-4

I'm not a fan of religious theories, but I keep asking myself all these following questions:

Assume that nothing is created, everything is transformed and the big bang at the end of the period of inflation, around 10$ ^ {-32}$ seconds after the big bang.

Is at this time that the first particles quarks and antiquarks emerge from the quantum vacuum in a bath of photons?

Where do these particles came from? Where does all this matter came from?

I think it is not possible to answer those questions, but maybe someone more aware can answer and my numerous searches have not successful, but those keep running through my head.

Fares El Williams
  • 431

1 Answers1

1

This is not an absolute answer as, so far, nobody has one which all honest objective rational people can comfortably accept. But, it attempts to lead via a master of the art either to an answer that will make you happy (two available) or to the only other choice.

This question, in a multitude of forms is known to have been being asked for millenia, at least, and probably since anyone could conceptualise the question. eg we "know" that a slime-mould, fly, or bird cannot ask this question, we think it unlikely that any "non-human" primate can and we hope both that some cetaceans can and that all can't deep-ending who we are.

Based on having looked at some length on various occasions, I know that there is much discussion on this.

As far as I can see, as a Christian, BUT really wanting to know about the reality about us (despite eg Krauss's jibes), there are essentially 3 answers. Two of these must be wrong and the 3rd is somewhere near your personal event horizon - but whether inside it or outside it may never be certain :-).

The 3 possible answers are

  • Something always has been.

  • It all just happened absolutely completely by itself out of utter utter nothingness.
    (That's the empty 'void' of space time itself - not this pretend empty vacuum with a quantum foam of particles popping in and out of existence to keep Heisenberg happy THAT is not 'empty space' that had to be created from 'nothing' ex nihilo

  • A metaphysical "shell" exists which all reality is 'inside', in which the concepts of 'always existed' and 'came from absolutely nothing' are not the ludicrous impossibilities that they are inside 'reality'.

So:

You need to convince yourself that the 1st two (always was / all just happened) are utterly untenable in any reality that makes sense (and all those that don't as well). If you cannot conclude this then accept one or other (or both) and be happy - there's nothing to explain, move along, these are in fact the ones you want. There are many people who do seem able to do this - including the great Lawrence Krauss - more of him below. I do not find the arguments intellectually tenable (of the ones I understand or think I understand) and I hope to understand more of them. But I'd be surprised if anything changed (Krauss nothwithstanding). That's NOT a 'religious observation' but it does lead to a 'metaphysical' conclusion.

In the SE answer Stephen Hawking says universe can create itself from nothing, but how exactly? reference is made to this ~= 1 hour video by Lawrence Krauss (go to start for 2m intro by R Dawkins if desired).

If at the end of the 1 hour video you are happy, stop.

If not, hair of the dog may work - Amazon will sell you these books of Krauss's

Including A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing

Their summary:

  • Bestselling author and acclaimed physicist Lawrence Krauss offers a paradigm-shifting view of how everything that exists came to be in the first place.

    “Where did the universe come from? What was there before it? What will the future bring? And finally, why is there something rather than nothing?”

    One of the few prominent scientists today to have crossed the chasm between science and popular culture, Krauss describes the staggeringly beautiful experimental observations and mind-bending new theories that demonstrate not only can something arise from nothing, something will always arise from nothing. With a new preface about the significance of the discovery of the Higgs particle, A Universe from Nothing uses Krauss’s characteristic wry humor and wonderfully clear explanations to take us back to the beginning of the beginning, presenting the most recent evidence for how our universe evolved—and the implications for how it’s going to end.

    Provocative, challenging, and delightfully readable, this is a game-changing look at the most basic underpinning of existence and a powerful antidote to outmoded philosophical, religious, and scientific thinking.

Krauss says things that sound to me like cheating writ large to help make it invisible. But, what would I know? (Even knowing how much more he knows, it still seems like cheating). If you don't agree with me and find Krauss plausible, you have your answer. If you do agree you may want to look at option 3. Note that option 3 does not require "God as we know/don't know him/her/it, Jim". It 'just' requires a "metaphysical" answer. If that is utterly inconceivable you may have 3 'impossible ' answers :-).

