Nothing can come from nothing so something always existed!

[martillo]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

More likely it has been viewed by a great number of web crawlers.

I would yet wonder how they became interested in this thread...

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, martillo said:

I would yet wonder how they became interested in this thread...

You made a strong declaration in your title, using hyperbolic words like "nothing" and "always", which the bots are sensitive to. I wouldn't use this as a basis for the veracity of your claims. You never did establish your basic premise.

[martillo]

41 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You never did establish your basic premise.

My basic premise is Parmenides' principle "Nothing comes from nothing", established long time ago, where the "nothing" is defined as the abscence of anything.

This goes against current temptatives of establish "Something from nothing" like in Stephen Hawking phrasing "It is said that there's no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch."

A way found was the try to redefine the "nothing" as having virtual particles permanently poping in and out of existence which I refuted as follows:

 

On 1/14/2021 at 8:51 PM, martillo said:

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.

Not to mention that for those "virtual particles" to exist Physics' Laws are needed and a question arises: How the Physics' Laws appear in the "nothing"?

What else would need to be "established" in this thread?

Edited June 14, 2022 by martillo

[swansont]

You seem to be laboring under the mistaken notion that the universe needs to make sense to you. That it needs to not only be logical, but the logic that follows from a particular premise. This is fallacious reasoning. 

Science is not philosophy. Science requires that we test the validity of our models by comparing it with experiment - it is restricted by how nature behaves. We throw out models that don't live up to this.

If you can't test to see if your premise is true, then it's not science, and will be uninteresting to some (most?) scientists. Others might ponder the question to see if they can think of a way to test it. Maybe others ponder it, owing to their own motivations.

From a logical perspective we have a conclusion that holds if the premise is true, and doesn't hold if the premise is false. Not being able to test it limits its value. 

You've also made pronouncements about physics based solely on logic, with little or no basis in physics. Those aren't worth the electrons used to post them. GIGO applies here. You "refute" science by showing that it disagrees with experiment. 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

You made a strong declaration in your title, using hyperbolic words like "nothing" and "always", which the bots are sensitive to. I wouldn't use this as a basis for the veracity of your claims. You never did establish your basic premise.

Reminds me of the response to a crappy product that isn't selling. One way is to make a better product. But there are some whose response is to do better/more advertising.

[martillo]

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

You seem to be laboring under the mistaken notion that the universe needs to make sense to you. That it needs to not only be logical, but the logic that follows from a particular premise. This is fallacious reasoning. 

Science is not philosophy. Science requires that we test the validity of our models by comparing it with experiment - it is restricted by how nature behaves. We throw out models that don't live up to this.

If you can't test to see if your premise is true, then it's not science, and will be uninteresting to some (most?) scientists. Others might ponder the question to see if they can think of a way to test it. Maybe others ponder it, owing to their own motivations.

From a logical perspective we have a conclusion that holds if the premise is true, and doesn't hold if the premise is false. Not being able to test it limits its value. 

You've also made pronouncements about physics based solely on logic, with little or no basis in physics. Those aren't worth the electrons used to post them. GIGO applies here. You "refute" science by showing that it disagrees with experiment. 

 

 

 

 

Reminds me of the response to a crappy product that isn't selling. One way is to make a better product. But there are some whose response is to do better/more advertising.

Following your reasoning I would ask for the experimental detection of those assumed "virtual particles" in a "quantum foam" before accepting their theories. As far as I know currently there is no one.

Edited June 14, 2022 by martillo

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, martillo said:

I would yet wonder how they became interested in this thread...

They are not interested in this thread. They spend day and night visiting every nook and cranny of the web, building their index so that when someone Googles (or any other browser) "come from nothing", Google can show them the 200 million places that appears on the web.

[TheVat]

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

They are not interested in this thread. They spend day and night visiting every nook and cranny of the web, building their index so that when someone Googles (or any other browser) "come from nothing", Google can show them the 200 million places that appears on the web.

Thank you.  I spent years as admin at a website where we'd get people arguing basically "look at how many views my [nutty] thread has received - clearly the world is fascinated!"

I would point out no one had bothered to reply to their thread "The amazing smithereen particle at the heart of all matter!!" in six years, despite their daily 3000 word updates, and they would invariably point to the click counter.

