The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery

[durgatosh]

freeztar

Durg, in the other thread (where you addressed my comments), you made mention of your idea of infinite stability of zero as it realtes to "fundamental" forces such as gravity and time with the net result being zero. Can you go into some more depth with this idea?

I can envision this if we take each of these forces by themselves (eg time could have an anti-time component; or we could even envision past and future as the two poles), but relating this to more forces is tricky. How do gravity and time, for example, coexist as an infinite stability of zero?

 

Indeed, it is difficult to envision the relationship of these seemingly different entities. Hence, I do not rule out the possibility of each entity having a corresponding negative and positive. This is easier to understand. However, the more I think about these concepts, the more I am inclined to believe in the other possibility. I would try to explain it in this post.

 

Let us consider a one-dimensional organism which moves in the 2nd dimension. Imagine a line moving on a flat sheet of paper. For him, the only dimension he would be aware of would be length. He would know of width only after he has moved in that dimension. By some mental gymnastics of Einstenian proportion, he would be able to understand that width is not really a different entity but just another face of length. If a 2-dimensional organism were to see this problem, it would be very simple for him. For him, width and length are always there.

 

For the 2-dimensional organism, the idea of height can only come if he moves in the 3rd dimension. Imagine a sheet of paper falling down. If a 3-dimensional organism sees this, the idea of height is self-evident and not different from length and width.

 

We are 3-dimensional organisms moving in the 4th dimension of time. We visualize time only because of the passage of time (i.e our movement along this 4th dimension). It required the genius of Einstein and several others to unite this into space-time continuum. But, if there were a 4-dimensional creature seeing this problem, it would be extremely simple for him. Past, present and future would be right in front of him.

 

This logic can be extended to n-dimensions. All our understanding of the universe is conditioned because of our 3-dimensional nature.

 

Now, about your question about gravity, time and other entities. Gravity has been described as the result of the curvature that matter creates in the space-time fabric. You see how they relate to one-another.

 

I hope I have been able to explain my thoughts about the basic unity of all entities to some extent. When I had talked about the blind men and the elephant, I had tried to explain the inherent limitations of human beings in understanding the reality.

 

ColdCreation

My bold. That is a rather extraordinary stament. So instead of spacetime, mass and energy, you have: spacetimematterenergy, a new word. Or better yet: Spacetimattergy. Yes, I like that one, spacetimattergy. Say it, it sounds cool, almost cold. The basic unity of all entities, spacetimattergy. The truth is right there, glaringinfrontofus (my bold).

 

 

theproductofconditionedminds

 

CC

 

It doesn't really matter what name you give to it. I have tried to explain what I think is true. Of course, everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion.

 

DP

[freeztar]

Now, about your question about gravity, time and other entities. Gravity has been described as the result of the curvature that matter creates in the space-time fabric. You see how they relate to one-another.

 

This is a classical explanation of the phenomena. I was asking for you to reconcile this with your theory of the infinite instability of zero. You claimed that these forces interact "bi-polarly" in tandem. Please explain.

I hope I have been able to explain my thoughts about the basic unity of all entities to some extent. When I had talked about the blind men and the elephant, I had tried to explain the inherent limitations of human beings in understanding the reality.

 

And there is the kicker...

The "inherent limitations of human beings in understanding the reality" is not an excuse for inexplicativeness. The blind men might not ever be able to see the whole elephant, but if they are smart, they can compare descriptions of the leg and back and all the various parts they see individually.

[durgatosh]

freeztar

Quote:

Originally Posted by durgatosh

Now, about your question about gravity, time and other entities. Gravity has been described as the result of the curvature that matter creates in the space-time fabric. You see how they relate to one-another.

 

This is a classical explanation of the phenomena. I was asking for you to reconcile this with your theory of the infinite instability of zero. You claimed that these forces interact "bi-polarly" in tandem. Please explain.

 

Very good question indeed and a difficult one. There are 2 issues which we are discussing. Firstly, the concept of universe having a sum total of zero and yet infinite in extent. Secondly, the basic unity of all the entities of the universe.