Video:

It's interesting to see how many of his academic puns seem to be completely missed by his audience.

Nice little dig in passing about certain model based theories at around 5-6m (some laughed).

Community
  • 1
Russell McMahon
  • 1,642
  • 3
    I hope your edits will include an actual answer to the question using accepted physics. If not, you should find it easy to understand that this post wouldn't be considered an acceptable answer here – Jim Aug 23 '16 at 13:12
  • 1
    still don't get how is it possible to do something with nothing. But i think i'm just going to convinced myself to think that no one can knows and we will never know, that's it. – Fares El Williams Aug 23 '16 at 14:15
  • Hi Russell, I edited your post, changed Richard to Lawrence Krauss (imo his popular science books are better than most), as you say yourself, this is not an answer, because I don't think anyone has one to give, or maybe never will. –  Aug 23 '16 at 15:41
  • @FaresElWilliams That was quick - watched a 1 hour video and acquired and read his book already! :-). You need to do both to do justice to his position - although the video seems to me to make too many shortcomings of his position clear. I find his low level jibes at Christians and 'religion' interesting. He seems to be preaching some rather solid 'religion' but cannot tolerate itfrom others. I have NOT read his most relevant book but intend to do so. I do have his "The Physics of Star Trek" :-). | I personally feel that the need for a "metaphysical ' foundation is inescapable. This does ... – Russell McMahon Aug 23 '16 at 16:27
  • ... "prove" Christianity or any other religion in any way - but does 'leave open the door' to them while gently closing it to "more rational" explanations. | I find his faith in dark matter/energy, 99% unseen, equating quantum foam type space with true nothing and more perplexing, given how good he is said to be. – Russell McMahon Aug 23 '16 at 16:29
  • @FaresElWilliams try looking up gamma-pair production (creating mass from light) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production I personally do not believe that theory though. I believe the light is being absorbed by Polteons (electron positron combo) and the energy is causing them to shake back apart. – EasyPeasy Aug 23 '16 at 17:23
  • @EasyPeasy Converting between forms of somethingness is akin to Titanic deck chair arranging when it comes to trying to understand how ANY somethingness came about (or always was) :-). – Russell McMahon Aug 24 '16 at 11:10
  • I'm confused, did you refer to me because you thought I was against including God in an answer on a physics site (which, not being in the subject of physics, seems fairly rational to me), or are you suggesting Jim as an alternative to God? (I am The One True Jim after all) – Jim Aug 30 '16 at 13:30
  • @Jim It was only a reference to you if you are the One True Captain James Kirk, Jim. I had in mind this highly informative and instructional work, which you may have met. Viewing recommended to all [ :-) ]. | WRT Physics and Science sites and God. The closest I came to mentioning God (Craig Venter, Fangio, Moss, Popper, Feyneman and the like not having been invoked) was -> " ...Note that option 3 does not require "God as we know/don't know him/her/it, ...". The only true/possible (non-received) answer however does require ... – Russell McMahon Aug 30 '16 at 14:52
  • ... something metaphysical. If our Science does not allow of falsification nor some external means of achieving it, no matter how unlikely such may seem, then not only the stones but also the ghosts of Sherlock Holmes ... – Russell McMahon Aug 30 '16 at 15:04
  • and Karl Popper are liable to cry out. – Russell McMahon Aug 30 '16 at 15:04
  • Why exactly does it require something non-physical? Why can it not be spawned as an acausal event? I get that most would intuitively say acausal events are impossible. That opinion is based on the fact that there is no known precedence for that ever occurring nor any mechanism that is known to generate an acausal event (which does make a bit of sense. It is acausal after all)... – Jim Aug 30 '16 at 20:06
  • However, answering this with the requirement that there must have been some non-physical something underlying it instead is equally dubious. There is no known precedent for there ever being some non-physical cause or basis for an event, nor is there a known mechanism for it. It makes less sense to involve non-physical elements than it does to call something acausal simply because, while they both share a lack of precedence, an acausal event does not require one to introduce elements beyond the limits of existence in the known universe. – Jim Aug 30 '16 at 20:06
