something cannot come from nothing on its own

[moonlord]

Stephen Hawking mentions to have changed his mind since he wrote "A brief history of time".

Oh, and, jinydu, if Hawking is right, then there are no mathematics at the Big Bang...

[Nick]

"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundaries or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? (p. 140-1)"

Hawking's books are easy to understand because he always makes the connections for the reader and draws possible conclusions/asks questions for the reader. If you replace "So long as" with "If", add a "then" before the "we", and remove "we could suppose it". By removing this excess, you will get the main idea:

"If the universe had a beginning, then had a creator."

If you do the same for the second part, you will get:

"If the Universe is self-contained, then it wouldn't have an end, and therefore wouldn't need a God."

You see, he isn't telling the reader; he is asking the questions and drawing conclusions for the reader to understand the two possibilities.

Stephen Hawking mentions to have changed his mind since he wrote "A brief history of time". [

That too :wink:.

Besides Hugh, you say that evidence "points" to your side, but it actually doesn't. Your theory requires there to have been at least more than one big bang/big crunche(s). However, Science now "points" against the Big Crunch Theory. You see, there was never any proof for the big crunch; it was simply the logical conclusion to the end of a universe after the big bang theory was created. However, now scientists are starting to challenge it.

Try to prove to me a Big Crunch, Hugh. Good Luck!

[Hugh]

Besides Hugh, you say that evidence "points" to your side, but it actually doesn't. Your theory requires there to have been at least more than one big bang/big crunche(s). However, Science now "points" against the Big Crunch Theory. You see, there was never any proof for the big crunch; it was simply the logical conclusion to the end of a universe after the big bang theory was created. However, now scientists are starting to challenge it.

Try to prove to me a Big Crunch, Hugh. Good Luck!

You know irockyou, I wish you could understand what I am saying but after 4 pages now, I don't think you will and I am getting a little tired explaining it. Plus, when I try a different way you tell me I keep repeating myself so you know what, you go ahead and believe whatever you'd like. It's not my desire or job to convert you to my way of thinking. This is a forum to freely express ideas and have fun. Let's leave it at that on this topic between us shall we?

[moonlord]

As I said earlier, you two are not communicating... There are two main theories regarding the begining of the universe. Hugh supports one, irockyou supports the other. I personally like Hugh's because I cannot explain correctly the other one. However, observation suggests that there will be no Big Crunch, therefore tossing Hugh's theory.

You cannot give a reason to convert the other because, as in every immature theory, there is not enough observation. If you had this reason, then we were not arguing about this here. People would have known which one is the right one.

So I see that you have no more information with which to support your theory. You will keep repeating yourselves, in a useless struggle to convert the other one. I suggest you waited 'till new evidence will be available. At leeast we have set our sides now .

[Hugh]

However, observation suggests that there will be no Big Crunch, therefore tossing Hugh's theory.

What is not being understood here is that it does not matter if there will be a Big Crunch in the future. Even if there isn't one, there will still be something around, and that doesn't matter either. It has no bearing at all on what I'm saying here.

It doesn't matter if there was or wasn't a Big Bang, or will or won't be a Big Crunch. A Big Bang can't happen if there isn't something there to go bang. That something can't come from absolute nothingness by creating itself. Neither can a creator God have created himself. There has to have always been something around, always, that might have been the something that makes up the universe (or multiverse), or God. That's all. Now, I'm done.

[Nick]

Now, I'm done.

I'll be done too (at least until there's more evidence to show) after this post.

You know irockyou, I wish you could understand what I am saying but after 4 pages now, I don't think you will and I am getting a little tired explaining it.

I feel the exact same way. These four pages were a futile waste of both of our lives... nothing was accomplished.

As I said earlier, you two are not communicating... There are two main theories regarding the begining of the universe. Hugh supports one, irockyou supports the other. I personally like Hugh's because I cannot explain correctly the other one. However, observation suggests that there will be no Big Crunch, therefore tossing Hugh's theory.

Thus proving that this thread is at a total stalemate.

There has to have always been something around, always, that might have been the something that makes up the universe (or multiverse), or God.

That's a matter of opinion, Hugh. Just because nothing was witnessed that shows something can come from nothing, doesn't mean its not possible. Just because noone could see the planets (not suns, planets) outside our galaxy doesn't mean their not there. Man has always believed that the Universe was made up of nothing but this galaxy. Thanks to the Hubble Telescope and other technology, we have proved that they are there.

... so you know what, you go ahead and believe whatever you'd like.

Likewise.

As I said earlier, you two are not communicating

That seems to be a major problem on this forum (ie. bo n' thigle) :wink:

[moonlord]

Oh, wait. Hugh said it does not matter if there will be or not a Big Crunch. This throws a new light, as you cannot have more than one Universe without Big Crunches. Maybe he can explain it more?

[Nick]

Oh, wait. Hugh said it does not matter if there will be or not a Big Crunch. This throws a new light, as you cannot have more than one Universe without Big Crunches. Maybe he can explain it more?

