-18 votes

Mathematical Proof That the Cosmos Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

One of the great theories of modern cosmology is that the universe began in a Big Bang. It's backed up by numerous lines of evidence, such as the cosmic microwave background and so on. But what caused the Big Bang, itself? For many years, cosmologists have fallen back on the idea that the universe formed spontaneously; that the Big Bang was result of quantum fluctuations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation) in which the universe came into existence from nothing. But is this compatible with what we know about the Big Bang itself and the theories that describe it? Now cosmologists have come up with the first rigorous proof that the Big Bang could indeed have occurred spontaneously and produced the universe we see today (https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/ed7ed0f304a3). The proof is developed within a mathematical framework known as the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows a small region of empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to quantum fluctuations. Most of the time, such a bubble will collapse and disappear. The question these scientists address is whether a bubble could also expand exponentially to allow a universe to form in an irreversible way. Their proof (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207v1.pdf) shows that this is indeed possible. There is an interesting corollary: the role of the cosmological constant is played by a property known as the quantum potential (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_potential). This is a property introduced in the 20th century by the physicist David Bohm, which has the effect of making quantum mechanics deterministic while reproducing all of its predictions. It's an idea that has never caught on. Perhaps that will change now.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Are these the same scientist

Are these the same scientist that can't cure the common cold? The same ones that can't figure out if the earth is warming. These scientist can't figure many of the smaller parts yet they can figure out the whole picture?

I ask these scientist to make me one little rock from nothing leave alone a planet or universe.

I read the paper,

They did make some assumptions but that's fine because they wanted to show it is possible. What I don't understand is, where do these quantum singularities come from? The paper just assumed they Occur without giving much background. Anyone know anything about them?

"Today's scientists have

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."

-Nikola Tesla

Gosh, this is really interesting but ...

All this big-brained stuff sure is fun to think about but what has always puzzled me is which came first? The chicken or the egg?

Actually, this has been proven already

So, to figure it out you need to take into account evolution. Evolution happens at the time of conception. Though genes can mutate midlife these mutations rarely, if ever, have good things in store for the animal. So, at conception two things happen. First, the genes of the parents mix. Second, a small random mutation happens within the genes. What this means is that even though whatever laid the egg wasn't QUITE a chicken the animal in the egg IS a chicken. It is also compatable enough with others of the previous species to propogate the species. So, the egg did indeed come first.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

And to think I always suspected the Fed created them. So if the genes of the parents create a mutation, is it correct to say that there was only ever one real chicken and that each generation of its descendants is really chicken-A, chicken-B and so on? How should we refer to the progenitors of the egg? Pre-chickens? Sub-chickens? Did they form spontaneously from nothing like the universe?

I think Chicken-like

Much like the nuggets you get at McDonalds ... oh I'm bad.

This is the dumbest most terrible post

There are not enough downvotes on this website to compliment this post. Who ever posted it should be banned. Right in the middle of jubilee.


My human mind

cannot explain how I got here so it had to be some all-knowing all-powerful deity that created me in his image by breathing into a clump of dust and clay (after first creating the universe in seven days). This can be the only explanation.

Or maybe the Bible should be read before commenting...

Because some people haven't read it whatsoever and think that the universe was created in 7 - 24 hour days...you may want to just read a tiny, tiny bit, and see what all it says happened in those "7 days", and why those '7 days' are not and could not possibly be 24 hour days - you know...because the sun wasn't created until the 4th day...and...oh, never mind, I think you get it.

I find it funny that people think all of the systems we have right now, that work so PERFECTLY together came out of nowhere. It's a similar probability to throwing plastic, pieces of metal, etc. together in a blender expecting to get a working laptop computer in the end, that has fans to prevent it from overheating, a hard drive to store data, processors to handle all data, and cables that interconnect everything; along with an operating system that can restore itself to recover from some viruses. What are the odds of them ever combining to make that exact product? Seriously. Think about it. And then think about how much more complex the human body is than a computer - how about an ecosystem? An entire galaxy? There's 0 logic behind the argument of everything just magically 'popping out of nowhere' without any planning.

It's funny - because it involves something we can't be certain of (a deity/higher being), we don't apply the same logic that would go in to any other argument. Clearly no one would argue that a computer just 'popped' out of nowhere...because we've seen them be built, we can make them ourselves. But we can't build humans from dirt. We can't build a planet that works naturally with our own hands. We don't even entirely know how the human works 100%, and we've been able to study ourselves as long as we've existed. Since we can't witness these things being 'designed', we apply completely different logic to the scenario. It's just laughable.