  • @Jim This discussion has been had in various forms for at least several thousand years and quite likely for much longer. It show no sign of terminating in recent times. Odds are you and I are not going to quantum change the results to date. We MAY add some personal progress. Or not :-). | I currently have my 'rational scientific engineering tuth-seeker hat' about as firmly jammed on my head as is possible. I mean genuinely no disrespect - and are not saying you ARE wrong (just seem to be to me :-) ) . I know you can't see how your last comments come across to me, and can only try to ... – Russell McMahon Aug 30 '16 at 23:30
  • ... imagine how mine sound to you BUT NO No no ... . :-). Trying to shore up scientific reality by tacking on bits of metaphysics and pretending they belong if looked at sideways with eyes mostly shut does severe violence to Popper's advice on the same. This is what he refers to as conventionalist twist - if the theory makes big bold predictions, and fails to deliver, it get's modified to 'still work'. When we get to building causality on an acausal foundation the house is shaky. At least we have QM as a precedent :-). – Russell McMahon Aug 30 '16 at 23:37
  • I have no idea what you are trying to say except that you implied a disinterest in arguing. I fully agree, which makes this a pleasant situation – Jim Aug 31 '16 at 12:16
  • @Jim One more try. To get physical theories to meet either of "always has existed" or " self creation ex nihilo" requires them to perform unobserved unobservable unprovable unfalsifiable acts. Such behaviors are the domain of the metaphysical and attempting to enlist such players for the 'physical' team is stretching science beyond breaking point. That is NOT saying Science is bad wrong inadequate ... - just that it is not the right tool for the job. | Krauss and co attempt to argue that they can (1) show that the universe has zero net energy. and that (2) if it has not net energy it is ... – Russell McMahon Aug 31 '16 at 12:33
  • zero net energy? That implies the total energy in the universe is conserved. It isn't. This is an observation. It doesn't matter who says it if observations contradict them – Jim Aug 31 '16 at 12:36
  • ... no different than something which does not exist at all and also has no net energy so one can """obviously""" form from the other. This is every bit as much a "and then a miracle happens" event as any great sky god fiat and if one looks at one askance them one must do the same for both OR ask why not. The answer to why nothing from nothing is Ok uses lots of hand waving, too much "it obviously follows that..."-s, and the like. There is NO proof and no physical reason that has integrity. – Russell McMahon Aug 31 '16 at 12:37
  • Ah, I see. You're saying no argument has legs. I can agree. I was merely saying choosing one side makes little sense, but if you were to insist on choosing a side, it might as well be the one that requires less assumptions to be made – Jim Aug 31 '16 at 12:39
  • @Jim We may disagree which side that is :-). The "metaphysical" side (not a term I like) is "allowed" to assume whatever qualities the scientific /physical side "may not" have. The line between may and may-not is set by science itself. But there is an outer limit - and the assumptions required to get "Science" to encompass what we need to "explain" must lie outside the boundaries of what Science allows itself to allow. If you allow 'Science' to include "a little bit of metaphysics" - just enough to tie up the loose ends, it's like being "a little bit pregnant". Science has no problems .... – Russell McMahon Aug 31 '16 at 13:04
  • ... with metaphysics - it's only the "Scientists" who do. Science does NOT assume that everything must be explicable - just that the explicable things belong to it. About the rest it cares not. NBNBNB - this is NOT meant to be an excuse or version of "God of the gaps". this is "the gap at the end of the universe". It would be 'nice' if it did not exist. But it does. Science doesn't care. Some people do :-). – Russell McMahon Aug 31 '16 at 13:06
  • yes. Sure. But if I take your side of the argument, then what is the point in my continuing to work? I'd prefer to believe there is an explicable answer and then work to find it than to say "perhaps there is a metaphysical solution that fills in the unknown gaps" and then never look to see if physical science could answer it. Basically, allowing oneself to believe that we can't figure out the answer to the origins of the universe with physical science is just quitter talk. You'll never know for sure if you don't try. I'm going to try – Jim Aug 31 '16 at 13:53