Main Question or Discussion Point
Has ayone read this red this book Universe from nothing? Is it any good? 8)
I have read some of it, but personally I don't agree something can come from nothing, personally I believe the statement itself is paradoxical. Instead I believe that to resolve this incongruity is that everything required to make a universe there must have been essential ingredients, just not as we know it within the framework of what we understand, or believe to understand the laws of physics as they stand today.Has ayone read this red this book Universe from nothing? Is it any good? 8)
Actually, something from nothingness means that our universe appeared from nothing. There are some pre-existing models which says our universe has been here for a very long time, such as Ekpyrotic theory and Penroses Cyclic universe model. Inflation is post big bang.Are you referring to the Lawrence Krauss book? It was quite good. If you aren't sure, you can find nearly the whole thing on YouTube... The book was originally a lecture he used to give.
Nothingness in this case means just quantum mechanics and an inflaton field.
Well Krauss is wrong. Nothingness does not mean inflation. The inflationary phase is when the universe went under a very rapid expansion, which is hardly a definition of nothingness.Sorry I might have confused the issue by making that look like an assertion. All I meant was, in the Lawrence Krauss book to which I refferred, he defines the "nothing" as an Inflaton field (which does cause inflatIon post big bang) and the laws of QM. That's what i meant when i said in this case -- wasn't trying to put that forward as a definition
Everything to me points to that conclusion: the Big Bang itself is seen as a catastrophe, we see a multitude of phenomena in the Universe exhibiting critical-point (catastrophic) transitions from one qualitatively different state to another, and it resolves the "nothing paradox": the "nothing" it emerged from could be so qualitatively different than what we see in the Universe today, that it could absolutely qualify as "nothing" when "nothing" is defined to be "qualitatively different from something".Instead I believe that to resolve this incongruity is that everything required to make a universe there must have been essential ingredients, just not as we know it within the framework of what we understand, or believe to understand the laws of physics as they stand today.
Good point.This could be an interesting discussion, I don't understand why you are trying to make it so hostile.