-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.

Great advice. That's sure to progresses the cause of freedom

maybe on a national scale, but where at DP do scientists inject themselves into the religion debate, aren't we supposed to be a more accepting bunch? give me one example of science being injected into a religion debate where it was NOT asked for, and I will criticize those people as equally as I'm criticizing you. (and for the record, yes, government should get out of religion entirely, there should be no need for 501(c)3 status, churches should get to keep all the money they receive, and there should be NO tax on income, or ANY tax for that matter. At least no INVOLUNTARY tax. If people want to give their money to the government to spend on the things they want, that's their prerogative.)

But if your argument is "you guys started it first," I'm sincerely disappointed in you. DP'rs are usually cooperative, and despise the conflict-oriented "us-vs-them" mentality. Religion has its place, and science has its place, and by their own definitions they are not concerned with the same things. Meaning: religious types are not concerned with exploring to learn HOW the universe was created, they want to explore how to prove scientifically that God exists. This is obvious, because no matter what physical proof comes to pass on the subject refuting their beliefs, they always fall back on, "Oh, well then God made THAT happen," rather than, "Oh, maybe THAT'S what created GOD!" They've already decided God is the one and only creator, that nothing came before him, and NOTHING can change their mind. Would it really change your deeply held beliefs in any way if you were able to be shown by God somehow that he himself was created by a spontaneous change from nothing? That he arrived from nothing, and did not create himself? Does that change the messages of love and brotherhood in Christianity at all?

Look, the purpose of religion is faith. Faith is the antithesis of proof, because faith is a subjective concept, unique to every individual, whereas proof is an objective concept, which describes the general reality that is shared by everyone. Scientists have no desire to encroach on your subjective reality or beliefs. All we ask is that you stop encroaching on objective reality, because it is obvious to everyone else how nonsensically hypocritical it is to champion objective rationality when it suits you, but to deny it when it is inconvenient,

Floydius's picture

The Title should have been:

"Mathematical Proof That the Cosmos Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing (for sufficiently large values of Nothing)"

I'm no math major or physicist...

But I find it hard to imagine that absolutely nothing drew together and then exploded...

thankfully, your inability to

thankfully, your inability to imagine something doesn't preclude it from being so.

I would like to ask though...

Can you conceive of absolutely nothing drawing together and then exploding?

Can you conceive what it's

Can you conceive what it's like to be inside the sun? No, as a carbon based life form you can never experience or perceive that. It can still happen and believing it can't just because you can't conceive of it would be rather silly.

I also cannot conceive any believable scenario where an all-powerful being created us. That doesn't disprove it.

That is true

And, I never indicated one way or the other if this (or anything else for that matter) is either true or false.

What about the whole

Matter can be neither created nor destroyed law?


"Mathematicians overcome the laws of thermodynamics"


Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

That law of thermodynamics is

That law of thermodynamics is a product conditions that didn't occur until after the universe spontaneously generated. this concept is not about you trying to find a way to say, "oh, but what I already know says that that doesn't make sense." it's about, saying, "despite previously held beliefs, it turns out SOMETHING can spring from NOTHING. Period. We have to adjust our beliefs based on new evidence" If that threatens your belief in God, or whatever, that's not our fault for proving it. And if the existence of a certain fact threatens your belief in God, you can't just write it off because it's inconvenient. You have to change your belief. Otherwise, your beliefs are not based in fact... which isn't a problem in and of itself, you just have to be honest with yourself and the world that your beliefs are based in your own mind and experience

So this would prove the law of thermo dynamics wrong then

Which would nullify it as a law. If something can spring from nothing once then it can do so again. Conversely this also means that something can go back to nothing just as easily for various values of easy. Cool.

This brings an interesting question to mind. So, now we have something from nothing. So, this new something has to opperate on a basic, if not complicated, set of rules. However, we also have to realize that if a phenominon happened once then it can happen again. What proof is there that this new set of matter will now act on the same laws and principles of the first set? What about when the Nth occurance of matter creation happens?

Was the big bang truely a single set of matter exploding or was it a "shotgun" of creation events out of some event focal point(s)?

So far we've had good luck with the whole "matter being created" bit. What happens when the averages turn and matter starts reverting to nothing?

Can there be negative matter?

No, it doesn't show that law

No, it doesn't show that law to be wrong. The law is right, and reproducible, within this universe. Other universes which may have formed, would not be bound by that, but by all accounts, we are and always will be. The laws of relative physics are true within our universe, whereas quantum physics is a more all-encompassing set of rules that likely governed the creation of our universe and could have and/or did and/or will govern the creation of other universes which may bear any or no level of resemblance to our own.


First off, a quantum fluctuation is a change in ENTERGY... so what they are saying there was energy in some form that spontaneously generated the universe... question is HOW and where did the energy come from in the first place?

Anyone who studies or understands how the universe works and a little knowledge of microbiology can obviously see that everything that exists operates with such purpose that it requires an architect or design.

Bottom line, the fact that we exist at all proves that there has always been SOMETHING in existence.

no, no "thing" is needed to

no, no "thing" is needed to explain or create spontaneous generation. if you want to hold up in your backwater beliefs, denying science (which has now shown, indeed, that the universe could have sprung out of nothingness), than that is your prerogative. But you aren't right about the science, you're just denying it.

"Anyone who studies or understands how the universe works and a little knowledge of microbiology can obviously see that everything that exists operates with such purpose that it requires an architect or design.

Bottom line, the fact that we exist at all proves that there has always been SOMETHING in existence."

Now that's some magical thinking, and circular reasoning if I've ever heard it. But you're actually dead wrong. MOST people who study the universe, microbiology, biology, etc, do NOT believe that they "require an architect or designer."

