Start from Nothing: An Exploration of Pre BB Thinking

[wolram]

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.

 

[Math Is Hard]

You're in good company, Wolly. Quite a few people have worried over that problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#The_argument_from_contingency

 

[wolram]

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.

 

[Meatbot]

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...

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).

 

[wolram]

I doubt if cosmologists know if they have a burning ass or a cool one, i hope they will prove me wrong.

 

[jnorman]

why can't 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.

 

[sLeeping_bEauti]

why can't 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.

Yeah i heard of this somewhere and was going to mention it. What actually happens in this?

katii x

 

[sLeeping_bEauti]

I was watching something about Stephen 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 a lot 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 happened 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.

 

[mgb_phys]

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.

 

[itsygo]

I agree with you that something has always existed (and it ain't God).

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.

 

[wolram]

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.

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.

 

[mgb_phys]

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 experimentally testable.

 

[wolram]

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 experimentally testable.

Experimentally testable seems to have gone out of the window, i thought that was the scientific method but it seems not.

 

[castlegates]

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.

 

[my_wan]

why can't 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.

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.

I doubt if cosmologists know if they have a burning ass or a cool one, i hope they will prove me wrong.

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.

 

[Pippo]

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.

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.

 

[Chronos]

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.

 

[Vast]

If the universe is eternal, the notion of a God seems superfluous.

 

[Pippo]

If the universe is eternal, the notion of a God seems superfluous.

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

[ 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 ]

 

[mgb_phys]

When somebody said about QM that it was counter intuitive - <famous researcher> replied:
Yes because a 2m tall savanah dwelling ape will have evolved really good intuition about the behaviour of sub-atomic particles

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

We all have our beliefs. Unfortunately, beliefs are not subject to analysis or debate, so there's little point in having them as a subject of group discussion. The only things left to discuss are the things we can all observe and study.

 

[litewave]

Well, according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, something can indeed come out of nothing. Actually it's happening all the time. At any precise point in time the energy is completely undefined. And where there is no definition, there is simply nothing.

Definition needs time. Energy becomes defined in time, and thus something comes out of nothing.

 

[wolram]

Well, according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, something can indeed come out of nothing. Actually it's happening all the time. At any precise point in time the energy is completely undefined. And where there is no definition, there is simply nothing.

Definition needs time. Energy becomes defined in time, and thus something comes out of nothing.

I doubt anyone truly thinks that this to be the case, other wise there could not be an argument against a perpetual motion machine.

 

[friend]

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.

"Something from nothing"? Here we seem to be ignoring the details of what a something or a nothing is. Instead we are generalizing in the extreme. The word "something" is just a synonym for a proposition about physical entities; it describes some physical situation whose actual existence we can say is either true or false. And so nothing becomes the opposite of something just as false is the opposite of true.

So it seems what this question is really asking about is material implication of logic, otherwise known as a hypothesis. A hypothetical (or implication) is symbolized as A->B, which means if A is true (or exists), then B is true (or also must exist). So what you are asking is can there be a B (the frist instance of the existence of the universe) without an A (the cause of the first instance). And as far as hypotheticals are concerned, the answer is yes. A->B is a valid hypothetical (theory) even when B is true and A is false. The only invalid hypothetical is to have an A without a B; that indicates an invalid hypothetical (or theory).

 

[wolram]

"Something from nothing"? Here we seem to be ignoring the details of what a something or a nothing is. Instead we are generalizing in the extreme. The word "something" is just a synonym for a proposition about physical entities; it describes some physical situation whose actual existence we can say is either true or false. And so nothing becomes the opposite of something just as false is the opposite of true.

So it seems what this question is really asking about is material implication of logic, otherwise known as a hypothesis. A hypothetical (or implication) is symbolized as A->B, which means if A is true (or exists), then B is true (or also must exist). So what you are asking is can there be a B (the frist instance of the existence of the universe) without an A (the cause of the first instance). And as far as hypotheticals are concerned, the answer is yes. A->B is a valid hypothetical (theory) even when B is true and A is false. The only invalid hypothetical is to have an A without a B; that indicates an invalid hypothetical (or theory).

How can there be any detail to nothing?

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, something can indeed come out of nothing. Actually it's happening all the time.

To be accurate, something (such as virtual particles) can come out of hard vacuum - and while we conventionally consider vacuum to be nothing - in fact, vacuum is actually roiling with energy. It was frozen that way early in the universe's creation.

So, that's a poor analogy to the Big Bang. There's "nothing", and then there's Nothing.

 

[my_wan]

I doubt anyone truly thinks that this to be the case, other wise there could not be an argument against a perpetual motion machine.

Reminds me of claims that gravity can't exist in a vacuum. Nobody that understands the physics can doubt it. It is demonstrated with the Casimir effect and defines the so called zero-point energy. It is important in the development of nanotechnologies.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html

The notion of perpetual motion using virtual particles (zero point energy) is the idea behind lots of goofy science. It's similar to trying to extract energy out of the tiny temperature variations in the air in thermal equilibrium. It's Maxwell's demon all over again except in a vacuum this time. No you can't create a perpetual motion machine with it.

 

[litewave]

To be accurate, something (such as virtual particles) can come out of hard vacuum - and while we conventionally consider vacuum to be nothing - in fact, vacuum is actually roiling with energy. It was frozen that way early in the universe's creation.

I thought it was roiling with energy because there is constantly something springing out of nothing (and then vanishing back into nothing).

 

[wolram]

I thought it was roiling with energy because there is constantly something springing out of nothing (and then vanishing back into nothing).

That would be one neat trick, but it only suggests that there is a layer of potential energy that is as yet unavailable to us.

 

[Chronos]

So we agree there is no such thing as 'nothing'? - an oxymoron if ever I heard one. Nothing is the most abundant entity in the universe. Yet, 'nothing' is populated by a zoo of virtual particles.

 

[wolram]

Virtual particles are just another fudge factor between nothing and some thing, how can one have virtual nothing or virtual some thing, it is total nonsense, Nothing is the opposite of the possible existence of any thing, nothing equals no space ,no time, no matter, so may be one can envision a beginning from that?

 

[my_wan]

Virtual particles are just another fudge factor between nothing and some thing, how can one have virtual nothing or virtual some thing, it is total nonsense, Nothing is the opposite of the possible existence of any thing, nothing equals no space ,no time, no matter, so may be one can envision a beginning from that?

If "nothing equals no space ,no time, no matter" how does the something fit into it? Seems to me there is nowhere to put the something.

 

[wolram]

If "nothing equals no space ,no time, no matter" how does the something fit into it? Seems to me there is nowhere to put the something.

True.

 

[litewave]

That would be one neat trick, but it only suggests that there is a layer of potential energy that is as yet unavailable to us.

It seems so because we usually don't expect something to emerge from nothing. So we naturally imagine that there is a source that is something ("a layer of potential energy").

But if this source also produces space and time then it seems obvious that the source itself is neither in time nor in space. And Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says that within a length of time that approaches zero, the amount of energy becomes completely undefined (or within a length of space that approaches zero, momentum becomes completely undefined). So I guess that the source, which occupies no timespace, has completely undefined energy (and momentum). It's undefined, unanalyzable, indescribable. That's what we may call nothing. But someone might still call it something. It depends on what we understand as nothing or something. As far as I am concerned, nothing is what I experience when I'm unconscious - undefined, unanalyzable, indescribable.

Well, and out of the infinite possibilities contained in the undefined state some possibilities may prevail over others and thus the state becomes better defined and time and space necessarily emerge in which the definition happens. How or why that happens - the accentuation of certain possibilities - seems to have no answer because of the undefined nature of the original state.