beecee Posted March 25, 2019 Posted March 25, 2019 (edited) On 3/25/2019 at 2:52 AM, zapatos said: That makes no sense to me. You are essentially saying 'nothing equals something (foam)'. Expand I'm essentially saying that perhaps we need to define nothing, and perhaps the quantum foam is as nothing as we can ever get, if it has existed for eternity as is often speculated.. The quantum foam possibly maybe the most fundamental of all fundamentals. Stringy though has answered it pretty well. Edited March 25, 2019 by beecee
Intrigued Posted March 25, 2019 Posted March 25, 2019 (edited) On 3/25/2019 at 2:06 AM, Airbrush said: It's just hard to imagine how, when, or where, absolutely nothing ever existed. If a big bang came out of it, then that potential for a big bang is not nothing. Expand While I agree completely with your first sentence, I also acknowledge it is essentially an Argument from Incredulity and as such carries no weight. Just because "nothing" is beyond our capacity to imagine does not preculude its existence. Edited March 25, 2019 by Intrigued amended for clarity.
StringJunky Posted March 25, 2019 Posted March 25, 2019 On 3/25/2019 at 2:38 PM, Intrigued said: While I agree completely with your first sentence, I also acknowledge it is essentially an Argument from Incredulity and as such carries no weight. Just because "nothing" is beyond our capacity to imagine does not preculude its existence. Expand The simplest answer is that there always was something.
Intrigued Posted March 25, 2019 Posted March 25, 2019 On 3/25/2019 at 3:07 PM, StringJunky said: The simplest answer is that there always was something. Expand William of Ockham would be cheered, but the simplest answer is not always correct. For matters as esoteric as this one seems to me, I prefer the even simpler answer: I have no idea. Not only no idea, but no vestige of an idea, nor even a shadow. I am not opposed to the question being asked, I merely doubt the value of giving a confident answer with our present state of knowledge. (But it should be noted that I also doubt the value of string theory for anything other than exercising the imaginations of mathematicians, so my views shouldn't be taken too seriously.)
StringJunky Posted March 25, 2019 Posted March 25, 2019 (edited) On 3/25/2019 at 3:59 PM, Intrigued said: William of Ockham would be cheered, but the simplest answer is not always correct. For matters as esoteric as this one seems to me, I prefer the even simpler answer: I have no idea. Not only no idea, but no vestige of an idea, nor even a shadow. I am not opposed to the question being asked, I merely doubt the value of giving a confident answer with our present state of knowledge. (But it should be noted that I also doubt the value of string theory for anything other than exercising the imaginations of mathematicians, so my views shouldn't be taken too seriously.) Expand "'In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded". - Terry Pratchett Edited March 25, 2019 by StringJunky
Airbrush Posted March 28, 2019 Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) On 3/25/2019 at 3:59 PM, Intrigued said: William of Ockham would be cheered, but the simplest answer is not always correct. For matters as esoteric as this one seems to me, I prefer the even simpler answer: I have no idea. Not only no idea, but no vestige of an idea, nor even a shadow. I am not opposed to the question being asked, I merely doubt the value of giving a confident answer with our present state of knowledge.... Expand None of us are giving "confident" answers. Just give us your best guess for discussion sake. Maybe even an educated guess. Nobody knows....big deal. Edited March 28, 2019 by Airbrush
Intrigued Posted March 28, 2019 Posted March 28, 2019 On 3/28/2019 at 4:36 PM, Airbrush said: None of us are giving "confident" answers. Just give us your best guess for discussion sake. Maybe even an educated guess. Nobody knows....big deal. Expand I apologise for the lack of clarity in my posts. I shall try to make my position clearer. 1. I cannot make an educated guess on the matter, since I lack sufficient relevant education. 2. If you agree that no one knows, then there is nothing meaningful to discuss. 3. For me this seems not unlike the alleged debates in the Middle Ages as to how many angels could fit on a pinhead. 4. I do know enough to know that when I don't know enough then my best guess is worthless. 5. But since you press me, 2,000,434,823. (As per point 3 above) Note: In my attempts to be honest in these posts I fear they may come across as aggressive. Such is not my intent.
