Can the Universe Cause Itself to Exist from a Physics Perspective?

[DevilsAvocado]

It is a speculation at least consistent with general relativity. ...

Objection 1: GR will not take you all the way down to t0, it will break down at Planck time. So how can GR explain what caused the universe?

Can the Universe Create Itself?
Authors: J. Richard Gott, III, Li-Xin Li
(Submitted on 30 Dec 1997)

The question of first-cause has troubled philosophers and cosmologists alike. Now that it is apparent that our universe began in a Big Bang explosion, the question of what happened before the Big Bang arises. Inflation seems like a very promising answer, but as Borde and Vilenkin have shown, the inflationary state preceding the Big Bang must have had a beginning also. Ultimately, the difficult question seems to be how to make something out of nothing. This paper explores the idea that this is the wrong question --- that that is not how the Universe got here. Instead, we explore the idea of whether there is anything in the laws of physics that would prevent the Universe from creating itself. Because spacetimes can be curved and multiply connected, general relativity allows for the possibility of closed timelike curves (CTCs). Thus, tracing backwards in time through the original inflationary state we may eventually encounter a region of CTCs giving no first-cause.​

Objection 2: I’m a layman and may be wrong, but everything I've read so far says: First the extreme singularity at t0, then the 'Big Bang', and then Inflation...??

Objection 3: To me this seems like a very easy way out (almost silly) – not to explain how something came out of nothing, and instead try to prove that inside this universe there aren’t any laws preventing this phenomena!? Que? The physical laws of this universe apparently didn’t exist before the universe... AND the universe is here, isn’t it!? I mean – what will happen if they can prove that there is a law that makes the universe 'illegal'??

 

[Chalnoth]

Objection 2: I’m a layman and may be wrong, but everything I've read so far says: First the extreme singularity at t0, then the 'Big Bang', and then Inflation...??

The singularity in the big bang theory is known to be wrong. By "before the big bang" they mean before the big bang theory was valid. The big bang theory is not valid at the earliest of times.

While inflation must have had a beginning, an actual singularity is a physical impossibility.

Objection 3: To me this seems like a very easy way out (almost silly) – not to explain how something came out of nothing, and instead try to prove that inside this universe there aren’t any laws preventing this phenomena!? Que? The physical laws of this universe apparently didn’t exist before the universe... AND the universe is here, isn’t it!?

Basically, it appears to be the case that in the context of quantum mechanics, everything that is not expressly forbidden necessarily occurs. To supply a small analogy, consider quantum electrodynamics. In QED, we find that photons have the potential to exist everywhere in space-time. And merely because they have the potential to do so, they necessarily pop in and out of the vacuum all the time. Space-times might well follow a similar principle.

I mean – what will happen if they can prove that there is a law that makes the universe 'illegal'??

Then that law is a contradiction and must be false.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... And merely because they have the potential to do so, they necessarily pop in and out of the vacuum all the time. Space-times might well follow a similar principle.

Thanks for the explanation Chalnoth, I’m glad you’re out there.

I have been thinking a little bit more about (almost the same thing) what you said last time:

"then maybe it will make perfect sense how a universe could randomly appear out of nothing"​

We see virtual particles popping out (and in) of vacuum in the universe. This is a 'sign' of "how something can come out of nothing", right? And if this happens here, its not impossible it happened for the whole universe 13.8 billion years ago, right?

But, has anyone seen the 'laws of nature' popping out of nothing? Or any constants, like the 'weird' fine-structure constant (α = 0.08542455), or is this a completely unintelligent question...? That is... the laws and constants are 'embedded' in the particles, i.e. they 'know' what rules are present...

OMG... I don’t know what I’m talking about... 'laws' in vacuum...

 

[Chalnoth]

Laws don't appear or disappear, however. They simply are. Where this is concerned, I think that Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis is perhaps the most reasonable.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Laws don't appear or disappear, however. They simply are. Where this is concerned, I think that Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis is perhaps the most reasonable.

Okay, that means Dmitry67 (MUH) is right after all?

 

[Chalnoth]

Okay, that means Dmitry67 (MUH) is right after all?

He hasn't said enough as to what he means with regards to the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis for me to offer a judgment either way.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Chalnoth, about the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, I must admit that I have very hard time to digest this way of looking at the physically reality... but it’s maybe a result of my 'status'...

To me, it’s pretty clear that humans don’t know everything, and (probably) never will. The 'thing' we call science is, and always will be, an approximation of what really goes on in nature. And mathematics is just a tool in this process, created by humans to make it graspable, not a 'divine thing' that created everything...

A classical example is QM. The mathematics works extremely well, and we build everyday functional machines on this knowledge. But is mathematics in QM really the hard blueprint of what really goes on at this level...?? It’s maybe stupid of me to speak in this matter - but my 'gut feeling' says no...

