothing: Believers ignore the problem, or chose a variation of 3 = God made Himself out of nothing or God is eternal. Neil

 

[Cyclostrophic]

This kind of gets into philosophy. 1 We can assume eternal = no beginning and no end. 2 We can assume organization of something into what we have 13.7 billion years ago, but a beginning is desired for what was organized which puts us back to choice 1.
A third choice at some point of time, something was made out of nothing. 4 We can postulate God, but what was He made out of? which also takes us back to choice 1, unless you know a 5 th possible explanation? Unbelievers typically choose 3 something made out of nothing: Believers ignore the problem, or chose a variation of 3 = God made Himself out of nothing or God is eternal. Neil

Blimey..that's quite a mind bender.

I suppose that if there was something, you would tend to think that it had to come from something else originally. But where did that something come from ? By saying that nothing started something, at least you have a beginning. And I imagine that is why it's a popular theory. Especially as it's hard to imagine an eternal line of somethings producing somethings because it must have been initiated. *Starts to tear hair out*

 

[a_lost_packet_]

...But this first moment, when space and time begin... It just can't happen out of nothing, surely ?

What defines "nothing" and "something?"

If everything we know and all the various ways we normally interpret "reality" are defined using experiences and observations from rules derived from the natural environment of our little fishbowl, can they be easily applied to things that may exist outside of it?

If time did not exist in a straight line, everything would happen at once. Imagine a realm where that was true. How would you describe it? How do you envision it?

If there are eight spatial dimensions instead of three, what shape is a soccer ball?

The point is that some concepts translate well and some do not, IMO. When it comes to looking beyond the boundary of the Big Bang there might be concepts there that simply don't translate well. We are used to a certain set of rules that operate very well within our Universe. We are constructed the way we are due to the interactions of those rules. We think with them. "Something" and "Nothing", identifying a moment in time or a physical series of events simply might not be easily identifiable in a possible realm where there are rules we are not hardwired to understand.

 

[darkmatter4brains]

As I mentioned in another thread (Is this the first Big Bang?) in "Ask the Astronomer" there is a competing theory to the Inflationary Big Bang model. It's a cosmological theory coming out of M-theory and it does go more into what happened before the Big Bang. In addition, the Univese does not come out of nothing in this thoery.

The Planck satellite, currently in operation, has as one of it's science objectives, to find support, or lack of support, for both theories. So, we should know soon if the M-theory cosmology gets any validation from this mission. Inflation theory looks so solid, I just really doubt that it will.

See here, for more, page 54:

http://www.rssd.esa.int/SA/PLANCK/docs/ ... 291_V2.pdf

Also, eternal inflation theory, which Alan Guth (the inventor of Inflation theory) happens to support, also doesn't have the Universe being born out of nothing, either, IIRC.

So, let's just drop this whole "something of nothing" nonsense for good ... okay :lol:

 

[darkmatter4brains]

...But this first moment, when space and time begin... It just can't happen out of nothing, surely ?

What defines "nothing" and "something?"

And, I'd be curious to know the difference between two other terms I here on here a lot:

a) nothingness

b) absolute nothingness

btw, good post alp.

 

[MeteorWayne]

If time did not exist in a straight line, everything would happen at once. Imagine a realm where that was true. How would you describe it? How do you envision it?

See Slaughterhouse 5

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Well, some cosmologists who hold to the Big Bang theory do say that it all came from nothing, that the "singularity" came from "nothing", and they freely admit that they use the term "singularity" to hide their ignorance. We don't know what it was, really, or "where" it came from. (And we certainly don't know "why".)

Many cosmologists postulate that it did come from something because if it came from "nothing", that implies, for many, a divine creation of some kind. (And many cosmologists don't like the idea of a "creation". But many do.) But whether it's an eternal, infinite inflationary and contractual Big Bang and Big Crunch, it all had to come from "somewhere" or "something".

Take the multiverse "branes" theory, for example. Lots of guys are having a real good time talking about how our Big Bang was actually just a collision between two higher-dimensional "branes", or "sheets". And there are, according to this speculation, an infinite number of branes all floating around, colliding here and there and causing an indefinite, or even infinite number of other 'big bangs'.

