If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Medium)   Mathematical proof that the Universe could have formed spontaneously from...err...nothing   (medium.com) divider line 88
    More: Interesting, Quantum Fluctuation, mathematical proofs, universe, Big Bang theory, Cosmological Constant, uncertainty principle, Institute of Physics, cosmologists  
•       •       •

3812 clicks; posted to Geek » on 11 Apr 2014 at 10:11 AM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



88 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-11 08:34:17 AM  
Well, that's mighty convenient for us, I suppose.
 
2014-04-11 08:39:02 AM  
To quote Bill Bryson:

""I'm afraid this is the stop on the knowledge highway where most of us must get off. Here is a sentence from the New York Times, explaining this as simply as possible to a general audience: "The ekpyrotic process begins far in the indefinite past with a pair of flat empty branes sitting parallel to each other in a warped five-dimensional space. . . . The two branes, which form the walls of the fifth dimension, could have popped out of nothingness as a quantum fluctuation in the even more distant past and then drifted apart." No arguing with that. No understanding it either. Ekpyrotic, incidentally, comes from the Greek word for "conflagration."

Matters in physics have now reached such a pitch that, as Paul Davies noted in Nature, it is "almost impossible for the non-scientist to discriminate between the legitimately weird and the outright crackpot." "
 
2014-04-11 08:53:12 AM  
I am truly fascinated by this stuff.  I don't understand it at all.  Not one bit of it.  Yet it fascinates me none-the-less.
 
2014-04-11 09:32:25 AM  
First, this is several levels above my pay grade, so to speak. But if I remotely comprehend what I am reading( probably not), then the universe didn't so much "come into being from nothing", but, due to quantum fluctuations, some previously existing energy/matter state(s, multiple branes?) evolved/changed/merged into the universe that we observe today?

/but as i said, i'm probably wrong
 
2014-04-11 09:55:14 AM  
I'm reminded of the old slogan - If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshait.

I both dazzled and baffled.
 
2014-04-11 10:01:42 AM  
I was told there would be no math.
 
2014-04-11 10:02:40 AM  

whistleridge: To quote Bill Bryson:

"The ekpyrotic process begins far in the indefinite past with a pair of flat empty branes sitting parallel to each other in a warped five-dimensional space. . . . "


The physics equivalent of a Tea Party meeting.
 
2014-04-11 10:25:12 AM  
Wow, I could have had a V-8.
 
2014-04-11 10:33:18 AM  

mutterfark: First, this is several levels above my pay grade, so to speak. But if I remotely comprehend what I am reading( probably not), then the universe didn't so much "come into being from nothing", but, due to quantum fluctuations, some previously existing energy/matter state(s, multiple branes?) evolved/changed/merged into the universe that we observe today?

/but as i said, i'm probably wrong


Eh, close, but it says that the two branes were also created from nothing. In the universe, even in a vacuum, particles pop in and out of being in pairs of particle/antiparticle. They don't hang around very long and don't, in general, impact the larger scope of things, but it's possible such particle/antiparticle creation at some point in the distant past appeared in just the right place to begin a chain reaction with other particle/antiparticle pairs and create 'space'.

This theory expands upon vacuum fluctuations and explains the 'how', or the hypotheses on 'how' at least.
 
2014-04-11 10:45:39 AM  
Oh yeah, Mr. Wizard... where did all the nothing come from then?
 
2014-04-11 10:48:30 AM  
Anyone got Randall Munroe's phone number?
 
2014-04-11 10:49:36 AM  
Fark it, I don't understand all this science shiat.

So, from now on I'm a Christian. Problem solved!
 
2014-04-11 10:55:32 AM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Oh yeah, Mr. Wizard... where did all the nothing come from then?


Infomercials.

/if you act now, you can get a second one for free
 
2014-04-11 10:56:32 AM  
The issue here is that "nothing" isn't "nothing" in the philosophical sense. The "nothing" whence sprang the Universe was still a quantum vacuum, with the rules of quantum physics and potentials and such. It's not "literally nothing".

