Where did the universe come from?
Many Christians will say that the Bible made it pretty clear -- 'God said'.
Some Christians will add that God may have used naturalistic means just the same.
The following summarizes what secular science thinks insofar as creation of the cosmos is concerned. From Cornell University's Curious About Astronomy?:
'Assuming the Big Bang is a valid theory of the creation of Earth and the Universe, then where did the original mass come from, that formed everything that we see today?
'First of all, note that mass and energy are equivalent. So, the total mass of the Universe need not be conserved even though the total energy (taking into account the energy that is equivalent of the mass in the Universe) is conserved. Mass and energy are related by the famous equation E=mc2. Hence if there is enough energy, photons can create matter-antimatter pairs. This is called pair production and is responsible for the mass in the Universe.
'As to where everything came from, there is no conclusive opinion. One idea was that the Universe was created from vacuum. This is because according to quantum theory, the apparently quiescent vacuum is not really empty at all. For example, it is possible for an electron and a positron (a matter antimatter pair) to materialize from the vacuum, exist for a brief flash of time and then disappear into nothingness. Such vacuum fluctuation cannot be observed directly as they typically last for only about 10-21 seconds and the separation between the electron and positron is typically no longer than 10-10 cm. However, through indirect measurements, physicists are convinced that these fluctuations are real.
'Hence, any object in principle might materialize briefly in the vacuum. The probability for an object to materialize decreases dramatically with the mass and complexity of the object. In 1973, Edward Tyron proposed that the Universe is a result of a vacuum fluctuation. The main difficulty of this proposal is that the probability that a 13.7 billion year old Universe could arise from this mechanism is extremely small. In addition, physicists would question Tyron's starting point: if the Universe was born from empty space, then where did the empty space come from? (Note that from the point of view of general relativity, empty space is unambiguously something, since space is not a passive background, but instead a flexible medium that can bend, twist and flex.)
'In 1982, Alexander Vilenkin proposed an extension of Tyron's idea and suggested that the Universe was created by quantum processes starting from "literally nothing", meaning not only the absence of matter, but the absence of space and time as well. Vilenkin took the idea of quantum tunneling and proposed that the Universe started in the totally empty geometry and then made a quantum tunneling transition to a non-empty state (subatomic in size), which through inflation (the Universe expands exponentially fast for a brief period of time which causes its size to increase dramatically) came to its current size.
'Another idea is from Stephen Hawking and James Hartle. Hawking proposed a description of the Universe in its entirety, viewed as a self-contained entity, with no reference to anything that might have come before it. The description is timeless, in the sense that one set of equations delineates the Universe for all time. As one looks to earlier and earlier times, one finds that the model Universe is not eternal, but there is no creation event either. Instead, at times of the order of 10-43 seconds, the approximation of a classical description of space and time breaks down completely, with the whole picture dissolving into quantum ambiguity. In Hawking's words, the Universe "would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE."
'So, the origin of mass in the Universe and the Universe itself is quite speculative at this point. If you are interested, you can read Alan Guth's book "The Inflationary Universe", page 271-276. You can also read Hawking's "A brief history of time: From the Big Bang to black holes" page 136.' [emphases supplied]
The article was written by Jagadheep D. Pandian.
Looks like an ex nihilo creation would still be the most logical scenario.
[Image: Nick Wright/ INT Photometric Hα Survey of the Northern Galactic Plane]
"...the probability...is extremely small...."
Heh.
Who said that disbelief in the Bible does not demand faith?
Reminds me of the belief (ancient Hindu iirc) that the world was held up ban an elephant. And the elephant? Well, another elephant. And another. One immediately envisages a tower (foundation) of elephants stretching into infinity, say, parodying Hawking, 10exp43 of 'em.
Numbers (and other neat scientific jargon) don't make it something other than faith...a faith contrary to fact.
Posted by: Roy | February 17, 2008 at 03:44 PM
like your articles a lot,rather intriguing!
i have a viewpoint on the origin of mass like to share:
i consider that mass is a BUNDLE OF FOLDING ENERGY(or an energy knot),just like DNA or protein ,or a china knot.
So what's energy? i think,visualizingly speaking,a kind of vibration of space(any dimension).while philosophically speaking,it's merely and purely a sort of orderliness(vacuum but laws,my viewpoint).
and then,what's “space"? - any fragment of universe.
and what's Universe? - Domain that all laws and rules independently self-contained,i think. Once there's a leak,it's not a Universe.
e.g. If black hole is just like what Hawking said that an odd point does exist,"our universe"(that we traditionally call) is not a universe at all then.
we must study over the phenomena of FOLDING，that we usually see caused by cross-dimension transformation.Just like when you bend a piece of paper or knead a string. the key lies not in the result that you bend or knead,but in how you bend and knead.
luckily,the great famous equation "E=mc2" figures out what rule such folding conforms to.that is：the folding is done by compressing the energy by "c^2" ,here, "c" shall be recognized as a vector but not scalar so as to render this folding structure over a higher-dimension space(maybe 5d,i've no idea,where v=c+ is possible).thus we need to upgrade our theory to that dimension to get further conclusion.String theory seems to be the most suitable theory for my hyponothis.so far,"String" is such a suggestive word that concerns my “Knot” theory.
what's your opinion?
i've bookmarked your blog,will check back frequently.
Posted by: Xiaoyu | February 22, 2008 at 09:39 AM
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows virtual particles to arise non-deterministically due to energy fluctuations which may be trapped in a vacuum very briefly before they dissolve back into the vacuum. If we attempt to apply such a process to the larger question of cosmological origin (a discredited idea; cf. the last paragraph of this post for a simple summary) we are forced, first of all, to recall that the quantum vacuum on which the emergence of virtual particles depends is certainly not nothing, but a constantly fluctuating sea of energy. Recalling that our universe is a space-time-material-energy matrix, and that the quantum vacuum is a physical entity existing in space and time, virtual particles emerging randomly from fluctuations in the quantum vacuum do not provide a basis for a genuine origin of the universe out of absolute nothing: “From the philosophical point of view it is essential to note that the foregoing is far from being a spontaneous generation of everything from naught, but the origin of that embryonic bubble is really a causal process leading from a primordial substratum with a rich physical structure to a materialized substratum of the vacuum. Admittedly this process is not deterministic; it includes that weak kind of causal dependence peculiar to every quantum mechanical process” (Kanitscheider, “Does Cosmology Transcend the Limits of Naturalistic Reasoning?” in Studies on Mario Bunge’s ‘Treatise,’ eds., Peter Weingartner and G. J. W. Doen (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1990), p. 347.
It will be noticed in Kanitscheider’s description that there is a certain ambiguity in his usage of the process being “really a causal process” and it being “that weak kind of causal dependence peculiar to every quantum mechanical process”; this calls for a bit of clarification. Positing “quantum fluctuation” as the reason for event X is essentially to affirm a “chance” or “random” process underlying that event in that there is no identifiable or systematic cause which can be assigned to such an event in physical theory. Such events simply appear to occur. In that sense of being indeterminate/random, such events are not caused. Yet Kanitscheider “rightly” speaks of a “weak kind of causal dependence” (though I really don’t like the phrase!) in that virtual particles can only emerge from pre-existing quantum vacuum which in turn exists in “space”; neither of which equivalent to “nothing” in contemporary physics (quite to the contrary!).
To be even more specific, ala Einstein’s E=MC^2 a particle at rest mass M can be created if energy MC^2 is provided (e.g. whether by kinetic energy, heat energy, the rest energy of another particle, etc.). Material particles always require energy from another source to persist permanently. Yet the Heisenberg uncertainty principle also allows virtual particles to appear even without an energy supply where the law of conservation of energy and matter may be suspended for time T per given E where T = (H/E) and H is Planck’s constant. It is easy to miss the crucial point that virtual particles are not materializing from “nothing” in such cases in that (it is worth repeating) their existence depends on quantum fields which in turn require the existence of space, and neither quantum fields nor space in contemporary physics are equivalent to nothing. So current physical theory cannot explain how something can come from absolute nothing.
BTW, in connection with causal/a-causal and similar language, we must also not forget that, after Hume's critique of causality scientists and philosophers of science seek to strip physical models of the metaphysical idea of causality as much as possible; we cannot strictly demarcate (or demarcate at all) cause from conjunction on empirical grounds. In informal discussion, and even in somewhat formal discussion such as Kanitscheider's, it is hard, if not altogether impossible, to avoid using such language. Such language, however, is analogical at best with respect to physical theory. How, ala Hume, might one demarcate between a-causal, for example, and uncorrelated or indeterminate? I would consider such a demarcation to be highly questionable.
In 1973, Edward Tyron published an article in Nature which pondered the question of whether our universe might be a long-lived virtual particle which emerged from the primordial vacuum with a total energy of zero (“Is the Universe a Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation?” Nature, 246 (1973), pp. 396-397). Although vacuum fluctuation explanations of the origin of the universe are still reiterated occasionally on the “secular web,” they were actually “jettisoned twenty years ago” (Christopher Isham, “Quantum Cosmology and the Origin of the Universe” (Cambridge: July, 1994). Perhaps one reason this discredited model is still embraced as if it was still a genuine option by some of our internet infidel friends is the prominent place it held in the late Carl Sagan’s television series “Cosmos.” As Sagan put it, although quantum generated genesis of the cosmos was unlikely, “it only had to happen once”). Unfortunately this discredited idea does not have to die just once for us to cease to hear about it ad infinitum in atheist/agnostic forums. Although much more could be said, without going into detail about the final collapse of the idea of an eternal pre-inflationary primordial vacuum, I’ll quote Hawking once more in closing; notice his phrase “no vacuum”!). According to Hawking, the universe was "created out of nothing: not just out of the vacuum, but out of absolutely nothing at all, because there is nothing outside of the universe” (Hawking and Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 85).
Finally, the quantum vacuum in turn exists in space-time, which can contain energy in it's curvature, even if it is completely devoid of matter or radiation. Space, like the quantum vacuum, is definitely not "nothing" in contemporary physics!
