Q: Why Is There Nothing?

[Flummoxed]

A:  So there can be something.

 

Paradox of Nothing

 

Thirty spokes join together in the hub,

It is because of what is not there that the cart is useful.

Clay is formed into a vessel.

It is because of its emptiness that the vessel is useful.

Cut doors and windows to make a room.

It is because of emptiness that the room is useful.

Therefore, what is present is used for profit.

But it is in absence that there is usefulness.

      ......(Lao Tzu:  Tao Te Ching)

 

 

Dark and Light.  Earth and Moon.  Empty and Full.  Something and Nothing. Yin and Yang.  We cannot have one without the other.

 

Q:  Space and  ???   Time?

 

Ref the definition of nothing paradox, or what space is. Virtual particles or Zero point energy filling the vacuum of space fit the bill. It does and does not exist.

Likely the zero point energy drives the expansion of space.

 

Eric Verlindes theories are worth looking at ie emergent gravity as mentioned by Gahd and 006 . The simplest version of his theory I can link for you is probably the following utube link

[Dubbelosix]

Certainly his theory is worth looking into, but his theory about the universe as a hologram... a bit too much for me. What the equations seem to be saying is that most dynamics (not all) can be understood using a two dimensional case. We still have three dimensions in the equation which without, would not make sense, for instance, a pressure or density term cannot be fully understood in two dimensions alone, but in a two dimensional case it is only a surface density term.

 

The heat equations, from equipartition, to gravity are strongly related. I don't dispute this, but holography seems like too much a simplification that I can hardly abide it.

[Dubbelosix]

And I am not too sure that virtual particles are enough to be the source of expansion, but it will certainly be an important point when the universe gets large enough when those virtual paricles become dominant on larger scales. It is possible virtual particles where dominant in the early stages, but for me to entertain that properly requires a non-conserved universe, not one strictly under the translation symmetries of energy and time.

[Vmedvil2]

And I am not too sure that virtual particles are enough to be the source of expansion, but it will certainly be an important point when the universe gets large enough when those virtual paricles become dominant on larger scales. It is possible virtual particles where dominant in the early stages, but for me to entertain that properly requires a non-conserved universe, not one strictly under the translation symmetries of energy and time.

 

I have said this before dubbel what if the universe is not conserved there is much evidence to support the idea that there was no conservation of energy near the beginning of the universe, what if the wormhole or brane collision ideas are true and energy was created during the Big Bang from another source such as another universe or two universes colliding. It goes back to this if the universe is finite then what is the universe expanding into doesn't that show that there is something else out there or even the great cold spot, "How did the universe's background radiation lose temperature if the universe is conserved and closed?". If you agree that during the early universe the universe acted as a black hole what is to stop you from taking that next step and saying that the early universe was a black hole, which are theorized at a large enough mass to contain wormholes, which the Big Bang would have before the explosion been the largest black hole ever found. Another question would be do Black hole's explode when given enough mass? a non-conserved universe opens several interesting possibilities.

Edited June 25, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Dubbelosix]

I couldn't possibly rule out the notion that our universe is a black hole, but then we'd be talking about a theory with many layers and I always like to keep things simple as possible.

[Flummoxed]

Certainly his theory is worth looking into, but his theory about the universe as a hologram... a bit too much for me. What the equations seem to be saying is that most dynamics (not all) can be understood using a two dimensional case. We still have three dimensions in the equation which without, would not make sense, for instance, a pressure or density term cannot be fully understood in two dimensions alone, but in a two dimensional case it is only a surface density term.

 

The heat equations, from equipartition, to gravity are strongly related. I don't dispute this, but holography seems like too much a simplification that I can hardly abide it.

 

Verlinde does not use the holographic principle, that is another theory. The connection between the Holographic principle and Emergent gravity is that both have their origins in string theory and quantum mechanics. The two approaches are different, Verlindes equations use both a 2 and 3 dimensions which have differing effects depending on range, Not unlike MOND ?

[Dubbelosix]

Verlinde does not use the holographic principle, that is another theory. The connection between the Holographic principle and Emergent gravity is that both have their origins in string theory and quantum mechanics. The two approaches are different, Verlindes equations use both a 2 and 3 dimensions which have differing effects depending on range, Not unlike MOND ?

 

Are you sure? Because Susskind makes quite a deal about it, to the point he has openly admitted himself, that he believes that it reduces down to a holographic principle in which the boundary of the universe contains all the information inside of it... of course, that doesn't mean Verlinde agree's, but where one agrees, one always disagrees, if you get my meaning. Physics has become a competition of sorts, when it shouldn't be, all the great minds should be working together in peace and harmony, if not, we always get the wrong impression and the wrong road to unification.

[Dubbelosix]

But then, Victor would love this conversation, since he is looking at the universe like Susskind, he knows, as I know and as victor knows, the principles and the limits of those principles are very strongly correlated. 