 

Zero as a sum total of the universe is a necessity. There is no other way to avoid the endless question of "where did it come from". Of course, the creationists will talk about divine intervention and the supporters of big-bang will censure the events before the big-bang saying that time started then. But, these explanation do not really clarify the origin. In my previous posts as well as in the 1st post of this thread, I had explained how the universe can be zero in sum total and yet infinite in extent. I had introduced the hypothesis, "the instability of an entity is directly proportional to its proximity to zero". Hence, zero is infinitely unstable and therefore impossible as an independent entity. Thus it is the compulsion of zero to exist as a vast multitude of negatives and positiveswhose sum total is zero. This equivalence of zero and infinity explains the nature of our universe.

 

In my last post, I attempted to explain the basic unity of all entities of the universe. I am inclined to believe that these entities are inter-related in a way that their sum total is zero. The other explanation of corresponding negatives and positives of all entities is also a possibility which I don't rule out (and is easier to explain).

 

The three basic entities of the universe are space, time, matter/energy (I am deliberately avoiding the 4th possible candidate; consciousness). I had explained in my previous post how these entites are not really different but different facets of the same thing. Gravity is not an independent entity but a property of matter because of the curvature or distortion it creates in the space-time fabric. When one understands this basic unity, it merely follows that their sum total must be zero because the universe is necessarily zero in sum total.

 

freeztar

The "inherent limitations of human beings in understanding the reality" is not an excuse for inexplicativeness. The blind men might not ever be able to see the whole elephant, but if they are smart, they can compare descriptions of the leg and back and all the various parts they see individually.

 

That is the whole problem. No matter how smart they are, they would never know the concept of light, colour, and sight. It is one thnig to describe the elephant by various parts by touch and texture; it is a completely different thing to see the elephant. The inherent limitations of human beings is a real blockade in our understanding of the complete reality.

 

DP

[freeztar]

Very good question indeed and a difficult one. There are 2 issues which we are discussing. Firstly, the concept of universe having a sum total of zero and yet infinite in extent. Secondly, the basic unity of all the entities of the universe.

 

Zero as a sum total of the universe is a necessity. There is no other way to avoid the endless question of "where did it come from". Of course, the creationists will talk about divine intervention and the supporters of big-bang will censure the events before the big-bang saying that time started then. But, these explanation do not really clarify the origin. In my previous posts as well as in the 1st post of this thread, I had explained how the universe can be zero in sum total and yet infinite in extent. I had introduced the hypothesis, "the instability of an entity is directly proportional to its proximity to zero". Hence, zero is infinitely unstable and therefore impossible as an independent entity. Thus it is the compulsion of zero to exist as a vast multitude of negatives and positiveswhose sum total is zero. This equivalence of zero and infinity explains the nature of our universe.

 

I understand this 100%.

In my last post, I attempted to explain the basic unity of all entities of the universe. I am inclined to believe that these entities are inter-related in a way that their sum total is zero. The other explanation of corresponding negatives and positives of all entities is also a possibility which I don't rule out (and is easier to explain).

 

This is the sticking point (ie, the issue at hand that limits further discussion). It is a novel concept, but needs to be developed more. For example, you are "inclined to believe that these entities [space, time, and mass/energy] are inter-related in a way that their sum total is zero". Please explain why you believe this. It is crucial to your ideas having any kind of clout.

 

That is the whole problem. No matter how smart they are, they would never know the concept of light, colour, and sight. It is one thnig to describe the elephant by various parts by touch and texture; it is a completely different thing to see the elephant. The inherent limitations of human beings is a real blockade in our understanding of the complete reality.

DP

 

I agree, but inherent it is, for the time being anyways.

[coldcreation]

snip...

 

Zero as a sum total of the universe is a necessity. There is no other way to avoid the endless question of "where did it come from".

DP

 

The above statement is not true. There are other ways. For example: you have a universe that looks like this, -1, 0, +1. While 0, 1, 2... works just fine. The advantages of the latter are numerous, though off-scope for this thread. I will though mention a couple of problems that are eliminated when the latter is chosen: there is no need to explain why phenomenon, properties or states such as antigravity, negative energy, negative pressure, etc. are not observed.

 

If the sum total were zero there would be an exact cancelation of everything, leaving nothing.

