The beginning of the universe

Yes - the answer is #1. The laws of quantum physics state that at the quantum level, things can pop out of nothing--and they do so all the time.

- - - Updated - - -

quantum physics states that things can pop out of nothing at the quantum level. Thus, the singularity just popped out of nothing.

As for the pink elephant, quantum mechanics doesn't really work at larger scales that would govern an object as large as a pink elephant. A singularity, however, would have existed at the scale of elementary particles, and thus, would have been governed by the laws of quantum physics.

so to answer your question; yes, the singularity could have popped into existence from nothing and No--it is not likely that a pink elephant or unicorn would have done the same.

 

The problem is that todays common knowledge would not have made sense to people in the past
There is no reason to assume that people of today can reliably use the "makes sense" methodology for arriving at the solution to this issue

Btw
Scientists who explore fundamental laws through repeatable experiments are not using the "Makes sense" approach

 

Because they are operating on different scales. In physics, there are different sets of laws that govern different things of different sizes. The singularity was very small - and was operating at the level of quantum physics, which describes how very small things behave. Medium sized things - like humans - are governed by newtonian mechanics. Large things - like galaxies - are governed by special relativity and general relativity.

 

heat....

 

Of course we don't know. Claiming we do know is really stupid.

 

My goal in earning my MA degree was to learn advanced subjects to understand God. The reason I mention this isnt to brag etc its to inform the members I do understand the basics of advanced subjects I quote etc. Sadly I can not say the same of some of my debate partners. However PF has better than average members, quality people on both ends of the scale from atheist to devout Christian. The new Christian and relgious apologists and philosophers were delving into very advanced subjects to argue debate and generally defend the God is dead mantra that began many moons ago. One was the basics of quantum theory and wasn't too bad really, it was easier than even than first year high school trig, which I flunked! I passed the intro, but did not want any part of the next semester of QM! But I did learn enough to allow me to understand what I need to. The thing that makes quantum theory so difficult is in the quantum world things that we would expect, rarely happens! Its insanely counterintuitive and that is why I love the stuff!.

So I suppose you are referencing virtual particles, which is the only thing that appears to pop into existence from seemingly nowhere I know of except my ex. There are at least two viable interpretations of ‘where the particles come from‘. In one interp. The particles are simply a perturbation in the quantum field which presents as a particle when calculated etc. Think of it as a mathematical construct that is and is not ’real’.

The second interp is like the Copenhagen interpertation of QM, and is probably why I like it. In this explanation the particle is real after certain requirements are met, and it interacts with other quantum ‘beings’ which is another indication its 'real'. Virtual particles unlike real particles are just a materialization of the common uncertainty of quantum fields and superposition. I would be happy to go into detail in a PM etc but for now I am going to skip the pages of detail. Also as in the first example lets use field picture rather than try to explain it via a particle example. Remember your college astronomy and astrophysics etc? Cosmology 101; There is no such thing as a true vacuum, the vacuum of space is full of all types of fields, from magnetic events and others such as the one we are going to use, a quantum field. So called empty space is a myth. Now, due to ‘intrinsic quantum uncertainty’ transient ripples appear in our Q Field The ripples present as quantum virtual particles. Ok, here is the good dope… These ripples/particles pops back out of existence with nano swiftness ...or should I say Planck time, lol. That's because it has nothing to sustain it. However, if energy and other things such as momentum arrives at the ripple and is absorbed the result can be that the ripple excites into a self sustaining wave pattern, turning the ripple/Particle into a REAL particle. Cool stuff, for me anyway because it vindicates my claim. IMO your cause for the particle to begin to exist from 'nothing' is not valid my friend. Also it has a real place to come from. Of course the conservation laws of energy and momentum must be met, and they are. However no need to delve into that because I'm tired, sleepy, thirsty and hungry, lol~

The MWT proposes that's every possible event can and will happen in Macro scale. Pink elephants, Hitler won WW2, take your pick...and I am mad fun of because I beleive in God.....I will be laughing at the non believers all the way to heaven...or on my way down there~

Ha ha! Well there is no evidence in the big bang theory to allow for the above. Using the standard big bang (Hot model ie one universe) theory a singularity can not exist but even if it could the Big Bang event was not a true singularity, Google it please...lastly did you see that???? A flying pig! reva

 

actually, quantum physics states that even space-time can pop into existence from nothing. It is now believed that even in a state defined by the following: "no matter, no energy, no particles, no space, and no time"---if you start with this state, space and time can pop into existence spontaneously. and once space and time have popped into existence, the singularity can pop into existence, followed by expansion, the big bang, etc.

The major point that you seem to be missing is: you can start from a state with no matter, no energy, no particles, no space, and no time, and you can end up with the universe we have today --- without god. And so that makes god about as dead as dead can be.

Actually, according to the new understanding of the big bang - ie expansion theory - a singularity certainly could have come from nothing, stabilized by the immense gravity that existed at the time.

