Missing posts / members X
Philosophy Forums was hacked on September 6th. Due to the hacker, everything between July 24th and September 6th is permanently missing. Unfortunately, automated backups had to be turned off months ago because they were crashing the server. We're evaluating how to stop this from happening again. You may be able to find your own posts in a google cache to re-post them, if you want to.

Quantum creation of an open universe from nothing
Discussion of the idea of creatio ex nihilo of the Universe via quantum creation.

Quantum creation of an open universe from nothing
Warshed
Resident

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 20, 2008

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 346
#1 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jun 29, 2012 - 9:53 AM:
Subject: quantum creation of an open universe from nothing
Stephen Hawkings seems to be a subscriber to this theory and so do a few other notable characters. I am not a physics major and I do not pretend to understand the theory or the practice of quantum mechanics, but I know there are probably people who do on this forum. I bring up this topic for exploration because I think it gets to the heart of the creation of our universe and therefore the meaning of our life without having to appeal to hire power like God. Basically, in laymans terms the quantum creation of the universe asserts that our universe errupted from a null state of energy by the polarizing of negative and positive energy in the universe. In other words the universe errupted out of nowhere from nothing but essentially doesn't have a positive or negative state, but rather a null state, but the distribution of negative and positive energy is balanced out in such a way that it allows for our universe to expand.

I have to correct the above upon further research. According to the theory, our universe wasn't created out of nothing, but rather errupted from a prior universe. In other words there is an eternal something that spawns universes.

Edited by Warshed on Jun 29, 2012 - 10:08 AM
Warshed
Resident

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 20, 2008

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 346
#2 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jun 29, 2012 - 10:06 AM:

"This decayed quantum universe is source for new quantum creation.We are still to far away to understand even small quantum behavior no to mention the quantum universe creation, and behavior but nature gives exclusively some clues by Casimir experiments and by the important Lamarck's and Darwin's evolution theories.

The quantum universe dispersion by decay of old formations and by creation of new matter formations from the dispersion of old formations (universe evolution). It slows the universe dispersion { E.Hubbel and A.Einstains constants }. Wave theory claims that every quantum formation decay by different phase transitions like his big bang prime quantum.

This implies that evolution is a natural behavior of the quantum universe and every quantum, which by different phase transitions disperses. If old formations decay and new are born that means that new universe can be born in the old Universe like every other formations.

From living formations we learn that new formations are born in old formations and every quantum like life formation behaves only in the same way as big quant formation, this means that the universe also behaves as a living formation.

That means that our Universe is mercurial, continuum, moving living

formation.

Only "living" creation can form life formations,

Which are copies of the main masterpiece.

According to the United nature theory- wave theory void does not exist in

nature. Evolution provides new formation in the old one which gradually decays.

This means that G. Lemaitre was correct with the Big bang theory describing how the new Universe was created. It is also evident from different observations that the world universe quantum disperses but the world (quantum) can not be out of nowhere and can not disperse to nothing.

And new universe appears inside the old universe or on its remnant.

(like all living formations) that are also natural univers life cycles.

What was the earlier media is still an open question."

www.grandunifiedtheory.org....0Book/quantum_universe.htm

Material for review
transfinite
PF Addict
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 25, 2010

Total Topics: 158
Total Posts: 1745
#3 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jun 29, 2012 - 10:15 AM:

The universe did not emerge from nothing as claimed in Lawrence M. Krauss's new book …The Universe from Nothing/" Our universe emerged from the quantum fluctuation of vacuum energy which is anything but nothing. Moreover, our universe is also anything but nothing because it is asymmetrical with an excess of protons over anti-protons. I suspect perfect balance could be maintained if all of the positive and negatve multiverses cancelled out to zero. There is no evidence from this wishful thinking.
jorndoe
Investigator
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 06, 2008
Location: Canada, Denmark

Total Topics: 69
Total Posts: 3550
#4 - Quote - Permalink
2 of 4 people found this post helpful
Posted Jun 29, 2012 - 2:58 PM:

transfinite, it's all very speculative.

There is at least some consensus that the sum-total of the grand everything comes to exactly zero.

Creation ex nihilo - without God (1997, 2011)
A Universe from Nothing (2002)
A Dark, Misleading Force (2007)
A Universe From Nothing (2009)
QCD vacuum (2012)

Interestingly enough, this is both compatible with ex nihilo nihil fit and conservation laws.

In this context, perhaps the question is not really one of ex nihilo (the sum-total is already nihil), but rather: how has something along with anti-something come about?
timw
Forum Veteran

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 14, 2008

Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 834
#5 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jun 30, 2012 - 2:12 PM:

As science pushes boundaries and pushes back curtains, one has to exercise some self-restraint when encountering good stories. And a whole lot of new theory is just that, a good story, because it's not currently possible and maybe in some cases may never be possible, to subject them to any kind of test that would elevate them from story, to theory, to verified by a reputable number of reputable experiments by reputable scientists.