 

CC

[durgatosh]

freeztar

This is the sticking point (ie, the issue at hand that limits further discussion). It is a novel concept, but needs to be developed more. For example, you are "inclined to believe that these entities [space, time, and mass/energy] are inter-related in a way that their sum total is zero". Please explain why you believe this. It is crucial to your ideas having any kind of clout.

 

Actually, the concept of basic unity of all entities (space, time, matter, energy) is not really new. It is a derivation from the theory of relativity and the field theory. A very beautiful explanation about the unity of space, time, matter and energy can be found at several places in Fritjof Capra's book "The Tao of Physics". The novelty in my idea is the introduction of zero or nothingness and the concepts of "split of zero" which was evolved to "infinite instability of zero". This explains that the universe is zero in sum total and yet infinite in extent.

 

That these inter-related entities must add to zero is explained. However, I accept that the explantation of how these inter-related entities add to zero is still not very crisp. My ideas on this are still evolving.

 

ColdCreation

The above statement is not true. There are other ways. For example: you have a universe that looks like this, -1, 0, +1. While 0, 1, 2... works just fine. The advantages of the latter are numerous, though off-scope for this thread. I will though mention a couple of problems that are eliminated when the latter is chosen: there is no need to explain why phenomenon, properties or states such as antigravity, negative energy, negative pressure, etc. are not observed.

 

I agree that the universe of 0, 1, 2, .... works fine and a few problems as you mentioned are eliminated. But, one cannot explain the reason of their existence and their origin from this model. Science is not about choosing a simple path in order to avoid problems and controversies; it is about the search of truth, however controversial and difficult it may be.

 

ColdCreation

If the sum total were zero there would be an exact cancelation of everything, leaving nothing.

 

The very fact that zero (nothing) is infinitely unstable would not allow such a happening. It is the compulsion of nothing (zero) to exist as the multitude of positives and negatives that constitute the universe.

 

DP

[coldcreation]

snip...

 

The very fact that zero (nothing) is infinitely unstable would not allow such a happening. It is the compulsion of nothing (zero) to exist as the multitude of positives and negatives that constitute the universe.

 

DP

 

The above does not seem scientific to me. You write, for example, of zero being infinitly unstable. Not only is that not a "fact" but it does not really mean anything. Unstable equilibrium is a term used in thermodynamics but infinitely unstable is used nowhere as far as I know (correct me if I am wrong: I've not yet read everything). "The compulsion of nothing (zero) to exist" likewise means nothing to me from a scientific standpoint. Neither does zero seem to exist as the "multitude of positives and negatives".

 

There are many things (e.g., properties) that simply have no negative values or counterparts with the opposite sign. Energy is one of those, entropy is another: two fundamental aspects or properties of the universe and its constituents.

 

CC

[durgatosh]

coldcreation

You write, for example, of zero being infinitly unstable. Not only is that not a "fact" but it does not really mean anything. Unstable equilibrium is a term used in thermodynamics but infinitely unstable is used nowhere as far as I know (correct me if I am wrong: I've not yet read everything). "The compulsion of nothing (zero) to exist" likewise means nothing to me from a scientific standpoint. Neither does zero seem to exist as the "multitude of positives and negatives".

 

I must make it clear here that these are new concepts. You won't find these terms elsewhere simply because they are not standard terms. I have merely used the English language to communicate my theory. The hypothesis "the stability of an entity is indirectly proportional to its proximity to zero" implies that zero is infinitely unstable and therefore cannot exist. However, as I have explained before, zero must be the sum total of the universe if we have to resolve the real issue of origin. Therefore, I said that it is the compulsion of zero to exist as a multitude of positives and negatives.

 

coldcreation

There are many things (e.g., properties) that simply have no negative values or counterparts with the opposite sign. Energy is one of those, entropy is another: two fundamental aspects or properties of the universe and its constituents.

 

I am sure you would be familiar with the idea of gravitational energy being a negative energy; exactly equal to the total energy of the universe.

 

It is not essential, however, to have negative counterparts for each entity. As I have explained earlier, the basic entities of the universe may be inter-related in a way that their sum total is zero.

 

DP

[coldcreation]

...snip...

 

I am sure you would be familiar with the idea of gravitational energy being a negative energy; exactly equal to the total energy of the universe.