So now the question is, where did the quantum vacuum, and the rules of quantum physics come from?
 
2014-04-11 10:59:05 AM  
This sounds an awful lot like M-Theory
 
2014-04-11 11:01:04 AM  

whistleridge: To quote Bill Bryson:

""I'm afraid this is the stop on the knowledge highway where most of us must get off. Here is a sentence from the New York Times, explaining this as simply as possible to a general audience: "The ekpyrotic process begins far in the indefinite past with a pair of flat empty branes sitting parallel to each other in a warped five-dimensional space. . . . The two branes, which form the walls of the fifth dimension, could have popped out of nothingness as a quantum fluctuation in the even more distant past and then drifted apart." No arguing with that. No understanding it either. Ekpyrotic, incidentally, comes from the Greek word for "conflagration."

Matters in physics have now reached such a pitch that, as Paul Davies noted in Nature, it is "almost impossible for the non-scientist to discriminate between the legitimately weird and the outright crackpot." "


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-04-11 11:01:10 AM  
SordidEuphemism:
Eh, close, but it says that the two branes were also created from nothing. In the universe, even in a vacuum, particles pop in and out of being in pairs of particle/antiparticle. They don't hang around very long and don't, in general, impact the larger scope of things, but it's possible such particle/antiparticle creation at some point in the distant past appeared in just the right place to begin a chain reaction with other particle/antiparticle pairs and create 'space'.

This theory expands upon vacuum fluctuations and explains the 'how', or the hypotheses on 'how' at least.


But if particles were popping in and out of the vacuum before the big bang, then(branes or no branes, one 'verse or multi-'verses) wouldn't that mean that all we can observe now would have had to exist before the big bang as well?

Aaaargghh, quite a bit beyond me. I'm probably arguing from ignorance of the correct definitions of the terms used. As the math is far beyond me, the best I can do is imperfect analogies. I'll go be quiet now. ;)
 
2014-04-11 11:04:44 AM  
so now we know what happens when you divide by 0.
 
2014-04-11 11:09:46 AM  

mutterfark: SordidEuphemism:
Eh, close, but it says that the two branes were also created from nothing. In the universe, even in a vacuum, particles pop in and out of being in pairs of particle/antiparticle. They don't hang around very long and don't, in general, impact the larger scope of things, but it's possible such particle/antiparticle creation at some point in the distant past appeared in just the right place to begin a chain reaction with other particle/antiparticle pairs and create 'space'.

This theory expands upon vacuum fluctuations and explains the 'how', or the hypotheses on 'how' at least.

But if particles were popping in and out of the vacuum before the big bang, then(branes or no branes, one 'verse or multi-'verses) wouldn't that mean that all we can observe now would have had to exist before the big bang as well?

Aaaargghh, quite a bit beyond me. I'm probably arguing from ignorance of the correct definitions of the terms used. As the math is far beyond me, the best I can do is imperfect analogies. I'll go be quiet now. ;)


It's a valid question, honestly. The problem is that most theories point to the 'time' aspect of space/time being inextricably linked to the whole 'space' bit. There is a theory gaining acceptance that 'time' does not actually exist as a concrete aspect of the universe, but is a result of interacting quantum states, and that if you were to observe the universe from the outside it would appear to be static.

Which a lot of religious types are latching on to as proof-of-god as the outside observer, but there you go.
 
2014-04-11 11:12:32 AM  

the_sidewinder: This sounds an awful lot like M-Theory


Applying parsimony to ideas that have apparent accuracy to observational data to yield insight is, nominally, a good idea.
 