Sirjon Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 IMO, as to my understanding as what DM is about, there is 'something' out there that cannot be seen, undetected by instruments by NASA or other scientific entities that causing the Universe to expand. So, in term of standard notion of how we determine a thing, there is 'nothing' out there but definitely, it's affecting the behavior of the Universe. It is still some kind of a mystery that science still searching for an answer. There's no such thing as something that came out of 'nothing'. The reason why the BB is still an incomplete theory, as it only indicates that matter, space and universe came out of 'nothing' (if we speak of its physical dimension).
zapatos Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 On 4/5/2019 at 4:07 AM, Sirjon said: IMO, as to my understanding as what DM is about, there is 'something' out there that cannot be seen, undetected by instruments by NASA or other scientific entities that causing the Universe to expand. Expand No, that is not correct. You should Google Dark Matter. On 4/5/2019 at 4:07 AM, Sirjon said: There's no such thing as something that came out of 'nothing'. Expand Citation? On 4/5/2019 at 4:07 AM, Sirjon said: The reason why the BB is still an incomplete theory, as it only indicates that matter, space and universe came out of 'nothing' Expand No, that is not correct. You should Google The Big Bang.
Sirjon Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 On 4/5/2019 at 4:14 AM, zapatos said: No, that is not correct. You should Google Dark Matter. Expand Okay, thanks for that information.
zapatos Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 On 4/5/2019 at 4:20 AM, Sirjon said: Okay, thanks for that information. Expand You are welcome.
Sirjon Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 On 4/5/2019 at 4:14 AM, zapatos said: No, that is not correct. You should Google The Big Bang. Expand As far as I know, it is how BB theorized, came from a point of 'singularity'
zapatos Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 On 4/5/2019 at 4:23 AM, Sirjon said: As far as I know, it is how BB theorized, came from a point of 'singularity' Expand 'Singularity' and 'nothing' are not the same thing.
Sirjon Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 On 4/5/2019 at 4:32 AM, zapatos said: 'Singularity' and 'nothing' are not the same thing. Expand As I see it, at a point of singularity, the universe is at 'zero' size, could only mean 'nothing' , when it comes to its physical dimension. Is am wrong? Correct grammar:Am I wrong? On 4/5/2019 at 4:07 AM, Sirjon said: So, in term of standard notion of how we determine a thing, there is 'nothing' out there but definitely, it's affecting the behavior of the Universe. Expand This is what I mean regarding Dark matters https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-space/dark-matter.html Correction: Dark matter (singular)
zapatos Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 On 4/5/2019 at 5:05 AM, Sirjon said: As I see it, at a point of singularity, the universe is at 'zero' size, could only mean 'nothing' , when it comes to its physical dimension. Is am wrong? Correct grammar:Am I wrong? Expand 'Zero' and 'nothing' are not the same thing.
beecee Posted April 5, 2019 Posted April 5, 2019 On 4/5/2019 at 5:05 AM, Sirjon said: As I see it, at a point of singularity, the universe is at 'zero' size, could only mean 'nothing' , when it comes to its physical dimension. Is am wrong? Correct grammar:Am I wrong? Expand Actually, both the singularities in BH's and from whence the BB evolved, are simply regions where our laws of physics and GR fail us....that being at the quantum/Planck level, at t+10-43 seconds. In the case of the BB then space and time, "as we know them" started to evolve/ In fact physicists today reject mostly the notion of a dimensionless point singularity.
Airbrush Posted April 6, 2019 Posted April 6, 2019 On 4/5/2019 at 7:00 PM, beecee said: Actually, both the singularities in BH's and from whence the BB evolved, are simply regions where our laws of physics and GR fail us....that being at the quantum/Planck level, at t+10-43 seconds. In the case of the BB then space and time, "as we know them" started to evolve/ In fact physicists today reject mostly the notion of a dimensionless point singularity. Expand Exactly, and that is why we can't say anything about the shape of the early universe at t = 10^(-43) seconds. On 4/5/2019 at 4:07 AM, Sirjon said: IMO, as to my understanding as what DM is about, there is 'something' out there that cannot be seen, undetected by instruments by NASA or other scientific entities that causing the Universe to expand. So, in term of standard notion of how we determine a thing, there is 'nothing' out there but definitely, it's affecting the behavior of the Universe. It is still some kind of a mystery that science still searching for an answer. There's no such thing as something that came out of 'nothing'. The reason why the BB is still an incomplete theory, as it only indicates that matter, space and universe came out of 'nothing' (if we speak of its physical dimension). Expand Dark matter is a good example of something that is very substantial, and yet invisible. You are thinking of dark energy when you say "causing the universe to expand" but at an accelerating speed. Instead of saying "There is no such thing as something that came out of nothing" just say "We don't know of any examples of something coming from "absolute nothing." This is really a discussion about "absolutely nothing" and not about empty space that appears to be nothing. Big difference.
seriously disabled Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 Something cannot come from nothing. To believe otherwise is to go against common reason and logic. Also mathematics isn't physics. Scientists believe that by being able to solve highly complicated mathematical equations that they are doing real physics but fact is what they are doing isn't physics.