But then we have to ask the question: Where did all the 'branes' come from? And what is beyond them? Infinitely progressive universes and dimensions, I'd bet. Forever and ever. And perhaps our idea of God, while a "superbeing" beyond our comprehension, is not the Ultimate. Rather, while He's "Almighty" to us, He is as far from infinity as we are.

Or, maybe not. Maybe there's no reason at all for the existence of our Universe, or any of the others. But I seriously doubt it. Everything's essentially made of nothing. Nothing at all, not even "dust". And yet, here we are, consciously pondering these deep questions.

[edit] A great analogy on the hydrogen atom I read recently: If a hyrdogen atom were the size of a typical 15,000 seat arena, the nucleus would be the size of a flea in the center of the arena; and the solitary electron orbiting that nucleus at the perimeter edge of the arena, would be 100,000 times smaller than the flea.

 

[MeteorWayne]

It's turtles all the way down

 

[SpeedFreek]

Well, some cosmologists who hold to the Big Bang theory do say that it all came from nothing, that the "singularity" came from "nothing", and they freely admit that they use the term "singularity" to hide their ignorance. We don't know what it was, really, or "where" it came from. (And we certainly don't know "why".)

I am not aware of any cosmologist who says it all came from "nothing", or the singularity came from "nothing". What they say is that the Big Bang theory says nothing about where it all came from, and says nothing about the origins of the singularity. This makes sense, as a singularity is a discontinuity in the mathematics, so you cannot mathematically transform around it to see what might lie beyond. So when you ask what, according to Big Bang theory, was happening before the Big Bang, the answer of course is.... nothing!

 

[csmyth3025]

The following excerpt is from the Wikipedia article on the Big Bang:

If the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures,[6][7][8] and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment on and test such conditions, resulting in significant confirmation of the theory, but these accelerators have limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes. Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the Universe since that instant.

If I'm reading this correctly, the Big Bang model doesn't say there was nothing before the Big Bang and it doesn't say there was something before the Big Bang. I think it only says that if we start with a compact region with "X" temerature and "Y" pressure and apply the physical constants and interactions that we can measure or (by theoretical logic) we can infer from observations we are able to make today, we wind up with the universe we see today.

The Standard Model is, so far, the best fit. Like any theory, it's not necessarily the last word.

Chris

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Well, some cosmologists who hold to the Big Bang theory do say that it all came from nothing, that the "singularity" came from "nothing", and they freely admit that they use the term "singularity" to hide their ignorance. We don't know what it was, really, or "where" it came from. (And we certainly don't know "why".)

I am not aware of any cosmologist who says it all came from "nothing", or the singularity came from "nothing". What they say is that the Big Bang theory says nothing about where it all came from, and says nothing about the origins of the singularity. This makes sense, as a singularity is a discontinuity in the mathematics, so you cannot mathematically transform around it to see what might lie beyond. So when you ask what, according to Big Bang theory, was happening before the Big Bang, the answer of course is.... nothing!

If it came from "something", then that implies a 'before' the big bang of space, matter and energy. Does it not? They claim to know that "time began with the big bang", but they don't really know, and neither do you.

And they sure like to speculate about what "lies beyond", like in the multiverse brane theory. (Talk about a discontinuation of mathematics.) And since they, I, or you don't know if it came from something or nothing, it's anybody's guess. And I was obviously venturing further in speculation than just the Big Bang theory.

 

[SpeedFreek]

They claim that, using big bang theory, any notion of time in our known universe stops before we reach t=0, as we can only extrapolate back as far as t=10^-43 seconds. So our notion of (knowable) time begins after the big bang.

 

[dryson]

Any type of notion when dealing with the beginning of the Big Bang will always lead to crazy paradoxes that never seem to end. Just like the Universe does not end but goes on into infinity. So if the Big Bang came from something then where did those somethings come from and so forth and so forth. This will always lead you into the world of the infinite paradoxial loop that no matter how far down the rabbit hole (atomic structure) you look there will always be one more layer just out of reach until new technology comes along.

bang theory, any notion of time in our known universe stops before we reach t=0, as we can only extrapolate back as far as t=10^-43 seconds. So our notion of (knowable) time begins after the big bang.

