Universe From Nothing

[Eudoxus]

The only people arguing the the universe formed ex nihilo are nutjobs like Kent Hovind and Bill Craig, and people who don't understand physics and hear the intellectual vomitus of the aforementioned nutjobs third or fourth hand.

 

We don't know what was around before the big bang; but it probably wasn't nothing, at least not in the philosophical nihilo sense.

[7DSUSYstrings]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=darpa-casimir-effect-research

 

It would seem the nutjobs are the ones who remain in denial. There's quite a bit more about this work out there...

[Eudoxus]

Please understand the differences between the term "nothing" as used by physicists, the term "nothing" as used by laymen, and the term "nothing" as used by philosophers. I'm calling the philosophers idiots.

[7DSUSYstrings]

Please understand the differences between the term "nothing" as used by physicists, the term "nothing" as used by laymen, and the term "nothing" as used by philosophers. I'm calling the philosophers idiots.

 

Perhaps you could give us all your take on that difference.

[HydrogenBond]

As one of our posters has questioned, the idea of existence "outside" of space-time doesn't really make sense, does it? How can you exist outside of space since outside is a quality that is defined by space? Well, it's a simple linguistic problem. We mean more properly to say that existence is independent of space-time; that existence does not require space-time. But what can exist outs...oops! independent of space-time? To understand this, we must first understand what qualities of things are defined by space-time.

 

One theoretical way to exist outside of space-time is by altering the expected integrated connection between space and time; space-time. As an analogy, when we look at photons the product of the wavelength and frequency will equal the speed of light;C. This C=constant connection is also true of space-time. Theoretically, if the integration connection between space and time was not C, it will no longer be space-time as we know. For example, say time could act independently of space and/or space could act independently of time. Or they could act in ways that don't multiply to C. In all these scenarios they would be outside space-time=C, we all know and love.

 

As an example, if a particle quantum jumped in space, it would move in space, but it would do so in zero time. If we calculate the velocity= d/t, since t=0, it exceeds the speed of light. It can't do this in space-time=C, but would be valid in a space-time integrated in a way where space and time are dissociated.

 

The universe from nothing could simply begin with space and time dissociated away from constant=C. Since space and time would not be integrated at C, neither energy or matter would be valid states, since these require space-time with a C connection. The forces of nature transmit energy at C, so even these are not yet valid until space-time=C.

 

One way to visualize space-time not equaling C, is to consider the imagination. Say I am building a house at the design stage. The house plans show how the house occupies space, but it will take time before it can become reality. The distance potential is high (within space) but the plan has very low time potential. We need to commit months of time potential so the plan can materialize in space-time. The addition of time, now creates the energy we will need to make it real in space-time. Before space-time =C, there is nothing in space-time=C. The universe is on the drawing board waiting for time potential, so space-time=C and mass/energy can turn the plan into actuality. This is one hypothetical example.

 

We could also begin with only time, but no distance. We have this point in space that is changing within time but stuck in distance as a point. In this case, we decide to build the house, but before we plan it out in distance, we gather all the lumber and craftsmen we might need. We have what will become mass and energy gathering, but no plan in space just yet. We space-time=C, we begin to improvise how the house is built.

 

A third scenario is we have both distance and time acting, but they multiply to >C or <C. These create many other scenarios. If it was less that C, we could have matter but not energy. It can't be matter as we know, it since it would not be connected to energy or to force at C. If the product of the initial space-time >C, that also would eliminate energy and force as we know it. That universe can be planned out and materialize so fast it would seem impossible. Something could quantum jump in distance and quickly pop out in record time.

[granpa]

entanglement occurs outside space (but not outside time)

[HydrogenBond]

entanglement occurs outside space (but not outside time)

 

Entanglement would have potential in time but not in space. One could express this as, time potential=K and distance potential=0. Such an affect is not exactly within space-time=C, although one could still see partial aspects of the affect within space-time=C.

[Cyberia]

I think analysis of nothing started with Parmenides an ancient greek philosopher who stated that there is no such thing as nothing... Which probably implies there never was a nothing something could come from :)

 

If it is possible to go beyond the edge of the universe, past where any gravity, photons or anything else has ever been able to reach, then there would be absolute nothingness.

 

Or maybe not? And yet what we call nothing could be unstable, with particles, photons, gravity, whatever appearing and disappearing. It only needs for one particle to stay and not go and upset the balance and around that a whole universe could eventually form.

 

It's an idea, but then again, so is the big bang, which is wrong for so many reasons. Many are unwilling to abandon the BB, despite all it's faults and unproven ideas because they are not willing to accept anything else in it's place so they would be left with no idea even of how everything started.

[Eudoxus]

If it is possible to go beyond the edge of the universe, past where any gravity, photons or anything else has ever been able to reach, then there would be absolute nothingness.

 

Or maybe not? And yet what we call nothing could be unstable, with particles, photons, gravity, whatever appearing and disappearing. It only needs for one particle to stay and not go and upset the balance and around that a whole universe could eventually form.

 

It's an idea, but then again, so is the big bang, which is wrong for so many reasons. Many are unwilling to abandon the BB, despite all it's faults and unproven ideas because they are not willing to accept anything else in it's place so they would be left with no idea even of how everything started.

 

Um.

 

 

 

The big bang is about as proven as it gets. The specifics, cause, and precursor (if any) are what's unknown. But combine observed galactic redshift and its acceleration, the CMB exactly matching (EXACTLY) the predicted power/frequency curve of an expanding universe, and the observed evolution of galaxies, make it pretty clear that the universe started out extremely small and dense (at minimum dense enough that photons couldn't even really exist) then expanded tremendously, and continues to expand today.