FrankLeeSeaux
Pronounced "frankly so"

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2012
Location: In the Ether

Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 2286
#6 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jun 30, 2012 - 5:38 PM:

timw wrote:
As science pushes boundaries and pushes back curtains, one has to exercise some self-restraint when encountering good stories. And a whole lot of new theory is just that, a good story, because it's not currently possible and maybe in some cases may never be possible, to subject them to any kind of test that would elevate them from story, to theory, to verified by a reputable number of reputable experiments by reputable scientists.



I would take it that you are speaking quite specifically of theoretical quantum physics... Which of course, can be garnered from the name... theoretical meaning not practical or practicable. Theoretical quantu physics is basically an amalgom of philosophy and science, by observations within quantum mechanics, and make some attempts at reconciling the macro with the micro.

Practical sciences, on the other hand, are much more apt to find solutions and answers which are based on predictable outcomes.
timw
Forum Veteran

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 14, 2008

Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 834
#7 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 1, 2012 - 8:00 PM:

FrankLeeSeaux wrote:


I would take it that you are speaking quite specifically of theoretical quantum physics... Which of course, can be garnered from the name... theoretical meaning not practical or practicable. Theoretical quantu physics is basically an amalgom of philosophy and science, by observations within quantum mechanics, and make some attempts at reconciling the macro with the micro.

Practical sciences, on the other hand, are much more apt to find solutions and answers which are based on predictable outcomes.


No, I wasn't thinking specifically about anything. And you cannot adulterate science and still have science. You can have interesting discussions, and you can, maybe, get some new ideas - you can do a lot of things. But in order to still have a science, you have to eventually run it all through the science "machine." And if that's working correctly, the nonsense falls out. Until then, it's just a story. Here's an example of a good story: the model of the atom as a miniature solar system. Disproved in the early 1900s. But it's such a good story it's still taught!

The only point I'm making is that it's good not to confuse good stories (and certainly not bad ones) with good science or reality.
andrewk
Inexhaustibly Curious
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Oct 13, 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia

Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 2656

Last Blog: On Language and Meaning

#8 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 1, 2012 - 10:13 PM:

Warshed wrote:
quantum creation of an open universe from nothing
Why did you include the word "open"? Are you aware that it has a precise meaning in cosmology, which is that the universe is infinite in extent, as opposed to a closed or elliptic universe in which, if you travelled far enough in a straight line, you could arrive back where you started? Is that what you intended in your post, ie to suggest that somehow it is easier for an open than a closed universe to emerge from the quantum vacuum?

By the way, evidence is currently insufficient to determine whether the universe is open or closed.
andrewk
Inexhaustibly Curious
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Oct 13, 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia

Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 2656

Last Blog: On Language and Meaning

#9 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Jul 1, 2012 - 10:19 PM:

Frank I don't think that's how 'theoretical physics' is interpreted in physics departments. What you describe is applicable to string theory, which has yet to produce a single nontrivial falsifiable claim. But Einstein was a theoretical physicist, who produced a bunch of falsifiable claims that were tested fairly shortly after he made them and thereby provided strong observational evidence supporting his theories of relativity. Within physics I think a 'theoretical physicist' is understood to just mean someone that works with the maths and is not personally involved on the experimental or observational side. But other than string theorists I think most theoretical physicists would expect to produce within their working career some falsifiable claims that can be tested by observations and can thereby lead to practical applications.
Mystermenace
Resident

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 29, 2010

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 260
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 3, 2012 - 11:31 AM:

Warshed wrote:
Stephen Hawkings seems to be a subscriber to this theory and so do a few other notable characters. I am not a physics major and I do not pretend to understand the theory or the practice of quantum mechanics, but I know there are probably people who do on this forum. I bring up this topic for exploration because I think it gets to the heart of the creation of our universe and therefore the meaning of our life without having to appeal to hire power like God. Basically, in laymans terms the quantum creation of the universe asserts that our universe errupted from a null state of energy by the polarizing of negative and positive energy in the universe. In other words the universe errupted out of nowhere from nothing but essentially doesn't have a positive or negative state, but rather a null state, but the distribution of negative and positive energy is balanced out in such a way that it allows for our universe to expand.

I have to correct the above upon further research. According to the theory, our universe wasn't created out of nothing, but rather errupted from a prior universe. In other words there is an eternal something that spawns universes.

Quantum creation of an open universe from nothing
is about the opposite of
quantum creation of an open universe from something.
locked
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.