Do not confuse time however with proponents of time travel that would suggest that if we traveled past the t=10^-43 seconds that we would actually occupy another historical time line of the Universe where we would be able to witness the Big Bang itself.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

I am not aware of any cosmologist who says it all came from "nothing", or the singularity came from "nothing". What they say is that the Big Bang theory says nothing about where it all came from, and says nothing about the origins of the singularity. This makes sense, as a singularity is a discontinuity in the mathematics, so you cannot mathematically transform around it to see what might lie beyond. So when you ask what, according to Big Bang theory, was happening before the Big Bang, the answer of course is.... nothing!

Exactly correct, as I understand it. The singularity is an error symbol. ie: "The calculation can not be normalized past this point." What happened before that dives deep into the realm of maybesos and mighthavebeens.

 

[SpeedFreek]

bang theory, any notion of time in our known universe stops before we reach t=0, as we can only extrapolate back as far as t=10^-43 seconds. So our notion of (knowable) time begins after the big bang.

Do not confuse time however with proponents of time travel that would suggest that if we traveled past the t=10^-43 seconds that we would actually occupy another historical time line of the Universe where we would be able to witness the Big Bang itself.

I would not confuse time in that way, as that way is nonsensical. The universe is assumed to be homogeneous and isotropic, so all "historical time lines" or to give them their proper name, comoving worldlines, converge at the big bang.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

It is certainly the realm where cosmology meets philosophy, or where cosmology stops altogether.

I should have said that some astrophysicists contend that it all came from "nothing", or so they believe. And some don't. But if it did come from "nothing", that's no reason to conclude that it was instigated by a "creator". It could go either way, but I think many people are uncomfortable with the "from nothing" hypothesis because to many it does imply a creator.

But coming from "something" can or cannot imply a creator as well. But it sure blows the mind when truly pondered!

 

[SpeedFreek]

But if it did come from "nothing", that's no reason to conclude that it was instigated by a "creator". It could go either way, but I think many people are uncomfortable with the "from nothing" hypothesis because to many it does imply a creator.

:lol:
How does "from nothing" imply a creator? Is the creator "nothing"?

 

[ZenGalacticore]

But if it did come from "nothing", that's no reason to conclude that it was instigated by a "creator". It could go either way, but I think many people are uncomfortable with the "from nothing" hypothesis because to many it does imply a creator.

:lol:
How does "from nothing" imply a creator? Is the creator "nothing"?

He may well be, and why not? Is not everything in our Universe basically made of nothing? Hydrogen is nothing but fluff, as is helium, practically, and all the other elements derive from the fusion of helium nuclei, do they not? Reality seems to be an illusion of sorts.

The idea being that a creator outside of space and time, created our universe from "nothing". That's what many say, anyway. But again, I too have a problem with something coming from nothing.

OTOH, most people, including moi, can't wrap their brains around a Universe that has no center, and no edge. We don't even know for sure that the Universe is only 14 to 20 billion years old, as we can only see to our light horizon. It could be much older, or infinite.

If we could suddenly transport ourselves 13.7 light-years into the distance, what would we see when looking the opposite direction from where the nascent Milky Way lay?

 

[SpeedFreek]

But if it did come from "nothing", that's no reason to conclude that it was instigated by a "creator". It could go either way, but I think many people are uncomfortable with the "from nothing" hypothesis because to many it does imply a creator.

:lol:
How does "from nothing" imply a creator? Is the creator "nothing"?

He may well be, and why not? Is not everything in our Universe basically made of nothing? Hydrogen is nothing but fluff, as is helium, practically, and all the other elements derive from the fusion of helium nuclei, do they not? Reality seems to be an illusion of sorts.

Well, that's actually a slightly different question which actually negates the whole hypothesis. If the universe were basically made of nothing, then there should be no problem at all having nothing coming from nothing, so no creator is implied at all!

The idea being that a creator outside of space and time, created our universe from "nothing". That's what many say, anyway. But again, I too have a problem with something coming from nothing.

That just says that "nothing" = something outside of space and time.