2014-04-11 11:12:50 AM  

SordidEuphemism: mutterfark: SordidEuphemism:
Eh, close, but it says that the two branes were also created from nothing. In the universe, even in a vacuum, particles pop in and out of being in pairs of particle/antiparticle. They don't hang around very long and don't, in general, impact the larger scope of things, but it's possible such particle/antiparticle creation at some point in the distant past appeared in just the right place to begin a chain reaction with other particle/antiparticle pairs and create 'space'.

This theory expands upon vacuum fluctuations and explains the 'how', or the hypotheses on 'how' at least.

But if particles were popping in and out of the vacuum before the big bang, then(branes or no branes, one 'verse or multi-'verses) wouldn't that mean that all we can observe now would have had to exist before the big bang as well?

Aaaargghh, quite a bit beyond me. I'm probably arguing from ignorance of the correct definitions of the terms used. As the math is far beyond me, the best I can do is imperfect analogies. I'll go be quiet now. ;)

It's a valid question, honestly. The problem is that most theories point to the 'time' aspect of space/time being inextricably linked to the whole 'space' bit. There is a theory gaining acceptance that 'time' does not actually exist as a concrete aspect of the universe, but is a result of interacting quantum states, and that if you were to observe the universe from the outside it would appear to be static.

Which a lot of religious types are latching on to as proof-of-god as the outside observer, but there you go.


You know, I'm okay with "there might be an Observer outside the Universe, and that Observer might even be the Universe's creator."

The problem is that it never comes out that way. It's always "so it turns out Christianity/Islam/Judaism/Whatever is the only true religion."
 
2014-04-11 11:15:39 AM  

SordidEuphemism: mutterfark: SordidEuphemism:
Eh, close, but it says that the two branes were also created from nothing. In the universe, even in a vacuum, particles pop in and out of being in pairs of particle/antiparticle. They don't hang around very long and don't, in general, impact the larger scope of things, but it's possible such particle/antiparticle creation at some point in the distant past appeared in just the right place to begin a chain reaction with other particle/antiparticle pairs and create 'space'.

This theory expands upon vacuum fluctuations and explains the 'how', or the hypotheses on 'how' at least.

But if particles were popping in and out of the vacuum before the big bang, then(branes or no branes, one 'verse or multi-'verses) wouldn't that mean that all we can observe now would have had to exist before the big bang as well?

Aaaargghh, quite a bit beyond me. I'm probably arguing from ignorance of the correct definitions of the terms used. As the math is far beyond me, the best I can do is imperfect analogies. I'll go be quiet now. ;)

It's a valid question, honestly. The problem is that most theories point to the 'time' aspect of space/time being inextricably linked to the whole 'space' bit. There is a theory gaining acceptance that 'time' does not actually exist as a concrete aspect of the universe, but is a result of interacting quantum states, and that if you were to observe the universe from the outside it would appear to be static.

Which a lot of religious types are latching on to as proof-of-god as the outside observer, but there you go.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbO61Nd0Jlk

wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net
 
2014-04-11 11:17:25 AM  

Lord Dimwit: The issue here is that "nothing" isn't "nothing" in the philosophical sense. The "nothing" whence sprang the Universe was still a quantum vacuum, with the rules of quantum physics and potentials and such. It's not "literally nothing".

So now the question is, where did the quantum vacuum, and the rules of quantum physics come from?


Even if you take it back to the philosophical sense of nothing it's still a moot point. Given only two possibilities: the universe came from "nothing" or the universe came from "something", the odds are equal that either is true.

There is absolutely no valid reason to believe that something cannot come from nothing. We just aren't used to that experience. But the number of things that our senses are wrong about in our universe is staggering and grows daily. At this point, relying on your own senses to tell you how the universe works at any point beyond the end of your own nose is simply not possible.
 
2014-04-11 11:17:33 AM  
Contemplate this...

Red shift observations mean that the most distant part of the universe could be receeding at the speed of light.

Lorentzian contractions would reduce the observed length and durations to zero.

So, as the edge of the universe approaches infinity, it becomes a flat and timeless wall.

