14 Answers

  1. By the vacuum from which the universe was born, we cannot mean complete emptiness or “nothing”. This is a quantum field with minimal energy.

    Even in a stable state, the quantum field is not constant; its values can change abruptly at different points. This leads to the appearance and disappearance of virtual particles ( in fact, these are energy bursts).

    Of course, it may seem an unlikely event, the occurrence of such a fluctuation that would lead to the emergence of the Universe.

    But if we take into account that the quantum field is infinite, then such an event has not only a non-zero probability of being realized, but can also manifest itself as a completely reliable event.

  2. Scientists are not looking for “the causes of our world's origin”, but for what previous states formed our world in the form in which we observe it. So far, these states have been reconstructed up to what is called a singularity. Cosmology is essentially the physical version of history.

  3. Since you are quoting me, I think it is necessary to clarify: a vacuum is NOT nothing. A vacuum is a state with the lowest energy.

    So, of course, the universe did not arise out of nothing. This is incorrect. But there is a hypothesis that it originated from a vacuum

  4. The universe was formed about 14 billion years ago. To begin with, it should be understood that protons, electrons, neutrons, as well as other elementary particles-in general, baryonic matter makes up only 4%. Dark matter accounts for about 22%, while dark energy accounts for the remaining 74%. At the same time, these values change, mainly the amount of dark energy increases.

    It should be noted that mass is a form of energy. This is stated in the formula E=mc^2. Hydrogen and atomic bombs are obvious examples of mass-to-energy transitions. In the opposite direction, not so obvious – these are protons. One proton consists of two U-quarks (m=2 MeV) and one D-quark (m=4.5 MeV), but it weighs more than 9 MeV.

    Thus, mass emerged from energy. Now it is believed that the universe existed before the big bang, as well as the substance in it. The big bang itself only started the process of its expansion. Although some on the contrary believe that he stopped it. In any case, there are inaccuracies in the Big Bang Theory that could not possibly be explained by its classical model.

    1. Uniform energy distribution;
    2. Flat geometry of space and time.

    The theory of cosmological inflation tells us what happened before the events described in the Classical Big Bang Theory, and explains the above inaccuracies. It assumed that the time calculation began in 10 ^ -32 seconds. The universe was formed in a very unstable state in a vacuum bubble, which triggered its rapid expansion in the very first moments. At the moment it appeared, it possessed an incredible speed of energy, which caused it to expand at an appropriate rate. According to the model, the universe doubled in size every 10-35 seconds. Thus, in the first 10-30 seconds after the Big Bang, it would have doubled in size 100 thousand times. This solves the problem of the plane and the distribution of energy, because even if the curvature was initially present, with further expansion it smoothed out and moved away from us by a sufficient distance to be invisible.

    And here we come to the answer to the question.

    Initially, there was nothing but quantum fluctuations of the fluctuation, which for some unknown reason, since our laws of physics do not apply to this, started the expansion of space, resulting in gravity, which in those difficult conditions had a repulsive effect. The vacuum began to inflate and at the end of inflation, energy began to appear from it in colossal quantities. During this process, its energy became more and more negative, so the law of conservation of energy was not violated.

    There is also another theory in which the universe was formed in a false vacuum, and with the release of energy, it was gradually able to move into the true one. However, in this case, the reference frame is not from zero, which causes certain difficulties and new questions.

  5. Out of nothing material.

    But it could well appear from the laws (from a mathematical formula). Or, as the Bible says, Logos (the fulfilled Word).

    This site also appeared out of nothing, i.e. from the executable word of the programmer. This is true if you look from the site itself or from our world, but if you look from the world of the Creator, or from the world of the programmer, then they have a material basis that disappears when you go inside the created one.

    So, for the world, the Creator does not exist, because He is outside the world, and for the site, the programmer does not exist, because he is outside the reality of the site.

    This concept is also supported by the fact that everything in the world changes except for the laws that create it, which it is based on.

