A universe from nothing

[Frenger]

Has anybody read the book by Lawrence Krauss. I am really not a cosmologist, or a physicist so I was wondering, is what he proposes possible?

As far as I can understand, due to Quantum fluctuations nothing is not possible, their has to be something. However, he does mention that we need Quantum mechanics AND gravity to explain this (I think).

So, basically, yeah, is it possible? Can a Universe really come from actual nothing or is something like Quantum tunnelling more likely?

 

[Sparky]

Has anybody read the book by Lawrence Krauss. I am really not a cosmologist, or a physicist so I was wondering, is what he proposes possible?

As far as I can understand, due to Quantum fluctuations nothing is not possible, their has to be something. However, he does mention that we need Quantum mechanics AND gravity to explain this (I think).

So, basically, yeah, is it possible? Can a Universe really come from actual nothing or is something like Quantum tunnelling more likely?

Can't say I've read Lawrence Krauss but I have heard this sort of idea bandied about. As I understand it, it comes down to how one defines "nothing." Clearly, at the very least, there must be some "Laws" that exist and thus one could argue that it is not possible for something to arise from nothing given these "Laws" must exist. However if one defines nothing as the absence of matter and energy then it would seem that it is possible that something can arise from nothing due to quantum fluctuations giving rise to virtual particles or some such explanation - I'm not down on the nitty gritty of the explanation.

On the side I'm not sure that your understanding of quantum tunneling is correct given it requires matter and energy to exist before it can occur. Basically a particle has a probability of "tunneling" through an energy barrier that in classical physics it could never pass over. Fun fact - This effect is one of the primary losses of power in modern electronics (electrons tunneling through the gate of MOSFETs).

 

[Frenger]

On the side I'm not sure that your understanding of quantum tunneling is correct given it requires matter and energy to exist before it can occur. Basically a particle has a probability of "tunneling" through an energy barrier that in classical physics it could never pass over. Fun fact - This effect is one of the primary losses of power in modern electronics (electrons tunneling through the gate of MOSFETs).

No, you're right there, my understanding on quantum tunnelling is no where near accurate. I did read somewhere that our Universe could have appeared due to quantum tunnelling from another universe, so basically, as I may or may not have understood it, a particle could have jumped the energy barrier and then some other stuff, something about inflation.

I liked your fun fact, is that something that can be dealt with in terms of modern electronics or is that something the human race is just going to have to get over?

 

[Inferno]

Here's his speech from the AAI 2009:


I suggest you watch it and then ask about what you understand. As far as I know, it's a possibility that the Universe did indeed come from nothing.

PS: As for "that's not nothing", check out this video: Something From Nothing - a conversation w/ Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss - ASU Feb 4, 2012

All of it is extremely interesting, but this 5min part is the essential bit to answering your question.

 

[DepricatedZero]

I've watched the lecture, which from what I understand the book is just a transcript of. I think he does a great job in the video, explaining things. I'd like to read the book at any rate. Krauss presents some interesting ideas.

 

[Frenger]

Here's his speech from the AAI 2009:


I suggest you watch it and then ask about what you understand. As far as I know, it's a possibility that the Universe did indeed come from nothing.

PS: As for "that's not nothing", check out this video: Something From Nothing - a conversation w/ Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss - ASU Feb 4, 2012

All of it is extremely interesting, but this 5min part is the essential bit to answering your question.

I have watched the vid a few times and read the book. My problem is I jumped straight into cosmology without any real background in mathematics or physics so while I can enjoy reading it and understand it, I can't be critical about anything I read. So when I read a book like this all I can do is say "well that's amazing".

There is nothing in particular I don't understand so it's difficult to pose a question other than, is a universe from nothing possible with current understanding of physics, or is this a bit of a clever title which says it may be possible under certain circumstances? And if so, what are those circumstances?

I suppose another question would be, is this the leading hypothesis for the beginning of the Universe?

I hope this makes sense. I remember when I asked my first question about evolution someone said "it's difficult to ask a question when you don't already know the answer", I feel 15 again

 

[Inferno]

... is a universe from nothing possible with current understanding of physics, or is this a bit of a clever title which says it may be possible under certain circumstances? And if so, what are those circumstances?

Please note that I'm not that well versed in cosmology either, so everything I say should be taken with a truckload of salt.

Yes, it is indeed possible with our current understanding, but one thing we're not sure about yet has to be cleared up: The Universe must have a total of 0 energy, otherwise this won't work. Does the Universe have zero total energy? We're not sure, but it seems quite likely.

I suppose another question would be, is this the leading hypothesis for the beginning of the Universe?

I don't know, but I guess that all hypotheses about the beginning of the Universe are, at the moment at least, so extremely tentative and without adequate evidential support that none is a champion yet, so all I can say is "wait and see". CERN's LHC should provide some answers, as well as all Dark Matter detection apparatuses.

 

[Frenger]

Please note that I'm not that well versed in cosmology either, so everything I say should be taken with a truckload of salt.

