Is it Possible? A Universe From Nothing?

DID YOU KNOW?

YOU ARE MADE OF STARDUST… REALLY.

(“Forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today.”)

Famous Physicist Lawrence Krauss (“A Universe From Nothing”) says (From Wikiquote):

“The amazing thing is that every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements – the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution – weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way they could get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today.”

From YouTube: “A Universe From Nothing” by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009 (16:50-17:23 minutes into the YouTube)

But wait. A Universe from Nothing? Is it Possible? Yes, according to Physicist Lawrence Krauss.

Comments about the book “A Universe from Nothing”

http://img.agoravox.fr/local/cache-vignettes/L300xH448/auniverse-krauss-01-33bf4.jpg

But wait. A Universe from Nothing? Is it Possible? Yes, according to Physicist Lawrence Krauss.

Comments about the book “A Universe from Nothing”

http://img.agoravox.fr/local/cache-vignettes/L300xH448/auniverse-krauss-01-33bf4.jpg

 

Comments about the book “A Universe From Nothing”, by  Fabian Gutierrez, followed by other quotes and a synopsis of the book.  One of the biggest questions of mankind is from where have we come? How was the universe created?

All the religions tell us about a superior being who created everything with his omnipotent powers, the traditional starting point for the argument of the existence of God. But science puts God out of the job and gave us the explanation of the “ Big Bang” instead.

But neither science nor religion have shown a demonstrable conclusion about how everything began.

The big bang? The power of God? Nobody knows and nobody can prove it.

However, why not assume that everything came from nothing?

Laurence Krauss explained how modern science demonstrated empty space is not really empty, and that the conclusion is the support of the theory (very believable after reading the book) that the universe came from nothing. He takes us on a clear, guided journey around the issues of “nothing”…that which we cannot see in the universe, but through the laws of physics and math is actually measurable, in a theoretical sense. He lays the explanation out in language that is accessible to non-scientists.

He used the latest in scientific knowledge, his expertise and the innate ability to explain very complex topics in an accessible manner. Lawrence Krauss takes us on an exciting voyage of discovery that helps us understand the universe.

With this grounding in the “how” of the universe’s formation, he then tackles the “why”. The Big Bang, he notes, has been embraced by some religions—it was endorsed by the Pope decades ago, for example—because it appears consistent with their creation stories. Krauss, though, argues that the Big Bang doesn’t imply, or require, the presence of any kind of supernatural creator. The universe could arise from “nothing”, he explains: quantum gravity allows the formation of the universes (yes, plural) from the absence of space and time; in fact, he goes on, the formation of universes might be inevitable given the unstable nature of that “nothing”. No creator or other precipitating event is required, and there may well be multiple universes with different physical constants—which could explain why the constants of this universe seem fine-tuned to allow the formation of galaxies, stars, planets, and life.

As a former university professor my admiration goes to the author for providing a book that is accessible and enjoyable to the masess. This is how science books should be written.

Quotes from the book

“The amazing thing is that every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements – the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution – weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way they could get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today

“In 5 billion years, the expansion of the universe will have progressed to the point where all other galaxies will have receded beyond detection. Indeed, they will be receding faster than the speed of light, so detection will be impossible. Future civilizations will discover science and all its laws, and never know about other galaxies or the cosmic background radiation. They will inevitably come to the wrong conclusion about the universe……We live in a special time, the only time, where we can observationally verify that we live in a special time.”

“Of course, supernatural acts are what miracles are all about. They are, after all, precisely those things that circumvent the laws of nature. A god who can create the laws of nature can presumably also circumvent them at will. Although why they would have been circumvented so liberally thousands of years ago, before the invention of modern communication instruments that could have recorded them, and not today, is still something to wonder about.

“Now, almost one hundred years later, it is difficult to fully appreciate how much our picture of the universe has changed in the span of a single human lifetime. As far as the scientific community in 1917 was concerned, the universe was static and eternal, and consisted of a one single galaxy, our Milky Way, surrounded by vast, infinite, dark, and empty space. This is, after all, what you would guess by looking up at the night sky with your eyes, or with a small telescope, and at the time there was little reason to suspect otherwise.”

“I should point out, nevertheless, that even though incomplete data can lead to a false picture, this is far different from the (false) picture obtained by those who choose to ignore empirical data to invent a picture of reality (young earthers, for example), or those who instead require the existence of something for which there is no observable evidence whatsoever (like divine intelligence) to reconcile their view of creation with their a priori prejudices, or worse still, those who cling to fairy tales about nature that presume the answers before questions can even be asked.”