[martillo]

52 minutes ago, zapatos said:

They are not interested in this thread. They spend day and night visiting every nook and cranny of the web, building their index so that when someone Googles (or any other browser) "come from nothing", Google can show them the 200 million places that appears on the web.

Good point but if that was the case it would happen in many other threads, may be all the threads, isn't it? I don't see this happening in other threads in this forum neither I have seen it in threads of other forums and let me tell you that I have been in physics' forums for many years, quite about twenty years.

By te way, the views on this thread increased from 68.1k to 68.3k in the last eleven hours.

11 hours ago, martillo said:

As for now 68.1k views...

This  thread is actually intriguing myself now...

Edited June 14, 2022 by martillo

[exchemist]

21 hours ago, martillo said:

This thread with just about 80 replies surprinsigly reached more than 60k views in a short period of time. Now, the "Big Bang" theory is being heard becoming to have no sense.  Coincidence?

For me, a thread in this forum, making history...

 

Don’t delude yourself. There is no evidence the Big Bang hypothesis is under serious threat and, if it were, it most certainly would not be anything to do with your thread here. 

Cosmologists get ideas from each other, not from places like this, and your ideas are not particularly insightful.

But the side discussion it has prompted about web crawlers and reasons for numbers of “views” is actually quite interesting. 

Edited June 14, 2022 by exchemist

[mistermack]

Shouldn't the title be " Nothing we know can come from the nothing that we imagine" 

Since something is infinitely greater than nothing, then you have to get a clear understanding of a real physical infinity, before you can make progress on that score. 

[Intoscience]

23 hours ago, martillo said:

I think some threads in this forum could matter to real scientists and experts as I think scienceforums.net forum could matter to them. You doubt this thread could matter to them, I'm thinking it did matter. Seems the thread didn't matter to you, I think it did matter to otherones.

There is a difference between "of use" and "matter to" lots of things matter to lots of people for a variety of different reasons. 

This particular thread doesn't "matter" to me, however, the subject I am particularly interested in. I haven't commented on your premise because I have nothing of value to add to what has already been discussed by others.

My initial comment of "I doubt It" was in response to your delusional interpretation of the viewing numbers. 

[swansont]

17 hours ago, martillo said:

Following your reasoning I would ask for the experimental detection of those assumed "virtual particles" in a "quantum foam" before accepting their theories. As far as I know currently there is no one.

The models based on them work. By their very nature, you can’t directly detect a virtual particle.

[Phi for All]

16 hours ago, exchemist said:

But the side discussion it has prompted about web crawlers and reasons for numbers of “views” is actually quite interesting. 

And the fact that the side discussion generated 2 pages of posts in a day also drew the bots in, hoping to find a hot topic, but instead finding off-topic chatter about the popularity of the thread. Ironic, in a way.

[StringJunky]

19 hours ago, martillo said:

Following your reasoning I would ask for the experimental detection of those assumed "virtual particles" in a "quantum foam" before accepting their theories. As far as I know currently there is no one.

It's not possible to detect anything that has less than a quantum of energy i.e. virtual particles . AFAIK we can infer their existence when two occasionally combine to make the necessary quantum in the form of detectable particle.

Quote

Quantium refers to a particular packet of substance or energy in chemistry and physics. It corresponds to the minimal amount of energy needed for a transition or the minimum value of any physical resource in an interaction as used in operation. The singular form of the term is quantum. The plural form of the word is Quanta.

 

Edited June 15, 2022 by StringJunky

[martillo]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

The models based on them work. By their very nature, you can’t directly detect a virtual particle.

58 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It's not possible to detect anything that has less than a quantum of energy i.e. virtual particles . AFAIK we can infer their existence when two occasionally combine to make the necessary quantum in the form of detectable particle.

 

I don't understand something in "Modern Physics". On one side the "Scientific Method" demands experimental verification of everything to be trusted but on the other side there's no problem in assuming undetectable things in theories. "Virtual particles", "dark matter" and so on...

59 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

And the fact that the side discussion generated 2 pages of posts in a day also drew the bots in, hoping to find a hot topic, but instead finding off-topic chatter about the popularity of the thread. Ironic, in a way.

