Nothing can come from nothing so something always existed!

[martillo]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Virtual particles indeed appear in QFT always as a result of perturbative calculations. It could make sense to ask "are they really there?" They're really there in the sense that you must take them into account if you want to calculate the renormalised quantities, like mass, charge, etc. They're also "there" in the sense that, whenever you put in the required energy, they "leap into reality" and new real, detectable particles appear.

In the decades after the glorious years of perturbative QFT around the 50s, towards the 80s and 90s, new non-perturbative methods were developed, by people like 't Hooft and Polyakov. Topological field theories are also non-perturbative, but I think we're still not there. I could be wrong, but I don't think we completely understand QFT from a non-perturbative POV. There are new games in town, but it may well be the case that a new synthesis of the formalisms is necessary.

Thanks for the comment. I'll take a look on those methods and theories.

Edited January 13, 2021 by martillo

[martillo]

I couldn't stop thinking about this and I think now that "unstable nothing" is not the same as just "nothing" because it contains something that makes it unstable. Something that could eventually "explode" and turn into a Universe. That counts as something for me, not nothing.

This way Parmenides premise remains as true and the derived statement that then "Something always existed" is also true.

The question would be what would be that eternal something always existing. The answer for me is that for "Quantum Physics" the always existing something would be a "fields' foam" or "particles foam" as whished. In other theories would be other thing. For instance in the "Simulation" theories it would be an eternal "computing machine".

I don't know if only one is true or if they are compatible one being a consequense of the other one. For instance, a "quantum foam" could be "simulated" in a "computing machine" or the inverse, a "computing machine" could surge from a "quantum foam". After any of these a Universe can surge.

Whatever would be the case, this way there would be no problems between Philosophy and Physics.

Subject solved for me this way.

It would be just our instinct that leaves us to think that the Universe must have come from "nothing". Just our instinct has problem to conceive an eternal something ever existing and we must override it...

Edited January 14, 2021 by martillo

[StringJunky]

5 hours ago, martillo said:

I couldn't stop thinking about this and I think now that "unstable nothing" is not the same as just "nothing" because it contains something that makes it unstable. Something that could eventually "explode" and turn into a Universe. That counts as something for me, not nothing.

What 'unstable nothing' refers to is entities, like virtual particles, which individually have  energies that are less than a quantum. For any entity to exist permanently it must at least have a quantum of energy. Sometimes, virtual particles interact and combine to have enough energy to exist, but only for a very brief time before annhilating back to the state where they aren't measurable i.e they effectively don''t exist... that is the 'nothing' part, and the fact that they pop in and out is the 'unstable' part. So, there is a quasi-state between nothing and something. That is the vacuum field or foam, depending on which theory one is using.

Edited January 14, 2021 by StringJunky

[martillo]

57 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

What 'unstable nothing' refers to is entities, like virtual particles, which individually have  energies that are less than a quantum. For any entity to exist permanently it must at least have a quantum of energy. Sometimes, virtual particles interact and combine to have enough energy to exist, but only for a very brief time before annhilating back to the state where they aren't measurable i.e they effectively don''t exist... that is the 'nothing' part, and the fact that they pop in and out is the 'unstable' part. So, there is a quasi-state between nothing and something. That is the vacuum field or foam, depending on which theory one is using.

That way there would be an alternating state of the particles but not all the particles synchronized and as there would be an innumerable quantity of particles in the global Space there would be always at least one particle (actually much more I think) in the "something" state. So there always be something. So there's no nothing, never. Always something.

Edited January 15, 2021 by martillo

[Maxim Bronevsky]

On 1/10/2021 at 1:12 PM, martillo said:

I have heard recognized physicists stating "Nothing can come from nothing" and if this is accepted as a postulate applying basic logic follows:

As something do exist now (for instance we exist) it can be deduced that:

_ The absolute nothing never existed. (If it it would have existed before nothing would have come up.)

_ Something always has existed.

Am I wrong in something?

I think this is important in the tries to explain the origins of the Universe. The Universe didn't come from nothing then, it came from something. Something that could have always existed before.

Not so easy to grasp may be but seems right...

 

And if the above is right, must we assume that Space and Time are things that just always existed?

Seems so...

Of course, we can philosophize on this topic, but I am more than sure that even when humanity becomes a more advanced civilization and it's easy to move between the stars in a fraction of seconds, there will still be no complete understanding of where and how the Universe, Space, Time was formed. It's like trying to unravel infinity itself. 🧐

[martillo]

On 5/6/2021 at 11:39 PM, Maxim Bronevsky said:

It's like trying to unravel infinity itself.

Infinity was already unravelled in the development of series, limits, integrals, etc. in Calculus and you have also Proyective Geometry treating it. What else do you want to know about infinity?

On 5/6/2021 at 11:39 PM, Maxim Bronevsky said:

I am more than sure that even when humanity becomes a more advanced civilization and it's easy to move between the stars in a fraction of seconds, there will still be no complete understanding of where and how the Universe, Space, Time was formed.

May be you gave up on this. Others didn't.

On 5/6/2021 at 11:39 PM, Maxim Bronevsky said:

Of course, we can philosophize on this topic

Seems you are taking Philosophy it in a rather not rigourous way. Logic is as rigorous as Math.

Edited May 8, 2021 by martillo

[potrzebie]

On 1/10/2021 at 11:12 AM, martillo said:

As something do exist now (for instance we exist) it can be deduced that:

_ The absolute nothing never existed. (If it it would have existed before nothing would have come up.)

_ Something always has existed.

"Now", "never", "before" and "always" assume/require that time exists or existed. If you consider time to be something, the answer is already in the question. If not, the question is true in it's own little bubble, but infinitively pointless. Cicular reasoning?

Hmm.. I think I got that 30% right at least.

 

On 1/11/2021 at 7:48 AM, martillo said:

Nothing is the abscence of anything existing. Not any kind of particles, nor fields, nor physics laws... Not anything at all.

Apologies in advance for my ignorance and mostly shooting from the hip.

To define nothing, wouldn't you have to enumerate all possible "things", with an infinite cardinality? And that cant't be done.

If there's no such thing as "(absolute) nothing", using the opposite "something" kind of loses it's meaning, unless you're religious of course.

Edited September 2, 2021 by potrzebie

[beecee]

7 minutes ago, potrzebie said:

Apologies in advance for my ignorance and mostly shooting from the hip.

To define nothing, wouldn't you have to enumerate all possible "things", with an infinite cardinality? And that cant't be done.

If there's no such thing as "(absolute) nothing", using the opposite "something" kind of loses it's meaning, unless you're religious of course.

Same here, shooting from the hip that is....

I like Professor Lawrence Krauss' educated speculation. Perhaps the quantum foam from which the universe/space/time [as we know them]  arose, needs to be redefined as nothing. Perhaps that's as close [to the perceived nothing most of us envisage] that can ever be...it effectively maybe nothing. I see that has far more likley and reasonable then some dynamic, all knowing omnipotent spiritual being. 

Afterall, didn't we also see at one time "space" as nothing? 

[StringJunky]

13 minutes ago, beecee said:

Same here, shooting from the hip that is....

I like Professor Lawrence Krauss' educated speculation. Perhaps the quantum foam from which the universe/space/time [as we know them]  arose, needs to be redefined as nothing. Perhaps that's as close [to the perceived nothing most of us envisage] that can ever be...it effectively maybe nothing. I see that has far more likley and reasonable then some dynamic, all knowing omnipotent spiritual being. 

Afterall, didn't we also see at one time "space" as nothing? 

My undersrtanding is that if a particle is subquantum, it's 'nothing' in the sense that it can't interact with quantm-level particles of the Standard Model. They are nothing because, ordinarily, their behaviour has no quantum level consequences.

[beecee]

53 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

My undersrtanding is that if a particle is subquantum, it's 'nothing' in the sense that it can't interact with quantm-level particles of the Standard Model. They are nothing because, ordinarily, their behaviour has no quantum level consequences.

Is this the same as "virtual particles" that pop in and out of existence but fail to become real because they annihilate before a Planck instant?