[Dubbelosix]

As for MOND, as I understand it, was more a smudge factor than intuition at best. 

[Flummoxed]

Are you sure? Because Susskind makes quite a deal about it, to the point he has openly admitted himself, that he believes that it reduces down to a holographic principle in which the boundary of the universe contains all the information inside of it... of course, that doesn't mean Verlinde agree's, but where one agrees, one always disagrees, if you get my meaning. Physics has become a competition of sorts, when it shouldn't be, all the great minds should be working together in peace and harmony, if not, we always get the wrong impression and the wrong road to unification.

 

Yes I am, here is his paper referenced in his presentations. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.02269.pdf and yes I can see where you might get the idea it is just the holographic principle.  Verlindes paper is not a light read! 

 

I do think that space is not fully understand. The simple view that it is just empty 3 dimensions +time, is wrong, although as a first order approximation it gives good results. The Holographic principle and Emergent gravity both involve additional dimensions, based around entanglement. 

 

ref entanglement, I have days when I believe it, and other days when I don't ie it is just 2 sides of the same coin if you get my meaning. But according to Verlinde all things may be entangled to a certain extent, including space. 

 

ref MOND fudge factor, a mathematical model should match observations should it not. MOND matches observations with out the need to introduce random dark matter fudge factors  or other imagined things.

[Flummoxed]

Gravity theories are off thread. 

 

Why is there NOT nothing. Space is not empty 

[Vmedvil2]

But then, Victor would love this conversation, since he is looking at the universe like Susskind, he knows, as I know and as victor knows, the principles and the limits of those principles are very strongly correlated. 

 

Yes that is correct the model that I use to base my calculations and information is much like the Susskind model, a sort of universe with exacting constants that limit the structure and fields to a set of limits. Basically, I think the Universe is something called a Quantum Code meaning a information construct with states that manifests itself to physical form from a sort of computer code somewhat Holographic-ally that has a definitive end and beginning limit much like a video game, and that energy and entropy is what gives it these limits. Energy is just information without form, the form of energy/information is entropy meaning if you change the Energy or Entropy the State of the structure will change. Each Field has a Tensor associated with it, this Tensor limits the information then you make a Unitary Group over a Tensor Field , the structure of the Unitary group is based on the entropy while the structure of the tensor field is based on the space-time. (Planck World State) ≡ Σ₁^XΣ₁^YΣ₁^z(Q_(1,1,1),F_(1,1,1),C_(1,1,1),G_(1,1,1))...(Q_(x,Y,z)F_(x,Y,z),C_(x,Y,z),G_(x,Y,z))

 

This is an example of what I imagine the universe to be like, but 2-D with a single tensor.

Edited June 28, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Dubbelosix]

The Planck world state also has energy densities which are not understood by a simple two-dimensional analogy - its an oversimplification because we live in a three dimensional world, not a two dimensional world.

[Vmedvil2]

The Planck world state also has energy densities which are not understood by a simple two-dimensional analogy - its an oversimplification because we live in a three dimensional world, not a two dimensional world.

 

Indeed it is actually works like the T₀₀ of Einstein's Tensor those densities just look at Einstein's tensor and basically it is analogous to that, but there are multiple T₀₀, 4 to be exact one for Color,Flavor, Electric, and Gravitational. Every interaction can be mapped as a combination of those 4 T₀₀'s.

Edited July 1, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Dubbelosix]

Mapping... ok... but for physics, general relativity more specifically, the mapping from one dimension to another has led to the time problem, the mathematical reasons for such mapping comes from diffeomorphism invariance which was a loose way of Einstein applying symmetries in a very simple form. But again, the two dimensional analogue, leading to bizarre idea's like holography just doesn't seem to ring true with with me.....

[Vmedvil2]

Mapping... ok... but for physics, general relativity more specifically, the mapping from one dimension to another has led to the time problem, the mathematical reasons for such mapping comes from diffeomorphism invariance which was a loose way of Einstein applying symmetries in a very simple form. But again, the two dimensional analogue, leading to bizarre idea's like holography just doesn't seem to ring true with with me.....

 

Well this isn't 2-D though it is 3-D as you can see from the math, it is a 3-D matrix with a 4-D matrix within it as a inner product, thus it really isn't exactly holographic. It has a equation associated with it which is 4/3 π R/C³t_p³ which is my version of curvature but rather it is the entropy limit of the system meaning basically that is the maximum entropy the system can possibly have at a given field radius meaning Σ₁^XΣ₁^YΣ₁^z = (4/3) π R/C³t_p³, which is defined in planck units.

Edited July 1, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Dubbelosix]

Yes, there is a planck length cubed, but you can't obtain relavant symmetries to call a 2-d theory as one which satisfies the 3-d case. It really is as simple as that. 2-d is an oversimplification.