Testing Creation

[sethoflagos]

18 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

Although it is likely that our universe’s energy emerged from a source without a beginning and has always existed, wouldn’t it be interesting to discover that our universe is merely the product of an experiment crafted by supremely knowledgeable beings curious about the origins of their universe?  I welcome your thoughts.

At the instant you posted the OP, it is more than arguable that the universe of the current instant didn't exist. It had no mass, possessed no energy, occupied no space. In short, it was the absolute nothing you referred to in your OP.

Yet now the present exists in all its spacious, energetic enormity. How did it arise from absolutely nothing?

If absolute Now has a perfect inverse Now such that Now + Now = 0, then perhaps they can and do arise spontaneously in a manner consistent with all our expectations of conservation of funamental properties, and separating as Now tracks its property gradients in one time direction while Now tracks its own back into the past.

Hence Now deevolves back into Then. at exactly the right time to meet the instant you posted the OP whereupon Then + Then = 0. Hence the past also vanishes for eternity into absolutely nothing.

And so on until the first Dawn where there was no Then to annihilate with. So Dawn and Dawn evolved in perfect mirror symmetry.

For a better explanation of this inverse universe idea see Advanced Waves Detected (John G. Cramer) on which my amateur musings borrow heavily.

[DrmDoc]

10 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I think part of the problem with trying to conceptualise this, is the issue of trying to imagine "pre" space-time. Even the idea of before makes no sense because this infers a time pre time, which in itself is paradoxical. 

It could be that space and possibly time had no beginning and that both are infinite. 

Our idea that the observable universe had a beginning at the "big bang"  on relativity and observations gave rise  to the notion of - "pre" space-time or what we commonly call the primordial singularity. Though recent observations made by JWT of large distant galaxies may question the accuracy of the big bang model.  

I slepted on it a bit and awoke thinking about this initial singularity idea that it contained all of the energy and properties of our universe pre-Planck.  With this concept in mind, I believe I have a better understanding now of what may have been before that singularity appeared.  So my question is, what was the source of that singularity?  Subspace maybe?  Perhaps a nullspace state?  If so, wouldn't that imply the inverse of the initial singularity which held all of space-time?

Considering the idea that the initial singularity emerged from nullspace state appears to further support, in my unlearned opinion, the idea that the first singularity emerged from something within that nullspace that has always been there...perhaps a quantum fluctuation that state? 

Presently, the image I have of our universe is that it's like a balloon where the content of the balloon cannot travel beyond it's surface because nothing--no space-time--exist beyond its surface.  However, there's still the question of dark energy and dark matter...I know bigger brains than mine have pondered and answered these questions, but I still enjoy figuring things out for myself.

[MJ kihara]

Everytime there is a discussions about creation ...word 'nothing' appears can someone pliz clarify that.

[Intoscience]

14 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

It doesn't dispute big bang...it may question the model in a manner that perhaps needs readjustments or modifications of the model.

Which is why I said 

 

18 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Though recent observations made by JWT of large distant galaxies may question the accuracy of the big bang model

Its too early to say whether there is a dispute over the big bang model. 

7 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

I slepted on it a bit and awoke thinking about this initial singularity idea that it contained all of the energy and properties of our universe pre-Planck.  With this concept in mind, I believe I have a better understanding now of what may have been before that singularity appeared.  So my question is, what was the source of that singularity?  Subspace maybe?  Perhaps a nullspace state?  If so, wouldn't that imply the inverse of the initial singularity which held all of space-time?

Considering the idea that the initial singularity emerged from nullspace state appears to further support, in my unlearned opinion, the idea that the first singularity emerged from something within that nullspace that has always been there...perhaps a quantum fluctuation that state? 

Presently, the image I have of our universe is that it's like a balloon where the content of the balloon cannot travel beyond it's surface because nothing--no space-time--exist beyond its surface.  However, there's still the question of dark energy and dark matter...I know bigger brains than mine have pondered and answered these questions, but I still enjoy figuring things out for myself.

I think one of the issues we have is that relativity predicts a mathematical singularity, but physically a singularity makes no sense. However, at this scale quantum theory takes over from relativity and things get a little muddy - the quantum fluctuation you alluded to.  

The other thing, and this is where its becomes difficult for us to conceptualise, thinking in terms of "all" and "contain in" assumes a measurable quantity. Measurement at that scale also becomes difficult. 

 

[MJ kihara]

30 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I think one of the issues we have is that relativity predicts a mathematical singularity, but physically a singularity makes no sense.
 

It make sense because we have blackholes as the evidence.

34 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

However, at this scale quantum theory takes over from relativity and things get a little muddy - the quantum fluctuation you alluded to. 

I think quantum fluctuations are spacetime properties that are more localised than the extend of relativity... sometimes i wonder how local can special relativity get,then at such a point quantum mechanics and relativity merge.

[Intoscience]

3 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

It make sense because we have blackholes as the evidence

Blackholes are evidence that there are regions of space-time where the geometry is such that once past a certain point (the event horizon) there is no escape from within that region. It is not evidence of the existence of physical singularities. 

[Genady]

4 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

how local can special relativity get,then at such a point quantum mechanics and relativity merge.

Quantum mechanics and special relativity have been happily merged more than 70 years ago. The marriage is called, Quantum Field Theory.

[dimreepr]

This type of speculation, is just inviting people to name their favourite god.

[MJ kihara]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Blackholes are evidence that there are regions of space-time where the geometry is such that once past a certain point (the event horizon) there is no escape from within that region. It is not evidence of the existence of physical singularities. 

At the centre of the black hole.

Escaping,'my thinking' is that there are particles that escape at more than the speed of light,given that,the are not electromagnetically detectable,but show their effects at rotation velocity graph at the edges of the galaxy-sorry for these it requires another thread.

4 hours ago, Genady said:

Quantum mechanics and special relativity have been happily merged more than 70 years ago. The marriage is called, Quantum Field Theory.

Then we need to deal with the next step,blackholes and dark matter..they are part of creation.

[Mordred]

Here is food for thought under the aforementioned QFT. What we of as particles are essentially localized field excitations. The fields themselves pervade all of spacetime. This makes sense as a field is a set of values at every geometric location even if the value is zero.

 So at any point in our universe is there anything we can honestly term as nothing ?

 Now energy is simply the ability to perform work. In essence it is simply a property much like mass being the property of resistance to inertia change or acceleration.

 Now ask yourself this question. If you have a perfectly uniform field where every point has precisely the same value. 

 Are you able to measure the amount of energy at any point ? It would be much like trying to measure voltage on two points on the same conducting wire. You would read zero volts as you have no potential differences between the two points. 

 When you think about it energy of a field results from non uniformity. Aka quantum fluctuations. Those fluctuations affect each other in constructive and destructive interference.

The zero energy universe model aka universe from nothing in essence details this. 

 You take this one step further. If every object was moving at the same direction and at the same velocity. Then you would believe every object is stationary (aka one of the statements involving relativity).

Edited May 6, 2023 by Mordred

[DrmDoc]

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Here is food for thought under the aforementioned QFT. What we of as particles are essentially localized field excitations. The fields themselves pervade all of spacetime. This makes sense as a field is a set of values at every geometric location even if the value is zero.

 So at any point in our universe is there anything we can honestly term as nothing ?

 Now energy is simply the ability to perform work. In essence it is simply a property much like mass being the property of resistance to inertia change or acceleration.

 Now ask yourself this question. If you have a perfectly uniform field where every point has precisely the same value. 

 Are you able to measure the amount of energy at any point ? It would be much like trying to measure voltage on two points on the same conducting wire. You would read zero volts as you have no potential differences between the two points. 

 When you think about it energy of a field results from non uniformity. Aka quantum fluctuations. Those fluctuations affect each other in constructive and destructive interference.

The zero energy universe model aka universe from nothing in essence details this. 

Fascinating...I am enlightened!  You've given me even more to consider.  Thank you!