[potrzebie]

27 minutes ago, beecee said:

Perhaps the quantum foam from which the universe/space/time [as we know them]  arose, needs to be redefined as nothing.

Until we find the next turtle. If there is one. Or discover that the last turtle is standing on the first one. For an absolute nothing to exist, relative to everything unless I've misinterpreted the words, our world has to be finite one way or the other.

And whether quantum foam is the last turtle or not, please rename it nothing. I have no problem originating from monkeys, but quantum foam, seriously?

[beecee]

7 minutes ago, potrzebie said:

And whether quantum foam is the last turtle or not, please rename it nothing. I have no problem originating from monkeys, but quantum foam, seriously?

A good account is in Steven Weinberg's book, "The First Three Minutes"

And don't forget that monkeys originally were born in the belly of stars.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, potrzebie said:

To define nothing, wouldn't you have to enumerate all possible "things", with an infinite cardinality? 

 

Why? Seems like a terrible waste of time and effort.

I told my kids I wanted nothing for my birthday and they met my wishes without me having to tell them I didn't want a shirt, pants, ramen noodles, lithium, red rubber ducks, shoe laces (neither brown nor black), murky water, etc.

[iNow]

But can it really even be called a birthday without ramen? Does nothing even matter anymore? 

The universe proves over and over again in unexpected ways that it’s under no obligation to make sense to our puny terrestrial human minds… and that ain’t nothin’. 

Something being hard to fathom doesn’t mean that something is untrue or in any way invalid. 

Edited September 3, 2021 by iNow

[TheVat]

My wife once received ball bearings as a gift,  which suggests that some people really need that long list. 

Abstractions,  like nothing,  can be defined conceptually,  saving the chore of infinite cardinality.   Concepts like nothing depend on some sort of duality,  because "the absence of things, " needs the presence of things to gain meaning.   Nothing/something is a duality,  each dependent on the other.   

[iNow]

Just now, TheVat said:

Nothing/something is a duality,  each dependent on the other. 

Truths contained in their opposites. 

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

But can it rally be called a birthday without ramen? Does nothing even matter anymore? 

 

What is really funny is how many pictures showed up when I Googled "ramen birthday cake". 😆

Edited September 3, 2021 by zapatos

[TheVat]

All it needs are a few ball bearings. 

[iNow]

21 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 

What is really funny is how many pictures showed up when I Googled "ramen birthday cake". 😆

That’s effing disgusting, and not even within the same galaxy of what I was thinking when the word “ramen” crossed my brain 😂 

[MigL]

I'm sure you're lying, @zapatos
Did they not wish you a Happy Birthday ?
Did they not give you a hug, or a big smile on your special day ?

You would have to define that as 'nothing'.
I wouldn't.

3 hours ago, potrzebie said:

"Now", "never", "before" and "always" assume/require that time exists or existed. If you consider time to be something, the answer is already in the question. If not, the question is true in it's own little bubble, but infinitively pointless. Cicular reasoning?

Yup !

[iNow]

Sorry..: WTF is the meaning of “infinitively pointless?”

Feels a bit like word salad without any of the roughage or fiber. 

[swansont]

11 hours ago, StringJunky said:

My undersrtanding is that if a particle is subquantum, it's 'nothing' in the sense that it can't interact with quantm-level particles of the Standard Model. They are nothing because, ordinarily, their behaviour has no quantum level consequences.

subquantum?

10 hours ago, TheVat said:

My wife once received ball bearings as a gift,  which suggests that some people really need that long list. 

It's all ball bearings these days. The question is: Prestone or Quaker State?

[TheVat]

Ha!   Not to derail the chat (and ball bearings can really derail),  but the gift was from a friend who did mechanical work at a small airport,  and they were aviation ball bearings.   A canning jar full of them. 

They have always existed. 

At least, that's the vibe they give off,  sitting on various shelves and end tables over the decades.    

[MigL]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

subquantum?

subquantum = below a quantum of action = virtual

Edited September 3, 2021 by MigL

[jday]

I agree with you because "energy can't be created nor destroyed. I personally feel that the universe has so much more to tell and I personally believe that the Big Bang isn't the full story. Onto that you were stating atoms in my option have always been here.