The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery

[johnhuey]

Moved to new thread: 'The Big Rip'.

 

I have a question: As inflation expands space at ever increasing speeds, it has been proposed that it will begin to tear apart the very structure of matter. The so called Big Rip - So what is the theoretical impact of the Big Rip when it hits a Black Hole?

[coldcreation]

I have a question: As inflation expands space at ever increasing speeds, it has been proposed that it will begin to tear apart the very structure of matter. The so called Big Rip - So what is the theoretical impact of the Big Rip when it hits a Black Hole?

 

Why don't you start a thread called The Big Rip?

 

This thread is supposed to be about the origin of the universe, not the end of it (at least according to the title).

 

I will gladly participate.

 

CC

[Southtown]

To save people a few clicks and to bump my post count...

 

The Big Rip - Hypography Science Forums

[durgatosh]

coldcreation

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).

 

Zero still means nothing indeed. Zero is an abstract concept, but I never thought it would be so difficult to understand. It is indeed extremely difficult, if not impossible, to visualize/observe nothing (zero), but not so difficult to understand as a concept.

 

This is the reason for our going around in circles. Despite so many posts and repetitions, "zero" is still elusive. Unless zero is understood as a concept, my theory will not be understood.

 

coldcreation

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).

 

You still seem to be stuck to the Tyron-Guth problem. If the universe in totality is not zero (nothing), there is definitely a need for origin. Otherwise, one would not be able to answer the endless question of "where it came from". This problem can only be solved if the universe in totality is zero (nothing).

 

DP

[Pluto]

I maybe simple.

 

But! I do not understand the zero.

 

I do accept that the universe has no origin.

[coldcreation]

Zero still means nothing indeed. Zero is an abstract concept, but I never thought it would be so difficult to understand. It is indeed extremely difficult, if not impossible, to visualize/observe nothing (zero), but not so difficult to understand as a concept.

 

This is the reason for our going around in circles. Despite so many posts and repetitions, "zero" is still elusive. Unless zero is understood as a concept, my theory will not be understood.

 

If zero is nothing; no spacetime, energy, entropy, no thermodynamics, no QM, no relativity, nothing, not even a state, then what is "negative" in your concept?

 

If zero is nothing; no spacetime, energy, entropy, no thermodynamics, no QM, no relativity, nothing, not even a state, then why should it even be considered: it is a pure invention of the human mind.

 

 

You still seem to be stuck to the Tyron-Guth problem. If the universe in totality is not zero (nothing), there is definitely a need for origin. Otherwise, one would not be able to answer the endless question of "where it came from". This problem can only be solved if the universe in totality is zero (nothing).

 

DP

 

The Tyron-Guth problem hasn't gone away. The rest of what you write makes little sense, since the totality of what is observed in nature is not zero, it never could have been, and so there is no problem of origin (since there never was one).

 

CC

[durgatosh]

coldcreation

If zero is nothing; no spacetime, energy, entropy, no thermodynamics, no QM, no relativity, nothing, not even a state, then what is "negative" in your concept?

 

Zero is nothing. "Negative" is the counterpart of positive. Nature allows us the glimpse of negatives in certain cases, eg positive and negative charge. In many cases, however, we may never have access to the negatives.

 

coldcreation

If zero is nothing; no spacetime, energy, entropy, no thermodynamics, no QM, no relativity, nothing, not even a state, then why should it even be considered: it is a pure invention of the human mind.

 

Unfortunately, this attitude of scientific methods has been one of the biggest hurdles in the understanding of reality. If something cannot be observed or measured, don't consider it. Fortunately, this attitude is now changing. Also, we have a great tradition in mathematics to consider, debate, calculate, and discuss about abstract things which do not really exist (zero, negative numbers, unreal numbers ......). Similarly, in particle physics, we now have discussion about virtual particles etc.

 

Zero (nothingness) cannot exist on its own (infinite instability of zero). Sum total of universe to be zero does not mean existence of zero. But zero (nothingness) is a necessity to solve the problem of origin (or eternity).

