Stabilizing the no-boundary proposal sheds light on the universe's quantum origins

Stabilizing the no-boundary proposal sheds light on the universe’s quantum origins
The orange dashed line shows that the path integral, which describes the state of the universe over time, passes through only one saddle point, which is stable. Credit: Di Tucci and Lehners. ©2019 American Physical Society

One idea for how the universe began is that the universe may have appeared out of nothing due to some quantum effect, such as quantum tunneling. In the 1980s, Stephen Hawking and James Hartle further elaborated on this idea by suggesting that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe, leading them to conclude that the universe has no initial boundary conditions on either time or space. The idea is called the "no-boundary proposal" or the "Hawking-Hartle state."

However, precisely describing how a physical system can transition from zero size to a finite size has been challenging. To describe the quantum effects involved, physicists use the path integral formulation, which involves rewriting a single classical trajectory as an integral over many possible trajectories, resulting in a quantum amplitude.

Although the path integral formulation is successful at describing how something can emerge from nothing, one major problem is that it predicts unstable perturbations, implying that the universe is highly non-homogenous and non-isotropic. As the universe is known to be approximately both homogenous and isotropic (meaning that it looks the same in all locations and from all directions), as stated by the cosmological principle, the path integral formulation doesn't accurately describe the observed universe. This has led some scientists to conclude that the no-boundary proposal cannot provide an accurate description of the universe's origins.

Now in a new paper, physicists Alice Di Tucci and Jean-Luc Lehners at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute) in Potsdam, Germany, have shown that the path integral formulation can be used in a way that avoids instabilities, while still providing a consistent definition of the no-boundary proposal.

"I think that the biggest significance is that our new definition does not describe the emergence of the universe from a complete absence of space and time," Lehners told Phys.org. "Rather, the new mathematical conditions, that we had to impose to avoid instabilities, can be interpreted as saying that there existed already fluctuations of space and time. This is in fact what one might expect from in any case, as the quantum uncertainty principle implies that there should always be fluctuations, presumably even of space and time."

The new proposal combines several ideas that have previously been suggested to overcome the problem with instabilities. Their work essentially changes the geometry of the space over which the path integral is defined. The path integral, which represents the state of the universe at a certain time, passes through certain critical points called saddle points, which correspond to possible Hawking-Hartle states.

However, most of these saddle points are unstable. One of the most important changes the physicists made in the new paper was to modify the on the entire geometry (by using Robin boundary conditions) to remove the unstable saddle points from the path of the path integral. In the new geometry, the path integral passes through only one saddle point, which is stable, therefore avoiding the problem with instabilities. At this stable saddle point, there exists a Hawking-Hartle state that satisfies the no-boundary proposal.

By demonstrating a stable method for formulating the no-boundary proposal, the results may lead to a rethinking of the idea as a description for the origins of the . Still, there are many questions that remain.

"In the future we plan to see how robust our new definition is when incorporating aspects from string theory, which is the most advanced attempt at a full theory of gravity," Lehners said. "Also, we plan to explore whether other stable definitions of the no-boundary proposal might exist, or whether our new one is in some sense unique. And a big question that remains is whether we could deduce any testable/observable consequences."


Explore further

No Universe without Big Bang

More information: Alice Di Tucci and Jean-Luc Lehners. "No-Boundary Proposal as a Path Integral with Robin Boundary Conditions." Physical Review Letters. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.201302
Journal information: Physical Review Letters

© 2019 Science X Network

Citation: Stabilizing the no-boundary proposal sheds light on the universe's quantum origins (2019, May 30) retrieved 25 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-05-stabilizing-no-boundary-universe-quantum.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1600 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

May 30, 2019
"In the future we plan to see how robust our new definition is when incorporating aspects from string theory..."

Add robustness by
"incorporating"
"aspects"
of
"string-theory"

Or at least 'A string-theory'. Whichever version du jour adds more robustosityness.

May 30, 2019
Maybe this is how it worked. But now that we are perfectly happy with eternal inflation as a quantum field (its potential in Planck 2018 looks like a hat-like Higgs field potential) that is a simpler realization of "there has always been a field, so no boundary necessary".

Linde notes that if you look at the cosmology the set of geodesics in inflation can always be extended further back. But the question is if there are any geodesics that gives you the energy problems that Guth et al describes!? An expanding universe would eventually dilute test particles so that you are unlikely to be able to observe innate geodesics. (Before you run into a cosmological measure problem as the probability goes towards zero, showing more inconsistency of Guth's proposal.)

And in a lowest energy slow roll inflation field the empty vacuum field will never approach Planck energies by way of geodesics. The field energy is defined as zero, and it is a backward eternal state with no finite time boundary.

May 30, 2019
That I note is that Guth has talked about the cosmological scale effect on test particles, single or in pairs, used to define geodesics and how that leads to Planck energies as you track any particle(s) back a finite amount of time.

But that is not a cosmology with scaled spatial volumes. The single particle is not even considering a volume. And the test pair does not describe what happens when you see observable volumes in the far future - likely they are empty.

In fact, our own universe Hot Big Bang shows the problem when you track test particles back. The HBB was not at Planck energies but was caused by a perfectly cold and likely empty (but high potential energy) inflation field. So the geodesic test has to start over, and it is the generic question that remains - do we eventually see a singularity?

In an adiabatically cooled slow roll inflation process we should not see it, so we should have no finite time boundary. The question is how to test these (conflicting) hypotheses.

May 30, 2019
Thinking on it, seems to me Linde's hypothesis and mine works out to the same physically, if you chose volumes randomly you get indefinite length geodesics among them. He goes with them, I follow the other volumes, both should work.

May 30, 2019
Of course there are boundaries! We just can't see them because the energy levels are too high at the point that everything is obliterated into quarks.

May 30, 2019
"One idea for how the universe began is that the universe may have appeared out of nothing due to some quantum effect, such as quantum tunneling."

That is Ridiculous. How and where did this 'quantum effect' and 'quantum tunneling' just happen to exist if there had been "Nothing" in which that Quantum Effect could have already existed.
The "Nothing" would not have had the particles and sub-particles that could produce Matter/Energy since it was allegedly a "NOTHING".
Only Fools believe that something can be created out of nothing. Matter/Energy are created out of existing particles and sub-particles down to the smallest possible nameless and as yet unnamed particle that has yet to be discovered. These had all been created first in order that the subsequent creations could occur from the lowest levels to the highest.
-contd-


May 30, 2019
"In the 1980s, Stephen Hawking and James Hartle further elaborated on this idea by suggesting that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe, leading them to conclude that the universe has no initial boundary conditions on either time or space."

"Time" never existed and still doesn't. It is only a concept invented by the human mind to describe a continuous or simultaneous series of Events/Actions and the measurements of their Duration. It is called 'Time' only as a Descriptor. Only the Events/Actions and the measurements of their Durations are Real. Their Durations are measured by a clock/timepiece to keep pace with the transformations described by clocks as hours, minutes, seconds and microseconds.
-contd-

May 30, 2019
''Now in a new paper, physicists Alice Di Tucci and Jean-Luc Lehners at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute) in Potsdam, Germany, have shown that the path integral formulation can be used in a way that avoids instabilities, while still providing a consistent definition of the no-boundary proposal.

"I think that the biggest significance is that our new definition does not describe the emergence of the universe from a complete absence of space and time," Lehners told Phys.org. "Rather, the new mathematical conditions, that we had to impose to avoid instabilities, can be interpreted as saying that there existed already fluctuations of space and time."


Sad that they had to 'impose' their new math conditions (aka manipulations) to avoid the instabilities that would still have remained in their calculations if they hadn't manipulated the math, etc.
But, at least they admit that Space had to have existed already.
"Time" never existed.

