Anything from Nothing: Uncovering the Possibilities

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter RajeshR
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of "something from nothing," exploring whether anything could emerge from nothing and the implications of such a notion. Participants examine theoretical frameworks, philosophical perspectives, and the limitations of current physical theories regarding the origins of the universe and the nature of "nothingness."

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if something can come from nothing, then theoretically anything could emerge, questioning what limits this possibility.
  • Others argue that physics does not address "something from nothing," focusing instead on transitions between states of existence, such as the early universe from a hot and dense state.
  • A participant mentions modern theories suggesting the universe originates from a false vacuum and inflation, referencing external literature for further exploration.
  • There is a discussion about the anthropic principle and its implications for understanding why the universe has specific constants rather than others.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the meaningfulness of "nothing," suggesting it is more of a philosophical concept than a physical one.
  • Technical details are debated regarding the timing and nature of cosmic inflation, with some participants clarifying that the Big Bang singularity is not universally accepted as an actual event in all models.
  • There is a contention over the use of time versus temperature in cosmological descriptions, with differing opinions on the clarity and utility of these measures.
  • A later reply challenges the validity of the term "nothing," suggesting it is often misused in popular science literature.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views on the nature of "nothing" and the implications of "something from nothing." The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on the definitions or theories presented.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the ambiguity of the term "nothing," the dependence on various cosmological models, and the unresolved nature of the initial conditions of the universe. The discussion also highlights the philosophical dimensions of the topic, which complicate the scientific discourse.

RajeshR
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
If something from nothing is true then "anything" can come from nothing .. What is stopping it ?
For all we know a totally different universe could have come from nothing or a Dragon or Sentient being could have come from nothing.

In short are there any theories to why only "this something" came from nothing. Why not anything else from nothing?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Physics doesn't deal with "something from nothing". It deals with "something" (e.g. something is the present state of the universe) from "something else" (eg. the hot and dense state of the early universe). In other words, physical theories don't deal with creation of something per se.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
RajeshR said:
If something from nothing is true then "anything" can come from nothing .. What is stopping it ?

Where are you getting this idea physics says something comes from nothing?

The modern theories I am aware of says the universe comes the false vacuum and inflation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum

Thanks
Bill
 
bhobba said:
Where are you getting this idea physics says something comes from nothing?
He's probably been reading Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe From Nothing".
 
RajeshR said:
If something from nothing is true then "anything" can come from nothing .. What is stopping it ?
For all we know a totally different universe could have come from nothing or a Dragon or Sentient being could have come from nothing.

In short are there any theories to why only "this something" came from nothing. Why not anything else from nothing?

Since you never clarified, I will assume that you want a "pedestrian" answer to such a question, rather than the deep, mathematical description of the physics behind such a thing.

Coincidentally, a couple of days ago, an article by Ethan Siegel on a simple summary of the scientific meanings of "nothing" was published. I suggest you start your inquiry from there.

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BCHC, Greg Bernhardt and bhobba
ZapperZ said:
a couple of days ago, an article by Ethan Siegel on a simple summary of the scientific meanings of "nothing" was published.

Zz.

Wow, thank you for the link Zz. It made a enjoyable read. It reminded me of Feynman's famous verbal essay on "why" questions.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
anorlunda said:
Wow, thank you for the link Zz. It made a enjoyable read. It reminded me of Feynman's famous verbal essay on "why" questions.

You're welcome. Ethan Siegel has posted on Forbes many other easy-to-read articles for the general public.

Now, the question is whether the OP will actually come back and learn something from all the responses to the question, or is this another post-and-run thing.

Zz.
 
RajeshR said:
If something from nothing is true then "anything" can come from nothing .. What is stopping it ?

The universe could have been evolved much different way than ours. For example, we don't know why the nature constants have these particular values. If they were different the universe would be different.

RajeshR said:
In short are there any theories to why only "this something" came from nothing. Why not anything else from nothing?
We don't know and we can't know.

But you can try to look the situation, from the anthropic principle perspective.