 

The specifics are debatable. The basic concept is not.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Eudoxus

[Time_Travel]

It's an idea, but then again, so is the big bang, which is wrong for so many reasons. Many are unwilling to abandon the BB, despite all it's faults and unproven ideas because they are not willing to accept anything else in it's place so they would be left with no idea even of how everything started.

 

Why is BB wrong? Who are the people unwilling to abandon the BB?

what are its faults(off course it can't explain before BB itself) and unproven ideas?

 

It will be really interesting to know if you have your/other's own theories which make sense. But it should agree with the observed facts.

[HydrogenBond]

One thing about the BB theory that confuses me is the cause and effect with respect to the expansion of universal space-time. If we start with say with a ball of neutron density (as a hypothetical) space-time would be highly contracted around it. Next, if we expanded this tiny ball of neutron density via a boom, since the mass density is getting less and less, the local space-time would expand. The cause and effect is the change in mass density will alter space-time.

 

The current model does this backwards, with space-time expanding on its own, with matter expansion the effect instead of the cause. To support this version of cause and effect we make use of dark matter, which has never been proven, but only inferred based on the assumed cause and effect.

 

We can directly prove the cause and effect of an expanding mass leading expanding space-time, but we cannot directly prove space-time leading matter. How is that version of cause and effect justified, and is it valid to use an inferred (self forfilling?) yet unproven premise (nobody ever made dark matter in the lab) as the justification?

 

In other words, if I wanted to use unicorn horns or the finger of god instead of dark matter as my cause for space-time expansion, I could infer these with the same observations. I should be able to get away with it as long as I don't have to directly prove these assumed phenemena in the lab. Is it because dark matter sounds better and does not use religion symbols therefore it is all about emotional appeal? Why is self feeding logic better than logic that uses only proveable cause and effect?

 

This is a valid concern. Is there an answer?

[Eudoxus]

Dark matter is proven to exist. Five minutes of googling will show that. We still don't know exactly what it is, but we've known that it's real for quite some time now. Get with the program.

[JMJones0424]

In other words, if I wanted to use unicorn horns or the finger of god instead of dark matter as my cause for space-time expansion, I could infer these with the same observations. I should be able to get away with it as long as I don't have to directly prove these assumed phenemena in the lab. Is it because dark matter sounds better and does not use religion symbols therefore it is all about emotional appeal? Why is self feeding logic better than logic that uses only proveable cause and effect?

 

This is a valid concern. Is there an answer?

You fundamentally misunderstand cosmological inflation, which has nothing at all to do with dark matter. Try reading the wikipedia page on inflation and then might be better equipped to deal with your strawmen.

[Giganticpull]

The answer to the posted question may be in the definition of nothing to us, as opposed to it's reality in space. Our nothing for all intent and purpose means 0, blank, absent of any thing, It's reality in space may be something we dont know about or have comprehended, or something outside of the elemental knowledge we have. So while the word play may seem a bit trivial, the unknow is nothing.

[7DSUSYstrings]

(I worked on an engineering project, being contracted for the Philly transfer authority once.) :)

 

 

Pull, you have a legitimate query. The question, though, may be not so much as nothing equaling zero but nothing equaling less than zero.

[sigurdV]

If it is possible to go beyond the edge of the universe, past where any gravity, photons or anything else has ever been able to reach, then there would be absolute nothingness.

 

Or maybe not? And yet what we call nothing could be unstable, with particles, photons, gravity, whatever appearing and disappearing. It only needs for one particle to stay and not go and upset the balance and around that a whole universe could eventually form.

It's an idea, but then again, so is the big bang, which is wrong for so many reasons. Many are unwilling to abandon the BB, despite all it's faults and unproven ideas because they are not willing to accept anything else in it's place so they would be left with no idea even of how everything started.

Hi!

I noticed earlier you voiced some dissatisfaction with BB, so I was awaiting your alternative to it... Maybe the above is a beginning? A problem to me is understanding why this universe contains so much energy, perhaps gotten from some "unstable nothing"? I think I could accept to replace the "absolute nothing " with something infinitesimally small ... But not with the insane amount of energy our universe contains... On the other hand theres Parmenides law: There never was a nothing something could come from! But youll get around it by claiming that the "unstable nothing" was a something...

 

Im happy there are ppl thinking and not just copying the standard thoughts, maybe Ill oppose your theory but it will be done in friendship:)

 

PS Is there an alternative to the ancient wiew that the "totality" is reducible to zero? That is: there should be an "antiuniverse" negating everything about our universe! (How about: 1/0 ... ?)

 

PPS I heard there recently was found an unexplained movement of galaxies in the same direction in cosmos...

Perhaps our universe rotates around an axis? Or its the gravitational pull from a nearby universe?

The standard argument that something is not so and so because the precondition such and such has not (yet) been shown to exist...

perhaps is being refuted again.

[Pincho Paxton]

I think that humans invented nothing, and we sure can't imagine it beyond a word. But 1 + -1 = 0 is good enough to make a particle from.

 

Take a double sine wave of equal proportions. So you get...

 

 

up / down / up / down .............That equals zero.

 

Now join it together to make two circles, and join those together.

 

Now rotate, and repeat many times over.

 

Now you have a particle with a hole in it, and the entire particle equals zero. It would be invisible because the energy levels would all cancel each other out.