May 30, 2019
HOW THE UNIVERSE BEGAN - BY JAMES HARTLE

The Hawking-Hartle State
one idea for how the universe began
is that the universe may have appeared out of nothing
due to some quantum effect
such as quantum tunnelling
In the 1980s,
Stephen Hawking and James Hartle
further elaborated on this idea
by suggesting
that time did not exist
before the beginning of the universe
leading them to conclude
that the universe has no initial boundary conditions
on either time or space
The idea is called
the No-Boundary Proposal
or
The Hawking-Hartle State

p.s. SEU, did you not spot this whole point, James Hartles moment of fame and possibly a Nobel prize

May 30, 2019
If we believe that our World has started sometimes ago we are still in the position to decide which hypothesis, Lemaître's or Gamow's was closer to reality. There is an opinion that the problems in the standard cosmology could be solved by adjusting of details. Our suggestion is that we have to go back to the conceptions and use the observations accumulated since.
https://www.acade...osmology

May 30, 2019
The universe began when GOD said "Let there be light." You science folks should realize that light is a big part of our universe, and it's not limited to the visible spectrum.

Science is our best attempt at describing GOD's universe.

You CAN appreciate both.

They don't have to exclude each other.

May 30, 2019
HOW THE UNIVERSE BEGAN - BY JAMES HARTLE

The Hawking-Hartle State
one idea for how the universe began
is that the universe may have appeared out of nothing
due to some quantum effect
such as quantum tunnelling
In the 1980s,
Stephen Hawking and James Hartle
further elaborated on this idea
by suggesting
that time did not exist
before the beginning of the universe
leading them to conclude
that the universe has no initial boundary conditions
on either time or space
The idea is called
the No-Boundary Proposal
or
The Hawking-Hartle State

p.s. SEU, did you not spot this whole point, James Hartles moment of fame and possibly a Nobel prize
says granville

Yes. Indubitably. Yet another candidate for his 15 minutes of fame. Although Poor Sir Stephen will not be present to accept any award, for his reward is in another Realm, that Realm of which he was less inclined to take into account in his lifetime, preferring to obfuscate the Truth of the matter.

May 30, 2019
The universe began when GOD said "Let there be light." You science folks should realize that light is a big part of our universe, and it's not limited to the visible spectrum.

Science is our best attempt at describing GOD's universe.

You CAN appreciate both.

They don't have to exclude each other.
says Herculease

The Creator God IS SCIENCE - the origins of Science is within the Creator God. There are NO OTHER Gods and there never were. The evil one is slowly finding that out.
Enough said. We must abide by the TERMS of this website.

May 30, 2019
HOW THE UNIVERSE BEGAN - BY JAMES HARTLE

SEU, James Hartle appears to be trying to define before the beginning
Also Stephen Hawking made it difficult for himself to put words to speech and print on digital screens
And not for want of trying
Cambridge Science Park
Was inundating him with the latest high tech
Instead he always ended up sticking with his outdated tech

May 30, 2019
One should defer to the information provided by BEAM aka Billy Eduard Albert Meier for detailed descriptions of how and when this universe began, and it's coming contraction and future iterations.

May 30, 2019
Thinking on it, seems to me Linde's hypothesis and mine works out to the same physically, if you chose volumes randomly you get indefinite length geodesics among them. He goes with them, I follow the other volumes, both should work.

If one postulates that those "volumes" are in motion, it would facilitate the fluctuation aspect of space/time. In synchronized motion, would make it even better... :-)

May 30, 2019
...
... The evil one is slowly finding that out.

There is no "evil one" except in the human mind. Your "evil one" is only a result of human ignorance and refusal to accept the dance as the Universe presents it.

May 31, 2019
...
... The evil one is slowly finding that out.

There is no "evil one" except in the human mind. Your "evil one" is only a result of human ignorance and refusal to accept the dance as the Universe presents it.
says Whyde

Human ignorance is not a direct result of evil. Ignorance is a result of the human ability to remove oneself from understanding the results of what the evil one is capable of doing TO humanity. The 'evil one' doesn't do religion per se. Although certain religions/cults do worship evil and its personification in spirit or in the flesh. He depends on those like YOU, who are eager to profess his nonexistence and his being a product of the human mind. He existed long before the advent of the human animal and its decision to negate the evil one. His demons infect the minds of the weak-willed who also deny his existence. He collects those minds/bodies/souls. One of his demons may have infected YOUR mind already. Keep on denying him.