Synopsis
(from New Books in Brief)

The apparent contradiction between the universe beginning at a finite time, and the premise that something cannot come from nothing, has often been used as an argument for the existence of an uncaused cause, or creator. However, in his book ‘A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing’ physicist and cosmologist Lawrence Krauss argues that a full understanding of the science that has yielded our current picture of the universe also allows us to see that something can indeed come from nothing.

Our best science tells us that the universe is an ever expanding entity consisting of some 400 billion galaxies that began with a very powerful and very hot explosion from a single point precisely 13.72 billion years ago. The degree to which our best science here has advanced in the recent past is reflected by the understanding of the universe that we had just a century ago. At that time, it was thought that the universe was static and consisted of just one galaxy: our own. In the past 100 years, though, Einstein’s theory of relativity revolutionized how we understand space and time and the physical processes operating at the very largest of scales, while quantum mechanics has revolutionized how we understand these processes at the very smallest of scales. It is the development of these theories in particular that has provided us with our current understanding of the universe.

However, the picture of the universe that these theories have furnished us with still leaves us with an apparent problem: What existed before the big bang? Surely something must have existed beforehand, for if nothing existed then something (indeed everything!) came from nothing, which seems absurd. Indeed there are few things more intuitively implausible than that something can come from nothing. In the philosophical community ex nihilo, nihilo fit (from nothing, nothing comes) is appreciated to be a self evident premise, and one of only a handful of postulates that are completely indisputable.

The apparent contradiction between the universe beginning at a finite time, and the premise that something cannot come from nothing, has often been used as an argument for the existence of an uncaused cause, or creator (most often understood as God). However, in his new book ‘A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing’ renowned physicist and cosmologist Lawrence Krauss argues that a full understanding of the science that has yielded our current picture of the universe also allows us to see that something can indeed come from nothing. Thus, for Krauss, science can in fact do the work that it is often thought only God could manage. As Krauss puts it (borrowing a line from the physicist Steven Weinberg), science does not make it impossible to believe in God, but it does make it possible to not believe in God (p. 183). In introducing us to the science that allows for the possibility of something coming from nothing, Krauss takes us through the history and evolution of physics and cosmology over the past century, beginning with Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity in 1916. In the course of this journey we learn about what our best science says about the basic make-up of our universe (including the existence of dark matter and dark energy), as well as what our best science tells us about how the universe (likely) began and where it is (likely) heading in the future.

 

About beyondallreligion

Samuel Butler, Author: BEYOND ALL RELIGION Most all religions are based upon a bedrock of lies. Christianity was invented by Emperor Constantine , for political purposes, based upon the myth of Mithra, a Persian savior god born on December 25 , son of a virgin. Mithra performed miracles and was later crucified. Pope Leo X (died 1521) called Christ a “Fable”. Later Pope Paul III expressed similar sentiments. Moses is based on the Sumerian life and legends of Sargon I, King of Akkad, “set in a basket of rushes and “cast into the river”. Egyptians kept exhausting hieroglyphic records. There is a complete absence of any record of Moses leading over 600,000 men, women and children away from Pharaoh’s army. Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, was convicted in a court of Law of being an “impostor”, today a fraud, con man, in 1826. He wrote the Book of Mormon soon after. Question: You decide: Does the text of the verses of the Qur’an correspond exactly to those revealed to Muhammad directly as the words of God, delivered to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel, as claimed? Sample or Buy New Book “Beyond All Religion”, 152 pgs, $9.95 at www.amazon.com (Kindle edition $3.49) or send mailing address and $9.95 to Sam Butler, SB 197, POB 25292, Miami, FL 33102."
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Is it Possible? A Universe From Nothing?

  1. Johnny Vulcan says:

    …there is no way around the obvious :If nothing existed before the Big Ba-da-boom,then WHERE did it take place?And we do not see anywhere an example of something coming from nothing;like people are coming from people everything comes,through transformations,from past materials-but if no Universe ;so much material ,with billions of Galaxies (w.trillions of Suns and quadrillions of Planets and Moons.) just appeared? The scientific description is no more logical than the religious!The conclusion lies in the realms that science is just dipping one toe in; the idea that the Universe is ETERNAL and INFINITE!It would be un-scientific to exclude any possibility (either it is-or not;that is a 50-50 chance) WITHOUT RESARCHING it-as Albert said!

