Cosmogenesis .

[sutty27]

After a fashion. Although I think the someone else would be better understood.

What you're referring to is commonly referred to as the multiverse.

Sometimes the meaning of a word drifts away from its etymology.

 

But when someone says the universe started 13 billion years ago it leave me with the question, how can something pop into existence from nothing.

[unbeliever]

But when someone says the universe started 13 billion years ago it leave me with the question, how can something pop into existence from nothing.

 

There's no escaping from that problem.

If you introduce a kind of outer universe or multiverse, how did that come into existence? Likewise if you introduce a creator.

 

The thing about the zero energy universe is that it actually adds up to nothing.

So how can something come from nothing is slightly less of a thing if it in fact adds up to nothing.

It could just be a temporary aberration in the nothingness. This is the hypothesis I find most convincing. It's by no means confirmed yet, but it gets a lot of credit in my head for making a prediction which would have made a bad guess from the data of the time, but turned out to be correct (at least very close to correct).

[sutty27]

There's no escaping from that problem.

If you introduce a kind of outer universe or multiverse, how did that come into existence? Likewise if you introduce a creator.

 

The thing about the zero energy universe is that it actually adds up to nothing.

So how can something come from nothing is slightly less of a thing if it in fact adds up to nothing.

It could just be a temporary aberration in the nothingness. This is the hypothesis I find most convincing. It's by no means confirmed yet, but it gets a lot of credit in my head for making a prediction which would have made a bad guess from the data of the time, but turned out to be correct (at least very close to correct).

 

 

Now we have the problem of how we define nothingness, are we talking about the vacuum of space which is something, or are we talking about non existence not even the vacuum of space, if its the latter how do we even know that nothingness is even possible.

[unbeliever]

Now we have the problem of how we define nothingness, are we talking about the vacuum of space which is something, or are we talking about non existence not even the vacuum of space, if its the latter how do we even know that nothingness is even possible.

 

Very good question. I'm afraid I don't think the answers are available yet.

[sutty27]

Very good question. I'm afraid I don't think the answers are available yet.

 

From my very limited understanding of the subject I think when they say something from nothing, they must mean something from a vacuum.

If that's the case then the vacuum would more than likely be infinite in size and have always existed. Which would mean that what we perceive to be the universe is one of infinite universe some of which died aeons ago.

[unbeliever]

From my very limited understanding of the subject I think when they say something from nothing, they must mean something from a vacuum.

If that's the case then the vacuum would more than likely be infinite in size and have always existed. Which would mean that what we perceive to be the universe is one of infinite universe some of which died aeons ago.

 

As I understand it this vacuum is not quite the same as the usual meaning of vacuum which would be empty space, or perhaps more accurately unoccupied space-time.

[RootsBooster]

"Other", in the absence of a "How the hell should I know? There isn't enough evidence for me to come to a definite conclusion, no matter how likely the theories might be. I'm certainly not going to jump to irrational conclusions about highly unlikely alternatives though." option.

[sutty27]

As I understand it this vacuum is not quite the same as the usual meaning of vacuum which would be empty space, or perhaps more accurately unoccupied space-time.

 

So if we was to say the vacuum that we emerged from is a bowl of water, our universe which consists of emptyish space, matter and energy is all contained within one of the bubbles within that bowl of water. So a vacuum within a vacuum but not part of the original vacuum.

[unbeliever]

So if we was to say the vacuum that we emerged from is a bowl of water, our universe which consists of emptyish space, matter and energy is all contained within one of the bubbles within that bowl of water. So a vacuum within a vacuum but not part of the original vacuum.

 

Sounds about right.

[Obelix]

What you're describing there with the matter/anti-mantter asymmetry is also under heavy experimental investigation. There are a few natural processes where the properties of matter and anti-matter are slightly different. These are being studied heavily and more are being searched for. The provisional conclusion is that matter and anti-matter are imperfect reflections of each other.

The various kinds of astronomy I mentioned combined with particle physics experiments should eventually come together into a deeper fundamental physics model bringing us more insight into such things

 

So are we talking about an observed breaking of CP symmetry here then? I've not kept up on this side of things recently. (I know bout Cronin and Fitch but not any more detailed work than that)