May 31, 2019
HOW THE UNIVERSE BEGAN - BY JAMES HARTLE

SEU, James Hartle appears to be trying to define before the beginning
Also Stephen Hawking made it difficult for himself to put words to speech and print on digital screens
And not for want of trying
Cambridge Science Park
Was inundating him with the latest high tech
Instead he always ended up sticking with his outdated tech
says granville

Perhaps Sir Stephen (CBE bestowed upon him by the crown, IIRC) was most comfortable mentally with that which he was already familiar. While I disagreed with his and Einstein's preference for the SpaceTime position, i loved the fruits of his mind otherwise and I do miss him.

May 31, 2019
One should defer to the information provided by BEAM aka Billy Eduard Albert Meier for detailed descriptions of how and when this universe began, and it's coming contraction and future iterations.
says doogsnova

Billy Meier has no knowledge of the far future or distant past events. Pretty words are meaningless. I do hope that you haven't been monetarily contributing to his cause.

May 31, 2019
One idea for how the universe began is that the universe may have appeared out of nothing due to ...

Stop right there! That's a nonsense idea! Saying/implying something was caused by "nothing" is always just pure nonsense. Of course saying/implying a stupid Goddidit is no better as that also explains nothing as you can say without evidence Goddidit to anything and what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

May 31, 2019
One idea for how the universe began is that the universe may have appeared out of nothing due to ...

Stop right there! That's a nonsense idea! Saying/implying something was caused by "nothing" is always just pure nonsense. Of course saying/implying a stupid Goddidit is no better as that also explains nothing as you can say without evidence Goddidit to anything and what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
says humy

Although I have the creditable evidence for my assertions, I also have no intention whatsoever to reveal what I know for a fact, for if I revealed my knowledge to you, it would only become a circular argument with nothing being accomplished or gained. You would only settle even more firmly into YOUR position and I in mine. So let us just agree to disagree since I am not allowed to try to convince you to change your mind in any case. You may believe what you prefer to believe. It is not my problem.

May 31, 2019
So let us just agree to disagree
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

About what?
That it is nonsense that something was caused by "nothing"?
Or that Goddidit explains nothing?
Or what exactly?

You may believe what you prefer to believe.
No, I don't. I always base whatever I believe purely on the evidence and/or reasoning and not on what I want to be true (else what I would believe would often be very different!).
And, at least if there being a god means there is an afterlife, I WANT there to be a god! This doesn't change the fact that Goddidit explains nothing which is part of the reason (the other reason being Occam's razor) why I believe there is no god or gods despite generally wanting to believe there is.
I hate the idea of one delude oneself into thinking reality is something other than what it is.

May 31, 2019
Pure unadulterated snake oil!

May 31, 2019
The universe began when GOD said "Let there be light." You science folks should realize that light is a big part of our universe, and it's not limited to the visible spectrum.

Science is our best attempt at describing GOD's universe.

You CAN appreciate both.

They don't have to exclude each other.
says Herculease

The Creator God IS SCIENCE - the origins of Science is within the Creator God. There are NO OTHER Gods and there never were. The evil one is slowly finding that out.
Enough said. We must abide by the TERMS of this website.


That's a first from you.

