B Creating Universe from "Nothing": Astrophysicists Debate

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter Adamchiv
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Astrophysicists debated the concept of how a universe can emerge from "nothing," with Lawrence Krauss's interpretation of "nothing" being a focal point of contention. The discussion highlighted that true nothingness, defined as the absolute absence of everything, is difficult to conceptualize and may not align with scientific understanding. Participants argued that if anything triggered the universe's inception, then the notion of nothing becomes invalid. The conversation also touched on the implications for both scientific and theological perspectives, suggesting that the idea of nothing might be a logical fallacy. Ultimately, the thread was closed due to its philosophical nature, indicating a preference for more empirical discussions.
Adamchiv
Messages
48
Reaction score
9
Please forgive me if this is just philosophy. I was watching an event where niel degrasse tyson invited several other astrophysicists to debate about how a universe can come from nothing.

Now obviously lawrence krauss uses the word nothing in an ambiguous way and can easily be misinterperated. So these astrophysicists were all giving various definitions of nothing and what occurred to me is they didnt really touch upon the true definition of nothing. Which is absolutely nothing, nothing whatsoever, can't even be visualised, the abscense of everything at all ever.

Now surely from a scientific standpoint we cannot even have an ounce of confidence that there was ever nothing at all, on a very basic level if anything was ever the triggering factor for the beginning of time then nothing is a complete falsehood.

By the way, this works just the same for creationists as if god started the universe then of course there was something and not nothing. In fact, and again this may be unscientific, nothing cannot even be a try thing, it destroys it ever taking place in any point of time/space/other dimension, by its very definition.

So do you think that the idea of nothing is maybe brought up too much and is a logical falsehood that should be moved away from by both scientists and theists?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
A total vacuum free of any kind of matter is one kind of 'nothing' which can in theory exist.
However that emptiness still would have fields present; gravity, electromagnetism, quantum fields.
 
rootone said:
A total vacuum free of any kind of matter is one kind of 'nothing' which can in theory exist.
However that emptiness still would have fields present; gravity, electromagnetism, quantum fields.

I totally accept that as a very good starting point as to working out how the universe came to be. It isn't nothing by definition though, I still don't think that by definition, nothing is a possible scenario
 
Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...
 
Sorry, thread is too philosophical, so will remain closed.
 
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Today at about 4:30 am I saw the conjunction of Venus and Jupiter, where they were about the width of the full moon, or one half degree apart. Did anyone else see it? Edit: The moon is 2,200 miles in diameter and at a distance of 240,000 miles. Thereby it subtends an angle in radians of 2,200/240,000=.01 (approximately). With pi radians being 180 degrees, one radian is 57.3 degrees, so that .01 radians is about .50 degrees (angle subtended by the moon). (.57 to be more exact, but with...
Back
Top