beecee

I did my Apprenticeship with ICI of Australia and spent some time in the Chlorine production section. We detected Cl leaks by spraying Ammonia around joints etc. If there was a leak, a cloudy gas would form...Ammonium Chloride. I also was gassed on one occasion, an experience that I would not want to go through again.

He is essentially saying what I have being saying...nothing, as per your definition is impossible and has not nor ever did exist....or as aptly described by the following... Thorham...I'm no scientist, nor philosopher. In fact like Krauss, I have drawn the ire of philosophers at times, when quoting such lines as "Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know" In actual fact I don't like being labeled anything, other then hopefully, a lover of reason and the scientific methodology, as corny as that may sound. In reality I'm an old retired maintenance Fitter/Machinist/Welder that loves to learn what I can about physics and cosmology, and sometimes regretting that I left it too late in life to do anything about, other then badgering those more knowledgable then myself on forums such as this. I see it as awesome that cosmologists can take us back to t+10-43 seconds with some confidence, and relay with logic how things progressed from there. I'm equally in awe, how we can also speculate with some degree of knowledge and data, how scientists like Krauss for example, can even delve into the abyss of whatever nothing existed before space and time, as we know them. I find it far more logical and reasonable to accept such speculation as the quantum foam, then other unscientific solutions, that first arose with ancient man. I admire the logic and science of scientists such as Krauss and Dawkins, but my most respected scientist, and probably the one that got me all fired up and into this stuff is the late Carl Sagan. I have his "Pale Blue Dot" narrative hanging up in my man cave. Anyway nice debating with you and look forward to more when such time may arise.

That's nice...And being such a basic fundamental, and eternal concept, we should have no problem inferring it as nothing. And a fundamental nothing, due to its inherent instability, from which space/time/universe may have evolved. Certainly speculation, but scientifically based speculation rather then any unscientific myth explanation. I see it as having promise and possibly one day when we are closer to a QGT, a proper evidenced based scientific theory. My apologies for that slip up Thorham https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/11/27/ask-ethan-how-did-the-entire-universe-come-from-nothing/?sh=7d1370242c59 extract: To a large fraction of people, a Universe where space-and-time still exist, along with the laws of physics, the fundamental constants, and some non-zero field energy inherent to the fabric of space itself, is very much divorced from the idea of nothingness. We can imagine, after all, a location outside of space; a moment beyond the confines of time; a set of conditions that have no physical reality to constrain them. And those imaginings — if we define these physical realities as things we need to eliminate to obtain true nothingness — are certainly valid, at least philosophically. But that’s the difference between philosophical nothingness and a more physical definition of nothingness. As I wrote back in 2018, there are four scientific definitions of nothing, and they’re all valid, depending on your context: A time when your "thing" of interest didn't exist, Empty, physical space, Empty spacetime in the lowest-energy state possible, and Whatever you're left with when you take away the entire Universe and the laws governing it. We can definitely say we obtained “a Universe from nothing” if we use the first two definitions; we cannot if we use the third; and quite unfortunately, we don’t know enough to say what happens if we use the fourth. Without a physical theory to describe what happens outside of the Universe and beyond the realm physical laws, the concept of true nothingness is physically ill-defined. In the context of physics, it’s impossible to make sense of an idea of absolute nothingness. What does it mean to be outside of space and time, and how can space and time sensibly, predictably emerge from a state of non-existence? How can spacetime emerge at a particular location or time, when there’s no definition of location or time without it? Where do the rules governing quanta — the fields and particles both — arise from? This line of thought even assumes that space, time, and the laws of physics themselves weren’t eternal, when in fact they may be. Any theorems or proofs to the contrary rely on assumptions whose validity is not soundly established under the conditions which we’d seek to apply them. If you accept a physical definition of “nothing,” then yes, the Universe as we know it very much appears to have arisen from nothing. But if you leave physical constraints behind, then all certainly about our ultimate cosmic origins disappears. Unfortunately for us all, inflation, by its very nature, erases any information that might be imprinted from a pre-existing state on our observable Universe. Despite the limitless nature of our imaginations, we can only draw conclusions about matters for which tests involving our physical reality can be constructed. No matter how logically sound any other consideration may be, including a notion of absolute nothingness, it’s merely a construct of our minds. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: As I said earlier, the concept of nothing is not as easily defined or understood as some seem to think.

I'm still waiting for your alternative explanation, and/or a refutation of the data that a universe from nothing [nothing being inherently unstable] and defined as the quantum foam, is not in the realms of possibility. The author makes it abundantly clear that this is still speculation, while using data to show it is in the realms of possibility. In fact many times. This is only a short explanation...Like I said, he certainly offended creationists and some philosophers, and Thorum..2m 30 mark answers your question. I like it and see it as a possibility. Do what? What fight? I think Marcus has explained it very well. You don't accept it? That's your perogative...I see it as a pretty good explanation, without the mental gymnastics you have conjured up.

