Does science really maintain that the universe came from absolute nothing?

Question

By absolute nothing I mean absolutely nothing so that it cannot even be talked about except by reference to something that is not absolutely nothing.

Please tell me if I am wrong, but I just cannot see anything except absurdity if science does maintain that the universe came from absolutely nothing.

This is my own position: before the universe appeared there was something that was not any part of the universe, and it was this thing which became the universe.

I am not saying that this thing antecedent to the universe is God; but it is something, not nothing.

But does science really maintain that the universe came out of nothing, understanding nothing as absolutely nothing?

I like to read any statement from any scientists who say that the universe just came about from absolutely nothing, and ask them whether they are not aware that they are saying an absolute absurdity.

Pachomius2000

Answer 1

The truth is Science doesn't actually say that. They truly don't know. No one does yet. One thing is for sure when they do figure it out it's not going to be anything anyone expects and it certainly won't be anything any religion has spouted.

Answer 2

No,science doesn't claim any such thing. At least not at this point in time. We simply don't have any evidence one way or the other as to how the universe came into being. What we do have evidence for is how the universe was after the first millisecond of its existence.

However, there are models where time itself began at a particular point (the Big Bang is usually that point). In fact, this is exactly what general relativity says happens. Now, it is quite possible that general relativity is not the whole story, but it is a very good explanation of many things, so should be taken seriously. If it is accurate here, then the universe really did come out of nothing, but not in any way that contradicts the laws of conservation of mass and energy. If time itself began at some point, there was no 'before' to come out of!

There are other models which say, for example, that there was a previous universe that contracted to give the materials for our universe. These models include quantum effects and are possibly more accurate than a 'simple' general relativistic model. Unfortunately, we don't have any hard evidence to test between the different models we have at this time.

I might also suggest that you do some real studying of science and what it says and what its techniques are before saying that the views expressed are 'absurd'. The scientists are quite aware of the conservation laws and their limitations and scope. The early universe was a place where most of our intuitions fail miserably.

Answer 3

NO NO NO. Science does NOT maintain that the universe came out of nothing. Where did you get such an idea? Some particular scientists may say this, but they are talking theology, not science.

Some of the previous answers talk about a "fraction of a second" after the "beginning". I agree. Notice that this "fraction" is very very very small, less than 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 1 seconds.

There is no decent scientific theory about things before this time. The universe was smaller than an atomic nucleus. We do have a good set of equations that show what happened after this time: the Sakharov conditions, the Friedmann models, and Lambda-CDM, for example (you can google them).

Theories such as M-branes and string theories, about what things were like before this fraction of a second, are not really testable (at least so far). They are more like speculations, not real physical theories.

Inflation theory, with it's magical "inflaton" particle, is just barely testable. It covers the period 10^-35 seconds seconds after the "big bang". This may seem like a very small time interval, but it is a long way from being "before" the BB.

Answer 4

Dear Sir:

Apparently you have convinced yourself that any and all possible responses are going to be totally unacceptable to you. I am wondering then if it is worth my time to even respond. I would like for you to consider, however, that in the contemplation of Space, distant Galaxies, Black Holes and even distant Stars, things with which you are familiar as an Earthling (resident of planet Earth) cannot be the yardsticks with which you measure and define things outside of that place.

For instance:

Temperatures within the core of the Sun "far exceed" the temperatures of anything ever examined or created here on Earth. Remember that our Sun is rather small in comparison with other Stars in the Universe. Some are more than 250 times as big. Now, since we have never been able to produce heat of an intensity that is equal to the temperature within the core of the Sun, do we therefore scoff at such calculations and say that is impossible? Probably not.

Further, before making such wild and all encompassing statements as you have made in your question, would it not make more sense to study physics and astronomy to become equally as educated as the PHd's who have suggested their theories after years of research on the subject. If you were to do this research in a serious manner,
possibly you could understand and compare notes with those who suggest such things might happen.