[MigL]

On 5/3/2023 at 7:56 PM, DrmDoc said:

The idea that something—meaning our universe—can arise from nothing is ludicrous, unprovable and, by no stretch of science, math, or imagination will I ever be convinced otherwise.  That is because within a true vacuum—devoid of all energy or energetic interference—nothing can or will be created regardless of how advanced our science may eventually become.

If I may ...
It makes no sense to talk about energies needed to create a universe at the beginning of time.

Noether's theorem states that 'every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system  with conservative forces has a corresponding conservation law'.
If a process exhibits the  same outcomes regardless of time. then its Lagrangian is symmetric under continuous translations in time, and as per Noether's theorem, this symmetry accounts for thelaw of energy conservation of this system.
( paraphrased from Wiki )

As the beginning of time is decidedly non-symmetric, the energy conservation law is not constrained to hold, and the quantum fluctuation would not be constrained in the amount of energy it could introduce to the system.
Maybe enough to create a universe.

 

[Mordred]

Your welcome you will find that this will help understand a large range of physics related topics. Examples being particle creation/annihilation  virtual, real and quasi. Gravity aka spacetime curvature. (Apply Newtons Shell theorem) in essence it's an identical phenomenal. Aharom Bohm effect just to name a few related examples

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

If I may ...
It makes no sense to talk about energies needed to create a universe at the beginning of time.

Noether's theorem states that 'every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system  with conservative forces has a corresponding conservation law'.
If a process exhibits the  same outcomes regardless of time. then its Lagrangian is symmetric under continuous translations in time, and as per Noether's theorem, this symmetry accounts for thelaw of energy conservation of this system.
( paraphrased from Wiki )

As the beginning of time is decidedly non-symmetric, the energy conservation law is not constrained to hold, and the quantum fluctuation would not be constrained in the amount of energy it could introduce to the system.
Maybe enough to create a universe.

 

Quite accurate 

[MJ kihara]

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

What we of as particles are essentially localized field excitations. The fields themselves pervade all of spacetime.

Is it correct to say that assumption have already been made the fields have always been there at starting point of big bag?

Excitations and fields which came first, were there excitations that decayed to become fields or fields were miraculously excited to become excitation?

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

This makes sense as a field is a set of values at every geometric location even if the value is zero.

Assuming that everywhere in the field the value is zero...is it possible to have zero valued field?.... If yes does it mean there things that can't be explained using geometry and that initially preceeding big bang there was just nothing...if no is it then correct to say that saying that having a zero valued on the field is contradictory.

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

Now energy is simply the ability to perform work.

How can work be quantized...once quantized,then it will be influenced by principles of uncertainty...how then will somebody be sure there is any work done?

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

How can work be quantized...once quantized,then it will be influenced by principles of uncertainty...how then will somebody be sure there is any work done?

Depends on how warm you get. 😉

Edited May 6, 2023 by dimreepr

[Mordred]

8 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Is it correct to say that assumption have already been made the fields have always been there at starting point of big bag?

Excitations and fields which came first

How do you have a field excitation without a field ? One can describe any geometry as a field.

 

 

8 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

 

Assuming that everywhere in the field the value is zero...is it possible to have zero valued field?.... If yes does it mean there things that can't be explained using geometry and that initially preceeding big bang there was just nothing...if no is it then correct to say that saying that having a zero valued on the field is contradictory.

 

Let's take an example let's toy model a hypothetical universe one that is critically flat. As spacetime is a field theory by all definitions. In this case one would measure zero curvature at all locations.  The only source of uncertainty in this example would be systematic measurement errors.

8 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

 

How can work be quantized...once quantized,then it will be influenced by principles of uncertainty...how then will somebody be sure there is any work done?

We quantize the amount of performed all the time.   Energy is defined as the ability to perform work. Any time a force is exerted work has been done.

[MJ kihara]

I have asked this severally...why nothing?...its fundamental when we are discussing about creation... Can somebody talk about 'nothing'...even if its a philosophical talk about it.

