Did the Universe truly form out of nothing?

[IcedEcliptic]

you have to read carefully...
Mr. Smart Aleck... ...lol...


Read

I'm confused, it seems like you are saying that from nothing there can be nothing. Nothing is an infinity, and how do you grasp this? Nothing is an unimaginable as infinite something, so which is more absurd to our minds? Something from something that has always been there, or something from nothing that was previously there. They are both inconceivable, and so intuiting it seems awry. The math is the way here, and knowing when we have become philosophers.

 

[bapowell]

you have to read carefully...
Mr. Smart Aleck... ...lol...

Whoops. You got me. By all means, carry on.

 

[yoda jedi]

I'm confused, it seems like you are saying that from nothing there can be nothing. Nothing is an infinity, and how do you grasp this? Nothing is an unimaginable as infinite something, so which is more absurd to our minds? Something from something that has always been there, or something from nothing that was previously there. They are both inconceivable, and so intuiting it seems awry. The math is the way here, and knowing when we have become philosophers.

nothing is the absolute vacuum.
In any case you can grasp or comprehend the concept of infinity, see for example the work of Georg Cantor, Cantor's discovered that there is not just one infinity, but a never-ending hierarchy, each infinitely bigger than the last, he gave a detailed analysis of infinity.

I'm confused, it seems like you are saying that from nothing there can be nothing.

no way.
from nothing, nothing, nada.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

nothing is the absolute vacuum.
In any case you can grasp or comprehend the concept of infinity, see for example the work of Georg Cantor, Cantor's discovered that there is not just one infinity, but a never-ending hierarchy, each infinitely bigger than the last, he gave a detailed analysis of infinity.





no way.
from nothing, nothing, nada.

Can you link me to this work by Georg Cantor? I cannot seem to find it, but it sounds like it is worth the reading.

 

[bapowell]

Can you link me to this work by Georg Cantor? I cannot seem to find it, but it sounds like it is worth the reading.

Cantor was a pioneer of set theory. He developed several concepts, such as the cardinality (roughly the size) of sets. He developed the ideas of 'countable' vs. 'uncountable' infinity. As a quick taste, consider the integers and the real numbers. Even though there are an infinite number of elements in each set, there are infinitely more reals than integers. This should be pretty obvious -- you can fit an infinite number of real numbers between the the two integers 0 and 1. His work on infinity has not been free of criticism, however, as some mathematicians believe that it is sensible to compare two infinities. Also look up the Cantor Set.

 

[apeiron]

nothing is the absolute vacuum.

A vacuum is still a something, no matter how "absolute". It has global properties like a temperature and a dimensional structure. So what are you trying to say here? Your point is unclear to me.

 

[friend]

This is pretty accurate. In curved space, you are right that there is no longer a unique plane wave solution in general. The key scales which determine whether the particle concept is valid are: 1) the curvature scale of the space and 2) the Compton wavelength of the particle. When the Compton wavelength of the particle becomes larger than the curvature radius, the vacuum state of that particle becomes a multiparticle state -- particles are created.

Do you mean that the changing frequency of the wave packet of a single particle in curved spacetime becomes a sum of various constant frequences/particles locally?

"curvature radius"? pick one please. The radius is reciprocal to the curvature. Do you mean when the Compton wavelength becomes larger than the curvature of the surrounding space they form particles? When the curvature is greater than the Compton wavelength, is this where low energy, high wavelength particles stop interfering with anything (become unobservable), but where high energy, small wavelength particles do interacte with each other? Did I say that right?

 

[yoda jedi]

A vacuum is still a something, no matter how "absolute". It has global properties like a temperature and a dimensional structure. So what are you trying to say here? Your point is unclear to me.

you are talking about the true vacuum, the vacuum of quantun mechanics (quantum fluctuations, quantum harmonic oscillators, etc), i am talking about ideal emptiness, a state that not exist physically.

 

[yoda jedi]

Can you link me to this work by Georg Cantor? I cannot seem to find it, but it sounds like it is worth the reading.

http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/courses/infinity.pdf
Georg Cantor (1845-1918):
The man who tamed infinity.

"Eventually Cantor’s ideas won out and became part of mainstream mathematics.
David Hilbert, the greatest mathematician of the early 20th century, said in 1926 that

“No one can expel us from the
paradise Cantor has created.”




