Much Ado about Nothing

hrmwrm

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
1,628
Reaction score
11
Location
Alberta
Much Ado about Nothing

Science closes in on why there is something instead of nothing


Why is there something rather than nothing? This is one of those profound questions that is easy to ask but difficult to answer. For millennia humans simply said, “God did it”: a creator existed before the universe and brought it into existence out of nothing. But this just begs the question of what created God—and if God does not need a creator, logic dictates that neither does the universe. Science deals with natural (not supernatural) causes and, as such, has several ways of exploring where the “something” came from.

Multiple universes. There are many multiverse hypotheses predicted from mathematics and physics that show how our universe may have been born from another universe. For example, our universe may be just one of many bubble universes with varying laws of nature. Those universes with laws similar to ours will produce stars, some of which collapse into black holes and singularities that give birth to new universes—in a manner similar to the singularity that physicists believe gave rise to the big bang.

M-theory. In his and Leonard Mlodinow’s 2010 book, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking embraces “M-theory” (an extension of string theory that includes 11 dimensions) as “the only candidate for a complete theory of the universe. If it is finite—and this has yet to be proved—it will be a model of a universe that creates itself.”

Quantum foam creation. The “nothing” of the vacuum of space actually consists of subatomic spacetime turbulence at extremely small distances measurable at the Planck scale—the length at which the structure of spacetime is dominated by quantum gravity. At this scale, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows energy to briefly decay into particles and antiparticles, thereby producing “something” from “nothing.”

Nothing is unstable. In his new book, A Universe from Nothing, cosmologist Lawrence M. Krauss attempts to link quantum physics to Einstein’s general theory of relativity to explain the origin of a universe from nothing: “In quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing. Such universes need not be empty, but can have matter and radiation in them, as long as the total energy, including the negative energy associated with gravity [balancing the positive energy of matter], is zero.” Furthermore, “for the closed universes that might be created through such mechanisms to last for longer than infinitesimal times, something like inflation is necessary.” Observations show that the universe is in fact flat (there is just enough matter to slow its expansion but not to halt it), has zero total energy and underwent rapid inflation, or expansion, soon after the big bang, as described by inflationary cosmology. Krauss concludes: “Quantum gravity not only appears to allow universes to be created from nothing—meaning ... absence of space and time—it may require them. ‘Nothing’—in this case no space, no time, no anything!—is unstable.”

The other hypotheses are also testable. The idea that new universes can emerge from collapsing black holes may be illuminated through additional knowledge about the properties of black holes, which are being studied now. Other bubble universes might be detected in the subtle temperature variations of the cosmic microwave background radiation left over from the big bang of our own universe. NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) spacecraft is collecting data on this radiation. Additionally, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) is designed to detect exceptionally faint gravitational waves. If there are other universes, perhaps ripples in gravitational waves will signal their presence. Maybe gravity is such a relatively weak force (compared with electromagnetism and the nuclear forces) because some of it “leaks” out to other universes.

Even if God is hypothesized as the creator of the laws of nature that caused the universe (or multiverse) to pop into existence out of nothing—if such laws are deterministic—then God had no choice in the creation of the universe and thus was not needed. In any case, why turn to the supernatural when our understanding of the natural is still in its incipient stages? We would be wise to heed this skeptical principle: before you say something is out of this world, first make sure that it is not in this world.

This article was published in print as "Much Ado about Nothing

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=much-ado-about-nothing
 
if God does not need a creator, logic dictates that neither does the universe.

Comparing apples and oranges may not be the best place to start...

Claims of God are based on faith and therefore don't presume (or have to presume) reason in those claims.

However, claims of a Godless, scientific explanation to the creation of the universe are rooted in an appeal to not only reason but (more specifically) empiricism. As such, they severely limit themselves in a way that faith doesn't.

If the best way around that is to hang your hat on "extremely speculative" pseudoscience that is, "unable...to make any testable predictions" (meaning it is not empirical and therefore, by definition, not science), than all you have is mythmaking.
Confident assertions by scientists that in the privacy of their chambers they have demonstrated that God does not exist have nothing to do with science, and even less to do with God’s existence. -David Berlinski​
The fact is that the "science" being talked about in that piece is all beyond the scope of science. NOTHING there is directly testable. You start having to rely on mathematical modeling, which, at best, leaves it in a very gray area of "science". Unless it can be constantly updated with new info to make near term predictions, mathematical modeling is often useless at predicting the future (except in the most general sense). This is because not all variables in the model can be understood, so assumptions (often dictated by biases) are made. And that is simply with phenomena here on earth. When you start expanding that beyond the planet, the uncertainty level rises to such a degree as to make even this means of "empirical testing" utterly worthless.
 
shagdrum said:
Claims of God are based on faith and therefore don't presume (or have to presume) reason in those claims.
nor truth.

shagdrum said:
However, claims of a Godless, scientific explanation to the creation of the universe are rooted in an appeal to not only reason but (more specifically) empiricism. As such, they severely limit themselves in a way that faith doesn't.

don't follow quantum mechanics, do you. whether it's godless or not, it's just that supernatural occurence is not needed to explain the creation of the universe. it can be explained by purely natural means.
no magic added.

string theory is not directly yet testable. but so far, the theories of quantum hold up.
of course, finding enough energy to produce another universe would be untestable, which apparently would be the only test that would satisfy you.

[QUOTE="shagdrum" ]Confident assertions by scientists that in the privacy of their chambers they have demonstrated that God does not exist have nothing to do with science, and even less to do with God’s existence. -David Berlinski [/QUOTE]

quoting somebody who pushes myth. how quaint.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top