Use of 'nothing' in origin of the universe talk = absurdity

[yrreg]

I like to invite the science people here to comment on my opinion below:

“Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku says it also may have sprung from nothing: a completely empty eleven dimensional universe with no spin, no charge and no energy.”

I want to point out that the use of the word ‘nothing’ above is not warranted, because whatever you mean it is not nothing. Language is the only thing we have to represent things, if we then start with nothing why then do we continue to talk of it as something. “…Kaku says it also may have sprung from nothing…” How can Kaku use the words: “sprung, from,” when there is nothing for it to have sprung from. Just because people are scientists does not entitle them to speak in absurd sentences. What he should have said if he would not want to appear to speak in absurdity, should be the following:

“…it must have sprung from nothing we know at present or can ever know, but it is something…” instead of: “…it also may have sprung from nothing…”

http://scienceline.org/2006/08/21/ask-snyder-bang/#c1072

Thanks for any comments. Yrreg

[MrSandman]

It is absurd, but not entirely.

 

You keep going back to try to figure out where everything came from you get two things GOD or NOTHING.

[dichotomy]

It is absurd, but not entirely.

 

You keep going back to try to figure out where everything came from you get two things GOD or NOTHING.

 

 

Utter nonsense! ‘Cosmic Unconscious Force’ (CUF) was the primary matter before GOD, and even before the Void. CUF uncontrollably dreamt GOD into existence. GOD, after a few seconds of deep contemplation, couldn’t tolerate not knowing what made him, and so he self destructed in a puff of his own indisputable logic. This puff sparked off the big bang as we know it, that is, lots of matter and energy getting chaotically flung about like sheep shit in a paddock, until it settled to create the building blocks of the UNIVERSE.

[MrSandman]

ROFL!!!!!

 

I like it very comical. Maybe he destroyed the "CUF" and then made the big bang that shot him

[dichotomy]

Yes, many people confuse the puff of logic with the big bang. In fact, the puff was the actual trigger, fuse or catalyst, if you will, for the big bang. The big bang is a human term that was created unconsciously, it roughly translates as "mass interstellar orgy which gives birth to stuff".

[MrSandman]

Not to mention this big bang was God mocking baloons it didn't get big then blow, it condensed and blew.

[lucaspa]

Yrrg, Big Bang states that the universe has a beginning. That "before" that beginning there was nothing. In this context, nothing = no spacetime, no matter, no energy. All that came into existence at the Big Bang.

 

Kaku is saying something different. He is postulating an 11 dimensional universe -- so the universe was not "nothing" but had dimensions. However, it was "empty" in the sense that there was no matter or energy.

 

It is absurd, but not entirely.

 

You keep going back to try to figure out where everything came from you get two things GOD or NOTHING.

 

Actually, no. There are at least 6 hypotheses as to First Cause for our universe. In no particular order they are:

 

1. Logical and mathematical necessity. Briefly, the laws that describe our universe were so powerful that they made a universe for them to describe.

2. Quantum fluctuation. This is basically that the universe has no cause.

3. God created the universe.

4. No Boundary. In this the universe is self-contained and just IS. It never had a beginning.

5. Ekpyrotic

6. Loop quantum cosmology where our universe came from the collapse of a former universe.

 

So far, this is a textbook example of multiple competing hypotheses with insufficient data to eliminate any of them. As such, you can't use the existence of the universe as proof that it was created by God. There are other ways to get a universe.

 

Not to mention this big bang was God mocking baloons it didn't get big then blow, it condensed and blew.

 

You have to learn the differnce between analogy and reality. Analogy is used to try to explain something. To relate something that is outside our experience to something that is within our experience.

 

The Big Bang and expansion of our universe is LIKE the expansion of a balloon. It is trying to take something in 4 D Reimann geometry and relate it to something we are familiar with. It's not, obviously, exactly like a balloon.

 

BB states that the universe began as an infinitely small volume of spacetime that was also infinitely hot. As spacetime expanded the universe cooled and matter condensed (another analogy) from energy. Explaining how all galaxies are moving away from us is LIKE dots on a balloon. Put dots on a balloon and then blow it up. As the balloon surface expands the dots will all move away from each other.

 

MrSandman, if you truly believe in God, then it behooves you to listen to God's other book: Creation. Science studies that second book. You need to listen to God and not just to a man-made interpretation of the Bible. If you do that, then you are making a false idol to worship.

 

When Flood Geology was shown to be wrong and that a world-wide Flood had never happened, Christians had to decide what to do. They decided to listen to both God's books:

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

 

Unfortunately, in the early 1900s a group of people decided that they would listen to their man-made interpretation of the Bible only. Thus was Fundamentalism born. They turned their back on God and worshipped a literal, inerrant Bible. Creationism comes from Fundamentalism.