May 31, 2019
The Hawking-Hartle State

One idea for how the universe began
is that the universe may have appeared out of nothing
due to some quantum effect
Such as quantum tunnelling

The Cat in the Hat and his Invisible Cat
this interesting
this quantum tunnel
to this world of nothing
this tunnel to this none existent world
this tunnel to nowhere
because
just like the cat
in the hat
of the cat
in the hat
this cat so small
to small to see
wipes clean
the cat ring
that it is no longer be seen
as
this theory of the cat in the hat and his invisible cat
could equally apply
to a tunnel
A quantum tunnel so small to an invisible world

May 31, 2019
Quantum tunnels in time and space

To this nitty-gritty
what is this world
this quantum tunnel
tunnels to
for as we live in this quantum world
as we see these effects
these atoms effect our world
as that flash of light
a single photon
on our retina exerts
as our retina
sees individual photons
as
an individual photon
is smaller than a quantum world
because
this quantum world, this quantum tunnel
is this nano world, is 10-9m
whereas this photon world, is 10-11m
both worlds our retinas actually see
so
What is this invisible Quantum Tunnel of which James Hartle Speaks?
for
our retinas actually see these photons
Emerging from this quantum world that we can actually see

May 31, 2019
@granville, this one's for you: a particularly appropriate little poem, given the subject of above article, hey?

Titled...

THE UNIVERSE,
THE WHOLE UNIVERSE
& NOTHING BUT THE UNIVERSE

Poem Text...

No matter the Mobius trips you make
No matter the Wormhole shortcuts you
No matter what Space you try to traverse
No matter how fast you travel or curse
You'll always just be swanning around
The Infinite lake of Universe found.

By.......s.f.

May 31, 2019
Why do people take up the challenge "How did the Universe begin."

Stop doing that. It is a self-devouring koan.

There is no alternative to existence.

May 31, 2019
So let us just agree to disagree
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

About what?
That it is nonsense that something was caused by "nothing"?
Or that Goddidit explains nothing?
Or what exactly?

You may believe what you prefer to believe.
No, I don't. I always base whatever I believe purely on the evidence and/or reasoning and not on what I want to be true (else what I would believe would often be very different!).
And, at least if there being a god means there is an afterlife, I WANT there to be a god! This doesn't change the fact that Goddidit explains nothing which is part of the reason (the other reason being Occam's razor) why I believe there is no god or gods despite generally wanting to believe there is.
I hate the idea of one delude oneself into thinking reality is something other than what it is.
says humy

Then you are free to believe, based on whatever evidence is available. I have no such quandary, and I am better off for it, as well.

May 31, 2019
The universe began when GOD said "Let there be light." You science folks should realize that light is a big part of our universe, and it's not limited to the visible spectrum.

Science is our best attempt at describing GOD's universe.

You CAN appreciate both.

They don't have to exclude each other.
says Herculease

The Creator God IS SCIENCE - the origins of Science is within the Creator God. There are NO OTHER Gods and there never were. The evil one is slowly finding that out.
Enough said. We must abide by the TERMS of this website.


That's a first from you.
says observ

In case you hadn't noticed, the title partially mentions 'universe's quantum origins' that seems to be an expression of a preference for the Universe's origin from a 'nothing'. Nothing emanates/originates from nothing. A 'nothing' is not possible, particularly in a Universe where there is plenty of evidence of 'something'. Those who wish to delude themselves may do so.

May 31, 2019
@granville, this one's for you: a particularly appropriate little poem, given the subject of above article, hey?

Titled...

THE UNIVERSE,
THE WHOLE UNIVERSE
& NOTHING BUT THE UNIVERSE

Poem Text...

No matter the Mobius trips you make
No matter the Wormhole shortcuts you
No matter what Space you try to traverse
No matter how fast you travel or curse
You'll always just be swanning around
The Infinite lake of Universe found.

By.......s.f.
says RC

uhhh Don't quit your daytime job, RC. Your attempt at poetry sucks, as they say in Brownsville.
:)

Jun 01, 2019
@S_E_U.
@granville, this one's for you: a particularly appropriate little poem, given the subject of above article, hey?

Titled...

THE UNIVERSE,
THE WHOLE UNIVERSE
& NOTHING BUT THE UNIVERSE

Poem Text...

No matter the Mobius trips you make
No matter the Wormhole shortcuts you
No matter what Space you try to traverse
No matter how fast you travel or curse
You'll always just be swanning around
The Infinite lake of Universe found.

