Did the universe ways to make money have a beginning did it arise from nothing

• scientific: one of the fundamental laws of physics is the second ways to make money law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy (a measure of the part of the internal energy of ways to make money a system that is not available to do work and ways to make money make things happen) can never decrease. This means that the universe is “running down”, moving from a state of highly uneven temperature and distribution ways to make money of matter, to a state of being homogeneous. If the universe was infinitely old, the universe would have already reached this stat. The fact that it hasn’t shows that it cannot be infinitely old.

When we use the word “model”, we tend to picture a small scale copy of something ways to make money real. But models of the universe are mathematical and conceptual. In trying to explain the processes going on in the ways to make money universe that led to the situation we now see, physicists have proposed many different models and theorems. There is the standard model of the big bang, and many other models such as the friedman-lemaitre-robertson-walker model, the ekpyrotic model, there are theories of gravity (notably general relativity), the penrose singularity theorem, the borde-guth-vilenkin (BGV) theorem – and much more!

These models and theorems are tested for consistency with known ways to make money data and known laws, and gradually, it is hoped, the truest ones become clearer. But the point is that even experts in some areas ways to make money of cosmology are not fully familiar with some of these ways to make money ideas, so it is folly for a total layperson like me, or many others on the internet, to think we can venture into these matters with any ways to make money confidence.

In another post he reviewed the relevant physics, and said there are 7 different aspects of physics that ways to make money are relevant to this question, and 5 of these point to the universe having a ways to make money beginning, 1 suggests it did not, and one could be interpreted either way. So here he concludes: “we don’t know for sure whether the universe began, but to the extent that our present-day knowledge is an indicator, it probably did.”

Physicist lawrence krauss has written and spoken widely in support ways to make money of the idea that the universe could appear from nothing. In fact, he argues, it seems inevitable that it would. Krauss bases his idea on the fact that in a ways to make money quantum field, particles can appear apparently out of nothing. So, he apparently says (I can’t claim to understand this too well), the universe could appear out of no space and no ways to make money particles because that “nothing” is unstable.

• long before krauss’s book, martin rees cautioned: “cosmologists sometimes claim that the universe can arise ‘from nothing’. But they should watch their language, especially when addressing philosophers. We’ve realised ever since einstein that empty space can have ways to make money a structure such that it can be warped and distorted. Even if shrunk down to a ‘point’, it is latent with particles and forces – still a far richer construct than the philosopher’s ‘nothing’.”

• aron wall analyses three different aways that krauss uses the ways to make money word “nothing”, and argues that none of them are actually nothing. In quantum field theory, a vacuum state has virtual particles (and if it didn’t it would have infinite energy) and space & time geometry. The other two uses of the word are quite speculative ways to make money and don’t mean “nothing” either.

• luke barnes is even more critical, saying that if krauss’s “nothing” has properties, such as being unstable, then it can’t be nothing = not anything – it has to be something to have properties. He says: “the quantum vacuum is a type of something. It has properties. It has energy, it fluctuates, it can cause the expansion of the universe to accelerate, it obeys the (highly non-trivial) equations of quantum field theory. We can describe it. We can calculate, predict and falsify its properties. The quantum vacuum is not nothing.”

Even if we could regard the quantum vacuum that supposedly ways to make money began the universe as “nothing”, krauss’s proposal still requires the laws of physics to exist ways to make money and to control the spontaneous appearance of the universe out ways to make money of nothing, and krauss’s ideas don’t explain where these laws came from, and why they can be considered “nothing”. Almost all commentators criticise krauss’s ideas on these grounds:

Alex vilenkin, in the article I quoted earlier, also addresses the question of a universe from nothing. He discusses a quantum creation, a “speculative hypothesis” that may not be able to be tested observationally, but which might allow a universe to arise from nothing: “there is nothing to prevent such a universe from being ways to make money spontaneously created out of nothing”.

Very little of the discussion I have seen on the ways to make money beginning of the universe and its appearance out of nothing, has discussed how the multiverse hypothesis changes things. If there is a multiverse, then before the big bang there was certainly something. But of course we can then ask how did the ways to make money multiverse arise out of nothing, and we are left with the same philosophical question, but with virtually no established science to guide us. So where have we ended up?

It seems that the first premise of the kalam (whatever begins to exist has a cause) is made a little more doubtful by modern cosmology, though the kalam can probably be rescued if we expand ways to make money the premise to something like; “whatever begins to exist has a cause external to itself ways to make money or arises out of something external to itself”, or perhaps “nothing can come into existence out of nothing.”

I personally think aron’s conclusion on these two arguments is a little too ways to make money negative. I think there are still philosophical and mathematical arguments against ways to make money an eternal universe, and scientific arguments against the universe appearing out of nothing. I think the science that throws doubt on the kalam ways to make money is often highly speculative. And I think, in the end, the kalam makes common sense. (and I think the fine-tuning argument is very strong – but that’s another story.)