Creation of universes from nothing.

[unfogged]

... Everena's authority ...

[GrandizerII]

Alexander Vilenkin, the guy that WLC-style theists love to misquote.

[polymath257]

Dang. It worked from campus, but not from home. Sorry about that guys.

Here's the original:

https://mm-gold.azureedge.net/science/ph...othing.pdf

[Jehanne]

Alexander Vilenkin, the guy that WLC-style theists love to misquote.

I confess that this thread was a bit of some click-bait for those folks.

[polymath257]

This one seems fairly readable and reviews a number of different proposals leading to 'universes from nothing':

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9812027.pdf

[Dr H]

...by Professor Alexander Vilenkin:

Creation of universes from nothing

I wish that I could find the original paper, but here's the abstract at least:

A cosmological model is proposed in which the universe is created by quantum tunneling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space. After the tunneling, the model evolves along the lines of the inflationary scenario. This model does not have a big-bang singularity and does not require any initial or boundary conditions.

Hmmm....

I'd kinda like to know what definition of "nothing" is being invoked here.

[GrandizerII]

...by Professor Alexander Vilenkin:

Creation of universes from nothing

I wish that I could find the original paper, but here's the abstract at least:




Hmmm....

I'd kinda like to know what definition of "nothing" is being invoked here.

The Kraussian type of "nothing", which is still a "something" at the end of the day.

[sdelsolray]

...by Professor Alexander Vilenkin:

Creation of universes from nothing

I wish that I could find the original paper, but here's the abstract at least:

A cosmological model is proposed in which the universe is created by quantum tunneling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space. After the tunneling, the model evolves along the lines of the inflationary scenario. This model does not have a big-bang singularity and does not require any initial or boundary conditions.

Hmmm....

Aren't "quantum tunneling" and "de Sitter space" two things which taken together are something?  All of the "something from nothing" speculations I have researched require various laws, structures or processes to first be in place in order for their nothing ==> something to occur.  They all seem quite silly, at least on this point, and appear to reduce to semantics.

[Deesse23]

From what i have read about De Sitter Space its a mathematical solution of Einsteins field equations. Its a multidimensional space, with a positive vacuumenergy (= repulsive, leading to an accerlerating expanding universe), thats the key point.

De Sitter Space seems to be a possible (mathematically proven to be consitent and possible) multidimensional space, and we may happen to live in a universe that is such a *kind* of space. It looks they just need to demonstrate that indeed our universe has a positive vacuumenergy (so far its unproven iirc, we just have strong evidence oft its accelerating expansion, but arent confident as to why), to show that our uinverse may be such a De Sitter space.

Once its established that we do live in a De Sitter space and since its mathematically demonstrated that De Sitter spaces can *come into existence from *nothing**, we could conclude that our universe came from *nothing* (whatever that is, my reading is that its just a quantum tunneling or something from another universe, which wouldnt be *absolutely nothing* but rather *from outside our non-existing universe).

That something is gonna come from a "real" (absolute) nothing seems too counterintuituve to me to accept it for now, but i remain open to be convinced otherwise in the future

[Jehanne]

...by Professor Alexander Vilenkin:

Creation of universes from nothing

I wish that I could find the original paper, but here's the abstract at least:




Hmmm....

Aren't "quantum tunneling" and "de Sitter space" two things which taken together are something?  All of the "something from nothing" speculations I have researched require various laws, structures or processes to first be in place in order for their nothing ==> something to occur.  They all seem quite silly, at least on this point, and appear to reduce to semantics.

Aristotle would have found modern physics to be disturbing.