Posted by: sirhemlock | February 22, 2008 at 06:37 PM
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows virtual particles to arise non-deterministically due to energy fluctuations which may be trapped in a vacuum very briefly before they dissolve back into the vacuum. If we attempt to apply such a process to the larger question of cosmological origin (a discredited idea; cf. the last paragraph of this post for a simple summary) we are forced, first of all, to recall that the quantum vacuum on which the emergence of virtual particles depends is certainly not nothing, but a constantly fluctuating sea of energy. Recalling that our universe is a space-time-material-energy matrix, and that the quantum vacuum is a physical entity existing in space and time, virtual particles emerging randomly from fluctuations in the quantum vacuum do not provide a basis for a genuine origin of the universe out of absolute nothing: “From the philosophical point of view it is essential to note that the foregoing is far from being a spontaneous generation of everything from naught, but the origin of that embryonic bubble is really a causal process leading from a primordial substratum with a rich physical structure to a materialized substratum of the vacuum. Admittedly this process is not deterministic; it includes that weak kind of causal dependence peculiar to every quantum mechanical process” (Kanitscheider, “Does Cosmology Transcend the Limits of Naturalistic Reasoning?” in Studies on Mario Bunge’s ‘Treatise,’ eds., Peter Weingartner and G. J. W. Doen (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1990), p. 347.
It will be noticed in Kanitscheider’s description that there is a certain ambiguity in his usage of the process being “really a causal process” and it being “that weak kind of causal dependence peculiar to every quantum mechanical process”; this calls for a bit of clarification. Positing “quantum fluctuation” as the reason for event X is essentially to affirm a “chance” or “random” process underlying that event in that there is no identifiable or systematic cause which can be assigned to such an event in physical theory. Such events simply appear to occur. In that sense of being indeterminate/random, such events are not caused. Yet Kanitscheider “rightly” speaks of a “weak kind of causal dependence” (though I really don’t like the phrase!) in that virtual particles can only emerge from pre-existing quantum vacuum which in turn exists in “space”; neither of which equivalent to “nothing” in contemporary physics (quite to the contrary!).
To be even more specific, ala Einstein’s E=MC^2 a particle at rest mass M can be created if energy MC^2 is provided (e.g. whether by kinetic energy, heat energy, the rest energy of another particle, etc.). Material particles always require energy from another source to persist permanently. Yet the Heisenberg uncertainty principle also allows virtual particles to appear even without an energy supply where the law of conservation of energy and matter may be suspended for time T per given E where T = (H/E) and H is Planck’s constant. It is easy to miss the crucial point that virtual particles are not materializing from “nothing” in such cases in that (it is worth repeating) their existence depends on quantum fields which in turn require the existence of space, and neither quantum fields nor space in contemporary physics are equivalent to nothing. So current physical theory cannot explain how something can come from absolute nothing.
BTW, in connection with causal/a-causal and similar language, we must also not forget that, after Hume's critique of causality scientists and philosophers of science seek to strip physical models of the metaphysical idea of causality as much as possible; we cannot strictly demarcate (or demarcate at all) cause from conjunction on empirical grounds. In informal discussion, and even in somewhat formal discussion such as Kanitscheider's, it is hard, if not altogether impossible, to avoid using such language. Such language, however, is analogical at best with respect to physical theory. How, ala Hume, might one demarcate between a-causal, for example, and uncorrelated or indeterminate? I would consider such a demarcation to be highly questionable.
In 1973, Edward Tyron published an article in Nature which pondered the question of whether our universe might be a long-lived virtual particle which emerged from the primordial vacuum with a total energy of zero (“Is the Universe a Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation?” Nature, 246 (1973), pp. 396-397). Although vacuum fluctuation explanations of the origin of the universe are still reiterated occasionally on the “secular web,” they were actually “jettisoned twenty years ago” (Christopher Isham, “Quantum Cosmology and the Origin of the Universe” (Cambridge: July, 1994). Perhaps one reason this discredited model is still embraced as if it was still a genuine option by some of our internet infidel friends is the prominent place it held in the late Carl Sagan’s television series “Cosmos.” As Sagan put it, although quantum generated genesis of the cosmos was unlikely, “it only had to happen once”). Unfortunately this discredited idea does not have to die just once for us to cease to hear about it ad infinitum in atheist/agnostic forums. Although much more could be said, without going into detail about the final collapse of the idea of an eternal pre-inflationary primordial vacuum, I’ll quote Hawking once more in closing; notice his phrase “no vacuum”!). According to Hawking, the universe was "created out of nothing: not just out of the vacuum, but out of absolutely nothing at all, because there is nothing outside of the universe” (Hawking and Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 85).
Finally, the quantum vacuum in turn exists in space-time, which can contain energy in it's curvature, even if it is completely devoid of matter or radiation. Space, like the quantum vacuum, is definitely not "nothing" in contemporary physics!
Posted by: sirhemlock | February 22, 2008 at 06:42 PM