  2. sekharpal says:

    A Small Problem with the Thesis: A Universe from Nothing

    Most of the modern physicists maintain that the universe has actually originated from nothing, thus requiring no supernatural agency for its creation. Here their logic is something like this: as they have found that the total energy of the universe is zero, so they have argued that no outside agent was at all necessary to provide the initial input energy for starting the universe; therefore, it can simply originate from nothing. If the total energy of the universe were having some very big non-zero value, then it would not have been possible for them to maintain that the universe had actually originated from nothing. Because in that case they would have to explain as to where all the energies of this universe had come from, because all those energies cannot simply come from nothing. However, the total energy being zero, this problem no longer bothers them. Although the total energy of the universe is always zero, still there are lots of energies in this universe, all originating from nothing in the form of positive and negative energies, thus keeping the total energy of the universe always zero. The same thing can be said about matter also. As the total matter of the universe is zero, so they say that all the matter of the universe can simply come from nothing, because zero does not have to come from anything. But what shall we have to say about space and time? Can nothing generate so much of space and time that we find in this universe? Or, was there some supernatural agent that had actually provided space and time to our universe? Or, would they say the same thing about space and time also that as the total space as well as the total time of the universe is indeed zero, so space and time can simply come from nothing? Was it then that space had actually originated from nothing in the form of positive space and negative space, thus keeping the total space of the universe always zero? Was it the same case for time also? Can it also be said about time that it has actually originated from nothing in the form of positive time and negative time, thus keeping the total time of the universe always zero? If there are negative space and negative time, then where are they? Are they in this universe? If they are not, then how come that so much of space and so much of time have simply come from nothing? Scientists believe that from nothing, nothing comes. The universe started with zero energy and zero matter, and its total energy and total matter always remain zero. Neither any extra energy nor any extra matter added to, or subtracted from, the initial zero value of them. So, from nothing, nothing has actually come. But if there is neither any negative space nor any negative time in our universe to counterbalance the positive space and the positive time respectively, then there is a real problem here. This is because here nothing has given rise to something really positive.
    To remove this imbalance in the quantity of space and time, scientist Victor J Stenger has proposed in an article (The Other Side of Time, 2000) that there is another side of time, opposite to our time axis. As our universe goes on expanding from zero time to positive infinity, so in the other side of time there is another universe that goes on expanding from zero time to negative infinity. If in our universe space and time are considered to be positive space and positive time, then in the universe located in the other side of time space and time can be considered to be negative space and negative time, thus keeping the total space and the total time always zero. Two objections can be raised against this proposed solution. First of all, this can never be verified, and Stenger himself admitted that: “…this scenario cannot be proven, just presented as a possibility that provides a non-supernatural alternative to the theistic creation.” This is tantamount to saying something like this: we suffer lots of injustice in our earthly life. All this will be properly compensated for in our heavenly after-life. Even if it is true, it can never be verified, and therefore it will be purely an act of faith if we accept it as true and live accordingly. So, we cannot accept Stenger’s proposal as a viable solution here, because it will also be an act of faith. The second objection is that initially both energy and matter were zero when the universe originated from nothing and that the total energy and the total matter of the universe always remain zero in this very universe. We have not gone to the other side of time for seeking a solution to any possible imbalance that could have arisen in the totality of these two entities. So, why should we have to go to the other side of time for setting right the imbalance that is definitely there in case of space and time? Why cannot the total space and the total time of this universe always remain zero in this very universe itself? Perhaps there is some substance in this universe that helps keep the total space and the total time of the universe always zero. At least Einstein’s general theory of relativity suggests something like that. At one place Einstein has written about GTR: “When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.” If time and space and gravitation cannot have any separate existence from matter, then the total matter of the universe being always zero, the total time, the total space and the total gravitation of the universe should also always remain zero. Therefore we can say that there is definitely some substance in this universe due to the presence of which the total space and the total time of the universe always remain zero. And so, we need not have to go to the other side of time at all for setting right any imbalance or asymmetry that can be there either in case of space or in case of time. Due to the presence of this substance we can say that the universe starting from nothing with zero space, zero time, zero matter and zero energy will always contain zero total space, zero total time, zero total matter and zero total energy, thus not showing any asymmetry or imbalance anywhere.
    But what is this substance? Whence has it originated? What are its properties? These are the questions that are to be answered by scientists only. As a layperson, I can only suggest something here. This substance must have the properties of light and it must be able to be all-pervading. For this substance to be all-pervading no known forces of nature must have any slightest effect on this. It must never be absorbed, repelled, attracted or deflected by any known particle of this universe. Not even any super-massive black hole will be able to devour this substance. If these conditions are fulfilled, then it will pervade all of space, and having light-like properties it will always keep the universe in a spaceless and timeless condition. And then we can say the following:
    1) From zero space, so much of space, the total space always remaining zero;
    2) From zero time, so much of time, the total time always remaining zero;
    3) From zero matter, so many forms of matter, the total matter always remaining zero; and
    4) From zero energy, so many forms of energy, the total energy always remaining zero.