By.......s.f.
says RC

uhhh Don't quit your daytime job, RC. Your attempt at poetry sucks, as they say in Brownsville.
:)
Hehe, it was just a playful little ditty implying infinity of universal energy-space; and nothing before/outside existing other than that infinity, that's all. I wasn't planning to "give up my day job" on the strength of that whimsical foray. Take it as it comes.

I'm sure @granville will understand.

ps: Have you a better poem/prose to express the same observation, @S_E_U? If so: give! :)

Jun 01, 2019
Then you are free to believe, based on whatever evidence is available. I have no such quandary, ...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

That's the same as saying rather than base what you believe on evidence and/or reason, you delude yourself into believing whatever you want to believe.
I choose to not believing whatever I want to believe but rather base what I believe purely on evidence and/or reason.
I recommend being rational rather than being deluded.

..and I am better off for it, as well
No, being deluded and way out of it doesn't make you "better off". It, at least intrinsically, makes you worse off.

Jun 01, 2019
In Honour of Stephen William Hawking
for his ashes scattered in Abbey's nave alongside Sir Isaac Newton
We have

The Hawking-Hartle State

This Only Vacuum
This infinite vacuous vacuum
We call space
We call home
We call our universe
That is occupied
By protons, electrons neutrinos
Electric magnetic gravitational nuclear fields
This realisation
This vacuum
Hath no beginning and no end
For when this priest says
Dust to dust ashes to ashes
This is
The fact all particles in this vacuum
Are created pristine protons electrons neutrinos anew
Every time particles decay in this vacuum
For in this infinite vacuous vacuum
Energy is matter as matter is energy
Neither can be destroyed
Only converted between energy and matter
For when this priest states dust to dust
This priest describes pristine particles born anew
Occupying this infinite vacuous vacuum
This vacuum
This space
This universe
This only vacuum
This eternal infinite vacuous vacuum without beginning or end


Jun 01, 2019
Sorry!
Science and bad poetry don't mix!

Jun 01, 2019
Humy, The Hawking-Hartle State
humy> Sorry!
Science and bad poetry don't mix!

Concerning this no-boundary proposal, humy
This thingy in what we exist
This no-boundary proposal, that the universe may have appeared out of nothing
Were discussing this sciencey thingy, this vacuum that was here before our universe
You know, humy
This vacuumy thingy that you cannot have half a vacuum of
That does not have a beginning or end and stretches for infinity
That Stephen William Hawking's Hawking-Hartle State
Describes as - no-boundary proposal -, humy
For humy, Stephen William Hawking
Could be discussing this vacuum
This infinite vacuous vacuum has no boundaries
For humy, in this Science and bad poetry don't mix!
Granville has included this - no-boundary proposal -

Jun 01, 2019
Then you are free to believe, based on whatever evidence is available. I have no such quandary, ...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

That's the same as saying rather than base what you believe on evidence and/or reason, you delude yourself into believing whatever you want to believe.
I choose to not believing whatever I want to believe but rather base what I believe purely on evidence and/or reason.
I recommend being rational rather than being deluded.

..and I am better off for it, as well
No, being deluded and way out of it doesn't make you "better off". It, at least intrinsically, makes you worse off.
says humy

MY evidences are not your evidences, simply due to the fact that MY "experiences" largely differ from yours. Unless you have walked in MY shoes, there is no way that you could possibly understand or accept the things that I KNOW to be true. I don't do delusions, only factual evidence steeped in Reality. Try to accept that much.

Jun 01, 2019
@S_E_U.

You said to @humy:
MY evidences are not your evidences, simply due to the fact that MY "experiences" largely differ from yours. Unless you have walked in MY shoes, there is no way that you could possibly understand or accept the things that I KNOW to be true. I don't do delusions, only factual evidence steeped in Reality. Try to accept that much.
It's timely that I pointed out the reason WHY the Objective Scientific Method was invented. It was invented precisely to EXCLUDE from consideration one's "subjective personal experiences/beliefs", no matter how strongly one thinks "they are true/fact".