What he said was that it does not matter if there is a Big Crunch in our universe, but whether or not there were big crunches in the previous universes. This implies that the previous universes ended differently than a Big Crunch... However, they still must have ended in a singularity to create the next universe. If he would explain how a Universe can end in a singularity without crunching, then I would start posting again (this post doesnt count! :wink:).

[PWrong]

In empty space, particle-antiparticle pairs constantly spring up and annihilate each other. This is known as "the quantum foam".

When I say "nothing" I mean "nothing", not even "empty space", nothing at all. Something can't come from that nothing is what I mean.

Maybe quantum foam applies to spacetime too. I think Brian Greene suggested that tiny "threads" of spacetime might pop into existence, even without any empty space. Then quantum foam might cause inflation to start inside this thread of spacetime, causing the big bang.

[PWrong]

It just occured to me that I killed this thread . It was up to 4 pages, and as soon as I post something, everyone stops talking. I only just noticed.

[Hugh]

It just occured to me that I killed this thread . It was up to 4 pages, and as soon as I post something, everyone stops talking. I only just noticed.

It wasn't you PWrong, it was just that I decided to stop discussing the topic with irockyou.

Maybe quantum foam applies to spacetime too. I think Brian Greene suggested that tiny "threads" of spacetime might pop into existence, even without any empty space. Then quantum foam might cause inflation to start inside this thread of spacetime, causing the big bang.

So you're saying that these threads of spacetime create themselves from absolute nothingness, appear from nowhere into nowhere (not even in empty space), then quantum foam creates itself from nothingness and, following physical laws self-created, it causes inflation to occur causing the big bang?

[Nick]

So you're saying that these threads of spacetime create themselves from absolute nothingness, appear from nowhere into nowhere (not even in empty space), then quantum foam creates itself from nothingness and, following physical laws self-created, it causes inflation to occur causing the big bang?

That's what he said. Instead of repeating him, offer a rebuttal; that we we can actually debate. In the meantime, I'm going to look this up, it sounds very interesting...

[PWrong]

I'm not sure if that's exactly what Brian Greene said. I haven't read the book in a while. There's also another theory, where there was a whole "pre-big bang period". In this theory, space has always existed, and quantum foam naturally results in a big bang. Someone actually calculated the probability of it happening again in a given place in a given time. It's something like one in 10^(10^100), the largest number ever used in physics. So there could be a universe being born right behind you. I think I've posted about this theory before.

[houserichichi]

Pfffft, big numbers...go check out Graham's number to understand what "big" is. Big numbers = big ______?

</interlude>

[PWrong]

That's not used in physics. Unless you need four physics committees in which all pairs of committees fall in the same group and all the people belong to an even number of committees. I can't imagine any physicist trying to organise all that.

[houserichichi]

I was just going to say that mathematicians have bigger numbers than physicists :wink:

[PWrong]

Lol, sorry. It's late, and I didn't notice the "interlude".

[Hugh]

I'm not sure if that's exactly what Brian Greene said. I haven't read the book in a while.

Okay, well I don't think that self-creation from "absolute nothingness" is a part of what he said, nor is it a part of what any scientist says.

There's also another theory, where there was a whole "pre-big bang period". In this theory, space has always existed, and quantum foam naturally results in a big bang.

For the puposes of this thread then, that would mean that "something" was always there, including the physical laws that determine how quantum foam and space work.

[PWrong]

Okay, well I don't think that self-creation from "absolute nothingness" is a part of what he said, nor is it a part of what any scientist says.

How do you know? That's what we're all saying, why wouldn't a scientist say the same thing?

By the way, I don't like the way you call physicists "scientists". This thread has nothing to do with biology or chemistry, or any other science except physics.

[Hugh]

Okay, well I don't think that self-creation from "absolute nothingness" is a part of what he said, nor is it a part of what any scientist says.

How do you know? That's what we're all saying, why wouldn't a scientist say the same thing?

Can you quote any physicists that say that the universe created itself from "absolute nothingness" as I've defined it?

Also, who do you refer to when you say "we're all saying"?

[moonlord]

No theory can be proven right. Assuming all observation matches with the predictions and that we're taking the positivistic approach, there is no way to prove there isn't another theory that is right. It's like the holographic theory. You can't know which one is the correct one if they both make predictions confirmed by experiments and observations.

<quite off-topic>
There is no "correct" theory because one can find infinitely many theories that explain the universe. However, you can't find a theory that exactly describes the universe because all experiment fact that sustain it is aproximative. Therefore, all you can do is find a better and better aproximation for the TOE. Or...?
</quite off-topic>

In "absolute nothingness", there is no physics, space or rules of any kind at all.

If there are no rules, what stops a singularity popping out of nowhere and exploding?

[Hugh]

However, you can't find a theory that exactly describes the universe because all experiment fact that sustain it is aproximative. Therefore, all you can do is find a better and better aproximation for the TOE. Or...?

