-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.

Comment viewing options

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

Truer words were never spoken


is this Aprils fool?

The fool hath said ...

Patriot News
Stand up For your Civil Rights

So...it's still coming from

So...it's still coming from SOMETHING.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

No. The universe is

No. The universe is spontaneously generating. They're saying something can spring from nothing. The existence of a God is no longer needed to answer the question: "How did the universe come to be?"

There's no reason for you to stop believing in God though, unless you believe in the truths of science more than you believe in the truths of God. So no need to get your panties in a bunch like everyone else here did when their totally unfounded beliefs were challenged.

In science (the religion)

In science (the religion) something can't come from nothing. They seek to explain such a notion by claiming that there are some fluctuating membranes outside of our visible existence that touched one day, and touch all the tine making other universes. Still utter bullshit, because where would those membranes come from? It's circular.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Nothing can only exist in

Nothing can only exist in relationship to that which is not nothing. They are bound to each other like two sides of a coin.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

It's the "new math"... Don't

It's the "new math"... Don't like how things add up? Just invent some new rules and call yourself a genius!!

Beware the cult of "government"...

Scientific fact challenges

Scientific fact challenges your fact-less, entirely faith-based beliefs? Don't talk about the issues at hand, just confuse the issue and cause a big us-vs-them, science-vs-religion hulabaloo! Otherwise we risk revealing that we don't know what we're talking about, and have a very limited understanding of truth or the scientific method! We don't even know what falsifiable means!

Just make sure

to use 'friendly numbers' and all will go well. So says common core aka 'regurgitated new math'.

This whole subject is amusing..

it makes me want to load a big fat bowl and then just read until I'm about to piss my pants laughing. I don't think we understand just how much comedy is injected into subjects like this.

BTW, not dogging this or any other thread that is like it. Reading these things is kind of like a release from the 'real world' issues, and is very enlightening, amusing, and educational at the same time.

I'm gonna blast Nothing from Nothing by Billy Preston just for


Pandas eat bugs.

If I can't hear it from my house

you aren't 'blasting' it enough! Maybe I should just play it from my house and pretend. BTW..just played it while my 8 year old was doing her math here at the table. She had to stop and turn it up. I think she has found an appreciate for Billy Preston. I love seeing kids, especially my kids, really excited about GREAT music that doesn't sound like the modern trash that passes these days. No need to feel embarrassed about certain lyrics or scantily clad skankettes and such. Just good music, no matter what era it came from.

I am at peace with the

I am at peace with the universe, can any of you truely say the same thing? Ultimately, science will continue on but at this point, we have many things we dont know. I say we leave religion to the people and science to the universe.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.



"F*%k the World"-Rambo

All you darn atheists are going to heck.

Straight to heck I say.

Pandas eat bugs.

This must be how the Federal Reserve chief comes up

with trillions of dollars out of thin air.

Wasn't spontaneous generation debunked centuries ago?

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.ivaw.org/operation-recovery - Stop Deploying Traumatized Troops

GoodSamaritan's picture

Either Nothing actually means Nothing, or it doesn't

You can't have it both ways. If there are quantum fluctuations, then there are quantum fluctuations - not Nothing.

From http://creation.com/god-created-not-quantum-fluctuation

Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:

… spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition. … Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation … the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.

But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario ‘should not be taken too seriously.’ Also, theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate — their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential — not ‘nothing’. So this is another equivocation.

Please give an example of something - anything - coming from Nothing. For extra credit, please describe the properties of Nothing.

>> cricket <<

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Quantum particles prove that

Quantum particles prove that something can come from nothing. It isn't attempting to show that quantum mechanics caused nothing to become something, merely that the force of spontaneous generation does exist.

What this article is showing is that spontaneous generation is not just A force, but THE fundamental force. Nothing can spring from something, so why can't existence itself spring from nonexistence?