The whole point of OBJECTIVE knowledge base is to make ANYONE's results REPRODUCIBLE so that ANYONE ELSE, by their own 'reproduced' experiment/testing, may TEST the VALIDITY (or not) in REALITY of YOUR claims. Only after such tests can one claim that one's claims/beliefs about the subject matter are OBJECTIVELY "true" in reality.

Try not to conflate belief and science. :)

Jun 01, 2019
@S_E_U.
@granville, this one's for you: a particularly appropriate little poem, given the subject of above article, hey?

Titled...

THE UNIVERSE,
THE WHOLE UNIVERSE
& NOTHING BUT THE UNIVERSE

Poem Text...

By.......s.f.
says RC

uhhh Don't quit your daytime job, RC. Your attempt at poetry sucks, as they say in Brownsville.
:)
Hehe, it was just a playful little ditty implying infinity of universal energy-space; and nothing before/outside existing other than that infinity, that's all.

ps: Have you a better poem/prose to express the same observation, @S_E_U? If so: give! :)

says RC

I have several. But I like this best:

"So as through a glass and darkly, the age long strife I see, where I fought in many guises, many names — but always me."
— General George S. Patton

General Patton was also a historian

Jun 01, 2019
And another favourite:

High Flight
"Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
of sun-split clouds, — and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of — wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there,
I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air....
Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue
I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace.
Where never lark, or even eagle flew —
And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand, and touched the face of God."
— John Gillespie Magee Jr., an American in the Royal Canadian Air Force
, Died Age 19 in 1941

Jun 01, 2019
Of course there are boundaries!

They are not talking about boundaries. They are talking about boundary conditions - which is an entirely different concept.

Why do people take up the challenge "How did the Universe begin."

Because it seems like an interesting question.

However, as the article quite rightly notes, it is likely a meaningless question, because it incorporates a human bias that does not hold in reality.
That bias being: that the concept of time is always applicable

As humans we have always just experienced linear/unchanging time - and thereby many have assumed that this is a universal truism. At the latest with Einstein that idea went onto the garbage heap of history.

Jun 01, 2019
@antialias_physorg
@grandpa.

@grandpa said:
Of course there are boundaries! We just can't see them because the energy levels are too high at the point that everything is obliterated into quarks.

@antialias_physorg responded to @grandpa:
They are not talking about boundaries. They are talking about boundary conditions - which is an entirely different concept.

@antialias_physorg, if you have the time, I'm sure @grandpa (and all those here not au fait with it) would appreciate it greatly if you were to succinctly point out the difference for his/their benefit. Thanks.

Jun 01, 2019
@S_E_U.

You said to @humy:
MY evidences are not your evidences, simply due to the fact that MY "experiences" largely differ from yours. Unless you have walked in MY shoes, there is no way that you could possibly understand or accept the things that I KNOW to be true. I don't do delusions, only factual evidence steeped in Reality.
It's timely that I pointed out...to EXCLUDE from consideration one's "subjective personal experiences/beliefs", no matter how strongly one thinks "they are true/fact".

The whole point of OBJECTIVE knowledge base is to make ANYONE's results REPRODUCIBLE so that ANYONE ELSE, by their own 'reproduced' experiment/testing, may TEST the VALIDITY (or not) in REALITY of YOUR claims. Only after such tests can one claim that one's claims/beliefs about the subject matter are OBJECTIVELY "true" in reality. :)
says RC

In that case, RC, DaSchneibo's calling you a LIAR is objective knowledge since the accusations are reproducible. Is that right?

Jun 01, 2019
@S_E_U.
It's timely I pointed out the reason WHY the Objective Scientific Method was invented. It was invented precisely to EXCLUDE from consideration one's "subjective personal experiences/beliefs", no matter how strongly one thinks "they are true/fact".

The whole point of OBJECTIVE knowledge base is to make ANYONE's results REPRODUCIBLE so that ANYONE ELSE, by their own 'reproduced' experiment/testing, may TEST the VALIDITY (or not) in REALITY of YOUR claims. Only after such tests can one claim that one's claims/beliefs about the subject matter are OBJECTIVELY "true" in reality.