Describing the universe and how it works is one thing, saying it created itself and all its laws from absolute nothingness is another.

In "absolute nothingness", there is no physics, space or rules of any kind at all.

If there are no rules, what stops a singularity popping out of nowhere and exploding?

Do you believe that is what actually occured? Do you believe that the universe created itself and all its physical laws where there was nothing existing in the first place? Are there any physicists that would concur?

[houserichichi]

Aside from the odd string theorist (or some derivative thereof), I don't think anyone has any plausible ideas about where things came from "pre-creation" as it's just beyond the realm of physics at this point. The string theorists and co. have their little bashing-branes ideas but as string theory has no more evidence than my no-causality idea I really don't feel comfortable saying they're "more right" than I am...not yet. What my argument relies on is the lack of causality pre-big bang. What theirs hinges on is an entirely new branch of unproven, no evidence physics.

[Hugh]

Aside from the odd string theorist (or some derivative thereof), I don't think anyone has any plausible ideas about where things came from "pre-creation" as it's just beyond the realm of physics at this point. The string theorists and co. have their little bashing-branes ideas but as string theory has no more evidence than my no-causality idea I really don't feel comfortable saying they're "more right" than I am...not yet. What my argument relies on is the lack of causality pre-big bang. What theirs hinges on is an entirely new branch of unproven, no evidence physics.

If one starts off with pre-existing strings and / or branes, and laws, that's something to begin with, not nothing.

Btw House, those several posts about this topic by us in the "Tetraspace Beings" thread were deleted, probably because they had little to do with the topic there, which is understandable. We made some gains in the understanding of this topic through those posts though, too bad we didn't make them here, oh well.

[houserichichi]

I don't even remember what the heck we said. We talk at so many locations I lose track of what's being said and where...but I like the interludes and roll-offs because they are able to spark new debates and be split from threads. At any rate I hope we both learned something from it!

If one starts off with pre-existing anything is that any better than absolute nothingness? I mean absolute nothingness doesn't exist in our universe so it's terrible to grasp and unappealing. On the other hand isn't timeless "foreverness" a close cousin? Infinitely long lengths of time don't exist in our universe so it's terrible to grasp and equally unappealing? On one hand we assume nothing and then creation. On the other hand we assume creation from something that was never created in the first place.

Yuck on both accounts.

[Hugh]

If one starts off with pre-existing anything is that any better than absolute nothingness?

You bet it is! If there was always "something" existing, then it makes things easier to understand. "Something" has always existed. Whether that be space, energy, matter, or even possibly a creator god. Things are much easier to comprehend when they don't have to create themselves from "absolute nothingness".

I mean absolute nothingness doesn't exist in our universe so it's terrible to grasp and unappealing.

Absolute nothingness doesn't exist anywhere simply because we exist here. If "absolute nothingness" existed, there would be absolutely nothing everywhere, which would be nowhere.

On the other hand isn't timeless "foreverness" a close cousin?

I don't think so, there would be something existing "forever", which is different from nothing existing at all.

On one hand we assume nothing and then creation. On the other hand we assume creation from something that was never created in the first place.

Yuck on both accounts.

I don't see how the first one of those could have actually happened, if you mean "absolute nothingness" (not even a creator god). That's the whole idea of the thread.

The second one doesn't need creation, there is just something always existing, it just changes form. From let's say a previously ever - existing singularity or string / brane whatever to a universe like we have here. Why would that be so hard to accept?

It's much more easier and logical for me to accept an ever-existing "something" than the universe creating itself and all its laws from "absolute nothingness".

[moonlord]

First of all, I want to note that those posts aren't deleted, they're split and placed in the General forum now. I thought to tidy up some long threads.
EDIT: ...under the "About the universe generally" thread.

Now back to the subject. It seems we now have three main theories.

1. Creation/irockyou: Somehow a singularity appeared, exploded, created spacetime and filled it with some energy. It is known how matter formed then to the shape we know it. Possible ends of Universe: Big Crunch (end of spacetime and energy in a singularity that somehow disappears afterwards), infinite expanding (enthropy reaches its maximum and eventually the spacetime becomes infinite and the Universe cold - 0 K).

2. Train-time/Hugh: As in Newton's model, time is infinite both in past and in future. There are problems with this model, as Immanuel Kant (?) showed. [ Reference: "Universe in a Nutshell", 2nd chapter. I will go into more detail if requested. ]

3. Infinite time loop/myself: The time resets at BB/BC point. However, this requires the Big Crunch, and recent observation/evidence suggests there will be none. So my theory is kinda stillborn.

Right now, I am with irockyou and believe the Universe will die coldly...

[Keiji]

4. God made the universe...

[PWrong]

5. The flying spaghetti monster created a mountain, trees and a midget, followed by the universe.

P.S. I'm in an internet cafe in New Zealand, which is awesome .

[Keiji]

Ah yes, the flying spaghetti monster. After all, God could indeed be it.