Just saying things doesn't make them true. I highly suggest you reread how to conduct the scientific method. If you are going to form a hypothesis, you must test the hypothesis before it can become a working theory.

spontaneous generation

no, no "thing" is needed to explain or create spontaneous generation. if you want to hold up in your backwater beliefs, denying science (which has now shown, indeed, that the universe could have sprung out of nothingness), than that is your prerogative. But you aren't right about the science, you're actually denying it.


How much energy was there and where did it come from?

As pointless as asking "Was Snowden a traitor or a patriot?

it came from no where. why do things have to come from somewhere? that's incredibly simplistic thinking. we've shown conclusively that particles can be created spontaneously. why couldn't the universe itself be created spontaneously?

the simple fact is: if you believe a god exists, you've already reached the "generative point" of existence, in your mind, so you have no use to look to science to explain where you came from. you aren't curious where we came from, because you claim to already know. THAT'S not science, it's unsubstantiated belief, based only in faith. If you want to have faith in that, great. But this wasn't a conversation about faith, it was a conversation about science.

Is it pointless

To ask whether the laws of thermodynamics are true or false? Incredibly simplistic, maybe, but pointless?


Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Yep. Pointless.

Yes, it's pointless, because we are talking about what happened before the conditions were created which allowed the laws of thermodynamics to exist. Don't try to pass yourself off as some kind of expert, the fact that you can't wrap your mind around a concept as simple as spontaneous generation precludes that from being possible.

So let me get this straight

You have an issue with the thought that some god came around and created something from nothing but you have no issue with the thought that something just popped up from nothing; does this about sum it up?

It is called dodging

You ask a simple question and don't get an answer. :)

The Dogmatic Science of today is reversed:

They say first there was Matter and over Eons of time it by chance created Mind.

It should be reverse to say: At first there was Mind and over Eons of time purposefully organized matter.

Why the down votes, unless

Why the down votes, unless this poster is a troll?

Paulian neo-con equivalents

because a lot of posters at the DP are a Paulian equivalent of neo-cons, wherein they are so staunchly anti-abortion and pro-god, they down vote anyone with an opinion different than their own. even when that opinion is a pro-freedom opinion. basically they are threatened by an incredibly good argument, which debunks their incredible small-minded belief in a monotheistic deity.

Be careful...

I'm pretty sure you just called Ron Paul "small-minded".

You might be on the wrong website.


I enjoy the conversations but it is hard to have with people who are not condescending in a belief of intellectual superiority to me based on my "inferior small minded" views...

it's small minded not to

it's small minded not to realize the difference between subjective and objective truths. God's existence is a subjective truth, unless you can show me God objectively?

Funny thing is, you don't

Funny thing is, you don't even need math to prove this, you only need OBSERVATIONAL SKILLS!

What do I mean?

There is only one universal constant: It's not gravity, and it's not some quantum mechanical force. It is the force of change. The force of change is the one thing that never stops in this universe. Look everywhere, there is nowhere where change is not happening on some level (there is no Absolute Zero in our universe). And since change is the one force, it must also be the FIRST force. Luckily, that's PERFECT for explaining how the universe came into existence: spontaneously. Meaning, "a state of nothingness" can exist infinitely, until that one universal force, change, pops up, and "something" is created, changing continuously for the rest of existence. Once it stops changing, it would cease to exist.

And this is why a "God" is not needed to explain our existence. Had a God existed, it would be the one that would need to start the force of change. But if something existed before the first change ever occurred, then change would not be the only universal constant, and spontaneous generation would not have occurred. The only way you could account for the existence of a God (in this observed reality) is if he is a constant, non-changing thing. But, as we OBSERVE, everything changes. If there is something that ceases to change, it would cease to exist. (I'll expand on that thought: E=mc^2. Meaning: everything that exists can be represented not just in terms of energy and mass, but interchanging energy and mass. If God exists, it must change in its characteristics in someway, because all things are mass or energy, and all energy fluctuates. However, as I've shown above, if God is fluctuating mass and energy then it must have come AFTER the force of change, which is what created the conditions allowing mass, energy, and their interchangeability, to exist.

That being said, I'm not on an anti-God trip. I have no problem with you believing that if that's your choice. I just can't help but see ^^^^^^ that as true, and if that is true, I just can't help but to see God as an impossibility.

Change is rampant in scientific theory as well.

You may believe this is settled science now, but like the weather give it a little time. It will change.

yes, change is rampant in

yes, change is rampant in scientific theory, because scientists change their beliefs based on all the available evidence. What can be said of religion? Change is stagnant. Religious zealots never change their beliefs, no matter how much evidence piles up against them.

And let's talk about "settled science." It may be true that change is rampant in science, but the more we learn, the closer we get to the overall truth. That is, what we learn over time is aggregated to form the current belief system. So it's not "changing like the weather," at all. It's changing like car models change, adding on, and altering over time, but overall being the same general thing. It's also like EVOLUTION (which I'm sure you'll say is false), in that our theories EVOLVE over time, becoming more complex and nuanced,

It's baffling that these concepts are SO beyond some DP'rs. Religion can't be the CAUSE of this type of thinking, the thinking is too deeply engrained in their psyches to just be that. Rather, having a system of magical beliefs, based on religion, (like a man in the sky responsible for our creation, for protecting us, and for shepherding us in our death), is a symptom of deeper disorder: a medulla-centered brain reliance, with just a touch of limbic system love, and a complete lack of neo-cortical higher-order metacognition. I can only hope that we can find away to activate these people's' neocortex and total limbic system, for a BALANCED reliance on each brain system.