Try not to conflate belief and science.
In that case, RC, DaSchneibo's calling you a LIAR is objective knowledge since the accusations are reproducible....
His SUBJECTIVE 'accusations' (ie CLAIMS) are TESTED by experiment (reference to OBJECTIVE RECORD). Since objective record does NOT support his claims (accusations), then his claims are OBJECTIVELY FALSIFIED, NOT 'reproducible'. :)

Jun 02, 2019
MY evidences are not your evidences, simply due to the fact that MY "experiences" largely differ from yours.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

Let me guess; Your "experiences", which you equate with being "evidence", include hearing voices in you head that say things like "God exists" and "Goddidit" and "Go and sacrifice a nice plump goat" and "The scientists are wrong and you Surveillance_Egg_Unit know things those damn scientists don't and especially about the origins of the universe"?

Jun 02, 2019
MY evidences are not your evidences, simply due to the fact that MY "experiences" largely differ from yours.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

Let me guess; Your "experiences", which you equate with being "evidence", include hearing voices in you head that say things like "God exists" and "Goddidit" and "Go and sacrifice a nice plump goat" and "The scientists are wrong and you Surveillance_Egg_Unit know things those damn scientists don't and especially about the origins of the universe"?
You dont know what you're interacting with. This piece of shit has been coming back here for a number of years under various sockpuppets with the sole purpose of vandalizing this site and abusing its participants.

Turn it off, do not turn it back on. But if you cannot resist engaging with it, make fun of it in the crudest manner possible and do not attempt to discuss any topic with it in good faith.

Jun 02, 2019
This no-boundary proposal

This boundary value problem
Arise in several branches of physics
As any physical differential equation will have them
Problems involving the wave equation
Such as the determination of normal modes,
Are often stated as boundary value problems
A large class of important boundary value problems
Are the Sturm–Liouville problems
The analysis of these problems involves the Eigen functions of a differential operator
https://en.wikipe..._problem

Can you conjure this beginning, this universe beginning, that you can encapsulate
This before this beginning
In a differential equation
A wave equation
An Eigen functions

For if we can encapsulate this before this beginning
In a differential equation

Meaneths
This hand of god
This hand that was here
Before anyone else
Meaneths
A differential equation defines this hand of god
We have
This Equation of God

Jun 02, 2019
MY evidences are not your evidences, simply due to the fact that MY "experiences" largely differ from yours.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

Let me guess; Your "experiences", which you equate with being "evidence", include hearing voices in you head that say things like "God exists" and "Goddidit" and "Go and sacrifice a nice plump goat" and "The scientists are wrong and you Surveillance_Egg_Unit know things those damn scientists don't and especially about the origins of the universe"?
says humy

Ahhh humy humy humy - WHERE did you EVER read me saying that I "hear voices" in my head? You are imagining things, humy. Other than my belief that "God exists", kindly copy and paste where I have said any of those other things that you have chosen to tell lies about. Links, please.
I think that you just MAY be on your way to a mental breakdown, similar to SpookyOtto1923's mental conditions. Are you aware of Otto's past and present use of his sock puppet menagerie?

Jun 15, 2019
The boundary of our Block Eternalist Universe is not subject to a continuous variation of analog properties. Time is a discontinuous function while space appears to be continuous so that early attempts to produce a quantum theory of spacetime through quantizing space failed. Time is only a series of event induced "stationary local snapshots" inside the Block composed of linked entangled quanta whose functional indeterminacy provides the evolving space where these "snapshots" now exist (The Universe). Time itself is happening in a "quantized Block space"... in a quantum superposition of states... every possibility and every possible outcome bounded above by the finite dynamic number set of quanta inside our Universe which is fixed to about 10^80 qubits. After that initial creation of space filling particle states, quantum events (as quantum information) continue to alter the "empty" component of space without a change in the overall particle state hence continued Universal Expansion.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more