 

Also, creationism is different from Creation. Creation is a belief. It is a theological statement "God created". Creationism is a scientific theory on HOW God created. It has been shown to be wrong.

 

Evolution is a scientific theory in biology. For Christians, it is HOW God created the diversity of species. Big Bang is a scientific theory in cosmology. Again, for Christians it is HOW God created the universe.

[foodchain]

It is absurd, but not entirely.

 

You keep going back to try to figure out where everything came from you get two things GOD or NOTHING.

 

 

 

Well, you would have to be able to physically prove that, or else you have "nothing" really. That’s the trick to science, and all there really is. Its still just people pondering things, but the big evolution was testing them, before that it was basically word of mouth and common consensus. We have no ability to defeat the need of empirical testing. People have tried to just use math before but that does not work.

 

As for the origin of the universe, well that’s open to being diluted by human thought like anything else. How many people would object to a universe with no cause because it unsettles them emotionally? How many people do you think are like that in science? A recent pole on say just chemists by the ACS shows chemists that believe in god and supposedly see it, and other chemists that don’t? Wow, its the human element like that DuPont commercial at work.

 

I don’t suppose I can say what is trivial to you or not, but for an all powerful all knowing being as some supernatural entity like god is to be according to what ever religion that happens to be dominate at the time the Universe, life and everything else surely does not seem to reflect that really. I personally still find gods like Thor and Loki more entertaining to think about, as I do with Egyptian mythology or wait religion.

 

Trying to bring religion into science always backfires, because religion is primarily a composite mostly of human subjective or philosophical thought about the reality around them that for 100% of the time escapes ever being able to be scientific because it cannot be tested at all, or studied even. The best you can ever hope to do like creationism generally does is contort facts to fit an agenda. I mean evolution, organic evolution, with its untold amount of applications and factual support is attacked endlessly by every nutcase that happens to find confliction with that and there chosen or giving religion in many cases. I personally find this insulting as a human being.

 

As again in relation to the universe, science has a lot of support to the big bang, and people work on issues like the pre big bang reality of everything, the lack of a current absolute answer though like in evolution with any possible thing is typically used as a scapegoat or avenue to emplace anything a person wishes for an answer, and in all those cases such intelligent people find no need whatsoever to prove such as long as it helps them feel good about things, its what lead to the opiate of the masses statement...

 

I don’t need religion, what I would like is truth.

[THoR]

The assumption that the Universe began from nothing is based on a false premise.

 

Existence is not the product of cause and effect. Indeed, something must exist before it can change or be changed, hence it is easily seen that cause and effect is a function (product of) the phenomenon of existence - just the opposite of the creation premise.

 

If you want to understand the principle (not process) which reconciles the phenomenon of existence with the precepts of logic, try looking at the most basic of all principles - natural balance.

[YT2095]

QM says that particles pop in and out of existence all the time, can you say to me (and prove) that this could not have been the case at the very start?

 

and that Maybe enough "Popped in" at one time to create an attraction and thus "shut and seal the door" behind them?

 

it`s just One idea of many.

[MrMongoose]

I have no evidence to support my theory, but I believe that the universe exists continuously to infinity in both directions of time. No God or nothing involved at all if I'm right.

[ydoaPs]

QM says that particles pop in and out of existence all the time, can you say to me (and prove) that this could not have been the case at the very start?

 

and that Maybe enough "Popped in" at one time to create an attraction and thus "shut and seal the door" behind them?

 

it`s just One idea of many.

Pfft......virtual particles must be given energy to become real. The first Law of Thermodynamics still holds.

[Fred56]

What happened was the surface topology of the eggshell of the cosmic egg would no longer commute with the normal Hamiltonian because it had reached a stasis equilibrium state, obviously.

Thus the universe had nowhere left to go but out of the egg itself.

(this is as good as any other explanation for how something arose out of 'nothing')

[THoR]

QM says that particles pop in and out of existence all the time, can you say to me (and prove) that this could not have been the case at the very start?

 

and that Maybe enough "Popped in" at one time to create an attraction and thus "shut and seal the door" behind them?

 

it`s just One idea of many.

 

Then QM is wrong (actually you problably should revisit that writing).

 

Existence is not a condition or state of being, it is being, itself.

In order to change or be changed, something must first exist, therefore change is a function of existence, existence is not a function of change.