 

coldcreation

The rest of what you write makes little sense, since the totality of what is observed in nature is not zero, it never could have been, and so there is no problem of origin (since there never was one).

 

I am surprised at the confidence with which you dismiss zero.

 

If the totality of the universe is non-zero, one has to explain where it came from (or why it exists). This is the problem of origin. Unless you bring in the answers of divine intervention, or censor events before a certain event (say big-bang), you cannot answer this problem. To me, both the above assumptions are clearly not satisfactory.

 

There are entities about which we know quite a bit (space, time, matter, energy). There are entities about which we know very little (consciousnes). And there may be entities about which we are not even aware of (like the blind men are unaware of sight, light, colour...). The sum total of all the entities (known and unknown) must be zero. This is what my concept is.

 

DP

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi Durgatosh,

 

Thank you for your private message and kind words. I fear I may have flattered myself in the introduction you read, because your thesis, although profound and obviously the result of much careful thought, is way above me. I just can't grasp what mystical significance you ascribe to zero. Mathematically, it is the smallest possible quantity, being an absence of any value whatsoever. Like all of mathematics, it is purely conceptual, and there is no known correlation in nature. Furthermore, in the real world (external to our consciousness) the existence of something removes forever the possibility of nothing. Whether or not we accept the existence of something real in the first place is a philosophical choice, and I proceed from the assumption that there is a state of reality independent of consciousness or observation. I also stipulate that we may debate such things as may be obvious to us in our common reality only by means of logic and rationale. I reject irrational theories or suggestions that are logically impossible in my own best judgement. The assymetry (morphology) of the Universe is its defining characteristic, and that means on my own journey I dedicate myself to the explanation of structure rather than the lack of it. So in trying to explain that part of the Universe that I am sentiently aware of, I confine myself to the empirical scientific method. It's the best I can do.

 

Consequently, I have no useful ideas for you on such esoteric concepts as the "beginning" or "end" of the Universe. That there is no such thing as a final frontier is for me a logical certainty, and there is in any case no observational evidence to support absolutes in either time or space.

 

If you are interested in examining a "reality physics" counterpoint to your model, might I suggest you read my book "The Virtue of Heresy - Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer". It is available from the Hypography bookstore.

 

But don't stop thinking "out the box". Science advances by being challenged, not by reinforcing our prejudice.

 

Thank you again for your message.

With best wishes

Hilton

[durgatosh]

Hi Hilton,

Thanks for your comments on my thoughts. I would like to clarify a few things and also generate some more discussion on it.

 

Hilton Ratcliffe

Furthermore, in the real world (external to our consciousness) the existence of something removes forever the possibility of nothing.

 

Agreed! This has been my position as well. Infinite instability (impossibility) of zero (nothing) is the same idea.

 

Hilton

Whether or not we accept the existence of something real in the first place is a philosophical choice, and I proceed from the assumption that there is a state of reality independent of consciousness or observation.

 

The point I am trying to probe is the reason why this reality (universe) exists. You proceed with the assumption of independent reality and then probe on the "how" of the universe. My quest is for the "why" of universe.

 

That something exists is indisputable; this excludes the possibility of nothing (zero). Why it exists leads us to questioning the origin, ... and ultimately this can be solved only if we can explain the origin from nothing (zero). This was my concept of the "split of zero". But we have seen that zero cannot exist independently. From the paradox of overtaking vehicles and from quantum theory, we also see that an entity (space, time, energy) cannot be divided indefinitely; there cannot be a value less than a minimum quantum. Hence the hypothesis "Stability of an entity is indirectly proportional to its proximity to zero". As a corollary, zero is impossible.

 

The contradiction between the two concepts "split of zero" (explaining origin from nothing) and "impossibility of zero" can be solved only if we understand that zero exists as a multitude of positives and negatives so long as their sum total is zero. Hence, I believe that the universe is eternal, with no beginning and no end, and the sum total of all entities of the universe (space, time, matter, energy ...) is zero.