  6. Is it true that the universe came from nothing?

    Truth. The basis of the universe is laws. It is the only unchangeable thing on which the universe is based. Moreover, laws have no cause in the universe itself. Science does not create laws, it only describes the discovered patterns. No scientist has ever created a single law of our world and never will.

    The Bible says that the universe is created by a stable pattern, a universal necessity (Logos) which the Higher Mind has. In the modern sense, this is a program (Executable Word).

    So our world on the side of its Creator is a formula, and we are created in this formula in the process of its execution.

    Our universe does not exist outside of itself and is infinite within itself, just like this site. It does not exist outside of itself and is infinite within itself.

  7. If there was no matter, then there was no space. Everything arises simultaneously from a point that originated from the energy strings of a black hole from another universe.

  8. This is just a theory. One of the guesses of scientists, mistakenly accepted by the majority of ordinary people for the true one. Absolutely with the same probability, the universe could always exist, but for someone this does not sound convincing enough.

  9. It depends on who this truth is about. I understand that the answers of physicists do not quite suit you. They can infinitely derive a universal equation for the behavior of objects of arbitrary configuration in N-dimensional space. This is their game by their rules. I do not presume to argue with them (because it is not given), everyone should have their own. I prefer to approach this issue from a different angle. I dare to suggest you another game. Imagine that we live in a plasticine world, which is located in a plasticine universe. And everything in it is made of plasticine, including ourselves. Now you can imagine how plasticine characters, observing the plasticine world through their perception, come up with plasticine devices in order to use them to measure the interactions available in their world. How can they do it? Of course, yes, if you provide them with the necessary conditions. But only if they have infinite time to measure the infinite plasticine world with a plasticine ruler. Sooner or later, in their understanding, this should be achieved even with the help of such a primitive tool. This is a simple theory of probability, compounded by empirical perception, which is taken as a property of real events and then expressed in the form of visual representations. This is just one of the available methods of cognition based on subjective perception, which is not exclusively the only correct one. If you pay attention to the internal structure of the mythical city of Atlantis, you will understand its strangeness, the description of which would not be required in such a specific way for a completely fictional object (sectors necessary for finding conditional philosophers, artists, scientists and others separately, in order to exclude the influence of the perception of some on the perception of others). Let's return to our plasticine friends with their rulers. When they're done, then they'll finally tell you that in this plasticine universe, it really was like this and like this. Assign values and describe them mathematically. But this will be true only in relation to their perception and only in connection with the tool that they used – a plasticine ruler. You may ask, where then is the truest truth and the real reality? But nowhere. It's in you. In the inner perception of those plasticine men. In their internal time-space, which in relation to the external space-time is this same nowhere. From this same nowhere comes a thought, then an idea about something that does not yet exist. From thoughts and ideas, ideas and hypotheses are born. Only then, on the basis of the same thing, devices and tools are created, which are later used to prove these hypotheses and representations. Then what is thought itself? In relation to the plasticine world, this is nothing. Something that doesn't exist in the space-time of this world. So, in this fictional world, for example, everything comes from nothing. Of course, sooner or later plasticine people will try to measure even a thought with their plasticine ruler and conclude that this is also just another special type of plasticine. There can be no other way in an entirely plasticine world. But this is not a problem of the world, but only a problem of plasticine people with plasticine perception. You can learn more fully the essence of the plasticine world only from the outside. No plasticine devices are required for this. It is enough to change the internal perception, then the external world will also change. Such nonsense about the plasticine world I had in one of my dreams. Well, everyone dreams of heresy.