DrP Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 On 4/23/2019 at 10:00 AM, seriously disabled said: Something cannot come from nothing. Expand How are you defining nothing in this statement? A lot of the first page of this thread was talking about definition and context. What about the virtual particle pairs that pop into and out of existence? (although they obviously do not come from 'nothing'.. they do appear to. Matter moving through dimensions not bound by our 4?) On 4/23/2019 at 10:00 AM, seriously disabled said: Also mathematics isn't physics. Scientists believe that by being able to solve highly complicated mathematical equations that they are doing real physics but fact is what they are doing isn't physics. Expand What was Einstein's E=mC2 if it wasn't physics? It was very much maths. On 4/23/2019 at 10:00 AM, seriously disabled said: Something cannot come from nothing. To believe otherwise is to go against common reason and logic. Expand I am certain that there are many natural things that seem to defy common sense and logic that we do not understand. Only viewing the universe with eyes and minds that can see and think in 4 dimensions might limit us as to what we can ever know about a multi dimensional universe.
Strange Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 On 4/23/2019 at 10:00 AM, seriously disabled said: Something cannot come from nothing. To believe otherwise is to go against common reason and logic. Expand While there is no evidence for something coming from nothing, I don't think you can dismiss the concept based on "common reason and logic". Especially, as I guess that when you say "logic" you mean "something that makes sense to me, personally". Many things that were thought to be contrary to common sense and "logic" have turned out to be true.
swansont Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 On 4/23/2019 at 10:00 AM, seriously disabled said: Something cannot come from nothing. Expand This is an assertion, not a fact. Quote To believe otherwise is to go against common reason and logic. Expand Nature cares not a whit for "common reason" Quote Also mathematics isn't physics. Scientists believe that by being able to solve highly complicated mathematical equations that they are doing real physics but fact is what they are doing isn't physics. Expand I think physicists are in a better position to decide whether they are doing real™ physics.
Phi for All Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 On 4/23/2019 at 10:00 AM, seriously disabled said: Scientists believe that by being able to solve highly complicated mathematical equations that they are doing real physics but fact is what they are doing isn't physics. Expand This reads like, "Linguists believe that being able to speak in a foreign language makes them better able to be understood and express themselves in that language, but fact is what they are doing isn't speaking." It makes no sense, but it sounds like something someone who didn't understand a language would say about it. "Boy, those French have a different word for EVERYTHING!" -- Steve Martin
FreeWill Posted April 30, 2019 Posted April 30, 2019 (edited) This helped me to Understand what Nothing could have been: The null hypothesis is that Nothing, Zero, 0 is a physical reality based mathematical conception which we can perceive as a space-time, energy, matter, and information free state. Revealing as our common physical, mathematical, philosophical origin, a physical reality based mathematical reference point. In proportion to this physical reality based sense (conception), everything has some kind of mathematically expressible value. Space, time, energy, matter and information. The hypothesis based on the fact that space expands and time evolves which points out that our current moment is bigger(more) than the moment before. Following this path back on the timeline of the physical reality, we arrive at the lowest possible physical state which can be perceived as energy, matter, space-time, and information free state. 0. In proportion to this state, everything has value. Everything has mathematically expressible, physically recognizable value. Space-time, energy, matter, and information. Ever since anything exist Nothing cannot be again. The question is maybe that, how big an almost nothing (empty spacetime) had had to be so something(energy, mass...) come? Edited April 30, 2019 by FreeWill
koti Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 Quote Why is there something rather than nothing? Expand Because if there were nothing, you couldn't ask any questons, like why theres something rather than nothing. Thats why.
beecee Posted February 20, 2021 Posted February 20, 2021 On 3/20/2019 at 1:54 PM, Thorham said: Because it seems nonsense that something can come from absolute nothingness. Expand So, we get back to Krauss' hypothesis again. The quantum foam is possible that nothing, unless you have something more obvious in mind?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now