Now, shift the reference frame to an observer inside that wall. Everything is normal, and Earth, off in that infinite wall, is a timeless flat spot.
 
2014-04-11 11:21:53 AM  

ikanreed: the_sidewinder: This sounds an awful lot like M-Theory

Applying parsimony to ideas that have apparent accuracy to observational data to yield insight is, nominally, a good idea.


Yes, and it does give us a direction to look at to get those ideas. I'm simply stating that M-Theory contained a similar mathematical premise as a possible origin of the universe as we know it, not to discredit this claim. Honestly, it's all above my education level (though I hope that one day I can get there)
 
2014-04-11 11:22:42 AM  
This makes me wonder, what does this do with the heat death of the universe? Does everything simply hang around until some sequence in particles popping up causes a slight imbalance causing everything to contract? Or do we get a new big bang causing the "old" matter to be propelled even farther while the young matter starts the whole dance again? The whole idea that we are the first and only (iteration of the) universe to ever exist seems very boring to me.

Hell, the acceleration might even be because of a new bang pushing outwards (yep, now I'm probably grasping).

/Blah blah, multiverse
//Would still mean that there are universes that are the only ones to exist in their neck of the wood and which will be dead for an eternity
 
2014-04-11 11:22:44 AM  

whistleridge: To quote Bill Bryson:

""I'm afraid this is the stop on the knowledge highway where most of us must get off. Here is a sentence from the New York Times, explaining this as simply as possible to a general audience: "The ekpyrotic process begins far in the indefinite past with a pair of flat empty branes sitting parallel to each other in a warped five-dimensional space. . . . The two branes, which form the walls of the fifth dimension, could have popped out of nothingness as a quantum fluctuation in the even more distant past and then drifted apart." No arguing with that. No understanding it either. Ekpyrotic, incidentally, comes from the Greek word for "conflagration."

Matters in physics have now reached such a pitch that, as Paul Davies noted in Nature, it is "almost impossible for the non-scientist to discriminate between the legitimately weird and the outright crackpot." "


Not me! I've been a big fan since 1969. Especially Marilyn McCoo:
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-04-11 11:24:53 AM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Oh yeah, Mr. Wizard... where did all the nothing come from then?


Ten percent of nothing is-let me do the math here. Nothing into nothin'. Carry the nothin'...
 
2014-04-11 11:25:24 AM  
The universe is contracting to a point at a speed faster than light. So as part of that, we're observing things in reverse time.
 
2014-04-11 11:25:59 AM  

mutterfark: First, this is several levels above my pay grade, so to speak. But if I remotely comprehend what I am reading( probably not), then the universe didn't so much "come into being from nothing", but, due to quantum fluctuations, some previously existing energy/matter state(s, multiple branes?) evolved/changed/merged into the universe that we observe today?

/but as i said, i'm probably wrong


The universe doesn't technically "exist". It's just the interference patterns of quantum waves.
 
2014-04-11 11:26:36 AM  

skozlaw: Lord Dimwit: The issue here is that "nothing" isn't "nothing" in the philosophical sense. The "nothing" whence sprang the Universe was still a quantum vacuum, with the rules of quantum physics and potentials and such. It's not "literally nothing".

So now the question is, where did the quantum vacuum, and the rules of quantum physics come from?

Even if you take it back to the philosophical sense of nothing it's still a moot point. Given only two possibilities: the universe came from "nothing" or the universe came from "something", the odds are equal that either is true.

There is absolutely no valid reason to believe that something cannot come from nothing. We just aren't used to that experience. But the number of things that our senses are wrong about in our universe is staggering and grows daily. At this point, relying on your own senses to tell you how the universe works at any point beyond the end of your own nose is simply not possible.


I'm okay if the answer is "the quantum vacuum and the rules of physics came from nothing". I'm just pointing out that the "nothing" in this article isn't "nothing" in the philosophical sense.
 