Tegmark's postulate is: All structures that exist mathematically also exist physically.
If we turn this around: All structures that exist physically exact also exist mathematically exact.

Is this true? I say no. Just look at ∏ ...

And what happens if String theory is proven wrong? What are all these new mathematical structures then, existing or non-existing physically?

What’s your opinion?

 

[Chalnoth]

Well, the thing is that we don't yet have any sort of theory of everything. In fact, we know that our current physical theories are necessarily just approximations to the true behavior (because they have various places where the mathematics become nonsensical).

The mathematical universe hypothesis isn't a hypothesis that we already know the mathematical structure that is our universe, but rather that there is one out there. Tegmark goes into a good argument for why this is reasonable, but in the end it boils down to simply this:

1. A mathematical structure is just a fully-consistent set of rules.
2. If our universe is fully consistent, then it is isomorphic to some mathematical structure (which we don't yet know). This would indicate that at least some mathematical structures have real existence.
3. It is generally easier for all things of a class to exist than for only some of them to, so it is simpler to propose that all mathematical structures exist.

 

[Dmitry67]

He hasn't said enough as to what he means with regards to the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis for me to offer a judgment either way.

I just agree with Max Tegmark, so you can take his article

P.S.
Just read...
Your 1-2-3 is the shortest summary of Max article I've ever seen, very nice, cool!

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Chalnoth, I agree with Dmitry67, your 1-2-3 is very nice, and short enough to make sense even to me.

So, if a bright and young new 'Einstein' one day exclaims Eureka TOE! The guessing is over, and the speculation if mathematics is the real isomorphic mirror of reality, or just an approximation-tool of humans, has come to an end:

Mathematics is the physical reality, and the physical reality is mathematics.

Cool!


It’s also very exciting (for Tegmark) if the real nature of the physical reality turns out to be the QM-wayward-statistical-not-open-the-box-all-the-way structure...

 

[Dmitry67]

Even if many scientists do now believe in the alternative universes, I think it is very important to study them for the better understanding of ours and for the A.P. below I put a list of the questions about the alternative universes. They are very deep and difficult, but at the same time it is NOT pure phylosophy, they are quite rigorous:

Take all parameters of the Standard Model, add density of DM, DE, gravitation. In this about 30-dimension space there is an 'island of observer-friendly universe'

1. How big is that island?
2. How close are we to the border of that island? are we at the center of not?
(more difficult)
3. Are there any other islands?

(now even more difficult, assuming, at least for some time, that MUH is true and all sorts of universes with different laws exist)
4. What are the requirements, in general, for an observer-friendly universe? (what mathematical systems are observer-friendly - note: that question can be studied by pure mathematics, but I think it require a theory of consciousness)
5. Is our universe the simplest observer-friendly universe or not?
6. Are there any better universes?
7. Can we somehow transfer our consciousness into such universes?

 

[Chalnoth]

For point number four, I think we'd just go for the most basic requirements today: you have to have stars that make heavier elements. This implicitly requires significant structure formation as well. I don't think we could do better than this simple requirement any time soon.

 

[Dmitry67]

Yes, but what's about universes without stars at all, so different from ours but still observer-friendly? Or universes with more then 1 time dimension?

 

[Chalnoth]

Yes, but what's about universes without stars at all, so different from ours but still observer-friendly? Or universes with more then 1 time dimension?

The reason why stars are important is that they are needed to produce the heavier elements that are required for complex chemistry.

And a universe with more than one time dimension has some nasty features that make such a thing highly unlikely, such as closed timelike loops.

 

[Dmitry67]

1. Yes, in OUR universe stars are important, I know. But imagine Universe where energy is not conserved. Observers there can develop on isolated blobs of matter, they won't need a central star. Now say heavier elements in their chemistry are developed during thir BB (like some part of our helium) - et voila, they don't need stars

2. unlikely? or difficult to imagine? :)

 

[Chalnoth]

1. Yes, in OUR universe stars are important, I know. But imagine Universe where energy is not conserved. Observers there can develop on isolated blobs of matter, they won't need a central star. Now say heavier elements in their chemistry are developed during thir BB (like some part of our helium) - et voila, they don't need stars

Albrecht and Iglesias looked at the implications of the fact that the time coordinate can be chosen arbitrarily on the laws of physics here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.4452

They found that if you take a random Hamiltonian as input (which is the equivalent of taking the laws of physics as being random and changing in time), then you can simply make a change to the time coordinate to get a Hamiltonian that is constant in time. And if you have a Hamiltonian that is constant in time, then you have conservation of energy (by Noether's theorem).

