Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Start from nothing

  1. Mar 10, 2008 #1


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I know this idea scares a lot of you, but the fact is the universe either started from nothing , or it started from some thing, i state that nothing means the absence of any thing, so if one thinks that some thing can come from the absence of any thing seems illogical that leaves only one idea, that there has all ways been some thing, this may be pre BB thinking
    but i think it is more logic, there has all ways been some thing, no thing can come from no thing.
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 10, 2008 #2

    Math Is Hard

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  4. Mar 10, 2008 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The problem is the big guns do not have a clue and they resort to illogical solutions, a sort of cowardly devotion to what they know, but there can only be one conclusion and that is that (some thing has all ways existed), the BB may be an interval but not a beginning, when one follows that logic one can see that most of pre BB is cobblers.
  5. Mar 10, 2008 #4
    You have these as the options:

    1. nothing causes something
    2. something causes something (or something always existed without cause, but that's basically the same thing)

    I can see another option:

    3. "something" doesn't exist. The universe is really nothing so there is no need to worry about what caused it.

    Of course, #3 contradicts all available evidence and makes no sense to me whatsoever. I agree with you that something has always existed (and it ain't God).
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2008
  6. Mar 10, 2008 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I doubt if cosmologists know if they have a burning ass or a cool one, i hope they will prove me wrong.
  7. Mar 11, 2008 #6
    why cant it be a zero-sum game? vacuum flux can "create" a particle pair out of "nothing". perhaps the universe is just an extremely large-scale version of this same concept.
  8. Mar 11, 2008 #7
    Yeah i heard of this somewhere and was going to mention it. What actually happens in this?

    katii x
  9. Mar 11, 2008 #8
    I was watching something about steven hawking last night all about how gravity originated from the big bang and there was a strange theory that they talked about right at the end of it which, weirdly, was the only thing that made alot of sense to me.

    They were talking about the universe being in 11 dimensions and is just one building block of something bigger, like dominos standing up. and the big bang happend because one of the 'dominos' fell into the other and there was a merge of something, i didnt fully get it but that was the gist.
  10. Mar 11, 2008 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    That is string theory - it's a little controversial among physicists because it doesn't actually predict anything (and therefore is not a theory) and the solution to each new measurement seems to be to add another dimension to account for it. So it becomes a theory with a separate term for each effect you want to include - which is the exact opposite of the simplisty that physicists like in universal laws.
  11. Mar 11, 2008 #10
    I think we should leave this as an 'open fact'. It's not reasonable to say that God does not exist. I hope you don't take this offensively. I am obviously not telling you to 'believe' in God.

    Personally(or even scientifically), I don't think that nothingness can create something. Nothingness involves the implication of 'nothing'. Therefore, no result can come out of nothingness.

  12. Mar 11, 2008 #11


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It is some thing when Regan starts taking the water from ST, i wonder how long it will take for QL to be ridiculed, but these are totally ignorant comments.
  13. Mar 11, 2008 #12


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    String theory is cool mathematics - I just said it's a open question if it is really science and if it has anything useful to say about cosmology.
    I'm not an expert - I just like my physics to be experimentaly testable.
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2008
  14. Mar 11, 2008 #13


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Experimentally testable seems to have gone out of the window, i thought that was the scientific method but it seems not.
  15. Mar 11, 2008 #14
    Nothing is a concept, and can only be expressed conceptually. This is to say that if the universe came from nothing ... the universe is a conceptual entity. I.E. A collection of related concepts.
    Is a concept a thing?
    If so - Then nothing is a thing, and the universe has always been.

    If not - Then the universe had a beginning, and something came from nothing.
  16. Mar 12, 2008 #15
    Actually the same argument wolram used can be applied to a false vacuum also. Wolram, what you seem to fail to recognize is that at the fundamental level theoretical physics doesn't talk about things per se but rather symmetries. For instance we can talk about the symmetry of a coin toss. It is either heads or tails, never feet. It's the same symmetry that a computer bit has so symmetries are not specific to the parts that define them. Symmetries can in principle however predict the outcome of every conceivable experiment, assuming we know all the symmetries involved.

    This is like saying that since a computer programmer has no idea how a capacitor is constructed they know nothing about programming. Some physicist and cosmologists don't like this either. However, unless or until some structural theory that provides for it and actually works and provides some predictive value rather than simple consistency with a subset of symmetries then there is no a priori reason to think the presumed structural components would even make sense to our way of thinking. It's a total waste of time to talk about ignorance or some pet theory in the meantime, unless of course you can actually deliver the goods. If that was the case I see the need for accusations of ignorance.

    EDA: Correction: "I see "no" need for accusations of ignorance.
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2008
  17. Mar 13, 2008 #16
    A watch can't be built from nothing, it is necessary the material and a watchmaker who is out of the watch. Nothing can come from nothing, unless it exists all along, and this seems to be the easier answer.
  18. Mar 14, 2008 #17


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I like the God idea. It appears the universe is finite in time [big bang, etal] and no alternative explanation conclusively rules out such an entity [a creator] so far as I know.
  19. Mar 15, 2008 #18
    If the universe is eternal, the notion of a God seems superfluous.
  20. Mar 15, 2008 #19
    God has no limits, He is eternal and He is over everything, eternal universe included.
    We have to separate science and religion as science is very limited by our brains.
    You can enlarge the science borders as you like, God will remains always
    over/out of them. I can believe in God and in an eternal universe as well.
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2008
  21. Mar 15, 2008 #20


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    [ RANT ]
    Wasn't it the ancient Greeks that thought the whole universe could be revealed by logic alone, that observation and experiment were needless details?

    And wasn't that long LONG before the creation of the scientific method in the Renaissance? - where we discovered that, brilliant as the Greek philosophers were, they got that part COMPLETELY WRONG?

    Why are we reverting to a method of discovery that's a half millenium out-of-date?

    It is silly to "suppose" that something cannot come out of nothing. These are philosophical concepts! The only way to answers is to observe and collect empirical data.

    But, since we can't currently (or likely, ever) do that for the beginning of the universe, that doesn't give us license to sudddenly hand-wave away things we "just don't think can happen" - such as something out of nothing.

    So, to that theory I say: "If you can't show me evidence that something can't come out of nothing, then you can't claim it to be so."

    [ /RANT ]
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook