Why is there something rather than nothing?

[beecee]

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

That makes no sense to me. You are essentially saying 'nothing equals something (foam)'. 

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]

12 hours ago, 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.

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]

28 minutes ago, 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.

The simplest answer is that there always was something.

[Intrigued]

45 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The simplest answer is that there always was something.

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]

7 minutes ago, 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.)

"'In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded". - Terry Pratchett

Edited March 25, 2019 by StringJunky

[Airbrush]

On 3/25/2019 at 8:59 AM, 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....

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]

4 minutes ago, 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.

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]

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]

4 minutes ago, 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.

No, that is not correct. You should Google Dark Matter.

5 minutes ago, Sirjon said:

There's no such thing as something that came out of 'nothing'.

Citation?

5 minutes ago, 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' 

No, that is not correct. You should Google The Big Bang.

[Sirjon]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

No, that is not correct. You should Google Dark Matter.

Okay, thanks for that information.

[zapatos]

Just now, Sirjon said:

Okay, thanks for that information.

You are welcome.

[Sirjon]

6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

No, that is not correct. You should Google The Big Bang.

As far as I know, it is how BB theorized, came from a point of 'singularity'

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, Sirjon said:

As far as I know, it is how BB theorized, came from a point of 'singularity'

'Singularity' and 'nothing' are not the same thing.

[Sirjon]

22 minutes ago, zapatos said:

'Singularity' and 'nothing' are not the same thing.

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?

 

1 hour ago, 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.  

This is what I mean regarding Dark matters

https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-space/dark-matter.html

Correction: Dark matter (singular)

[zapatos]

13 hours ago, 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?

'Zero' and 'nothing' are not the same thing.

[beecee]

13 hours ago, 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?

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]

21 hours ago, 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. 

Exactly, and that is why we can't say anything about the shape of the early universe at t = 10^(-43) seconds.

On 4/4/2019 at 9:07 PM, 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). 

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]

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]

11 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

Something cannot come from nothing.

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?)

15 minutes ago, 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.

What was Einstein's E=mC² if it wasn't physics? It was very much maths.

 

16 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

Something cannot come from nothing.

To believe otherwise is to go against common reason and logic.

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]

27 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

Something cannot come from nothing.

To believe otherwise is to go against common reason and logic.

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]

1 hour ago, seriously disabled said:

Something cannot come from nothing.

This is an assertion, not a fact.

Quote

To believe otherwise is to go against common reason and logic.

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.

I think physicists are in a better position to decide whether they are doing real™ physics.

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, 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.

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]

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]

Quote

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Because if there were nothing, you couldn't ask any questons, like why theres something rather than nothing. Thats why.

[beecee]

On 3/21/2019 at 12:54 AM, Thorham said:

Because it seems nonsense that something can come from absolute nothingness.

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