Another take on: Something from nothing? (split thread)

[hoola]

I get around the something from nothing paradox, by postulating that there  could never be a "nothing".  Before the big bang and any lead-up to it, a void must have been present. However, this void contained a default bit of information, namely that the was "one void", thus giving this void it's fundamental structure of the "one", as an early  identifier,  giving us a math based reality versus one built upon some other  self organizing principle.

[Mordred]

then you getting wound it wrong the something from nothing model is described as a balance between field potential energy and kinetic energy.

[math]pe-ke=0[/math]

[hoola]

which to me is a rather incorrect way to look at it . How could anything, especially such complex concepts as energy, and it rather distinct categories, exist at an early stage when only an ephemeral suggestion of a numerical device exists within the void, which is the only member of a set that, at that early stage of developement, contains no digits, in effect, the concept of math is only hinted at?

[Mordred]

A true void never exists under QM the lowest possible energy state is zero point energy.

In regards to your math. If I provided all the calculations you probably wouldn't understand them. You would have to take them on faith as to their accuracy.

I could literally give you the QFT formulas of a particle/antiparticle correlation to zero point energy in terms of the creation annihilation operators for matter and antimatter (all virtual ie quantum fluctuations) and I can then provide a formula showing infinite energy potential of that complex scalar field.

It wouldn't help you understand the model and would only confuse you.

The only way to truly understand any physics model is to understand it's mathematics. Not the metaphysics of it.

The thing is the actual universe from nothing model title is a misnomer. It isn't truly from nothing the nothing refers to the value zero being the resultant of the formula provided.

The quantum fluctuations the model uses isn't a true absolute energy value. It is a baseline value of a mean average.

On 9/3/2019 at 1:33 PM, Butch said:

What constitutes a field? 

A field is an abstract mathematical methodology that assigns a value or mathematical object at every geometric coordinate. 

By simple real life you can measure some quantity at any location. So they certainly exist even with above definition.

For example you can measure a temperature at any location. You can then describe that as a scalar field.

With an EM field you can measure it's ability to attract or repulse at any location. You can model the attraction repulsion  effects under a vector field.

A field is just the properties under examination being described under a coordinate basis. It isn't a thing unto itself.

Edited September 6, 2019 by Mordred

[hoola]

what I am saying is not meant to be metaphysics, only that all the pertinent formulae you speak of are a result of a long evolution from the basic default void information, and as such are rather "johnny come lately" and are quite post the period that I am concerned with examining. The conjecture of  math not being eternal, or somehow a contrivance building upon itself, and how this might have had a beginning impetus, is what I am referring to in relation to the original thread question.   If everything is mathematics, then how did math come about...seems a rather obvious question having nothing to do with metaphysics. To presume that math is eternal is metaphysics.

[Mordred]

Well that's funny because your providing metaphysics arguments.

Lets start with the part about a void. What part of a void cannot exist under QM do you disagree with ? Little hint the only model under physics that involves the term void is the FLRW metric to describe the regions between LSS. Other than that the term isn't part of physics. A void would be the absence of all matter and energy under QM that cannot happen. 

Better teminology would be a vaccum state or simply a field

Edited September 6, 2019 by Mordred

[hoola]

quantum mechanics, as a system,  does not exist (yet) within the confines of the pertinent time frame as described, as no systems of any form, quantum or classical, have had time to mature to expression. Therefore, formulae, and their underlying logic structures, QM included, are irrelevant to the conversation. 

[Mordred]

Are you even trying to make sense ?

Mathematics is a methodology  used to describe what we measure. The universe doesn't give a hoot how we measure and describe it. So everything in your last post is literally irrelevant. 

It is also absolutely  meaningless to the discussion of the OP. 

 

Edited September 6, 2019 by Mordred

[hoola]

 Wheeler's "it from bit" supposition leads to a "bit from void"  supposition. 

[Mordred]

Citation please I'm familiar with a lot of Wheelers work but not that expression.

On 9/3/2019 at 1:16 PM, Butch said:

Quantum physics attempts to describe physics at the smallest level... Ultimately aren't we seeking the point at which there is something from nothing, the edge of existence?

The purpose of this thread according to the OP specified 

QM treatments and the eventual goal.

So how is anything you've said so far this thread pertinent to the OP ?

[hoola]

I thought Wheeler's comment was common knowledge....I have no direct citation, and pardon me if I am incorrect, but I have seen lectures concerning Wheeler's legacy, and that statement was listed as one of them.  I will find a lecture and list it later. My overall statements are relevant to the  thread title of "something from nothing"  , supposing that the void  (the nothing) spit out that bit (the something).

[Mordred]

Fair enough but lets ask a question how can nothing spit out something ? That's sounds like something I made up back when I was 12 and thinking of the philosophical question If everything has a beginning and an end what is the absolute beginning of the universe ?

back then the answer I came up with was noting +nothing equals something which is absolute nonsense lmao

How would you even describe Nothing in physics ? rather boring examination. No volume, no temperature, no field values, no information rather pointless. So we can safely say QM has no goal to describe something that has zero information to describe. We can safely assume all of physics tries to describe any physical (which under particle physics actually corresponds to observable quantity, relation, etc.) we recognize certain effects while never directly observable can lead to observable effects ie indirect evidence example virtual particles.