[YT2095]

it makes no difference though, I could have said it was micro elephants, or a kid in some other dimension drew this universe as a school project, the point is no one Knows what happened, we can go back to a few fractions of a second when the big bang occurred, but beyond that point it`s anyone guess for now.

 

although we May get some pretty cool results from the new Hadron collider

[lucaspa]

I have no evidence to support my theory, but I believe that the universe exists continuously to infinity in both directions of time. No God or nothing involved at all if I'm right.

 

Actually, there is evidence against that theory. As we go back in time, that's when we get to the Big Bang. As I said, even time comes into existence at the Big Bang. So your "continuously to infinity in both directions of time" doesn't work. "Before" the Big Bang, there is no time.

 

Then QM is wrong (actually you problably should revisit that writing).

 

Existence is not a condition or state of being, it is being, itself.

In order to change or be changed, something must first exist, therefore change is a function of existence, existence is not a function of change.

 

Sorry, but QM is not wrong. Virtual particles have been observed. It is your concept of existence that is wrong.

 

Yes, particles pop into and out of existence everywhere all the time. They last for about 10^-21 seconds. You can get the particles to be "permanent" by adding energy -- such as the energy in colliders. When particles collide in an accelerator, you get not only the original particles, but lots of new particles that didn't exist before. Those are the virtual particles that got enough energy to be permanent. In the case of virtual particles, "existence" is result of change in quantum states; it is a function of change.

 

Interestingly, our universe has a net energy = 0. The universe can be viewed as a huge virtual particle. Which is one reason why "quantum fluctuation" was in my list above. It's possible that our entire universe is a quantum fluctuation. However, we would also need spacetime to arise via quantum fluctuation. One of the reasons String Theory has such attraction is that spacetime does arise by quantum fluctuation in ST.

 

Pfft......virtual particles must be given energy to become real. The first Law of Thermodynamics still holds.

 

No, virtual particles must have energy to be permanent. They are still "real" in any sense of the word, it's just that they don't exist long -- ~ 10^-21 seconds. However, while they exist, they exert real effects on other matter. The Casimir Effect is well-documented:

 

3. C Seife, The subtle pull of emptiness. Science, 275 (Jan. 10): 158, 1997. Describes recent experiment demonstrating the Casimir effect.

3a. Physical Review Letters -- November 23, 1998 -- Volume 81, Issue 21 pp. 4549-4552 http://ojps.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000081000021004549000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&jsessionid=2476841006384468984 Paper documenting Casimir Effect

3b. http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/9/6 web article on Casimir effect

7. P Yam, Exploiting zero-point energy. Scientific American, 279: 82-101, Dec. 1997. Another confirmation of the Casimir effect, including attempts to tap it for energy.

8. LM Krause Excerpt: the physics of virtual particles. Natural History 107: 16, Feb. 1998.

 

The assumption that the Universe began from nothing is based on a false premise.

 

It's not a premise; it's a conclusion. Before Big Bang the accepted theory was Steady State, which had matter/energy/spacetime always existing.

 

Existence is not the product of cause and effect.

 

You seem to be equating universe with existence. Those may not be the same thing. However, if we take existence = universe then yes, it seems that an uncaused First Cause is needed to start the universe.

 

If you want to understand the principle (not process) which reconciles the phenomenon of existence with the precepts of logic, try looking at the most basic of all principles - natural balance.

 

The false premise here is that the phenomenon of existence must be reconciled with the precepts of logic. In science, logic is valid only if our experience of the universe shows it to be valid. If the universe contradicts logic, too bad for logic. Wave-particle duality contradicts the logical precept of the Law of the Excluded Middle. Too bad for the law; light is still BOTH a particle and wave at the same time.

[THoR]

Sorry, but QM is not wrong. Virtual particles have been observed. It is your concept of existence that is wrong.

 

Yes, particles pop into and out of existence everywhere all the time. They last for about 10^-21 seconds. You can get the particles to be "permanent" by adding energy -- such as the energy in colliders. When particles collide in an accelerator, you get not only the original particles, but lots of new particles that didn't exist before. Those are the virtual particles that got enough energy to be permanent. In the case of virtual particles, "existence" is result of change in quantum states; it is a function of change.

Something must exist before it can change or be changed. The property with which you seem so taken with is called mass. It is simply a property. The property of an existence - which can be changed. Space exists. Mass is not necessary to existence. MOST of the universe (by volume) does not have the property of mass.

 

Interestingly, our universe has a net energy = 0. The universe can be viewed as a huge virtual particle. Which is one reason why "quantum fluctuation" was in my list above. It's possible that our entire universe is a quantum fluctuation. However, we would also need spacetime to arise via quantum fluctuation. One of the reasons String Theory has such attraction is that spacetime does arise by quantum fluctuation in ST.