If the quantum foam is as basic and fundamental as one can ever achieve, its rather obvious it could be defined as "nothing" afterall as I said space was thought of as nothing, still is by many. It also appears your use of "pop science" is obviously an attempt at derision of Krauss....You should realize as I have said, that the ideas and basis for his hypothesis, is based on current data and quantum principles, while at the same time being totally upfront in that the hypothesis is just that. You do understand that? still on his credentials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Krauss Krauss received undergraduate degrees in mathematics and physics with first-class honours at Carleton University in Ottawa in 1977, and was awarded a Ph.D. in physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1982. Awards Andrew Gemant Award (2001) Lilienfeld Prize (2001) Science Writing Award (2002) Oersted Medal (2004) Richard Dawkins Award (2016) Scientific career Fields Theoretical physics Cosmology Institutions Arizona State University Australian National University New College of the Humanities Yale University Case Western Reserve University Harvard University Thesis Gravitation and Phase Transitions in the Early Universe (1982) Doctoral advisor Roscoe Giles[1] Wow! Obviously it is well known that Professor Krauss has greatly offended two groups of people....philosophers, and Creationists. It appears we can add you to that list. It's still not really clear why though? Redefining of a word? Surely not, they are redefined all the time! Thought I would search how nothing has been and is now defined. Not as clear cut as some would have us believe....... https://www.livescience.com/28132-what-is-nothing-physicists-debate.html https://www.vice.com/en/article/vbk5va/what-is-nothing ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: From the last link above, Sean Carroll remarks, "Ultimately, Carroll said, he’s not losing sleep over the question of “What is nothing?” even if it’s a fascinating thing to think about. “I think the question of ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ is interesting, but the answer probably is, ‘That’s just the way it is,’” he concluded. “ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The highlighted bit by me, aligns to the Krauss hypothesis.

Quantum foam, the most fundamental and basic of all concepts...The ultimate nothing would also suffice. Afterall we imagined space as nothing at one time, and the majority probably still do. Words are redefined all the time...one that immediately comes to mind...GAY. In my young days it meant being happy, now it has an entirely different meaning. But again, the first thing I do when I come across some ambiguous text, is find out what the author was referring to. The BB while being a term of derision, is understood that way, by those interested enough to research it and understand it is in no way like any conventional explosion.

You are entitled to disagree as much as you like, but you are unable to offer anything in return. Krauss has simply speculated as to how, going on current knowledge, that our universe arose from nothing...nothing being defined as the quantum foam. You seem to disaprove...so what do you suggest? Some science terminology can be confusing, I have already agreed with that. The thing to do is understand what is actually meant. Vehemently disaproving, which you seem to be doing, without offering a solution in its place, smells of an agenda. In fact it could be said that "nothing" or nothingness, as you seem to define it, does not nor ever has existed. Krauss comes to his conclusions, based on empirical evidence and available data. He certainly does not claim it is foolproof or even at scientific theory stage, but then again, we also have yet to formulate a validated QGT. His hypothesis does not put the question of how the universe came to be beyond doubt, but it does indicate it is within the realms of possibility...and that is the crux of the matter. His expertise and credentials are beyond reproach, although he has got a few Philosophers off side with some comments.

I see fundamental, more as the ultimate nothing. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/the ultimate in Definition of the ultimate in : the greatest or most extreme form or example of (something) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: So as defined, the universe/space/time is the ultimate something, that resulted from nothing.

The BB was a termed applied by Fred Hoyle, supposedly as a term of derision, and who pushed the Steady State hypothetical. I probably agree, its a language usage problem, but the point Krauss makes remains. Perhaps the quantum foam is as fundamental as is possible to achieve and may actually be nothing from which the universe evolved. At that fundamental nature, it is imo easy to imagine it as nothing, the same as we once imagined space as nothing. And as quantum mechanics tells us, nothing is inherently unstable. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-all

Funny, you are the second person to suggest that same nonsense that the Earth formed inside a BH. Let's get down to the nitty gritty....the incredible gravity created inside BH's, along with the tidal gravitational effects, would see any matter inside the EH, broken down and ripped asunder. Nothing as complicated as Earth could ever exist.

Again, what is proposed is that quantum foam is nothing, despite what our human understanding of the word is. And science has continually down through the ages, shown humanity as wrong. Science is a discipline in eternal progress.

So, we get back to Krauss' hypothesis again. The quantum foam is possible that nothing, unless you have something more obvious in mind?

It just maybe nothing, despite our general understanding of nothing, which simply may need redefining. Afterall we once thought space was nothing. We were wrong. The universe/space/time isn't concerned about what we or anyone else may determine as click bait or spectacular.