OTOH, most people, including moi, can't wrap their brains around a Universe that has no center, and no edge. We don't even know for sure that the Universe is only 14 to 20 billion years old, as we can only see to our light horizon. It could be much older, or infinite.

You have that last part backwards. The light horizon defines age of the universe. It is because we can only see to our "light horizon" that we know the universe has a finite age.

If we could suddenly transport ourselves 13.7 light-years into the distance, what would we see when looking the opposite direction from where the nascent Milky Way lay?

I know you meant to say 13.7 billion light-years.

The assumption is that we would see more of the universe in that direction (more galaxies etc), but would only be able to see as far as the Milky Way in this direction. Our Milky Way is on the edge of the observable universe for an object that is on the edge of ours.

 

[csmyth3025]

OTOH, most people, including moi, can't wrap their brains around a Universe that has no center, and no edge. We don't even know for sure that the Universe is only 14 to 20 billion years old, as we can only see to our light horizon. It could be much older, or infinite.

You have that last part backwards. The light horizon defines age of the universe. It is because we can only see to our "light horizon" that we know the universe has a finite age.

If we could suddenly transport ourselves 13.7 light-years into the distance, what would we see when looking the opposite direction from where the nascent Milky Way lay?

I know you meant to say 13.7 billion light-years.

The assumption is that we would see more of the universe in that direction (more galaxies etc), but would only be able to see as far as the Milky Way in this direction. Our Milky Way is on the edge of the observable universe for an object that is on the edge of ours.

As I understand it, if we "run the clock backwards" 13.7 billion years, all the galaxies in our observable universe will contract until they come to a central point (where we are). This doesn't mean that we're at the center of the universe.

If someone living in a galaxy at the edge of our observable universe simultaneously "runs the clock backwards" 13.7 billion years, all the galaxies in their observable universe will contract until they come to a central point (where they are). That doesn't mean that they're at the center of the universe either.

If someone living at the far edge (away from us) of our "neighbor's" observable universe simultaneously "runs the clock backwards" 13.7 billion years, all the galaxies in their observable universe will contract until they come to a central point (where they are). But again, they're not at the center of the universe either.

As you can see, we could, in theory, repeat this same scenario almost forever for each observer in each galaxy on the far edge of the next observable universe progressively farther away from us (if the universe is almost infinite). In the end, all of these central points would wind up being the same central point (the Big Bang).

All of this is based on our assumption that the universe is homogenous and isotropic (on the large scale). That is to say that we don't live in a priviledged location in the universe and that anyone else living anywhere else in the universe will pretty much see what we see (on the large scale).

Chris

 

[ZenGalacticore]

You have that last part backwards. The light horizon defines age of the universe. It is because we can only see to our "light horizon" that we know the universe has a finite age.

Really? I thought it was due to the rapid inflation, and that we can only see about 13.7 billion light-years because the light from much further than that will never have time to reach us. Otherwise, would we not be able to see all the way back to the bang itself?

I know you meant to say 13.7 billion light-years.

Given the context of the discussion, that should be obvious. As it was.

The assumption is that we would see more of the universe in that direction (more galaxies etc), but would only be able to see as far as the Milky Way in this direction. Our Milky Way is on the edge of the observable universe for an object that is on the edge of ours.

There, you see? The observable universe. Brian Greene, in his Fabric of the Cosmos, mentions on pps. 292-293:

In inflationary cosmology, space was stretched by such a colossal factor that the observable universe, the part we can see, is but a small patch in a gigantic cosmos (that we can't see). And so, even if the entire universe were curved, the observable universe would be very nearly flat.

At least, inflationary cosmology predicts this. I take it that you accept most of what inflationary cosmology says about the predicted critical density and all of that that led to inferences about dark matter and dark energy.

And, from "All About Science- Big Bang Theory, An Overview:"

(This is just a webpage I googled. I'm not normally a "google scholar", but I thought I'd include this.)

Big Bang Theory- The Premise

Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our Universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment, there was NOTHING; during and after that moment there was SOMETHING: our Universe.

And no one knows for sure what a singularity is, or where it comes from.

Where did it come from?

We don't know.

Why did it appear?

We don't know.