2014-04-11 11:26:58 AM  
It's a binary state. You either have something, or nothing. Something can't come from nothing. To say that matter could just pop into existence voids certain laws of physics.
 
2014-04-11 11:29:03 AM  

DerAppie: The whole idea that we are the first and only (iteration of the) universe to ever exist seems very boring to me.


The opposite of that seems very boring to me. If the universe has been expanding and contracting forever and ever backwards in time, then that means we've probably had this same discussion an infinite amount of times.
 
2014-04-11 11:31:17 AM  

Lord Dimwit: The issue here is that "nothing" isn't "nothing" in the philosophical sense. The "nothing" whence sprang the Universe was still a quantum vacuum, with the rules of quantum physics and potentials and such. It's not "literally nothing".

So now the question is, where did the quantum vacuum, and the rules of quantum physics come from?


http://www.sluggy.com/comics/archives/daily/20010826
 
2014-04-11 11:35:04 AM  

Lando Lincoln: It's a binary state. You either have something, or nothing. Something can't come from nothing. To say that matter could just pop into existence voids certain laws of physics.


I'm not an expert, but do you know about this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
 
2014-04-11 11:35:25 AM  

Lando Lincoln: DerAppie: The whole idea that we are the first and only (iteration of the) universe to ever exist seems very boring to me.

The opposite of that seems very boring to me. If the universe has been expanding and contracting forever and ever backwards in time, then that means we've probably had this same discussion an infinite amount of times.


Why would things need to be the same every single time? A small change 0.^A second after the bang will have very large consequences 14 billion years later, if randomness really exists at quantum levels.
 
2014-04-11 11:39:33 AM  
And to really fark with your mind, there is only one electron smeared across all of time and space.
 
2014-04-11 11:39:51 AM  

GungFu: Fark it, I don't understand all this science shiat.

So, from now on I'm a Christian. Problem solved!


Except the Big Bang Theory was conceived by a creationist Christian and mocked by "scientists" for decades.

/themoreyouknow.jpg
 
2014-04-11 11:41:42 AM  

Lord Dimwit: The issue here is that "nothing" isn't "nothing" in the philosophical sense. The "nothing" whence sprang the Universe was still a quantum vacuum, with the rules of quantum physics and potentials and such. It's not "literally nothing".

So now the question is, where did the quantum vacuum, and the rules of quantum physics come from?


There is never an end to this. Each end is but a new beginning.

Unless we finally find out everything is cyclical and the theories wrap into themselves.
 
2014-04-11 11:42:47 AM  

mutterfark: First, this is several levels above my pay grade


I read this as "above my gay parade".

TotalFark is making me a bit silly, I suppose.
 
2014-04-11 11:43:01 AM  

DerAppie: Lando Lincoln: DerAppie: The whole idea that we are the first and only (iteration of the) universe to ever exist seems very boring to me.

The opposite of that seems very boring to me. If the universe has been expanding and contracting forever and ever backwards in time, then that means we've probably had this same discussion an infinite amount of times.

Why would things need to be the same every single time? A small change 0.^A second after the bang will have very large consequences 14 billion years later, if randomness really exists at quantum levels.


That's the thing about infinity. It's really big. If you go back and check the last 10 billion iterations of the universe and say that you haven't found an instance of us talking about this shiat on this day at this time, then you just haven't looked far enough back.
 
2014-04-11 11:49:42 AM  

DerAppie: Lando Lincoln: DerAppie: The whole idea that we are the first and only (iteration of the) universe to ever exist seems very boring to me.

The opposite of that seems very boring to me. If the universe has been expanding and contracting forever and ever backwards in time, then that means we've probably had this same discussion an infinite amount of times.

Why would things need to be the same every single time? A small change 0.^A second after the bang will have very large consequences 14 billion years later, if randomness really exists at quantum levels.


Your comprehension is lacking.