 

DP

[johnhuey]

Just as a small aside here, I recommend the book _Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea_ by Charles Seife. The book is more about the history and mathematical import of zero than on it's implications in physics but it is a very nice non-technical read.

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Thanks johnhuey (relative of bellhuey? :)) for the reference. Companions to that work might be Brian Clegg's charming if error-ridden "Infinity - the Quest to Think the Unthinkable" and for the intellectual masochocists out there, the twelve pages (!!!) on the cardinal number 1, mostly consisting of line after line of symbolic logical propositions, in Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell's monster volume "Principia Mathematica" (commences on page 345 of vol one of Cambridge's 1997 re-issue).

 

My point is that we can simply get lost in the detail. Aristotle said in Analytica Posteriora "...that proof is the better which proceeds from fewer postulates, or hypotheses, or propositions." Occam's razor.

 

Regards

Hilton

[johnhuey]

Thanks johnhuey (relative of bellhuey? :)) for the reference. Companions to that work might be Brian Clegg's charming if error-ridden "Infinity - the Quest to Think the Unthinkable" and for the intellectual masochocists out there, the twelve pages (!!!) on the cardinal number 1, mostly consisting of line after line of symbolic logical propositions, in Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell's monster volume "Principia Mathematica" (commences on page 345 of vol one of Cambridge's 1997 re-issue).

 

My point is that we can simply get lost in the detail. Aristotle said in Analytica Posteriora "...that proof is the better which proceeds from fewer postulates, or hypotheses, or propositions." Occam's razor.

 

Regards

Hilton

 

No relation to any of the more famous or wealthy Hueys (that I know of).

 

I found the Principia Mathematica to be completely impenetrable. I just hope it meant something to somebody.

 

So, so many people get Occam's razor wrong (particularly on television) it is refreshing to see the proper interpretation.

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi Durgatosh,

 

There are two things I would like to add. First concerns your demeanour. Your approach to science and philosophy shows a refreshing lack of arrogance. In this world as it is, that counts for a lot. Please don't become discouraged. While I am not in a position to verify your notions, I still believe you deserve to be heard.

 

Your idea of dividing zero: It seems that you are using zero conceptually as a virtual container into which you put equal quantities of opposing polarities which when summed cancel each other out. That is a rather abstruse and inaccurate rendition of zero. No matter how many times you divide or multiply zero, or by what amount each time, the answer is always zero. If one looks at singularities in the Schwarzschild metric, it is obvious that he escapes the "divide-by-zero" problem by arbitrarily setting differential limits in the calculus, in other words, he can divide by "zero" because he approximates zero. It is impossible to divide by zero. One cannot in reality achieve infinite density by dividing a given mass by zero volume. The principle applies to your proposition as well. You approximate zero by giving it qualities and quantities that are balanced positives and negatives. +1-1 = 0 is not the same as +1-1 is 0. This is important when one considers the nature of the Universe. There is a slight imbalance in the ratios of matter to antimatter, of mass energy to kinetic energy, and so on, and the result is the structural assymetry we see around us. If the pairings of opposing characteristics in nature were exactly equal, the Universe would be featureless, totally smooth. Think about this: The Friedmann solutions of GR field equations do not allow large-scale structure. They depend upon the validity (critically so!) of the Cosmological Principle, that is, that the Universe at some or other "large scale" is homogenious and isotropic. That's the theory. Observation, on the other hand, shows us at all scales at which we are capable of taking measurements that the Universe is statistically irregular in all directions. Which is right, and as a neccessary consequence, which should be changed - theory or observation?

 

regards

Hilton

[Pluto]

Hello Durgadosh

 

You said

 

That something exists is indisputable; this excludes the possibility of nothing (zero). Why it exists leads us to questioning the origin, ... and ultimately this can be solved only if we can explain the origin from nothing (zero). This was my concept of the "split of zero". But we have seen that zero cannot exist independently. From the paradox of overtaking vehicles and from quantum theory, we also see that an entity (space, time, energy) cannot be divided indefinitely; there cannot be a value less than a minimum quantum. Hence the hypothesis "Stability of an entity is indirectly proportional to its proximity to zero". As a corollary, zero is impossible.