In actual fact it's your own biases and obvious agenda that is as clear as day. Why? [1] Obviously what you propose is not a scientific theory..it is an hypothesis, nothing more, nothing less. [2] You come here with your first posts, proclaiming this hypothesis as fact and with certainty...it isn't, on both counts. [3] Like most people that come to a science forum with a fanatical agenda, you post it in science, instead of speculation, which is made pretty clear when you join up...it is also consequently dishonest. “But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” ― Carl Sagan

What I was trying to say, and what Krauss was saying, is that the quantum foam is nothing.

It's your evidence [or lack thereof] which is flawed, as well as your obvious total lack of understanding. Firstly your ignorance in not realizing and understanding that the "trumpet shape" is a 2 dimensional representation of 3 dimensional spacetime with expansion. secondly the singularity as Phi for All has said, is simply where our theories and models break down at the quantum/Planck level. No one now accepts any singularity of infinite curvature and density. And again, it was not an explosion per se, simply an expansion/evolution of space and time as we know them. Firstly the sphere of our observational universe from our point on Earth. Similar observational spheres would exist for any Alien in any other part of the universe. And as Zapatos has said, your incredulity of the current accepted BB model, in no way gives your own baseless assumptions any credibility. One thing I have learnt over the years in forums such as this and reputable reading, before anyone attempts to comment negatively on current scientific theories, or offer any so called alternatives, you should at least understand thoroughly the current model you are trying to over throw....or know what is inside the box, before attempting to think outside the box.

That which you claim is silly, is what the evidence overwhelmingly supports. That's what constitutes a scientific theory, rather then story telling.

Couldn't agree more. Many Australians for example have what maybe regarded as an irreverent attitude to many things...On my old boys reunions we address each other when meeting as "how ya going you old bastard!!" I often refer to myself as an old fart. Being able to laugh at one's self, is good medicine. Perhaps much of what is being discussed here is Political correctness gone mad? I had an old lady around my age, who was behind me in a queue at the local Woolworth store. I had a shopping cart near full, she only had a couple of items in her hand. She addressed me, "excuse me Love, I only have two items, can I get in front of you? Me in reply...Certainly my love! Some may say she was being sexist and I sexist in return. If I have the need to address any stranger, it is always with "Love" for females and "matey or mate" for blokes. I call it casual banter. Some may say its sexist and have in actual fact. I see that as PC gone mad. Times change, mostly for the better, and I hope that mostly I can keep up with those changes. When I was at school in the fifties it was common to call "New Australians" particularly from Europe as dagos and wogs. It certainly was not meant as a "term of endearment" and thus certainly undesirable and wrong. In my day I was always gay...meaning happy. Today it has a different acceptable meaning, at least where I come from. Again, couldn't agree more! I hope this is appropriate and illustrates the irreverence many Aussies to show. The following a short video of Australia's Prime Minister in the eighties, Bob Hawke, or as he preferred to be known as Hawkie. He was also a Rhodes scholar. The video is after Australia won the Yachting America's Cup in 1983, in a best of 7 series, after being down 3-1.

That's a beautiful story...brings a tear to my eye and a lump to my throat. Sorry, just being a bit facetious! The thing is, scientific theories are based on observational and experimental evidence...eg; we observe the universe expanding which denotes a time in the past when it was much much smaller...we observe the CMBR as predicted by the BB as left over relic heat from that same BB...we see galaxies in the distant universe redshifted, never blueshifted...the abundance of lighter elements. All this supports the BB. We don't see any remnant of any collapsing universe...BH's are not all purpose universal vacuum cleaners... nothing but nothing ever gets out of a BH by crossing the EH...gravitationally bound galaxies are always and always will merge at some time. Like I said, nice story.

Touchdown!! Congrats NASA

2 minutes to atmospheric entry!

Ooops, I got my wires crossed! Heard something earlier but appears to still be in progress.

TUNED IN LATE BUT IT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN A SUCCESS!😁

The universe is topologically flat to within small error bars. The balloon analogy explains why we can never claim a center, other then the center of our personal observational universe. Those small error bars though, may prevent us seeing a closed universe shape...much as a straight line is possible to be an arc of a much larger sphere/circle. or possibly https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/11/23/ask-ethan-could-the-shape-of-our-universe-be-closed-instead-of-flat/?sh=4d41fb32e038 In a hypertorus model of the Universe, motion in a straight line will return you to your original location, even in an uncurved (flat) spacetime. The Universe could also be closed and positively curved: like a hypersphere. A new analysis has challenged our conventional thinking on a flat Universe, but does it hold up under scrutiny?

No stupid questions. The 2D surface of the balloon represents the 3 spatial and 1 time dimension of spacetime. It is an analogy based on the BB, where all of spacetime was squeezed to within the volume of an atomic nucleus...there is no outside to speak of...no inside, no "before time" and no "before space" as we know them. Remember the BB is not a theory on how the universe/space/time started, it is a theory of the evolution of spacetime from t+10-43 seconds...before that, our models and theories fail us. I'm only an amateur at this game though so any errors, or modifications welcome.