Yes, if that was the case the bots have found just a mirror...

68.5k views now and counting.

Edited June 15, 2022 by martillo

[swansont]

56 minutes ago, martillo said:

I don't understand something in "Modern Physics". On one side the "Scientific Method" demands experimental verification of everything to be trusted but on the other side there's no problem in assuming undetectable things in theories. "Virtual particles", "dark matter" and so on...

Nothing about science demands naked-eye observation. Much of modern physics is inferred by the experimental results. You don’t e.g. actually see photons zipping around after being emitted by an atom, you measure a voltage or current after they hit a photodiode. You verify the model by whether you are getting the expected signal under various conditions. 

 

56 minutes ago, martillo said:

Yes, if that was the case the bots have found just a mirror...

68.5k views now and counting.

Please stop with the OT nonsense. 

[martillo]

Well, returning to the topic of the thread and as it was moved to the Speculations forum I will speculate on something.

The main conclusion at the initial post was that basing on the Parmenides principle that "nothing comes from nothing" it can be deduced the conclusion "something always existed" (if not, if the nothing happened at some time then nothing would have come after).

The question now is how this could be compatible with current Physics' Science. A way I have heard somewhere, I don't remember where, is with an eternal existing "God" creating the universe at some time (it could be through some sort of "Big Bang"). This way, there would be something eternal, "God", while the universe would have a beginning at some time.

Wouldn't this has a great sense? Even if assuming it as just a possibility by Physics' Science. May be we all can differ in what we can understand by "God" and there's a lot of options but we all could think in some kind of "Superior Intelligence" isn't it? Couldn't Physics' Science reach that conclusion or there's some problem with it? Which would be the problem? How that "God" would be and its capabilities could be a matter of big discrepancies but that would be another story...

 

Edited June 16, 2022 by martillo

[swansont]

12 hours ago, martillo said:

The question now is how this could be compatible with current Physics' Science. A way I have heard somewhere, I don't remember where, is with an eternal existing "God" creating the universe at some time (it could be through some sort of "Big Bang"). This way, there would be something eternal, "God", while the universe would have a beginning at some time.

 

!

Moderator Note

Speculation requires a model and evidence. Postulating a supreme being is not one of the options here.

 

[exchemist]

12 hours ago, martillo said:

Well, returning to the topic of the thread and as it was moved to the Speculations forum I will speculate on something.

The main conclusion at the initial post was that basing on the Parmenides principle that "nothing comes from nothing" it can be deduced the conclusion "something always existed" (if not, if the nothing happened at some time then nothing would have come after).

The question now is how this could be compatible with current Physics' Science. A way I have heard somewhere, I don't remember where, is with an eternal existing "God" creating the universe at some time (it could be through some sort of "Big Bang"). This way, there would be something eternal, "God", while the universe would have a beginning at some time.

Wouldn't this has a great sense? Even if assuming it as just a possibility by Physics' Science. May be we all can differ in what we can understand by "God" and there's a lot of options but we all could think in some kind of "Superior Intelligence" isn't it? Couldn't Physics' Science reach that conclusion or there's some problem with it? Which would be the problem? How that "God" would be and its capabilities could be a matter of big discrepancies but that would be another story...

 

This is a fairly arid speculation since no one claims physics is complete and there are reasons to think the laws as we understand them may not have been applicable in the first instants of existence of the cosmos. 

As to something coming from nothing, that is exactly what these virtual particles you have been complaining about represent, due to operation of the uncertainty principle. 

Things have moved on a bit since the time of Parmenides, as this Wiki article points out: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing

 

[martillo]

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

Things have moved on a bit since the time of Parmenides, as this Wiki article points out: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing

What I see in your link is the intention in current Physics to redefine the concept of "nothing" differently from the classical or philosophical one as "the absence of anything" even fields even any physics' law. And I can see strong discrepancies between some different physicists. 

This subject was covered at the beginning in the first page of this thread where I posted that there should be no discrepancy between Philosophy and Physics:

 

On 1/11/2021 at 12:22 PM, martillo said:

I think is something with total compatibility between Philosophy's Logic and Physics' Science. It's not my aim to get away from anyone of them.

My approach was to find a solution conciliating both point of view.

Edited June 16, 2022 by martillo