I don't see any logical conundrum with:
Change is everything.
Everything changes.
Change is the fundamental force.
The first time anyTHING changed, would HAVE to be NOTHING changing into SOMETHING, which we call "spontaneous generation."

The truths of the universe do not require our comprehension of them to exist. You do not seem to believe, on a fundamental level, that something could come from nothing. In fact, you are demanding that something must always have been, because something CANNOT spring from nothing. Well, I put it to you that neither of us has actually shown what we believe to be true. However, you believe in an absolute: something MUST come from SOMETHING, and CANNOT come from nothing. I believe in a non-absolute: something COULD come from nothing, or it COULD have just always been.

Now, scientifically speaking, which belief would be more accurate?
a) Some fundamental thing is needed to explain our existence, because we can't come from nothing.
b) We may be a part of a system that has always existed, or we may be a part of a system that spontaneously generated.

Well, I can't help but say b). If you can show me how a) is the more scientifically sound theory, I would love to hear it.

No thing exists - it's all motion

First off I'd like to say I do not believe in an original Big Bang which could exist but why believe such? The universe in my opinion does not need a centralized Begin All implosion then explosion sequence because the implosion/explosion cycle occurs all the time everywhere on the micro level. Exploring the value of zero, -1 and +1 is both a mathematical and physics issue. Mathematically -1 plus +1 = 0 or rather 'sums to zero'. In physics, as in wave phase conjugation, the polarities of -1 and +1 do not vanish into nothingness but instead go "latent" - they are still there just not perceptible. The concept of nothing is indeed a messed up and ill defined concept. There can be no thing and there can be nothing that is perceptible even though "something" is indeed there. So how can some thing derive from no thing? By the motions of those unseen things (polar states) such as Mind Force for instance.
"All motion is thought, and all force is mind force."

it's all change, the force of

it's all change, the force of change. and the primary force of change was a change from nothing to something.


So, the very first thing that you have to do is change how "nothing" is defined . . . then everything will work

Something from nothing

This is something I came up with 20 years ago on my own...take 0 and split it in half... you get -1 and +1

That is something, but when you combine it, it becomes zero. That's how you can get something from nothing... it happens in a vacuum all the time... particles pop into and out of existence... a positron and and electron will form from nothing and then recombine back into nothing... if they get tangled and can't recombine back to their opposite, you get a whole bunch of something that can't get back to nothing.

Send my Nobel prize to Obama.

Some far better theories than the "Big Bang", are the Electric Universe and also The Final Theory (http://www.amazon.com/Final-Theory-Rethinking-Scientific-Leg...)...

Here's a video on the Electric Universe:


Sorry, in my world, you don't

Sorry, in my world, you don't get to have +1 and -1.

You only have 0.

I realize that -1 + 1 = 0 with our system of mathematics, but that operation and associativity is not allowed in my system of Just 0. Just 0 means just 0. There is no property of addition or even 0.

Now, try and work your magic and show me how to get something else!


0 / 2 = 0

You're a perfect example

You're a perfect example, of something equaling nothing!

The equation for you is 2+2=0

You just constantly regurgitate crap, why do you even bother?

Sing it with me

I will take your comment to

I will take your comment to mean that I am simply awesome, by substituting my own definitions of your words for the standard definitions, but I won't tell anyone this. Well, I just did tell, but by won't I actually meant would. Plus, we all get to have our own math and logic in addition to definitions. Boom.

music does this same dance around zero...

A song can start with any note in a particular key, but the last note is nearly always the root note or its octave, often with the 3rd or the 5th note in whichever key. Songs like 'Lonely People's by America that end with the sixth note(F# in A major) feel incomplete and create a sense of longing in the listener.

Pandas eat bugs.

Your math is wrong

When you say split you are not splitting. What you are trying to say is 0=0, 0=(-a+a), so a=a in the end something equals something.

Narrow minded, patriarichal

Her math isn't wrong, it's just different. It's happy girl math. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it, but it is just your male bias that is making you try to impose you own math imperialistically.