It's obviously much more

It's obviously much more likely that all of the infinity of the universe, with all of it's interconnected and co-dependent systems, sprang up instantly from nothingness, due to a quantum fluctuation. And if that sounds implausible, just read how these guys proved it with the help of a pile of someone else's theories.

Now I'm not saying that every word of the bible should be taken literally, either, but maybe, just maybe, the origin of the universe is too big for us to comprehend and we should stop trying. After all, none of these theories can be proven or demonstrated. You either "believe" it or you don't.

I dunno...

The problem with this is it requires space to do it. "A quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of empty space". <-- First line of linked wikipedia page. With no universe there would be no space much less a quantum fluctuation. This theory would require multiple universes to exist, which doesn't explain the "how things started" sort of question that would require this research in the first place, it just kicks it off down the road. It doesn't explain how this all got here because it doesn't explain how those universes got there and implies an infinite regression of universe birth, one from another and so on. How such a system began is never explained. This is but a workaround to avoid the question of origin, not an answer.

Matthew 10:16



I'd rather have a bottle in front o' me than a frontal lobotomy

Who created Math?

Mind you, I'm not asking who discovered math. I asked who created it.

"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.2 He was in the beginning with God.3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.…" - John 1:1-3

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Math is Not Proof - Math is Theory.

Using Math as a basis for an explanation of existence is impossibly misguided.

"Mathematical Proof" is an impossibility because all math is just a form of conceptual reasoning. A truer phrase might be:

"Newly Invented Mathematically-Sound Formula Mirrors Major Scientific Theory"

First a theory is posited, and then mathematicians use that theory as a basis for their numbers. Even if the theory is incorrect, the math can be 'invented' to produce the desired outcome. It's a form of confirmation bias. For example,

Imagine an apple tree with a single branch, and an apple laying on the ground at some close distance from it. You could postulate that the apple fell from that branch and devise "Mathematical Proof" - a mathematically sound formula that describes how that apple might have fallen and rolled to that spot.

But that formula wouldn't be proof. It would be a guess.

Proof is when you look at the camera and see me place the apple in its location.

Lawrence Krauss admits to fudging numbers to suit his preferences in one of his youtube lectures where he explains that an ugly number is discarded and the number ZERO is chosen instead because "it's more beautiful" or "desirable".

Math is never proof.
It is ONLY theory.

"If you always lean on your master, you will never be able to proceed without him." - Jefferson to his daughter Martha. March 1787

God is a hypothesis created by primitive men.

Hence, man created God and not the other way around.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

Your proof of what you say?

Can you disprove the existence of God any more than I can prove the existence of God? Your opinion = NOTTA

Oh Ye Of Little Faith

For everyone who is so threatened by this (scientists saying that the universe can spontaneously generate from nothingness): Why?

I'm not religious, but every preacher, pastor, nun, et al. that I talk to say that faith is independent of science. They say that they would have belief in God no matter what science proved, because there faith based beliefs are separate from their scientifically held beliefs. Why are so many people threatened by science showing that the universe can spontaneously generate? Why do so many feel a need to say, "Well, I'm not a PhD, but I'm gonna offer my opinion and say No, that's not possible." How threatened must you feel to be that disingenuous in your response? Is your faith really that weak? With the religious leaders I've spoken of, I get the feeling that science could hypothetically prove that the Bible was written by a man who was not influenced by God, but was a con artist who passed himself on as such, and they would STILL have faith that the God they knew personally was the one true God. Everything else they held dear could crumble, even the Bible itself, and they would not stop believing, because their faith is based on personal experience, not in a convenient explanation for everything they are confused about, or that is beyond their understanding. It is only the latter which is threatened by scientific progress

But this fear of scientific progress is par for the course in organized religion. That is because for the organization itself, getting the people to believe in God is not for their salvation, but to control them. Anything which threatens that control must be taken out. The heliocentric model was denied for decades. As was the force of gravity. As was the existence of multiple stars in the galaxy. As was existence of multiple galaxies in the universe. As is the existence multiple universes in the multiverse, and now, as is spontaneous generation: something arising from nothing.

I find nothing in science or mathematics that denies G-d...

The OP's premise that the big-bang could essentially happen "all by itself" mathematically doesn't deny G-d, at all.

Who created Math? Who, or what, literally willed that 'math' into existence?