  3. sekharpal says:

    A Question

    I
    When scientists say that the universe can simply come out of nothing without any divine intervention, they think of the universe in terms of its energy content only. In the book ‘The Grand Design’, page 281, scientist Stephen Hawking has written that bodies like stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing, but a whole universe can. The message is very clear from this: The total energy of a whole universe is zero and that is why it can come out of nothing; but stars or black holes will fail to do so, because their total energy is not zero. But universe means not only its energy; universe means its space-time as well. So if we now apply the same logic to space-time as well, then we can say that the total space-time of a whole universe must also always have to be zero, because in that case only a whole universe can appear out of nothing. Here my question is: How does the total space-time of an ever-expanding universe always remain zero?
    As the universe appeared out of nothing, so initially there was no space, no time, no matter and no energy. Scientists have successfully shown how the total matter-energy content of the universe has always remained zero. But we are not satisfied with that explanation, we want something more. We also want to know how the total space-time content of the universe has always remained zero. And it should always remain zero if the universe has actually appeared out of nothing. Otherwise scientists will have to explain as to whence appeared the extra residual space-time that was not already there at the beginning.
    If stars or black holes cannot appear out of nothing simply because their total energy is not zero, then can a whole universe appear out of nothing if its total space-time is not zero?
    The last question above will further boil down to this one: Do the physicists think that energy cannot just appear out of nothing, but space-time can, supposing that the total space-time of the present universe is not zero?
    Or, do they think that like life, mind and consciousness, space and time are also emergent entities only, and therefore, not directly coming from big bang nothing?

    II
    Something can appear out of nothing provided that the totality of that something always remains zero. Actually anything can come out of nothing if this condition is fulfilled. This is the principle which some scientists have relied upon when they have proposed that our universe could have arisen out of nothing due to a quantum energy fluctuation in a void. They have found that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The total energy being zero, the total matter will also be zero due to matter-energy equivalence. If the total matter as well as the total energy of the universe is zero, then why should they have to come from anything at all? They could have come from nothing as well. So these scientists have proposed that our universe has simply appeared out of nothing. But when they have proposed this theory, they remained totally oblivious of the fact that universe means not only its matter and energy, universe means its space-time as well. So, if the universe has actually appeared out of nothing, then just like matter and energy, space-time also has appeared out of that primordial nothing. So like matter and energy, the total space-time also should always remain zero.
    However, if it is the case that space-time has not directly appeared out of nothing, then the total space-time need not have to be zero. No sane person on this earth will ever say that the total number of human beings in this universe must always have to be zero, because no sane person believes that human beings have directly appeared out of nothing. However if ‘x’ has directly appeared out of nothing, then logic and common sense dictates that the totality of that ‘x’ must always have to be zero.
    Here it may be objected that there is a law of conservation of matter and energy in science, but that there is no such conservation law for space-time. So there is no violation of conservation law if nothing generates so much of space-time. Even if it is conceded that this is a valid objection – here I must say that I do not think so – it can still be pointed out that there is one more reason that can be given as to why the total space-time of the universe should always remain zero. This reason we find in Einstein’s general theory of relativity. As per GTR space, time and matter are so interlinked that there cannot be any space-time without matter. Similarly there cannot be any matter without space-time. There is also a famous quote of Einstein on this: “When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.” If time and space cannot have any separate existence from matter, then the total matter of the universe being zero, the total space-time of the universe should also always be zero. So we can say that GTR alone gives us sufficient reason to conclude that if the total matter of the universe always remains zero, then the total space-time of the universe should also always remain zero. Here the question becomes quite irrelevant as to whether the universe has originated from something, or from nothing.
    So from GTR we come to know that the total space-time of an ever-expanding universe should always remain zero, but we do not know yet how it does actually remain zero.
    If science cannot give any satisfactory answer to this question, then the atheistic, non-religious world-view of modern science will prove to be inadequate for explaining the real world..

  4. My reading of Hawking is this: There was only energy, and that was unstable. All that energy and no matter. Being unstable couldn’t last, and BOOM!, matter was created during the big bang.

  5. My reading of Hawking is this: There was only energy, and that was unstable. All that energy and no matter. Being unstable couldn’t last, and BOOM!, matter was created during the big bang.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s