[Phi for All]

57 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

I have asked this severally...why nothing?...its fundamental when we are discussing about creation... Can somebody talk about 'nothing'...even if its a philosophical talk about it.

The word is being used several ways. "Nothing" can escape from a black hole. Empty space is filled with "nothing". There is "nothing" outside of our universe. In each case though, "nothing" means "a complete absence of things", and it's been pointed out that in some instances "nothing" may not be possible. 

[Mordred]

As Phi for All mentioned is that we honestly cannot accurately define any region of spacetime as absolute nothing. For example under QM the minimum energy due to quantum fluctuations is \[E=\frac{1}{2}\hbar w\]

This is referred to as zero point energy ZPE for short

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

Edited May 6, 2023 by Mordred

[MigL]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

This is referred to as zero point energy ZPE for short

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

Interesting read, Mordred.
I especially enjoyed the speculative sections near the end.

[joigus]

20 hours ago, MigL said:

If I may ...
It makes no sense to talk about energies needed to create a universe at the beginning of time.

Noether's theorem states that 'every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system  with conservative forces has a corresponding conservation law'.
If a process exhibits the  same outcomes regardless of time. then its Lagrangian is symmetric under continuous translations in time, and as per Noether's theorem, this symmetry accounts for thelaw of energy conservation of this system.
( paraphrased from Wiki )

Indeed!

I also have concerns having to do with operationalism.

I don't think ideas like this and the like (is there a universe in an electron?) can be tested.

[Mordred]

Your welcome, a couple of 

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Interesting read, Mordred.
I especially enjoyed the speculative sections near the end.

Your welcome numerous articles will often state that one can use the critical density formula to calculate the energy density of Lambda. 

\[\rho_{crit} = \frac{3c^2H^2}{8\pi G}\]

Which if you use the Hubble parameter value today will give an energy density of roughly \[6.0*10^{-10} joules/m^3\]

However there is an interesting side note. The Hubble parameter is higher in the past than today hence I rarely call it Hubble constant. Now if this formula is used to calculate the energy density of Lambda this would then imply a far higher energy density at the pre-inflation period just after the initial moment of the BB. If this is true then it is the equation of state for Lambda that is constant and not the energy density itself. 

This is something I have been thinking about for some time. As I question whether the critical density formula is a valid method to calculate the critical density of Lambda. It may simply be accurate only during the Lambda dominant epoch we are currently in as a rough calculation for Lambda energy density.

 If one examines how the critical density formula is derived its derivative arises using matter with the corresponding equation of state. Originally its use was to define the point where the universe would switch from expansion to contraction. Which is another reason I question its validity with regards to Lambda.

The main point however is that we cannot directly measure the energy density of the vacuum we can only infer its energy density from its influence.

 

 

Edited May 6, 2023 by Mordred

[Genady]

58 minutes ago, joigus said:

I don't think ideas like this and the like (is there a universe in an electron?) can be tested.

I tend to agree, but there might be a subtlety in the question, tested by whom? Take the idea of a universe in a black hole, for example. In principle, it can be tested by an observer falling into the BH, and it can't be tested by an observer outside the BH, if I am not mistaken.

[Mordred]

32 minutes ago, Genady said:

I tend to agree, but there might be a subtlety in the question, tested by whom? Take the idea of a universe in a black hole, for example. In principle, it can be tested by an observer falling into the BH, and it can't be tested by an observer outside the BH, if I am not mistaken.

More food for thought the majority of BHs rotate. So how does one arrive at a homogeneous and isotropic universe that resides in a rotating BH ? Even if the BH isn't rotating having a homogeneous and isotropic universe would be difficult.

[Genady]

17 minutes ago, Mordred said:

More food for thought the majority of BHs rotate. So how does one arrive at a homogeneous and isotropic universe that resides in a rotating BH ? Even if the BH isn't rotating having a homogeneous and isotropic universe would be difficult.

The universes in BHs don't have to be isotropic.

Or homogeneous.

Anyway, my comment was about testability rather than about universes in  BHs.