 

 

Edited September 6, 2019 by Mordred

[hoola]

well, my conjecture is that there was no nothing, allowing the minimum state of a supposed void to have a mathematical proxy representation of exactly one. How many voids were there? Three? Nine? ...could several voids be separated by a "less than void" state, differentiating them? Seems unlikely....the irreducible  "one and only one void",  or void singularity,  is the "bit" that "it" came from which I further conjecture was the seed of mathematic constructs of the various branches that  eventually led to complex mathematical, and therefore complex physical structures. I venture that this first bit was "unreal math", and only when math evolved additional potentialities (other numbers), did the original bit have a comparison to "measure" itself with, and become "less unreal" in a conventional sense, mostly due to persistence , or durability of internal value, which we see and confirm in routine fashion in relation to other numbers using simple arithmetic.

just google "john wheeler it from bit" on utube and you will get several interviews which discuss this.

Edited September 6, 2019 by hoola

[Strange]

4 hours ago, hoola said:

when only an ephemeral suggestion of a numerical device exists within the void

What evidence do you have that “only an ephemeral suggestion of a numerical device exists within the void”?

And what is a “numerical device”?

1 hour ago, hoola said:

well, my conjecture is that there was no nothing, allowing the minimum state of a supposed void to have a mathematical proxy representation of exactly one.

One what?

And what is a “mathematical proxy representation”?

[swansont]

6 hours ago, hoola said:

I get around the something from nothing paradox, by postulating that there  could never be a "nothing".  Before the big bang and any lead-up to it, a void must have been present.

A void in what?

You can't have a void unless there is something there as a contrast. (there is no hole if there is no dirt)

3 hours ago, hoola said:

well, my conjecture is  

!

Moderator Note

...technically a hijack.

Split from https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120000-something-from-nothing/

 

[hoola]

a Mathematical Proxy Representation, is the "stand in" of a number, before there were any numbers to "fill that spot". In this case I posit that this MPR number (one nothing) was not a number until other numbers appeared and developed relationships with the MPR via a developing logic system.  This is akin to today's "nothing exists without an observer" effect, as expressed in it's earliest form, as applied to the question of how math could have evolved from this simple start in a natural, organic way. No need for god or eternality in the system as described. If it is relevant to ask why anything today, it seems relevant to ask why mathematics then.  

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, hoola said:

a Mathematical Proxy Representation, is the "stand in" of a number, before there were any numbers to "fill that spot".

Are you suggesting that numbers have some sort of physical existence? 

 

[hoola]

not really, only that there are two levels of "unrealness", with them. You can't hold a 6 in your hand, but a 6 does have some overall effect when combined with a near infinite number of associated digits, and they are ordered about in a reliable fashion over aeons  in a rapidly branching algorithmic evolution of equations. The MPR was the "least real" of the species, but became "more real" by relating to all other numbers, thus become real enough to  "do work" along with all the rest. With this, is an inference of 2 levels or realness, or functionality with numbers. The solitary MPR, and all the rest. However, the void is long gone, filled up with stuff, and with it, that MPR status that was the kick start part of the process, gone with it.

[Strange]

15 minutes ago, hoola said:

You can't hold a 6 in your hand, but a 6 does have some overall effect when combined with a near infinite number of associated digits, and they are ordered about in a reliable fashion over aeons  in a rapidly branching algorithmic evolution of equations.

What "effect" does a combination of digits have?

What does "a rapidly branching algorithmic evolution of equations" mean?

 

[hoola]

the number PI is but one of many such equations,  also E, sq rt of 2, etc..some of the "bones" delineating physical reality as ordered by classic logic. More ephemeral states seem ordered by sq rt minus one, in the companion quantum logic system, which among other things, determines empty space properties,  with virtual particles as the observable effects.

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, hoola said:

the number PI is but one of many such equations

Pi is not an equation.

You are not making much any sense.

What "effect" does a combination of digits have?

Edited September 6, 2019 by Strange
much -> any

[hoola]

the measured diameter of circle as relates to it's circumference offers a long lasting and perhaps non repeating numerical result...that in itself  may not be an equation per se, but equations do exist that closely approximate it. That's what I meant. As long as the information cranked out by the approximation goes on, and is faithful to the fundamental premise of  the metric, my assertion seems valid.

[Strange]

Quote

You can't hold a 6 in your hand, but a 6 does have some overall effect when combined with a near infinite number of associated digits

What "effect" does a combination of digits have?

2 minutes ago, hoola said:

but equations do exist that closely approximate it.

As these equations are human inventions, I can't see how they are relevant to the early universe.

[hoola]

 Equations are there to be discovered, not invented.  

[Mordred]

And yet a different culture could have a complete different set of mathematics.

Say for example instead of a base of 10 it's a base of 26.

How would pi correlate under that base ?