Plants don't have a brain, nor a nervous system. How do they react, and respond to things, without a mind or nervous system? They have the breath of life breathed into them. Like all living things. They have a living Will. The entire Universe has a living Will.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Do I believe in the Big Bang?

Yes I do
And what do I believe caused the big bang?
What people refer to as the nothingness before the bang..how do we really know there was a nothingness?
Look at everything through out time people have found in the sky {heavens)and they had no idea it was there before.
So you could look at it like this:
After creating all the other universes we now know to be out there, God created the one we are in, and maybe later, He will create a new one for us to find.

I believe in Hope & Change..I Hope the government will Change
Spindale-Rutherford County-North Carolina

except I personally talked to

except I personally talked to god, and HE said that the universe created HIM.

Sorry to burst your bubble :-/

I'm not advocating for or against religion in this post

But claiming that there is no god in the same sentence you advocate the universe came into existance from a large explosion of nothing just seems kind of silly to me....holy crap....the universe was made by the fed.

why can't something

why can't something spontaneously generate?

Here's why we believe it:

We postulated a belief:
Something can come from nothing.
We tested it:
We've shown that yes, things can arise from nothing.
The belief is falsifiable:
If it is ever shown that a force precluded the force of spontaneous generation (fundamental change)

Here's why we don't believe in God:
You postulate a belief:
God actually created something, it wasn't nothing, because God made it happen.
If you test that belief:
Not only are you unable to prove it, but,
You prove the belief false:
because the test would show the same thing our other test showed, namely, that something can arise out of nothing, and that God is nowhere to be found.

So I ask you, how can one still believe that God exists, or interacts in any way with our existence, when his existence has been tested in every way imaginable, and never revealed itself, not in the slightest? When, in fact, subsequent tests increasingly show that that which was previously attributed to God can now be attributed to wholly benign forces, without any need for invoking God, or any type of magical thinking, to explain it?

We've reached a point in human evolution where we can no longer invoke God as a physical, objective being, because all physical, objective evidence proves otherwise. The only place where spirituality is truth, is in subjective experience. And no one has a problem with that. Nor do we have a problem with people of similar spiritual subjectivities congregating and professing similar beliefs. It's the hard-lined, anti-change religious zealots who are poisoning social evolution on this subject. There are people who still feel the need to invoke the explanation of God to account for objective realities that they don't understand or comprehend. But they aren't doing it because they have some higher connection with God than everyone else. They are doing it for one reason and one reason only: they are frightened of admitting that they could be wrong this late in their life. They are frightened of having to change their beliefs, especially because these beliefs make up the core of themselves.

We due owe it to these people to work with them, they are human beings. But ultimately, trying to help them to see things differently may never work, so the bigger lesson is not to let these people control the debate. It will be tough, because the same people who react primarily to fear are the same type of people who will respond aggressively. Our best bet is just to let them be themselves, and show other people that truth. Their behavior alone will put off anyone who isn't themselves a violent or fear based person. The more people we can aggregate to discuss cooperation, instead of conflict, the better society will be for everyone. Thus, religion is a personal, and group topic. You're certainly free to talk about it wherever, but with the incredible variety of human expression, you can't expect a positive outcome from bringing up religion in a medium or large group, especially the Internet. Even those of the same religion as you can differ in their beliefs enough to get in a fight with you.

Cosmology is not infallible

Considering the fact that there is a new (relatively)theory of the universe known as the electric universe theory, I'd say your "faith" in the standard cosmology model should be questioned. It amazes me that people blindly accept theories as FACT just because it is considered "science".

Contrarians of the standard model point out the hypocrisy of its glaring contradictions. Black holes cannot exist in a big bang universe; in fact they don't exist at all. When you understand that it is electromagnetism that binds the universe together, gravitation space-time falls apart. Which is correct? The standard model or the electric model? I happen to think it is the latter, but the point is science is fluid. It is not truth. The mere fact that this post cites the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" should tell you something. Science creates nothing; it only reveals the truth and wonder of the creator.

No, Cosmology is not

No, Cosmology is not infallible, it's just proved infallible so far.
But Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and many others are patently fallible by every objective measure, and have been repeatedly proven as such. Their only value has been subjective, completely on a personal level, wholly dependent on a personal connection to God, and, as such, completely useless for debate in objective reality,

all these god freaks

all these god freaks are hijacking a science conversation and trying to inject god into it.


"the universe was spontaneously generated" is a hypothesis, that can be tested. "god created the universe" is NOT a hypothesis. it is a stated belief based only in faith. otherwise, it would have a falsifiable outcome.