In all respects let me suggest to you that at the moment of the Big Bang, there were no secretaries taking shorthand notes describing the event. There are no written documentaries, no films, and no VHS Tapes. The only thing you will find is mythology from anchient scholars who surmised how things began. If you look hard enough, you will also discover that the anchient scholars defended the right to read and think about these things with a vengance that extended right out to abject cruelty. Read the book Nemesis by Bill Napier to get a taste of this thought control through the ages. The Church fought mighty battles against all manner of educated people through the ages in an effort to maintain the theories of self centered men, and an Earth centered Universe. Only certain ones were chosen to receive educations in reading, writing, and astronomy. Thus the masses were denied the opportunity to consider these things for themselves, and judge the wisdom of others based upon the merit of their various proposals and theories. If you reject all theories out of hand without taking the time to study and walk through all of the supporting documentation, you begin to sound like a guardian of the Church philosophies, and not a student of Astronomy.

Answer 5

If we go back to time zero we enter an era of absolute nothing.
The universe is a finite entity so it had to have a beginning and the beginning had to be at time zero,an era of absolute nothing.
Well when the universe goes out of existence it will enter a state of eternal,absolute nothing.
This said,the beginning absolute nothing had to have a variation.
The difference is that it was not eternal and it contained a potential.
The nothing [with the finite potential] produced a single space-time pulse of minimum size and duration with all the ingredients necessary to evolve into a universe like ours.

Answer 6

As far as I recall, science claims that the universe came from a singularity. Furthermore, cosmologists and theoretical physicists acknowledge that prior to a fraction of a second after the "Big Bang", their current models break down and they can't be sure what preceded. There are many theories that abound but they all start a fraction of a second after the big bang.

Initially, there was pure energy which became dissociated and produced matter: leptons and quarks, etc. And it wasn't until 300,000 years after the big bang that the universe became transparent to light waves. There are alot of site that show timelines:

www.pbs.org/deepspace/timeline

www.thirteen.org/hawking/universes/html/bang.html

www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/my_html/bigbang.html

Answer 7

well no one knows for sure. but right now they don't technically say that it came from nothing.

if you go by the big bang theory, and that the big bang created time, then that 'primeval atom' that exploded in the big bang was always there, because there was no time before the big bang.

and if you believe in super string theory and m-theory then our universe is just one of infinitely many that resulted in the collision of 2 11-dimensional membranes.

so no theory really suggests it came from nothing, either it was always there in some form or another, or it can be traced back to something before it.

Answer 8

If the quantity of capability in the universe have been consistent, we does not see the universe increasing at an accelerating fee. the only way for the universe to get greater at an accelerating fee is that if greater capability is further to the gadget. That capability is darkish capability. to place it a distinctive way, the capability density of the universe is final consistent by using fact the entire quantity of capability is increasing.

Answer 9

No...science (largely via theoretical physics) just claims it can trace the cosmos back to a teensy tiny fraction of a second after the "Big Bang."

But scientists claim that a) Time has a beginning, and B) time is relative.

Which leads to absurd questions like: What is the age of time?

Ultimately science, like philosophy, is a bottomless pit. We simply cannot know truth via these stand-alone methods.

Answer 10

A very good and profound question. Just answering your question from a wider viewpoint:

EITHER you have to accept a first event, which, therefore cannot have a cause (or it wouldn't be the first event).

OR you have to assume that you can go back infinitely in time, and "first" has no meaning;

OR you have to rethink what time itself means.

None of these options is particularly intuitive, but you have to choose one.

If you choose “God”, then instead of “where did everything come from?”, you have to ask “where did God come from?”, which is exactly the same question, just with “everything” renamed as “God”.

Answer 11

There are multiple hypothesis concerning the origin of the Universe. They all suppose that some kind of higher dimensional precondition gave birth to our Universe. We cannot test or observe what this higher dimensional precondition is like or how it generated the Universe.