Basically the upshot is that you can't have a universe where energy isn't, in some sense, conserved.

As for big bang nucleosynthesis, the problem there is that the production of carbon is so obscenely slow compared to the production of lighter elements that it effectively can't happen in the early universe.

2. unlikely? or difficult to imagine? :)

Like the BBN stuff, I'd have to look up the issues again, but I'm pretty sure that the existence of closed timelike curves leads to either contradictions or instabilities that make such a scenario impossible.

 

[Dmitry67]

They found that if you take a random Hamiltonian as input (which is the equivalent of taking the laws of physics as being random and changing in time), then you can simply make a change to the time coordinate to get a Hamiltonian that is constant in time. And if you have a Hamiltonian that is constant in time, then you have conservation of energy (by Noether's theorem).

As for big bang nucleosynthesis, the problem there is that the production of carbon is so obscenely slow compared to the production of lighter elements that it effectively can't happen in the early universe.

At first, why Hamiltonian?
Alternative Universe can be so different so the laws are absolutely different.

Regarding the article, it is interesting. So there is time coordinate where Hamiltonian is constant, but why that coordinate IS time? (direction where entropy increases?)

Finally, regading the carbon production, what carbon? The laws can be so different that there are 2747 stable elements made of blahblarks Q, U, T, L, A and B :)

 

[Chalnoth]

At first, why Hamiltonian?

It's just one particularly way to write down arbitrary laws of physics.

Alternative Universe can be so different so the laws are absolutely different.

That was why they considered a random Hamiltonian.

Regarding the article, it is interesting. So there is time coordinate where Hamiltonian is constant, but why that coordinate IS time? (direction where entropy increases?)

I believe they chose the one where the Hamiltonian was constant.

Finally, regading the carbon production, what carbon? The laws can be so different that there are 2747 stable elements made of blahblarks Q, U, T, L, A and B :)

You might be surprised.

 

[Dmitry67]

1 It's just one particularly way to write down arbitrary laws of physics.

2 I believe they chose the one where the Hamiltonian was constant.

2 then the direction of such time can be different from thermodynamic arrow.

1 hamiltonian can be used only in the narrow subset of all mathematical systems (=universes).

 

[Chalnoth]

1 hamiltonian can be used only in the narrow subset of all mathematical systems (=universes).

Why?

 

[Dmitry67]

Can you write a Hamiltonian for the Boolean Logic universe? (it is just an example)
Universe (in general) is not necesserily based on real/complex numbers.

 

[Chalnoth]

Can you write a Hamiltonian for the Boolean Logic universe? (it is just an example)
Universe (in general) is not necesserily based on real/complex numbers.

Since you can represent an arbitrary mathematical function in boolean logic, it would just be a matter of writing one down in computer code. Not that difficult.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Chalnoth & Dmitry67, your latest talk about 'islands' and Hamiltonian is way above my 'horizon', but I have been thinking some more about the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis.

Dmitry67, when you mentioned "7. Can we somehow transfer our consciousness into such universes?", I started thinking about 'brains' and mathematics. If MUH is correct, our brain is 'just' a mathematical formula, right? Then we must have the 'mother lode' of formulas inside our heads, if we are going to explain 'ourselves', AND the universe, AND 'everything else', right?

Then I started thinking about something else, which is so 'simple', that Tegmark just couldn’t have missed it: Gödel's incompleteness theorems

I know this must be wrong, but I can’t find the error myself... (I also have to live up to my username hehe )

Second incompleteness theorem
For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent.

To me, this must mean we already know that your (Chalnoth) 1-2-3 boiling down of Tegmark’s arguments is inconsistent in the very first sentence:

1. A mathematical structure is just a fully-consistent set of rules.
2. If our universe is fully consistent, then it is isomorphic to some mathematical structure (which we don't yet know). This would indicate that at least some mathematical structures have real existence.
3. It is generally easier for all things of a class to exist than for only some of them to, so it is simpler to propose that all mathematical structures exist.

If our universe is fully consistent and thus isomorphic to a mathematical structure, then TOE must be inconsistent to be able to prove the consistency of the universe!? Therefore the universe (=TOE) also must be inconsistent!? And if the universe is inconsistent, it cannot be a mathematical structure, therefore TOE can never be found (from 'inside')!?

Que? What am I missing...

 

[baywax]

What created (caused) number 7?

Numbers 6 and 8...

I would like to weigh in and say that the universe has been evolving since long before the BB. The BB is just one symptom of whatever started the whole process. This universe building process probably started in response to an overwhelming imbalance of nothing to something... as in a ratio of 0 to 1... 1 being "nothing" (in an abstract manner of course).

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Numbers 6 and 8...