I think nothingness is more of a philosophical idea. It's not something "physical" that we can measure, observe or understand.

bhobba said:
The modern theories I am aware of says the universe comes the false vacuum and inflation.
The inflation is where the universe "comes from"? Or it's just a era in the history of the universe?
 
Arman777 said:
The inflation is where the universe "comes from"? Or it's just a era in the history of the universe?
I'll quote myself

The inflation didn't create the universe" but "it led to creating the universe as we currently know".

Inflation happened ##10^{-35}## second after the Big Bang singularity and we know that singularity doesn't belong to any point in space-time hence I think we can say that in the period between the BBS and cosmic inflation there was a false vacuum. At ##t=10^{-35}## cosmic inflation happened and then we know the rest.
(In here I considered slow roll inflation theory. There are of course other theories for inflation)

Cosmic inflation is just an era in the universe. We can think the universe before the inflation but after the Big Bang singularity.
 
  • #10
Arman777 said:
Inflation happened ##10^{-35}## second after the Big Bang singularity

This is not a good way of putting it, because "the Big Bang singularity" is not an actual event, it's an artifact of a particular model. Which, btw, is not even the inflationary model. Basically, what times like that mean, when they appear in a description of cosmological models, is: take the temperature of the universe at some particular event of interest (in this case, the end of inflation, when reheating is completed); take an idealized FRW model which does not include inflation, and figure out at what time after the initial singularity the universe had that temperature; then give that time as the "time" of the event of interest.

Personally, I would rather that cosmologists just gave temperatures directly, instead of trying to convert them to times using a model that isn't even the right one. But that is the common custom.
 
  • #11
PeterDonis said:
Which, btw, is not even the inflationary model.
What's this means?

I see your point since the reheating happens the temperature of the universe would be the approximately same after and before the inflation.

PeterDonis said:
Personally, I would rather that cosmologists just gave temperatures directly, instead of trying to convert them to times using a model that isn't even the right one. But that is the common custom.

But don't you think we need time or time interval to understand where the inflation started and ended? Since as you said If I just say it happened at ##10^{27}## K there will be confusion about, Is it the end of inflation ? or the beginning of the inflation?
 
  • #12
Arman777 said:
What's this means?

Just what I said, and described in my previous post. The model from which times like ##10^{-35}## second come from is not the actual inflationary model cosmologists are using. It's an idealized non-inflating FRW model. The correspondence between the two models, that is used to get the times cosmologists give, is done using temperature.

The actual inflationary model cosmologists are using doesn't even have an "initial singularity" in it at all. We don't know whether there was such a thing or not; in some inflationary models (the "eternal inflation" ones), the universe has no beginning, it extends infinitely far backward in time. Currently we don't have any way of testing which models are correct, so our current best-fit model makes no commitment on whether there was an initial singularity or not; it simply goes no further back than the beginning of inflation.

Arman777 said:
since the reheating happens the temperature of the universe would be the approximately same after and before the inflation.

I think you mean after and before the reheating? That is not the case: before reheating, there was a huge potential energy stored in the inflaton field, which had zero temperature (it was in a "false vacuum" state). After reheating, all of that energy is now in the Standard Model fields, which are therefore at very high temperature (because there is no "false vacuum" state for them, whatever energy they have is kinetic energy and must show up as temperature, at least under the conditions right after reheating, when all of the SM fields are massless).

Arman777 said:
don't you think we need time or time interval to understand where the inflation started and ended?

If we do, then cosmologists aren't telling us what the actual time or time interval was. See above.

Arman777 said:
If I just say it happened at ##10^{27} K## there will be confusion about, Is it the end of inflation ? or the beginning of the inflation?

The way to fix that is easy: just say which.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Amrator and Arman777
  • #13
I understand it now, thanks!
 
  • #14
You can't even define nothing, so something from nothing is meaningless. Not false, meaningless. Despite this some top physicists still use the term in popular literature. It sells books.
 
  • #15
Does all this really mean that there really never was "nothing". Is the Cosmos a never beginning and never ending existence? Is there any proof to this? Or is everything on this topic speculation?
 
