Genesis - Big Bang mash-up

[ChristineM]

Explain "false vacuum?" It is not a scientific concept. Your talking gibberish,

False vacuum - Wikipedia

 

[ChristineM]

So quantum fluctuations of the false vacuum pre-exist bb? Well that is not something from nothing.

Also depends on your interpretation of nothing.

Is that nothing with dimensions
Or
Nothing without dimensions?

 

[danieldemol]

But if there was no pre-bb, then that implies absolute nothing! Mass from no mass, existence from no existence, something from nothing is not solid science imho.

Hmm, I suppose it depends what you mean by pre-BB, if you mean pre-expansion at T>0 then it seems likely to my imagination that there was a T=0, but I believe we don't know if there was that before T=0 moment.

It seems possible to me that at T=0 all the mass of the universe was already there in concentrated form.

It also seems possible that there may have been something else before the T=0 moment for our universe, in which case mass may have come from something different to mass or could have simply always existed.

However I would suggest that for anything to become solid science we would need evidence, and as far as I know at the moment we only have evidence for T>0, so that puts both mine and your intuitive philosophical musings into the category of non science for the moment as I see it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No it implies a ,

The mass of our universe did not come from nothing. It came from the expansion of the energy of the singularity of the initial universe, The equivalence of energy and matter described by Einstein. Hydrogen formed first.

But that Quantum world of Quantum fluctuations that form singularities existed before the theoretical initial BB universe.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, because the initial source of mass is the energy of the energy of the expansion of the singularity. It is not mass from no mass. It is mass from energy.

I said I had no problem with that theory, not the mass from no mass. We are in agreement!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Explain "false vacuum?" It is not a scientific concept. Your talking gibberish,

Ahem.....read the abstract of this paper.... Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Read (and understand) the paper, not just the preamble. The quanta in the vacuum bubble appear from nothing. Yes i know its a difficult concept to get your head around but ignorance of quantum mechanics does not make it go away.

But if the vacuum bubble already exists prior to the appearance of the quanta, then the process is pre-BB is it not?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Also depends on your interpretation of nothing.

Is that nothing with dimensions
Or
Nothing without dimensions?

The concept of nothing in the context of the claim the BB arose from nothing is absolute non existence, absolute nothing!

The concept of nothing with dimensions is just plain silly.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hmm, I suppose it depends what you mean by pre-BB, if you mean pre-expansion at T>0 then it seems likely to my imagination that there was a T=0, but I believe we don't know if there was that before T=0 moment.

It seems possible to me that at T=0 all the mass of the universe was already there in concentrated form.

It also seems possible that there may have been something else before the T=0 moment for our universe, in which case mass may have come from something different to mass or could have simply always existed.

However I would suggest that for anything to become solid science we would need evidence, and as far as I know at the moment we only have evidence for T>0, so that puts both mine and your intuitive philosophical musings into the category of non science for the moment as I see it.

I get the impression from Christine and shunydragon that there is a pre-BB after all, a vacuum bubble. Let's see.

 

[danieldemol]

I get the impression from Christine and shunydragon that there is a pre-BB after all, a vacuum bubble. Let's see.

If I recall @ChristineM
Called them "hypothesis" which if I understand correctly means that it will require testing against further evidence (should it become available) to become a scientific theory.

However these hypothesis do seem to be based on reason as opposed to a false dichotomy which makes them of particular interest.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If I recall @ChristineM
Called them "hypothesis" which if I understand correctly means that it will require testing against further evidence (should it become available) to become a scientific theory.

However these hypothesis do seem to be based on reason as opposed to a false dichotomy which makes them of particular interest.

daniel, that existence is eternal is a no brainer imho, but science needs to prove it before it becomes accepted.

 

[ChristineM]

But if the vacuum bubble already exists prior to the appearance of the quanta, then the process is pre-BB is it not?

You have not read the paper nor do you understand quantum field theory so making up irrelevant nonsense to suit your personal faulty beliefs gets you nowhere

 

[ChristineM]

daniel, that existence is eternal is a no brainer imho, but science needs to prove it before it becomes accepted.

I the same way that religion proves there are gods?

FYI, science does not prove anything.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You have not read the paper nor do you understand quantum field theory so making up irrelevant nonsense to suit your personal faulty beliefs gets you nowhere

Ok, please help me. I am only trying to ascertain, according to your understanding, if anything whatsoever existed before the BB, be it some quantum state or whatever?
.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I the same way that religion proves there are gods?

FYI, science does not prove anything.

God is my source, if I exist, then God too exists, we are one. Now the question of what is God in its totality, can only be realized through living a life in efficacious religious practice. I guess in the same way a dedicated scientist lives their life in serious devotion to their particular area of interest, and discovers much that can be articulated in a way that can help others understand the relevant workings of the universe studied. "Knock and the door will be opened. ask and you shall receive", applies to both science and religion, the Cosmos in interactive imho.

Ok fine, religion also does not prove God.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There are many hypothesis on pre bb, here is one considering a universe from nothing. And it is solid science, backed ip with solid maths.

[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

Please bear with me and just provide me with your best straight answers as I try and understand a universe from nothing..
I quote your referenced paper.... "An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE). Explicit solutions of the WDWE for the special operator ordering factor p=-2 (or 4) show that, once a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially no matter whether the bubble is closed, flat or open. The exponential expansion will end when the bubble becomes large and thus the early universe appears."
OK, so the when the true vacuum bubble becomes large enough, the early universe appears.
Clearly the true vacuum bubble is pre-universe.
And clearly the quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum is pre-true vacuum bubble.
So it seems the earliest entity to come into existence is the metastable false vacuum with it quantum fluctuations, how did that come into existence?

 

[ChristineM]

Ok, please help me. I am only trying to ascertain, according to your understanding, if anything whatsoever existed before the BB, be it some quantum state or whatever?
.

Like everyone else, i have no idea. There are several hypothesis, all based on extrapolating from known data and/or mathematics.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Like everyone else, i have no idea. There are several hypothesis, all based on extrapolating from known data and/or mathematics.

Thank you.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Ok, please help me. I am only trying to ascertain, according to your understanding, if anything whatsoever existed before the BB, be it some quantum state or whatever?
.

That is not a question modern cosmology can answer, for now at least. There are speculations.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That is not a question modern cosmology can answer, for now at least. There are speculations.

Yes, and I think I understand why, science needs to seriously question the reality of a BB no boundary expanding universe that is the present preferred model?