11 + 100 = 111

 

[Chalnoth]

If our universe is fully consistent and thus isomorphic to a mathematical structure, then TOE must be inconsistent to be able to prove the consistency of the universe!? Therefore the universe (=TOE) also must be inconsistent!? And if the universe is inconsistent, it cannot be a mathematical structure, therefore TOE can never be found (from 'inside')!?

Que? What am I missing...

Just because you can't prove from within the mathematical structure that the structure is consistent doesn't mean it isn't consistent. It just means you can't demonstrate it within said structure.

 

[Dmitry67]

Chalnoth had already replied...

DavilsAdvocado, do you know the Game of Life? The one you can play on the inlimited chess board? That Universe is degterministic and very simple. What is quite contreintuitive, is that both Goedels theorems are applicable to such universe: there are some statements regarding the configurations of dots which can not be proved or dismissed.

Also, not that Goedels theorem is not applicable to ANY mathematical structure, but to some subset of such structures.

 

[baywax]

11 + 100 = 111

actually, in visual terms 11 + 100 is equal to 11100

in this instance there are more ones than zeros and an imbalance continues to occur.

this might lead to expansion or inflation... but the ratio here between 1s (which now represent "something") and 0s... (which represent "nothing") is much less of an imbalance than 0 to 1. So... the dominance of nothing... or some other equally homologous medium, causes a violent reaction within itself that produces an opposite, balancing medium or condition. The sum of the metaphoric parts is a universe. Just guessing!

 

[Chronos]

Mathematics and the origins of the universe have a great deal in common - both rely on fundamental assumptions that, by definition, are unprovable. Logic allows us to delve a bit deeper, but also ultimately fails. There is no reasonable explanation why this, or any other universe exists, imo. For that reason, I favor the God hypothesis. It provides a reasonable, albeit incomplete, explanation.

 

[Chalnoth]

For that reason, I favor the God hypothesis. It provides a reasonable, albeit incomplete, explanation.

No, it really doesn't. The problem is that there's a tension between different definitions of the word, and neither class of definition comes close to solving the problem. The more specific your definition gets, the more complex your God gets, and thus the less it becomes an explanation. The less specific your definition gets, the more meaningless the term God even becomes, and thus it fails as an explanation in the other direction.

Because of this vague slipperiness of the very definition of the word "god", it is an impossibility to ever bring up any evidence for or against, and for that reason the hypothesis simply fails as being too poorly-defined.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Just because you can't prove from within the mathematical structure that the structure is consistent doesn't mean it isn't consistent. It just means you can't demonstrate it within said structure.

So how do we prove your second statement?

"2. If our universe is fully consistent, then it is isomorphic to some mathematical structure ..."

If the universe = mathematical structure, then how can we ever use mathematics to prove it fully consistent?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... Also, not that Goedels theorem is not applicable to ANY mathematical structure, but to some subset of such structures.

Agree. Many weak systems of arithmetic do not satisfy the hypotheses of the second incompleteness theorem. But now we are talking about the whole enchilada... things that do apply to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and things that don’t...

The problem is, as I see it, that we cannot 'pick and chose'; everything (in the universe) has to be fully consistent!?

The liar paradox seems hard to get out of - "The next sentence is false. The previous sentence is true."

 

[DevilsAvocado]

actually, in visual terms 11 + 100 is equal to 11100

Maybe...?

All I wanted to say is that number 7 is totally irrelevant, and created by humans (of course!). We can do perfectly well with 1/0, On/Off, black/white, light/dark, etc, to any calculation possible.

So the correct question maybe is - What created (caused) number light light light!?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... I favor the God hypothesis. It provides a reasonable, albeit incomplete, explanation.

I don’t agree. The 'designer hypothesis' immediately raises the larger problem - Who designed the designer!?

Furthermore, the 'designer' has exactly the same problem as quantum fluctuations – how to choose a moment for BB – in a 'period' where there was no time and no moments to choose...

And Occam's razor prefers simpler explanations, as 'nothingness', than an extremely complicated 'designer', to do the same thing.

 

[Chalnoth]

So how do we prove your second statement?

My point is that you simply define a mathematical structure as being a fully-consistent set of axioms. This definition means that there may be things which we call mathematical structures which actually aren't. And there are certainly many things which are mathematical structures which we are unaware of.

Our inability to be absolutely 100% certain whether or not everything we call a mathematical structure actually is one is basically irrelevant to the point.

If the universe = mathematical structure, then how can we ever use mathematics to prove it fully consistent?

An inconsistency is an impossibility. We may not be able to prove the mathematical structure which we think is isomorphic to our universe is consistent (and thus an actual mathematical structure). But we know that if it turns out not to be consistent, it can't describe our universe.