  10. The peculiarity of this theory is that during astronomical observation, astronomers drew attention to a certain pattern of background radio emission: wherever you point the telescope, the same radiophone goes from everywhere. This hypothesis received mathematical confirmation and became the theory of the big bang, as well as the theory that confirms the non-uniform distribution of chemical elements. If the star contains more helium, hydrogen, then therefore less heavy chemical elements, and also confirms the theory of uniformity of space.�

    Alan Guth proposed the hypothesis of inflationary theory: the emergence of the universe from nothing, from a point : “inflating a three-dimensional sphere”, so the galaxies run away, creating space (in the form of an inflatable ball that creates a sphere), although it is generally considered a four-dimensional sphere. Follower of the hypothesis “inflating the universe” Polan Davies, physicist: “you don't have to pay for the universe” – “everything came out of nothing”, �

    “The Ellegant universe”. (Quote from: V. P. Lega).�

    But no scientist has yet said: “why did all electrons and protons appear with the same charge and the same mass and at the same time under the action of quantum, gravitational, and electromagnetic energies?” There were no laws of the universe yet. Why all the fundamental constants were preserved and prevented the universe from being pulverized. Who prevented the interaction of gravitational, electromagnetic, strong, weak nuclear interaction? Why is it impossible to maintain a thermonuclear reaction in terrestrial conditions? According to the scientific theory, in a newly formed star, such an interaction of energies is held by the gravitational force, but if it is slightly less, the star will be large, then the gravitational force will be small. In such a star, there will be no interactions and only heavy metals will appear, but not helium and, accordingly, hydrogen, which are necessary for the formation of DNA, RNA and, accordingly, for human life . Hugh Ross writes about the fine-tuning of the universe: “How can a physicist be an atheist?” Paul Davies “Super Power” gave rise to the universe. It denies quantum fluctuation (randomness), i.e. the hypothesis of the appearance of a random singularity in a vacuum.” The whole universe cannot be experimented upon, or sensually observed. It follows that the laws of the universe cannot be tested by sensory experience. Russell's modern hypothesis that the universe is self-sufficient and is itself the cause of its origin is untenable. Ganov proved that the universe has some kind of repulsive force, since the force of attraction must have a repulsive force. Alexander Friedman, Russian mathematician who mathematically refuted Russell's theory and hypothetically confirmed Einstein's theory of relativity, 1922 Velenkin, a Russian physicist, also confirmed the theory of the expansion of the universe. Therefore, Leibniz says that the cause can be Eternal, not consisting of particles only God. Please excuse me: I am not a physicist, but all the information about the physical and mathematical features of the origin of the universe is not professionally quoted by me from lectures

    Candidate of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Professor V. P. Lega.�

  11. Of course yes!

    This is a long-proven fact! In one of the most widely recognized scientific studies, it says so:

    1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 But the earth was formless and empty, and there was darkness over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light. And then there was light. “And God saw the light that it was good, and God separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light day, and the darkness night. And there was evening, and there was morning: one day.Genesis 1:1-5.

    Don't doubt it!

  12. Actually, the word “vacuum” – as far as I know, means” absence of air “and the concept of” energy “- refers quite indirectly… The” Book “definition of” space free of matter “-means something impossible and looks to me as absurd as”depth of the plane”… in addition , the use of the phrase “out of nothing” indicates a mind that is prone to self – affirmation in misunderstanding, so the proposed wording does not seem to imply a rational answer…

  13. Homo Sapiens sometimes have questions that don't and can't be answered. Here, for example, and this question, which can also be reformulated in the following. 1. Well, let it be “out of nothing”. And when and why did such a miracle suddenly happen? Here was nothing and suddenly here you are! The most complex material structures, then living matter, and then the human mind-social consciousness? 2. But there are also simpler questions here. 1. Whether it started (if so, when) and … and whether there is an end somewhere-the material boundaries of our mother “Universe”. And, what the hell is not joking, but whether the end of this infinitely material star world will suddenly happen. PS: And actually the term “infinity” is something real? Or it's just an invention of our smart-ass Homo Sapiens ….

  14. According to modern concepts, the Universe appeared at the time of the Big Bang from some point, apparently this point contained all the matter of the Universe, including space and vacuum. So your statement that the vacuum existed always does not fit into the hypothesis.

Leave a Reply