I don't know, but I guess that all hypotheses about the beginning of the Universe are, at the moment at least, so extremely tentative and without adequate evidential support that none is a champion yet, so all I can say is "wait and see". CERN's LHC should provide some answers, as well as all Dark Matter detection apparatuses.

I think that's what I needed to be honest so thank you. Everything seemed so sure of itself and I'm not really used to that in cosmology. What I am more used to is "we're not sure", and I can get on with that because I too am unsure.

It's all very exciting anyway. Like I was saying, I just don't have the means to be critical of it and just needed to hear other people's opinions of it all.

Many thanks!

 

[KittenKoder]

Technically, a universe can come from nothing, this is one time that this argument works as proof that it's possible: Because we're here.

How it happens, that's the question.

 

[nudger1964]

as has been said, you really have to know exactly what somebody means when they say "nothing".
when lawrence is talking of nothing, he is not talking of the same nothing that william lane craig is talking about when he says "something can not come from nothing".
the problem for Dr craig is that we have no idea that his nothing is even a possible state, and physics knows enough to reasonably be able to say that our universe did not come from Dr craigs nothing.

there was a rather good horizon documentary a year or two ago entitled "what happened before the big bang"...if nothing else it shows that the question is being given considerable consideration in cosmology these days.
sadly the beeb have blocked most horizons on youtube now...thats a real shame, stuff like that should be freely available....i might write a letter to the director general

 

[Sparky]

I liked your fun fact, is that something that can be dealt with in terms of modern electronics or is that something the human race is just going to have to get over?

We ought to be able to. At present the gate insulators of the smallest MOSFETs are only 4 or 5 atoms wide and are comprised of an oxide layer. I guess what might happen is that they will start using other materials that increase the potential barrier, thereby reducing the power loss.

Just looked at Wikipedia and found this treasure trove of information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSFET

There are a couple of bits in there about current leakage due to tunneling through the gate insulator. It doesn't say to what extent the problem can be reduced but several suggestions of how to reduce current leakage are made. I would make an effort to write up something myself but Wikipedia would trump it any day

If you need anything explained just PM me (as I don't want to hijack the thread) and I'll do my best to answer. I'm not a professional on this stuff so I may well not know the answer but I find I learn the most when helping others learn

 

[Frenger]

as has been said, you really have to know exactly what somebody means when they say "nothing".
when lawrence is talking of nothing, he is not talking of the same nothing that william lane craig is talking about when he says "something can not come from nothing".
the problem for Dr craig is that we have no idea that his nothing is even a possible state, and physics knows enough to reasonably be able to say that our universe did not come from Dr craigs nothing.

there was a rather good horizon documentary a year or two ago entitled "what happened before the big bang"...if nothing else it shows that the question is being given considerable consideration in cosmology these days.
sadly the beeb have blocked most horizons on youtube now...thats a real shame, stuff like that should be freely available....i might write a letter to the director general

I see, so it's a problem of definitions, Craig is thinking nothing in a philosophical sense as in the Aristotle quote "nothing is what rocks dream of", where as Krauss is talking about nothing in terms of physics, and in those terms nothing is unstable and may even not be possible. So with Quantum fluctuations and gravity, nothing has to become something, as in mass seems to be created, and this doesn't contradict any laws of thermodynamics because empty space contains energy. I hope I'm on the simplistic right lines.

Also, yes, write away, I think as they are only ever shown once it is such a shame for them to just disappear. I did find this clip which is more in my language, cosmic reproduction....I like that.

 

[Frenger]

I liked your fun fact, is that something that can be dealt with in terms of modern electronics or is that something the human race is just going to have to get over?

We ought to be able to. At present the gate insulators of the smallest MOSFETs are only 4 or 5 atoms wide and are comprised of an oxide layer. I guess what might happen is that they will start using other materials that increase the potential barrier, thereby reducing the power loss.

Just looked at Wikipedia and found this treasure trove of information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSFET

There are a couple of bits in there about current leakage due to tunneling through the gate insulator. It doesn't say to what extent the problem can be reduced but several suggestions of how to reduce current leakage are made. I would make an effort to write up something myself but Wikipedia would trump it any day

If you need anything explained just PM me (as I don't want to hijack the thread) and I'll do my best to answer. I'm not a professional on this stuff so I may well not know the answer but I find I learn the most when helping others learn

I might take you up on that sir. I have a debate in a few weeks about the origins of the Universe and the cosmological argument. I'm against a muslim scholar, a methodist priest and some yet unknown people of faith. My area is evolution, so it's nice that the topic of physics was picked, especially such a aimple topic as the origin of the Universe....sigh.

 

[nudger1964]

couple of weeks ago the old cosmological argument got brought up again on the atheist experience.
Usually that is Matts territory, but on this occasion if you listen carefully to what tracy is saying, she totally destroys the whole argument in my oppinion.

the fun really starts about 30 mins in

 

[Frenger]

I had never watched that show before, the title led me to believe it was probably going to be a bit silly, but I rather enjoyed it.