--------------------
http://www.archive.org/stream/contributionstot003626mbp#page/n1/mode/2up




-------------

 

[IcedEcliptic]

http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/courses/infinity.pdf
Georg Cantor (1845-1918):
The man who tamed infinity.

"Eventually Cantor’s ideas won out and became part of mainstream mathematics.
David Hilbert, the greatest mathematician of the early 20th century, said in 1926 that

“No one can expel us from the
paradise Cantor has created.”




--------------------
http://www.archive.org/stream/contributionstot003626mbp#page/n1/mode/2up




-------------

Ahhh, thank you very much!

 

[apeiron]

you are talking about the true vacuum, the vacuum of quantun mechanics (quantum fluctuations, quantum harmonic oscillators, etc), i am talking about ideal emptiness, a state that not exist physically.

But how is an "ideal emptiness" not still a crisply global something - a container or context of some kind? There may be nothing at every location, but the empty set still has the global structure of a set.

That is why we need a philosophical way to subtract away the global aspects of somethingness as well. Otherwise we are not able to ask meaningful questions about "something out of nothing".

 

[yoda jedi]

But how is an "ideal emptiness" not still a crisply global something - a container or context of some kind? There may be nothing at every location,

Which locations ?

 

[apeiron]

Which locations ?

The ones that are empty of course. The challenge for you here is to find ways of expressing what you want to say that doesn't invoke the necessity of something as a reference frame. So empty does not actually mean nothing in toto, just nothing at an array of possible locations.

This is why vagueness is a step further to actually no-things. Even the array of possible locations becomes dissolved. Is the reference frame empty? Is the reference frame even there? If the answer is vague, then that is about as minimal a state as we can imagine. To say there is a definite state of nothingness is already more concrete than to say well even the fact of nothingness is a vague one.

 

[bapowell]

you are talking about the true vacuum, the vacuum of quantun mechanics (quantum fluctuations, quantum harmonic oscillators, etc), i am talking about ideal emptiness, a state that not exist physically.

Why can't such a state exist physically? You've given no reason for this. A supersymmetric quantum vacuum has zero energy.

 

[yoda jedi]

The ones that are empty of course.

Tautological.










------------------------------
locations refers to where.
------------------------------

where are the locations that you refer.

 

[yoda jedi]

Why can't such a state exist physically? You've given no reason for this. A supersymmetric quantum vacuum has zero energy.

Quantum Vacuum State is not the nothing.



"According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space", and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void." According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence."

 

[bapowell]

wrong, quantum vacuum is not a zero energy state.




"According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space", and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void." According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence."

Wow. You're not listening. Do you know what a supersymmetric vacuum is?

 

[yoda jedi]

Wow. You're not listening. Do you know what a supersymmetric vacuum is?

re-read, is not the nothing.

 

[bapowell]

OK, so you don't know what a supersymmetric vacuum is. But, naturally, you are fully qualified to determine that "Quantum Vacuum State is not the nothing", whatever that means. Also, if you're going to edit a previous post, it's best to keep track of what you're editing. While doubtful that anybody will be following this thread (because it's pretty nonsensical and useless) it makes it easier to follow if the posts to which people are responding aren't changed after the fact.

 

[apeiron]

Wow. You're not listening. Do you know what a supersymmetric vacuum is?

Can you explain how a supersymmetric vacuum is actually not still a something? It seems to be a scalar field of energy in suspension at least.

That energy must come from somewhere and exist in some realm. It represents a dimensionality of being.

And what are the rules about the fluctuations that can spontaneously break its symmetry. How large is this vacuum and in how many places at how many times can it be broken?

 

[bapowell]

Can you explain how a supersymmetric vacuum is actually not still a something? It seems to be a scalar field of energy in suspension at least.

I refuse to engage in this ridiculous discussion regarding things not being nothings and no nothings can't be a something because a nothing is nothing and so can't possibly be a something. I will, however, gladly talk about physics, since that's what this forum is all about.

In quantum field theory, the vacuum fluctuations of bosons and fermions contribute to the ground state energy with different signs. This is a consequence of the spin-statistics theorem: bosons give a positive contribution, and fermions a negative one. In a supersymmetric theory, each fermion has a bosonic partner of equal mass. Therefore, the fluctuations of each species cancel to all orders in perturbation theory. The result: the vacuum of a supersymmetric theory has zero energy.