If there are an infinite number of universes, then the level of variability between each on the whole is staggeringly small. A universe exists where everything is the same except instead of a gray shirt, I'm wearing a white shirt, and a blue one, and a red one, and a black one, and a green one. Sure, there are also ones where my shirt is "floorp" colored because colors turned out differently, but by and large things turn out the same for huge spans of universes, if there are indeed infinite ones.
 
2014-04-11 11:57:17 AM  

Arkanaut: mutterfark: First, this is several levels above my pay grade

I read this as "above my gay parade".

TotalFark is making me a bit silly, I suppose.


I'm sure it's just a quark, but now I have a very strange version a My Chemical Romance song running around in my head. How charming. ;p
 
2014-04-11 12:07:51 PM  
Flipping through the paper I came upon the phrase "It's easy to get...." buried in all the math.

I feel dumber than a bag of hammers right now.
 
2014-04-11 12:11:31 PM  

Bullseyed: DerAppie: Lando Lincoln: DerAppie: The whole idea that we are the first and only (iteration of the) universe to ever exist seems very boring to me.

The opposite of that seems very boring to me. If the universe has been expanding and contracting forever and ever backwards in time, then that means we've probably had this same discussion an infinite amount of times.

Why would things need to be the same every single time? A small change 0.^A second after the bang will have very large consequences 14 billion years later, if randomness really exists at quantum levels.

Your comprehension is lacking.

If there are an infinite number of universes, then the level of variability between each on the whole is staggeringly small. A universe exists where everything is the same except instead of a gray shirt, I'm wearing a white shirt, and a blue one, and a red one, and a black one, and a green one. Sure, there are also ones where my shirt is "floorp" colored because colors turned out differently, but by and large things turn out the same for huge spans of universes, if there are indeed infinite ones.


And there will be an equally infinite number of universes where things are fundamentally different.

I took his comment to assume a fully mechanically predictable universe. Not one where we did things an infinite number of times because of the law of large numbers.
 
2014-04-11 12:12:31 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: The universe doesn't technically "exist". It's just the interference patterns of quantum waves.


Thus do I refute Berkeley.  (Ow, my toe)
 
2014-04-11 12:13:48 PM  

Lando Lincoln: DerAppie: The whole idea that we are the first and only (iteration of the) universe to ever exist seems very boring to me.

The opposite of that seems very boring to me. If the universe has been expanding and contracting forever and ever backwards in time, then that means we've probably had this same discussion an infinite amount of times.


I win again, Lews Therin.
 
2014-04-11 12:13:59 PM  

Lord Dimwit: You know, I'm okay with "there might be an Observer outside the Universe, and that Observer might even be the Universe's creator."

The problem is that it never comes out that way. It's always "so it turns out Christianity/Islam/Judaism/Whatever is the only true religion."


or "and he doesn't want you to masturbate "
 
2014-04-11 12:15:22 PM  
So before the universe, quantum fluctuations existed, meaning something existed at a quantum level to cause the fluctuations. All evidence points to the cosmic background hot air traveling back in time from the Politics tab discussions.
 
2014-04-11 12:15:37 PM  

BafflerMeal: whistleridge: To quote Bill Bryson:

""I'm afraid this is the stop on the knowledge highway where most of us must get off. Here is a sentence from the New York Times, explaining this as simply as possible to a general audience: "The ekpyrotic process begins far in the indefinite past with a pair of flat empty branes sitting parallel to each other in a warped five-dimensional space. . . . The two branes, which form the walls of the fifth dimension, could have popped out of nothingness as a quantum fluctuation in the even more distant past and then drifted apart." No arguing with that. No understanding it either. Ekpyrotic, incidentally, comes from the Greek word for "conflagration."

Matters in physics have now reached such a pitch that, as Paul Davies noted in Nature, it is "almost impossible for the non-scientist to discriminate between the legitimately weird and the outright crackpot." "

[24.media.tumblr.com image 500x261]


what skit is that?
 
Displayed 50 of 88 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report