 

No, virtual particles must have energy to be permanent. They are still "real" in any sense of the word, it's just that they don't exist long -- ~ 10^-21 seconds. However, while they exist, they exert real effects on other matter. The Casimir Effect is well-documented:

 

3. C Seife, The subtle pull of emptiness. Science, 275 (Jan. 10): 158, 1997. Describes recent experiment demonstrating the Casimir effect.

3a. Physical Review Letters -- November 23, 1998 -- Volume 81, Issue 21 pp. 4549-4552 http://ojps.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000081000021004549000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&jsessionid=2476841006384468984 Paper documenting Casimir Effect

3b. http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/9/6 web article on Casimir effect

7. P Yam, Exploiting zero-point energy. Scientific American, 279: 82-101, Dec. 1997. Another confirmation of the Casimir effect, including attempts to tap it for energy.

8. LM Krause Excerpt: the physics of virtual particles. Natural History 107: 16, Feb. 1998.

Citing the status quo - the conventional wisdom - doesn't make it true. QM SR and particle physics all have precepts that fly in the face of logic; however, scholarly pundits with alphabet soup after their names continue to overlook those little problems for the sake of publication. They do a great disservice to the reputation of true science..

 

Originally Posted by THoR

The assumption that the Universe began from nothing is based on a false premise.

 

It's not a premise; it's a conclusion. Before Big Bang the accepted theory was Steady State, which had matter/energy/spacetime always existing.

 

You seem to be equating universe with existence. Those may not be the same thing. However, if we take existence = universe then yes, it seems that an uncaused First Cause is needed to start the universe.

 

 

The false premise here is that the phenomenon of existence must be reconciled with the precepts of logic. In science, logic is valid only if our experience of the universe shows it to be valid. If the universe contradicts logic, too bad for logic. Wave-particle duality contradicts the logical precept of the Law of the Excluded Middle. Too bad for the law; light is still BOTH a particle and wave at the same time.

One person's fantasy is another person's logic. Just look at religion. Nature is great at the art of deception - and who in their right mind would dare contradict hordes of scholarly pundits - especially those immersed in alphabet soup - however, their king has no clothes. And light is NEITHER a partlcle nor a wave, though it acts like both. It is simply the propagation of change from one media to another.

[Sayonara]

I don't see why the idea of "nothing" should be any more or less absurd than the idea of the universe in its current state.

[Mr Skeptic]

I don't see why the idea of "nothing" should be any more or less absurd than the idea of the universe in its current state.

 

Then we would have to reject the idea of causality that has worked so well for everything else. Besides, there's no such thing as "nothing" anyhow

[Sayonara]

Don't you think that causality is somewhat absurd?

[Mr Skeptic]

Don't you think that causality is somewhat absurd?

 

It seems like a necessary assumption if anything is able to be explained. How can you explain why something happened without causality?

[Sayonara]

Don't you find the idea of anything being explainable somewhat absurd?

 

I can keep this up forever.

[THoR]

It seems like a necessary assumption if anything is able to be explained. How can you explain why something happened without causality?

 

What specifically makes you presume the phenomenon of existence is something that 'happened" - something precipitated by the process cause and effect? You are trying to claim that once upon a time there was an 'after' that had no 'before'. Sounds a bit silly. Cause and effect is a function of (derived from) existence, existence is NOT a function of cause and effect.

[doG]

You keep going back to try to figure out where everything came from you get two things GOD or NOTHING.

 

What you really find is that we just don't know, nothing more, nothing less. That's the truth of where everything came from.

 

According to our observations and current understanding of nature, matter is neither created or destroyed. This could imply that matter has always existed. We'll never be able to know for sure if there was matter before our universe came into existence or not. All we can really do is speculate for the fun of it because we can't prove it either way. I personally tend to think that matter has always existed. I think the BB event simply redistributed existing matter. Like all other theories it's just another unprovable opinion.

[Mr Skeptic]

What specifically makes you presume the phenomenon of existence is something that 'happened" - something precipitated by the process cause and effect?

 

Our universe is expanding; it can't have been expanding forever; hence something must have caused it to start expanding.

 

You are trying to claim that once upon a time there was an 'after' that had no 'before'.

 

Huh?

 

Sounds a bit silly.

 

Yes, it does.

 

Cause and effect is a function of (derived from) existence, existence is NOT a function of cause and effect.

 

Existance requires no cause, but creation does. So anyone who believes the universe was created/started from nothing rejects the law of cause and effect. And the conservation laws. Hence why I said that there must have been something before the Big Bang.