And what are the rules about the fluctuations that can spontaneously break its symmetry. How large is this vacuum and in how many places at how many times can it be broken?

As far as I know, supersymmetry is not broken by any sort of fluctuation. Can you elaborate on what you mean here? SUSY, like most other symmetries in particle physics, are broken when some field in theory assumes a nonzero expectation value (the symmetry is governed by a scalar order parameter, much like in condensed matter systems). Again, not sure what you mean by 'how large' the vacuum is. Of course, our observable universe isn't supersymmetric. However, there may be other vacua (ie other places in the universe) that may well be supersymmetric.

 

[apeiron]

I refuse to engage in this ridiculous discussion regarding things not being nothings and no nothings can't be a something because a nothing is nothing and so can't possibly be a something. I will, however, gladly talk about physics, since that's what this forum is all about.

That is a very mocking way of framing the question under discussion.

To remind you, my points were a) a vacuum is not a nothing, and b) a vagueness is as near what we actually mean by nothing as we can imagine (it is also a super symmetry more super that supersymmetry!).

As far as I know, supersymmetry is not broken by any sort of fluctuation. Can you elaborate on what you mean here? SUSY, like most other symmetries in particle physics, are broken when some field in theory assumes a nonzero expectation value (the symmetry is governed by a scalar order parameter, much like in condensed matter systems). Again, not sure what you mean by 'how large' the vacuum is. Of course, our observable universe isn't supersymmetric. However, there may be other vacua (ie other places in the universe) that may well be supersymmetric.

By fluctuation, I merely mean the event that is the breaking of the field. And I am trying to understand how you are imagining this in a way that does not necessarily invoke a greater prior somethingness.

It could be that there is just one breaking that spans the whole of the universe at the one instant. Or it could be that it is an inflaton-like field which breaks at multiple places to spawn multiple universes.

But I think that if you dig down into any possible conception that grounds the model of a supersymmetric vacuum, you will still find all the same meta-physical issues about "nothingness".

Invoking supersymmetry may give you a neat cancellation of the energies of virtual particle fluctuations, but this does not tackle the question as posed. You still have the somethings of a prior realm of energy in suspension, some kind of physical dimensionality with a potential curvature, etc.

So you were invoking a particular physics model to answer the question - what does "nothing" look like. I say it does not look like a vacuum. Nor does it look like a field. You can get uncomfortable at this point and poke fun, or say that this question is no longer physics. Or you too can do some homework and consider other options like vagueness (which is also still a something, I agree, but the most minimal something we can imagine).

 

[bapowell]

I'm not involved in the debate about nothingness, as I've already said. I don't think it is a useful or worthwhile discussion for a physics forum. I was merely rebutting yoda_jedi's comment that the quantum vacuum had energy. I gave a counter example. I'm not interested in tackling the question as posed.

 

[apeiron]

I'm not involved in the debate about nothingness, as I've already said. I don't think it is a useful or worthwhile discussion for a physics forum.

Personal opinions are always good to have. It is known in the trade as boundary maintenance.

I was merely rebutting yoda_jedi's comment that the quantum vacuum had energy. I gave a counter example. I'm not interested in tackling the question as posed.

Well my question was about in what way does the supersymmetric vacuum have no energy, as opposed to no energy gradient?

We can agree the supersymmetric vacuum models a lack of effective and useable energy to do work because there is no gradient - not even, you say, the virtual particle fluctuations of a regular vacuum. (Or rather, the fluctuations exactly cancel their positive and negative contributions, rather than adding up to the infinite energy, or at least 120 magnitudes above Planck scale energy, suggested by the standard model, etc, etc). But clearly, regardless, the supersymmetric vacuum still models a potential energy state.

So your claim of "no energy" needs more careful qualification in this discussion. At which point it becomes clear that it is a comment irrelevant to the OP.

 

[bapowell]

I would say quantum vacuum energy has a no spatial gradient, SUSY or otherwise. Nonzero vacuum energy (the non-SUSY vacuum) is distributed uniformly in space (eg cosmological constant). While vacuum energy can't be used to do work, it does appear to manifest itself gravitationally. To be more precise, this is what I'm saying:

H|0\rangle_{SUSY} = 0

where H is the Hamiltonian and |0\rangle_{SUSY} is the SUSY vacuum. That's all that I mean by no energy in the vacuum. Nothing more.