It's exciting stuff. If you want to learn more:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-all

 

And there is another more philosophical point what is the likelihood outside known creation a super being or prodigious genius far superior to anything we can conceive of popped into existance from nothing, over a material mindless universe (or multiverse) popped into existence from nothing? At some point this creator had to also come from nothing also.

 

The difference between religion and science - is that science has to follow rules. In science, you can't just say that a singularity popped into existence from nothing. You have to prove it mathematically, and with experimental evidence. You can't just make up whatever you want. Religion doesn't follow those rules. You can say whatever you want about the "creator" that you imagine in your head. That creator could be all powerful, he (almost always a "he") could transcend space and time. He could be infinite. He could be eternal.

He could be all things to everybody all the time. He can be whatever you want him to be. Because he is a figment of someone's imagination, there is nothing that he can or can't be.

 

That's only true if there are an infinite number of universes.

Only if your particular religion happens to be true, which is unlikely.

 

But there is only one alternative that makes logical sense.

 

Not this again. This entire universe is something, so how can things pop out of "nothing?"

 

Before there was the universe we know now, there was once a state, where there was no energy, no particles, no space, and no time. Quantum physics tells us that out of this energyless, particle-less, space-less, time-less entity - space-time spontaneously popped into existence.

Thus, we now know that even space and time don't have to be created. The very fabric of space-time can pop into existence without the presence of god.

 

Where is the evidence for this? First time I hear it.

 

No, we've went over this before. You just forgot:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-all

 

Except you've been shown it doesn't make sense.

 

I love Christmases though I have little believe in Christianity. I believe in Christmas because simple folk celebrate it. They believe it without understanding Christianity; after all Christianity is a dogma but Christmas means people's participation in something universal in its effects. People of all classes come closer and closer and Christmas sublimate their minds and as a result they becomes generous.

 

No, I haven't.

 

why does the Universe need a beginning?

maybe it always existed.

 

Of course you have

 

Where????

 

Every thread you've done this nones you've been shown why your "logical conclusion" is nonsense and is a God of,the gaps fallacy.

 

It seems to me that for millennia man has not come to a consensus on the HOW or WHY of our existence. It is COMPLETELY a matter of belief. You can believe in a naturalistic 'theory' of origins, or a supernatural one. You can believe in a mythical process or gods. But there is no EMPIRICAL proof of either, at this time.

Perhaps we will know, someday. But if history is any guide, we won't. We have split the atom & traveled through space, but we know no more about the universe's origins than we did thousands of years ago.

Oh, you can read books that weave complex, mind boggling scenarios, but at their basis is an assumption.. a premise based on faith, whichever way the author argues. Some are framed in pseudo scientific jargon, but they say the same thing, once you sift through the BS.

What you express here is human angst, which, IMO, is evidence of 'something' more in the human animal. Add to that the impossibility of life & the universe, and the mysterious world of philosophy has opened up the mind to discovery. Why ASSUME the naturalistic view? It is full of holes, & defies logic & even common sense. If there are any answers, they will lie in supernatural explanations, IMO. Naturalism cannot explain meaning to life, but only offers absurdity & emptiness. You can embrace that as your lot in life, or you can seek for more.. not settling for regurgitated arguments from those who have given up the Quest.

Truth, for Truth's sake. Knowledge, to satisfy that unseen itch & desire. Keep the Quest alive, & don't surrender to mediocre platitudes or cynical absolutes.

Nearly 3000 yrs ago, a wise man said, 'You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.' IMO, it is the quest, not necessarily the answers that define us. Do we keep it alive, or settle in dogmatism? Does reason & Truth motivate & inspire us, or do we settle for platitudes & mandated beliefs?

It is ok to not know things. It is better to not know & be searching, than to pretend to know & be a fool.

 

Yes, its called agnosticism. Agnostic believers and atheists are not the problem, its the gnostic believers and atheists that can be a giant pain.

Utter nonsense. Our knowledge and understanding of the universe we live is several orders of magnitude greater than 2,000 years ago.

It based on science and mathematics. Its framed in scientific jargon, because its SCIENCE. The pseudo-scientific crap generally comes from the contortions of apologetics.

The nice thing about supernatural explanations is that they can precisely fit the circumstance since by definition can readily defy logic and even common sense.

Truth is not necessarily an absolute. As to platitudes and dogmatism, if use is anything to go by, you seem comfortable settling.

 

So tell me about the magnitude of knowledge about the origins of the universe that we have now.. no speculation. No opinion. Facts. You can mask them in pseudo scientific jargon, if you wish.

Show me a mathematical 'proof' of the origin of the universe.

Tell me about these absolutes, platitudes, & dogma that you believe in. Otherwise, all you have is ad hominem for a philosophical discussion.. which is pretty lame, imo.

Just because you have settled for a dogmatic view of the universe does not mean that everyone else has to follow your example.