 

Are you trying to say that, the universe came from nothing, and that you want to prove that something can come from nothing.

[durgatosh]

Hi Hilton,

I would urge you to read my posts (especially the first one) once again. This will clarify my understanding of zero and would clear the misconceptions about my thoughts.

 

Hilton

Your idea of dividing zero: It seems that you are using zero conceptually as a virtual container into which you put equal quantities of opposing polarities which when summed cancel each other out. That is a rather abstruse and inaccurate rendition of zero. No matter how many times you divide or multiply zero, or by what amount each time, the answer is always zero. If one looks at singularities in the Schwarzschild metric, it is obvious that he escapes the "divide-by-zero" problem by arbitrarily setting differential limits in the calculus, in other words, he can divide by "zero" because he approximates zero. It is impossible to divide by zero.

 

I have never used zero in this way. I do not divide or divide-by zero. Zero is a mathematical representation of nothingness (no space, no time, no matter, no energy ...., absolutely nothing).

 

I have explained previously that this nothingness (zero) is an impossibility. The question is: "then why am I so obsessed with zero? If zero is impossible, why should it not be disregarded?"

 

Because, when we discuss about the origin of universe, we are faced with the endless question of "where did it come from". Unless you propose a divine intervention or censor events prior to a particular event (as in big-bang theory), this endless question cannot be answered. Both these propositions may have their advocates, but are clearly not satisfactory explanations of the origin. The only way this question can be answered is to explain the origin from nothing (zero). This was my explanation of the "split of zero".

 

However, we have seen that nothingness (zero) cannot exist on its own. Yet, one cannot satisfactorily explain the origin without zero. This apparent contradiction can be solved if we understand zero as a vast multitude of positives and negatives, so long as the sum total is zero.

 

"The stability of an entity is indirectly proportional to its proximity to zero". When we deal with entities at a very very small magnitude, their instability and uncertainty increase. There are several such examples from particle physics. Zero would thus be infinitely unstable and can exist only as a multitude of entities (positive and negative) with a sum total of zero.

 

Thus the universe is a manifestation of the compulsion of zero to exist as an infinite range of negatives and positives. The universe exists because zero (nothingness) cannot exist.

 

Hilton

If the pairings of opposing characteristics in nature were exactly equal, the Universe would be featureless, totally smooth.

 

Zero as exactly equal pairings of positives and negatives is one possibility, but not necessarily so. My own inclination is that the basic entities of the universe (space, time, matter/energy, consciousness,...) are not separate and independent entities. Rather, they are inter-related in a way that their sum total is zero. I have elaborated on this in previous posts; I would be glad to discuss about it further.

 

Hilton

Observation, on the other hand, shows us at all scales at which we are capable of taking measurements that the Universe is statistically irregular in all directions. Which is right, and as a neccessary consequence, which should be changed - theory or observation?

 

Observations are extremely important; yet are inherently limited. We all (observers) are blind men trying to explain the elephant (reality). The reality may be different from what our observations suggest. Please see the introduction of my first post in this thread.

 

DP

[coldcreation]

...

Observations are extremely important; yet are inherently limited. We all (observers) are blind men trying to explain the elephant (reality). The reality may be different from what our observations suggest. ...

 

DP

 

I have yet to read in this thread of one single observation (let alone two) that could in any possible way provide a clue as to whether the contentions held here could , even in principle, be falsified or substantiated.

 

Science is based on empirical evidence.

 

Faith is based on belief.

 

If nothing more, and until a glimmer of experimental or observational evidence in support of the concept of zero (and its whimsical spliting) expounded throughout these e-pages is produced, one can only conclude that the entire premise upon which the idea rests is based on pure faith.

 

If there is anything empirical elucidated here (that I have overlooked or missed), please feel free to point out which post to refer to.

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

To create something from nothing is saying majic plays a part.

 

Rather than trying to create something from nothing, its easier to look at matter being recycled.