 

It is not essential, however, to have negative counterparts for each entity. As I have explained earlier, the basic entities of the universe may be inter-related in a way that their sum total is zero.

 

DP

 

 

That theory dates back to the 1970's: Edward Tryon, then followed by Guth (recall the ultimate "free lunch").

 

Edward Tryon, in 1973 described two forms of energy: gravitational negative energy and positive energy related to mass. The total of both energies exactly cancel, leaving the universe with zero energy. In essence, Tryon speculates, the entire universe sprang from a large-scale vacuum energy fluctuation.

 

The only problem with this appetizing thought is that the universe would be totally empty: just like an empty plate before lunch is served. If all forces (positive and negative energy) cancelled there would be no zero-point energy or ground energy in the vacuum. There would be no polarization of the vacuum. So the concept, despite its appeal, is in gross opposition with observation (not to mention GR, QM and the known laws of nature, all of them).

 

Guth’s free lunch is virtually identical in concept to Tryon’s. But Guth doesn’t exert himself unduly in paying tribute to his predecessor. His job is to lull us with his incredible, glittery inflationary expansion (even though the full dimension of the tale remains forever hidden behind some event horizon). After all, two creators can produce identical concepts, just as two comedians can crack the same joke, just as two magicians can perform identical tricks.

 

So you see, durgatosh, the free lunch idea you promote, although containing some differences with the above, suffers from the same quandry. To understand that, you have to understand a free meal doesn’t begin when you walk through the door of the establishment: it begins some time before, out in the barren parking lot: then waiting in line where other customers stand like hungry spirits; trying to pear through the windows and ascertain if the place is open, closed or flat out of business.

 

Bonne voyage, and more importantly, bonne appétit.

 

CC

 

 

 

 

.

[CraigD]

That theory dates back to the 1970's: Edward Tryon, then followed by Guth (recall the ultimate "free lunch")….

Very informative biographical references, CC. Have you considered doing a bit of encyclopedic (eg: NPOV) writing? The Tryon and Guth wikipedia articles are mere stubs, and could greatly stand some improvement.

So you see, durgatosh, the free lunch idea you promote, although containing some differences with the above, suffers from the same quandry. …

The difference between Edward Tryon’s "Our Universe is simply one of those things that happens from time to time" origin of the universe hypothesis, and durgatosh’s “infinite instability of zero” one, is, I think, dramatic.

 

In essence, Tryon is simply taking the usual interpretation of quantum mechanics as expressable as (non-zero, non-unity) probability to the logical conclusion that, if you wait long enough on a universal quantum wave function describing the probability of any particle being observed anywhere as uniformly zero (or very small), eventually you’ll observe all the particles everywhere. It’s similar to the exercise of computing the probability of a macroscopic ensemble of particles, such as a human being, spontaniously tunneling a macroscopic distance, such as from one room to another.

 

Durgatosh, on the other hand, is suggesting something very different, depending not at all on a probabilistic view of reality. He’s suggesting that, rather than the spontaneous appearance of everything from nothing in a short time interval having a very low probability, and thus requiring a very long time to occur, it has a very high probability, so occurs immediately. To put it in a aphorism similar to Tryon’s, he’s saying “Our Universe is simply one of those things that MUST happen IMMEDIATELY”.[

The only problem with this appetizing thought is that the universe would be totally empty: just like an empty plate before lunch is served. If all forces (positive and negative energy) cancelled there would be no zero-point energy or ground energy in the vacuum.

Although I’m not familiar in detail with Tryon, Guth, or other’s formalism concerning the “universe is a vacuum fluctuation” hypothesis, or even how much if any such formalism exists, this is not my impression of its implications. Ordinary vacuum fluctuations, such as those demonstrated by the well-experimentally verified Casimir effect, require the vacuum energy to exist. Universe-creating vacuum fluctuations would presumably be due to the realization of a very low-probability event, rather than the physically constrained wave functions involved in the Casimir effect, but likewise require the presence of vacuum energy.

 

The major problem I see with the UIAVF hypothesis is that it seems to say little about actual state of the universe at any particular time, lending equal support to continuous-creation or big bang cosmological models – in short, that it’s an explanation that makes no pre or post-dictions. Again, my familiarity with the literature of this family of hypotheses is poor, to the problem may be in my scholarship, not the hypotheses or their literature.