I do like that argument that we don't have nothing to test so we can't assert that something can't come from it. I will probably use that line, it's very good. Thanks for posting it.

 

[Inferno]

I had never watched that show before, the title led me to believe it was probably going to be a bit silly, but I rather enjoyed it.

I do like that argument that we don't have nothing to test so we can't assert that something can't come from it. I will probably use that line, it's very good. Thanks for posting it.

I'm fairly sure AndromedasWake talked about that in one of his videos, not sure which though. I'll watch em again over the weekend and tell you, unless you're quicker.

EDIT: I can't find it. Was it removed or something? Or was it someone else's video? Darn, too much good stuff on YT.

 

[Dean]

Inferno

["¦] I do like that argument that we don't have nothing to test so we can't assert that something can't come from it. I will probably use that line, it's very good. Thanks for posting it.

["¦] EDIT: I can't find it. Was it removed or something? Or was it someone else's video? Darn, too much good stuff on YT.

I think the one you're referring to is , or was , the latest edition of his "Creation Astronomy Propaganda Debunked" series, which he released some time in mid-2010. The video itself is no longer there, sadly. I have no idea what happened to it. But I recall that the video in question was related to the arguments surrounding universal fine-tuning, a popular argument for divine existence, touted by Craig, et al. Also, I remember him stating at one point in the video, something to the effect of "a probability calculation with a sample size of one,is meaningless". And that seems to surmise exactly what Frenger was referring to. Note: the evidence seems to suggest that the video has in fact been either unlisted or set to 'private', because from typing in the phrase 'Fine tuning' into his video-search @YouTube, it curiously displays one video, but also says that there are two search results ... and the phrase "fine tuning" was most definitely in the title of the video that I think you were talking about. So that's why you can't find it. I don't think it was deleted, or removed by YouTube, and it was his own video for sure. If I'm correct, you'll have to get into contact with AndromedasWake himself, either via LoR or YouTube or whatever, and ask him, and he might tell you.

Now, it is indeed true that it is impossible to assess probabilities with a sample size of 1, because we have no external "oversight", so to speak, of "other universes" (if other universes even exist) -- from which to determine the range and hence probability of life-permitting universes in the full set. Religious apologists for whom AWake also dedicated at least some of his time to refuting, e.g. William Craig, tend to just respond to this by repeating themselves, as you can see here. < Also note that that video was made by one of AndromedasWake's friends, Th1sWasATriumph. In this case of course, the truth is that Craig did not attempt to defend the premise he had set forth in his prior arguments, he simply repeated the question by appealing to a metaphor. It strikes me as rather a slimy tactic.

Another video made by AndromedasWake that IS</U><i></i> still readily available is this one: <U>"William Lane Craig: The Artful Dodger", and in this particular video, he deals with issues that are relevant to this topic, e.g. regarding Krauss's book, particularly his statements on Quantum Mechanics, and their possibly implications for cosmology and physics. The video is unavailable in some countries unfortunately, for example Germany. Put simply, the creation of 'virtual-particles' , as they're called , could arguably be interpreted as the creation of physical entities from nothing, and this is a point that is often missed by defenders of convoluted theo-"logical" arguments, such as the Kalām, among others ... these events do not obey traditional theories of "causality", and are instead determined as a purely statistical phenomena, as AndromedasWake pointed out in the video, also. If the universe was created from a quantum event like this, then it's possible that the universe could have come into being from "nothing", or at least from a pure vacuum, with no supernatural elements required.

I am not sure if this perspective is the one defended by Lawrence M. Krauss in his new book, as I have only read about half of it. But still, it shows the point that will confound a lot of religious people. I think Harris phrases it like this:

• "In A Universe From Nothing, Lawrence Krauss has written a thrilling introduction to the current state of cosmology,the branch of science that tells about the deep past and deeper future of everything. As it turns out, everything has a lot to do with nothing,and nothing to do with God. This is a brilliant and disarming book."
  , Sam Harris

Whoops! Another god-of-the-gaps hole just got plugged!

 

[Inferno]

Dean, do you have an eidetic memory or something? You're absolutely correct, you remembered exactly which video I meant. Thanks for that.

 

[Dean]

Dean, do you have an eidetic memory or something? You're absolutely correct, you remembered exactly which video I meant. Thanks for that.

No problem at all. While that question was of course rhetorical, yes I do, to some extent. "Eidetic"? I don't know. But put it this way: once I've memorized something, it very, very rarely disappears. Perhaps this is why I've always had an interest in studying languages.

But as it happens, while the original video is gone, it has been mirrored by at least one user:

Creation Astronomy Propaganda Debunked: 07
​

So there you have it. The video has been edited in some bizarre ways, e.g. the title, introductory sequence, and ending, plus the quality and screen-size are sub-standard compared to the original, but at least it still exists in some tangible form; minus actually asking AWake himself for the video. And I always enjoyed AndromedasWake's video series.

The line I quoted earlier comes in at 7:39.

 

[Inferno]

Wowzers, you quoted it almost perfectly.