  • #16
Arman777 said:
What's this means?

I see your point since the reheating happens the temperature of the universe would be the approximately same after and before the inflation.

We don't even know whether "before the inflation" existed. I, for one, like eternal inflation models, where most of the Universe is in false vacuum state and inflating all the time, and was inflating in the past for unknown, possibly infinitely long time. True vacuum patches (like ours, containing observable Universe) are actually an exception, a very small fraction of the volume.
 
  • #17
nikkkom said:
We don't even know whether "before the inflation" existed.
Yes, I am aware of that.

PeterDonis said:
The actual inflationary model cosmologists are using doesn't even have an "initial singularity" in it at all. We don't know whether there was such a thing or not; in some inflationary models (the "eternal inflation" ones), the universe has no beginning, it extends infinitely far backward in time.

PeterDonis also said it.
 
  • #18
cave man said:
Does all this really mean that there really never was "nothing". Is the Cosmos a never beginning and never ending existence? Is there any proof to this? Or is everything on this topic speculation?

I think it's just metaphysics.
 
  • #19
AgentSmith said:
You can't even define nothing,
Can we define nothing as an empty set where S={ } ?
 
  • #20
Arman777 said:
Can we define nothing as an empty set where S={ } ?
That's math, not physics.
 
  • #21
phinds said:
That's math, not physics.
Indeed but mathematically we can define.
 
  • #22
Arman777 said:
I think it's just metaphysics.
"Whatever is is and cannot no be". "Matter cannot be created nor destroyed".
But, was it always thus? If entropy will be the end of our universe, will energy always be present?
Can a dimension disappear, while others thrive? I think that metaphysics studies what is, but not what was or will be.
 
  • #23
Arman777 said:
mathematically we can define

Sure, but how do you match up the math to experiments? Suppose we say that the state of the universe is the empty set. What experimental predictions does that translate to?
 
  • #24
Can physics define what was or will be? I think outcomes can known from physics as well as understanding events in the past. But there seems to be a limit to what physics can conclude with certainty. Mathematics has the same restriction. Until verified conclusively as a reality that is observable, neither can present what did happen as well as what will happen if it passes the limits of the possibility of that which is observable. For instance,
the computer chip in cars that regulates data that it is given, as well as sending messages to what it controls, has to be tested and proven reliable after being programed and connected to controls in the car.
 
  • #25
cave man said:
"Matter cannot be created nor destroyed".
Matter is routinely created and destroyed in particle accelerators like the LHC.
 
  • #26
PeterDonis said:
Sure, but how do you match up the math to experiments? Suppose we say that the state of the universe is the empty set. What experimental predictions does that translate to?

Well I can't match up with the experiment...

Also I said earlier that,

Arman777 said:
Can we define nothing as an empty set where S={ } ?

But I find that "The empty set is not the same thing as nothing; rather, it is a set with nothing inside it and a set is always something." which makes sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics) (its a wiki qoute but the idea makes sense)

AgentSmith said:
You can't even define nothing,

You are right.
 
  • #27
cave man said:
... there seems to be a limit to what physics can conclude with certainty. Mathematics has the same restriction.
No, mathematics has no such restriction. As long as it is internally consistent, math is certain.
 
  • #28
Arman777 said:
I can't match up with the experiment

Then it's off topic here. You can discuss set theory in the math forum.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Arman777
  • #29
Am I correct in understanding that subatomic particles come in and out of existence randomly? In that case, is something coming from nothing?
 

Similar threads

High School Conflict between the conservation of matter and the rapid expansion of our universe
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
High School How did the universe come into being?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
High School Nothing, something and the Universe
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
High School The M paradox
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
958
High School What do scientists mean by 'Nothing'?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
High School Did the big bang create something from nothing?
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
High School How can the Observable Universe be a closed system?
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
Undergrad Creating something from 'nothing' in our Universe
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
High School How do the candidates for Dark Energy 'work'?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
High School Big Bang and Infinite Universe
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K