[coldcreation]

Very informative biographical references, CC. Have you considered doing a bit of encyclopedic (eg: NPOV) writing? The Tryon and Guth wikipedia articles are mere stubs, and could greatly stand some improvement. ...snip...

 

Actually, yes, I have thought about doing a bit of encyclopedic work. However, writing with a neutral point of view is no fun. It's like talking about a work of art without delving into the personality of the artist. You see CraigD, much of what makes (or breaks) a physicist (or an artist) is based not soley on his or her work. The case of Hawking is a prime example.

 

For example, you may read in an encyclopedia that Hawking had built his career as an enthusiastic big bang guardian. You may even read (though I doubt it) that he, more than anyone, as the man who brought back Newton’s catch phrase, ‘The Mind of God,’ should have recognized that in an era of peerless exuberance no theoretical physicist can stop a new creation by nailing it to a cross. To crucify the nouveaux avant-garde is seen as old school, anti-modern, passé. To be seen as old school is equivalent to being blackballed from the scene. To be out of the scene gets you nowhere fast.

 

It is not hard to see how his interests are furthered in many ways by his performance, his personality: somethiing far-from neutral. That is what keeps him on top of the scene, more so than his work.

 

Perhaps you could link me to an article you've written at Wiki. I would be very interested (here or in a PM). Thanks in advance.

 

CC

[durgatosh]

coldcreation

That theory dates back to the 1970's: Edward Tryon, then followed by Guth (recall the ultimate "free lunch").

 

...So you see, durgatosh, the free lunch idea you promote, although containing some differences with the above, suffers from the same quandry....

 

Gross misunderstanding of my concept! I gave you the example of the idea of gravitational energy to be a negative energy in order to say that the idea of negative energy exists and cannot be totally ruled out. In no way does it mean that I am a supporter of the theories of Tryon and Guth. And their concept of free lunch is very different from my concept of eternal existence of universe because of the infinite instability (and thus impossibility) of zero (nothing).

 

Craig D

The difference between Edward Tryon’s "Our Universe is simply one of those things that happens from time to time" origin of the universe hypothesis, and durgatosh’s “infinite instability of zero” one, is, I think, dramatic.

 

...Durgatosh, on the other hand, is suggesting something very different, depending not at all on a probabilistic view of reality. He’s suggesting that, rather than the spontaneous appearance of everything from nothing in a short time interval having a very low probability, and thus requiring a very long time to occur, it has a very high probability, so occurs immediately. To put it in a aphorism similar to Tryon’s, he’s saying “Our Universe is simply one of those things that MUST happen IMMEDIATELY”.

 

Exactly! There is no possibility of zero (nothingness) existing. Therefore, the existence of universe is an obvious necessity ... always.

 

DP

[coldcreation]

Gross misunderstanding of my concept! I gave you the example of the idea of gravitational energy to be a negative energy in order to say that the idea of negative energy exists and cannot be totally ruled out. In no way does it mean that I am a supporter of the theories of Tryon and Guth. And their concept of free lunch is very different from my concept of eternal existence of universe because of the infinite instability (and thus impossibility) of zero (nothing).

 

Exactly! There is no possibility of zero (nothingness) existing. Therefore, the existence of universe is an obvious necessity ... always.

 

DP

 

The only proponents of a void with nothing are those who suspect time began at the big bang, i.e., before that there was no universe, nothing. Note that they are a minority in the sense that this epoch (if indeed it can be called an epoch) is not part of the big bang theory, it is therefore not the mainstream view. The void problem was solved long ago (see Hawking et al): it was scrapped from the theory. So why bring it back in the form of a critique.

 

The concept of gravity as negative energy is an abstract one. If one looks at gravity as a curved spacetime phenomenon it makes little sense. That is exactly what Tyron had done, then Guth.

 

By the way, as noted early on in this thread, there are places in the universe (trillions and trillions of them) where the gravitational 'force' is equal to zero: Lagrange points. So the "infinite instability" of zero make no sense at all viewed from that perspective.

 

cc

[durgatosh]

coldcreation

The only proponents of a void with nothing are those who suspect time began at the big bang, i.e., before that there was no universe, nothing. Note that they are a minority in the sences that that epoch (if indeed it can be called an epoch) is not part of the big bang thoery, it is therefore not mainstream view. The void problem was solved long ago (see Hawking et al): it was scrapped for the theory. So why bring it back in the form of a critique.

 

The problem is that you still think that I believe that the universe sprang up from a void. When I started to think about the problem of origin, I conceptualized the "split of zero" in order to solve the endless question of "where did it come from". Quickly, I understood the limitations of such an approach and then my thinking evolved to "infinite instability of zero". This does not in any way mean origin from nothing; rather it means that nothingness is an impossibility and therefore the existence of universe is an obvious and necessary requirement. Further, the sum total of everything must be zero because there is no other way to avoid the question of "where it came from". Sum total of zero obviates the need of origin.

 

coldcreation

By the way, as noted early on in this thread, there are places in the universe (trillions and trillions of them) where the gravitational 'force' is equal to zero: Lagrange points. So the "infinite instability" of zero make no sense at all viewed from that perspective.

 

You must understand that "zero" as described here is a mathematical representation of nothingness(no space, no time, no matter, no energy). It does not reflect no orange, or no apple, or as you say, no gravitational energy. Gravitational energy of zero does not imply nothing. As you say, "there are places in the universe ....." ---- these places imply space, time flows in those places as well; they are not nothing.

 

Zero (nothingness) is an impossibility; yet is essential as a sum total of the universe. Thus, the universe is eternal and infinite; with a sum total of zero.

 

DP

[coldcreation]

Zero (nothingness) is an impossibility; yet is essential as a sum total of the universe. Thus, the universe is eternal and infinite; with a sum total of zero.

 

DP

We're going around in circles. Most will agree that nothing (no space, no time, no geometry, no energy, etc.) cannot exist. And I agree that there was no begining of the universe. However, the "sum total" of all constituents is surely not zero. If that were the case there would be no arrow of time, no second law of thermodynamics.

 

CC

[durgatosh]

coldcreation

We're going around in circles. Most will agree that nothing (no space, no time, no geometry, no energy, etc.) cannot exist. And I agree that there was no begining of the universe. However, the "sum total" of all constituents is surely not zero.

 

We go round in circles because even after so many circles, my idea of nothingness (zero) was not clear to you till now. Now that it is, you agree that nothingness cannot exist. Pretty obvious, isn't it?

 

1. Nothingness (zero) cannot exist. Therefore, something must exist. Hence the universe.

 

2. If something (universe) exists, where did it come from? One cannot escape this question unless one can explain origin from nothing (zero).

 

3. However, nothingness (zero) cannot exist. Thus, the sum total of the universe must be zero; and this zero exist as a multitude of positives and negatives: what we call as universe.

 

DP

[coldcreation]

We go round in circles because even after so many circles, my idea of nothingness (zero) was not clear to you till now. Now that it is, you agree that nothingness cannot exist. Pretty obvious, isn't it?

 

1. Nothingness (zero) cannot exist. Therefore, something must exist. Hence the universe.

 

2. If something (universe) exists, where did it come from? One cannot escape this question unless one can explain origin from nothing (zero).

 

3. However, nothingness (zero) cannot exist. Thus, the sum total of the universe must be zero; and this zero exist as a multitude of positives and negatives: what we call as universe.

 

DP

 

You go around in circles because you keep on repeating the same three points above.

 

Number one above is obvious.

 

Number two, however does not obligatorily follow from one. It is not essential to explain the origin from nothing (zero) since it doesn't exist, as you point out in three.

 

Number three stresses the importance of a relation that combined cancel out to zero (zero here though no longer means nothing): presumably regarding the constituents of the universe: something that is not observed).

 

So, instead of the relation -1, 0 +1, it seems much more logical, intuitive, mathematically sound and observationally verifiable the relation 0, 1, 2, 3... where instead of negatives on one side of the zero we have this:

 

...3, 2, 1, 0, 1, 2, 3...

 

 

Note that the problem inherent in you thought process (similar, but not the same, as the Tyron-Guth problem) vanishes (namely that the sum total of the universe must be zero) when this relation is used to explain the evolution of the universe (hint: there is no origin).

 

CC