In other words, my hypothesis COULD be proven wrong (even though it's been proven right so far and is the commonly held belief among scientists/cosmologists), and I'm telling you what it would take for me to be convinced that I was wrong.

your hypothesis cannot, because you define God as something existing outside the observable, quantifiable universe. Furthermore, you don't ever say what it would take to convince you that your belief in God was wrong, and you're not even willing to entertain the possibility that God does not exist.

Do the world and the human community a favor, and keep your purposefully truth-obstructing beliefs out of scientific debate.

You are equally annoying as any religious zealot

You have great faith in 'science'. Good for you. I wish you could just find comfort in your worldview and not find it necessary to lash out at anyone with a different worldview. Leave each individual to their own opinion. There is no act of aggression towards you here because some disagree with you. If you want to evangelize others to your belief system, hurling insults is probably not the best way to go about it. You demand unquestioning allegiance to your system of belief. Others have a lifetime of experience, study and personal reflection that have led them to different conclusions. You want to set the rules for debate to fit into your belief system alone. But you can't have a free society where one belief system demands allegiance by all. You would have the priesthood of the scientific community filling the same role as the church has by declaring themselves the final authority on what we all should believe. Unless someone is holding a gun to your head and saying you have to believe in God, there has been no wrong done to you here. Others may try to persuade you to their beliefs and you may try to persuade others, but please do so in a kind and civil manner.

the only difference is I

the only difference is I don't try to inject science into religion. u want to believe in something that has no scientific proof for existing? fine. that's called faith. u have it in god, obviously.

but u try to have it both ways: u want science to NOT be able to prove GOD DOESNT EXIST, and you want to have faith. news flash: if science were ever to "prove" god existed, faith would be IMPOSSIBLE to have. You have to take a leap of faith to have faith, and there is no leap of faith needed when you've proved yourself right

I don't want to evangelize others. that's the point. u want to believe in stupid crap? go for it. I could care less. but when were trying to have a scientific discussion, butt out. science and religion are mutually exclusive, because the very definition of god is always something that is beyond the physical realm, beyond being tested, beyond being falsifiable.

every contention you have made about me here is false. which leads me to believe you didn't read any of this with an open mind, willing to challenge your own beliefs, not even the OP.

Guess what! I COULD believe in God. That's where I'm different. But I need extraordinary proof to believe in something extraordinary. All of you God freaks have consistently refused to approach these debates ready and willing to be wrong, and to change your mind. This may be my first week posting, but I've been reading the posts and comments at DP for over a year, and this is a continuous problem. People like you refuse to let science have its place. As soon as it threatens your belief in God, (by say, saying something like "spontaneous generation is possible. things do not need to be "created" by previously existing things.") you jump on these posts and spout the same crap that's been argued for thousands of years. Yet I've NEVER seen a scientific person entering a religious debate here, insulting people because it threatened their beliefs.

Maybe that's because your belief in god doesn't threaten their belief in science. So why does our belief in science threaten your belief in God? Why can't you refrain from injecting religion into scientific debates? (Don't get me wrong, you are free to do so. I'm not criticizing the decision, but criticizing your hypocrisy. Scientists leave your religious debates alone, unless you ask us to join. God freaks force themselves into scientific debates, where their presence was not requested.

Based on your response...

I don't believe I'm the one that feels threatened. I really don't care what you believe or what your assumptions are about what I believe. You are the one railing that everyone else must see the light and share your superior faith or they are just morons. You feel threatened by morons? Are they harming you somehow? Science does have its place. I work in a scientific field myself. But science is not absolute. It is not infallible. Math is as close as one can come to an absolute science, but there are unknowns in that field as well. As for cosmology... there are far more unknowns than known. We've barely scratched the surface. We don't even know what 95% of the universe is made of. Dark matter and dark energy? So excuse me if I take any proclamation of science and put an asterisk beside it. I'm not saying it isn't or can't be true, but neither can it be claimed to be absolute truth. I'm not injecting religion into the debate here. I am only pointing out your arrogance and your fanatical faith in science. You may be right... We may be getting closer to the truth. Or we may just be starting up the curve of an asymptote. I have learned enough in my lifetime to know how little we really know. So I will not tell you or anyone else how they ought to believe. I only ask the same courtesy from you.

Quit whining.

You guys injected your beliefs into the theological realm long before the push back that you are now feeling. If you want to keep religion out of the scientific debate, then get the tax money of religious people out of your favorite hobby. If you want to waste billions on a massive particle accelerator, build it with you're own money.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton