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

[swansont]

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..

 

Did you ever consider that the logic is wrong, i.e. based on a false premise? (e.g. that the behavior in the macroscopic world should extend to the microscopic). This is just argument from incredulity (somehow logical fallacies always seem to be used when defending True Science™).

 

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

 

What if the gravitational potential energy exactly matches the rest of the energy of the universe?

 

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.

 

Actually, "real" has a specific meaning in this case, and ydoaps did use it properly. Virtual particles are, by definition, not real.

[jedaisoul]

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.

 

I think this is a misrepresentation. My understanding of the big bang theory is that it does not define what existed before the big bang as being "nothing". Indeed, it does not define it at all. It's undefined and unknowable in the context of that theory, which is very different from being defined as being nothing.

 

Some proponents of the big bang theory may speculate that there was nothing before the big bang, but that is a very different thing from saying that is what the theory predicts.

[THoR]

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.

 

Again, why would you presume our universe "came into" existence?

Just because the infinitesimal portion of the cosmos that we can detect seems to be (red shift) inflating doesn't mean infinity is getting bigger. If the area of a bomb is all you can detect, it might seem the world is fleeing some epicenter...but the assumption would be wrong. What if space itself is slightly tinted red?

 

Did you ever consider that the logic is wrong, i.e. based on a false premise? (e.g. that the behavior in the macroscopic world should extend to the microscopic). This is just argument from incredulity (somehow logical fallacies always seem to be used when defending True Science™).

Beware the supernatural. In the absence of logic there can be no rational argument. When the rules of reality are suspended anything is possible, even the absurd. And if one such exemption can be conceded then so can others - without limit. Without logic there is no science.

 

Something must exist in order to change or be changed.

That is simple logic that applies to micro, macro and beyond.

Two independent existences cannot simultaneously occupy the same volume.

Something cannot be in two separate locations simultaneously.

To travel from point A to point B requires the traverse of ALL the points between (Wormholes...Hogwarts if this is science, Harry Potter is the next Isaac Newton)

 

 

Actually, "real" has a specific meaning in this case, and ydoaps did use it properly. Virtual particles are, by definition, not real.

 

Something either exists or it does not. You can assign any properties you wish to a fantasy, but why bother?

[doG]

Again, why would you presume our universe "came into" existence?

 

I don't. Because our understanding of physics shows that matter is neither created or destroyed I presume that the matter of our universe has always existed. I concede that the evidence indicates some type of event occurred approximately 14 billion years ago and acknowledge that such an event may have distributed existing matter into the universe as we know it.

 

If the universe is expanding I also believe that it must exist in a space larger than the universe itself in order for such expansion to occur. This means that there is space beyond the horizon which is the limit of our observation. This space may in fact be infinite with many universes like our own but I don't presume that. It does make me wonder, "Are there intersections of expanding universes that give birth to contracting universes which then go through big crunches, resulting in big bangs, giving birth to new expanding universes?"

 

What I do presume is that we do not have the necessary data to conclude anything about the matter, space or time beyond the limits of our observation. We can toss out theories like God or the Big Crunch theory but they are really just meaningless exercises in speculation since they have no foundational evidence to support them and cannot be used to make testable predictions and in the end are not really valid theories at all.

[jedaisoul]

“…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…”

Thanks for any comments.

 

I would paraphrase your logic as:

a) If there was a reason why the universe came into existence, then there has to be a cause. If there is a cause, then that implies that there is a causer. Therefore there cannot have been "nothing" before the universe came into existence.

 

Note: The term "causer" is used in the widest sense as "something or someone who caused it to happen". It not intended to imply necessarily that the "causer" was an intelligent being.

 

Phrasing the logic in that manner reveals that there is an alternative interpretation:

b) There is no reason why the universe came into existence. It just did. If that is true, then there could have been nothing before the universe came into existence.

 

Now, the suggestion that the universe just came into existence because it did may not seem very satisfactory. But the alternative is, arguably, worse. Assuming the intervention of a "causer" simply begets the question: "what existed before the 'causer' came into existence?". This is just a rephrasing of the well known question "if God created the universe, who created God?".

 

Anyway, I hope I've shown that it is possible that the was nothing before the universe came into existence. Indeed if you extend the term "universe" to include its "causer", and the causer's "causer" etc..., I would suggest that the only logical answer is that there was nothing before the universe came into existence. Hence there was no reason, or cause, why it happened. It just did.

[swansont]

Beware the supernatural. In the absence of logic there can be no rational argument. When the rules of reality are suspended anything is possible, even the absurd. And if one such exemption can be conceded then so can others - without limit. Without logic there is no science.

 

That someone does not find QM or relativity to be logical is a flaw in their logic. This is not suspending the rules, just recognizing that the rules are a little different, and more subtle, than originally thought. Calling this supernatural is just a strawman.

 

Something must exist in order to change or be changed.

That is simple logic that applies to micro, macro and beyond.

Two independent existences cannot simultaneously occupy the same volume.

Something cannot be in two separate locations simultaneously.

To travel from point A to point B requires the traverse of ALL the points between (Wormholes...Hogwarts if this is science, Harry Potter is the next Isaac Newton)

 

"Something must exist in order to change or be changed." is a premise, which is part of a logical statement. As with "Something cannot be in two separate locations simultaneously." But I can devise an experiment (the double-slit with a single particle) that proves this wrong, so any conclusion based on theis false premise is invalid.

 

Something either exists or it does not. You can assign any properties you wish to a fantasy, but why bother?

 

Again, there is a specific definition for what is called a "real" vs a "virtual" particle. Let's try to stay away from equivocation.

[Mr Skeptic]

Now, the suggestion that the universe just came into existence because it did may not seem very satisfactory. But the alternative is, arguably, worse. Assuming the intervention of a "causer" simply begets the question: "what existed before the 'causer' came into existence?". This is just a rephrasing of the well known question "if God created the universe, who created God?".

 

God does not need a cause if he has existed forever. This is the same reason why many believe that there was something before the Big Bang. Anything that has existed forever does not require a cause, because existence is not an effect. Anything that started does require a cause because something must have caused it to change. If you reject the law of cause and effect, you reject any possibility of an explanation -- a dead end.

 

Anyway, I hope I've shown that it is possible that the was nothing before the universe came into existence.

 

So you've shown that the law of cause and effect is wrong, that the conservation laws are wrong, etc?

 

Indeed if you extend the term "universe" to include its "causer", and the causer's "causer" etc..., I would suggest that the only logical answer is that there was nothing before the universe came into existence. Hence there was no reason, or cause, why it happened. It just did.

 

Or you can say it always existed. Hence, an uncaused cause, but never an uncaused effect.

[jedaisoul]

God does not need a cause if he has existed forever. This is the same reason why many believe that there was something before the Big Bang. Anything that has existed forever does not require a cause, because existence is not an effect.

That depends on what you mean by "forever". This is the same as saying that something has "always" existed. See below...

 

Anything that started does require a cause because something must have caused it to change.

That is an assumption. I have shown that the most logical conclusion is that the universe did not have a cause.

 

If you reject the law of cause and effect, you reject any possibility of an explanation -- a dead end.

I do not reject the possibility of an explanation. I merely suggest that the most logical conclusion is that there is no explanation.

 

So you've shown that the law of cause and effect is wrong, that the conservation laws are wrong, etc?

No, cause and effect and the laws of conservation are descriptions of the way the universe behaves. Without a universe there is no reason to presume such behaviour.

 

Or you can say it always existed. Hence, an uncaused cause, but never an uncaused effect.

This depends on what you mean by "always" or "forever". Do you conceive time to be an abstract idea or part of the spacetime continuum?

a) If the former, then there is no limit to time, but only because it does not exist. Therefore "always" or "forever" are nothing more than an abstract ideas.

b) If the latter, then time came into existence with the universe.

[Mr Skeptic]

That depends on what you mean by "forever". This is the same as saying that something has "always" existed. See below...

 

By always existed I mean never started existing.

 

That is an assumption. I have shown that the most logical conclusion is that the universe did not have a cause.

 

Rejecting the law of cause and effect is also an assumption, and a less reasonable one because there is no evidence thereof. All you have shown that you are convinced that the universe did not have a cause.

 

I do not reject the possibility of an explanation. I merely suggest that the most logical conclusion is that there is no explanation.

 

If there is not explanation, how is there a possibility of an explanation?

 

No, cause and effect and the laws of conservation are descriptions of the way the universe behaves. Without a universe there is no reason to presume such behaviour.

 

Cause and effect and the conservation laws have always been observed to be true. It may be presumptuous to assume that they will hold without the universe, but it is even more presumptuous to assume that they will not hold.

 

Also, if the law of cause and effect did not exist before the universe, what caused the law of cause and effect to start existing?

 

This depends on what you mean by "always" or "forever". Do you conceive time to be an abstract idea or part of the spacetime continuum?

a) If the former, then there is no limit to time, but only because it does not exist. Therefore "always" or "forever" are nothing more than an abstract ideas.

b) If the latter, then time came into existence with the universe.

 

By having existed forever, I mean never started existing. As to time before the universe, I can only speculate. The law of cause and effect seems to require change to have existed before he start of the universe, and ordered change (the cause cannot be after the effect). Hence, something timelike (ordered change) would have existed before the universe.

[DZane]

Cause Unknown (Will never be known)

Step 1. The Big Bang Happens

Step 2. The Universe Expands

Step 3. The Universe stops expanding

Step 4. The Universe starts to pull back together to a single point due to gravity.

Step 5. After sometime another big bang happens

[jedaisoul]

Rejecting the law of cause and effect is also an assumption, and a less reasonable one because there is no evidence thereof. All you have shown that you are convinced that the universe did not have a cause.

I have not rejected the law of cause and effect. I've stated that there was no cause, therefore the universe coming into existence was not an effect.

 

If there is no explanation, how is there a possibility of an explanation?

I have said that this is the most logical conclusion. That does not make it the only conclusion you could draw. You could conclude that a man in a monkey suit created the universe. That is a possible explanation. I just don't think it very likely.

 

Cause and effect and the conservation laws have always been observed to be true. It may be presumptuous to assume that they will hold without the universe, but it is even more presumptuous to assume that they will not hold.

Why? If there is nothing then there is nothing to act as a cause, and nothing for it to have an effect on! Hence no cause and effect.

 

Also, if the law of cause and effect did not exist before the universe, what caused the law of cause and effect to start existing?

They don't exist. They are mental abstractions that describe the behaviour of this universe.

 

By having existed forever, I mean never started existing. As to time before the universe, I can only speculate. The law of cause and effect seems to require change to have existed before he start of the universe, and ordered change (the cause cannot be after the effect). Hence, something timelike (ordered change) would have existed before the universe.

If something never started existing, it would not exist.

[doG]

Cause Unknown (Will never be known)

Step 1. The Big Bang Happens

Step 2. The Universe Expands

Step 3. The Universe stops expanding

Step 4. The Universe starts to pull back together to a single point due to gravity.

Step 5. After sometime another big bang happens

 

But I think it has been found that the expansion is accelerating, not slowing down....

[lucaspa]

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

 

Causing the expansion and causing the universe to exist are 2 different things.

 

Existance requires no cause, but creation does.

Please define "existence". Others have been using existence = universe. So, if "creation" (of what? the universe )requires a cause, then so does existence.

 

So anyone who believes the universe was created/started from nothing rejects the law of cause and effect.

 

No. We simply don't require the creator to have a cause. THe existence of the universe has a "cause", whether that be quantum fluctuation, logical and mathematical necessity, God, or whatever. It's just that the list of causes of the universe do not need a cause.

 

And the conservation laws. Hence why I said that there must have been something before the Big Bang.

 

The First Law of Thermodynamics is stated as what works within the universe. It's limits are the universe. Therefore it does not apply to getting a universe to begin with. Once you have the universe, then the law of conservation of energy applies.

 

Actually, "real" has a specific meaning in this case, and ydoaps did use it properly. Virtual particles are, by definition, not real.

 

This was what ydoaps said: "Pfft......virtual particles must be given energy to become real. The first Law of Thermodynamics still holds."

 

How do you know from the concept that ydoapps used the terms properly.

 

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea

"Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested. ... Thus virtual particles are indeed real and have observable effects that physicists have devised ways of measuring."

 

If you want to disagree that, please go ahead. Please explain the reasons and data for your disagreement so that we can better understand why you are saying what you are.

 

However, I hope you can now understand why I said what I did. Scientific American is usually a very reliable and accurate source.

 

Like all other theories it's just another unprovable opinion.

 

Let's start here. You know very well that this is not what theories are. Theories are statements about the physical universe. Many theories have been proven to be wrong. Some are untested. And some have so much support that we accept them as (provisionally) true.

 

For instance, one theory is that of inertia. Do you really think inertia is "another unprovable opinion"? If so, why do you bother to use the breaks on your car? If inertia is not true, then you would hit the other car and come to an instant, and non-damaging, stop. But you don't do that, do you? If you have every flown in an airplane, then you think Bernoulli's theory is more than "unprovable opinion". If you thought that, you would be irrational to get on board the airplane.

 

So ... you don't really think this. So why say it? Because you propose an opinion that is wrong and are trying to give it some respectibility and equality with well-accepted theories:

 

According to our observations and current understanding of nature, matter is neither created or destroyed.

 

This is wrong because it only applies to what happens within our universe. It does not apply to getting a universe to begin with. However, you want it to apply so you can say:

 

This could imply that matter has always existed. ... I personally tend to think that matter has always existed. I think the BB event simply redistributed existing matter.

 

First Law of Thermodynamics doesn't imply anything of the kind. All the other data supporting Big Bang says matter did NOT always exist. Along with spacetime, matter/energy came into existence at the Big Bang. But you don't like that so you want your opinion to have the same "weight" as Big Bang. Since you don't have the data, you denigrate all theories to "unproveable opinion".

 

Self-serving, but not accurate science.

[doG]

Let's start here. You know very well that this is not what theories are.

 

I guess I didn't word that right. I figured most would know what I meant from the context but it appears I assumed to much. I thought it was clear I was speaking of theories regarding the time before the Big Bang, where the universe came from, how it came to be, where matter came from, was it created or did it already exist, etc.. It's all just speculation. We have no observable phenomenon from that era which could be used to formulate a valid theory on the origin of the Universe...if there even was one.

[Fred56]

theories regarding the time before the Big Bang

There was no 'time' before the Big Bang, there was no 'before', either. The "Big Bang" wasn't an "explosion" like a bomb going off in empty space, because there was no "empty space". There was absolutely nothing (something we have to give a label, because we're simply unable to conceive "nothing" -it has to be "something" so we can "picture" it).

where the universe came from, how it came to be, where matter came from, was it created or did it already exist, etc..

Same problem, there was no "where", or "how".

It's all just speculation. We have no observable phenomenon from that era which could be used to formulate a valid theory on the origin of the Universe...if there even was one.

Except for some radiation (the CMB), which we can't explain otherwise...

[doG]

There was no 'time' before the Big Bang, there was no 'before', either. The "Big Bang" wasn't an "explosion" like a bomb going off in empty space, because there was no "empty space". There was absolutely nothing (something we have to give a label, because we're simply unable to conceive "nothing" -it has to be "something" so we can "picture" it).

 

Same problem, there was no "where", or "how".

 

Except for some radiation (the CMB), which we can't explain otherwise...

Can you prove all of that?

[Mr Skeptic]

I have not rejected the law of cause and effect. I've stated that there was no cause, therefore the universe coming into existence was not an effect.

 

Then you need to learn to use logic. Your conclusion would be that there cannot be an effect. Hence, your conclusion is that the universe cannot have started (since the change from non-existent to existent is an effect).

 

I have said that this is the most logical conclusion. That does not make it the only conclusion you could draw. You could conclude that a man in a monkey suit created the universe. That is a possible explanation. I just don't think it very likely.

 

Strawman. I said nothing about men in monkey suits. To hold the view that the universe came from nothing is the most likely explanation, you would have to prove that that is more likely than from it to have come from the flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn, collision of branes, and anything and everything else I could think of.

 

Why? If there is nothing then there is nothing to act as a cause, and nothing for it to have an effect on! Hence no cause and effect.

 

But that is your assumption. If there is something before (as the conservation laws might imply), then there could be causes and effects.

 

They don't exist. They are mental abstractions that describe the behaviour of this universe.

 

How about you jump off a cliff? After all, the laws of gravity are nothing more than mental abstractions that describe the behaviour of this universe, no more real than the law of cause and effect.

 

If something never started existing, it would not exist.

 

Why not? How about this: if a prime number never became prime, than it would not be prime. What is wrong with the concept of "it has always existed"?

 

Causing the expansion and causing the universe to exist are 2 different things.

 

They're both effects, and both require a cause. My distinction here was to not disallow a big crunch scenerio where our universe has always existed but has started expanding.

 

Please define "existence". Others have been using existence = universe. So, if "creation" (of what? the universe )requires a cause, then so does existence.

 

I have no problem with things existing in other universe, or in a metaverse (the whatever before the big bang). But our universe exists in our universe.

 

No. We simply don't require the creator to have a cause. THe existence of the universe has a "cause", whether that be quantum fluctuation, logical and mathematical necessity, God, or whatever. It's just that the list of causes of the universe do not need a cause.

 

Others are arguing that the universe was created from nothing without a cause. No need to get militant just because I said "created", BTW, or to put words into my mouth. Oh, and you also contradicted yourself by equating "whatever" with "nothing"; try to calm down you're getting too excited.

 

The First Law of Thermodynamics is stated as what works within the universe. It's limits are the universe. Therefore it does not apply to getting a universe to begin with. Once you have the universe, then the law of conservation of energy applies.

 

No, it is stated to apply to a closed system (BTW, the law of conservation of energy is the one I am referring to. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics is more heat oriented).

 

----

 

Also, you don't need a cause to keep existing if you already exist, any more than you need a cause as to why you don't turn into a purple frog.

[swansont]

No, it is stated to apply to a closed system (BTW, the law of conservation of energy is the one I am referring to. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics is more heat oriented).

 

The 1^st law of Thermodynamics is that energy is conserved.

[Mr Skeptic]

The 1^st law of Thermodynamics is that energy is conserved.

 

True, but the way it is stated is much less convenient for my argument than the law of conservation of energy. Same thing, different statement. [math]dU = \delta Q - \delta w[/math], bleh. A rose by any other name wouldn't rhyme, yada yada.

[mooeypoo]

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.

 

Yeah, fine, you have a point, but then again - we all use "what is before the big bang?" question when it is pointless, because 'before' is a question referring to TIME and time itself is hypothesized to be created in the Big Bang.

 

 

Language is what we have, but the universe doesn't always confine to our language, or our perceptions, and sometimes it is a bit more difficult to understand than your usual scientific theories. Lack of understanding, however, doesn't prove falsifiability.

 

~moo

 

EDIT: Another point about our 'language' is that we tend to say that space is a void - when in reality, it's FAR from it (there are plenty of "stuff"/matter in between stars and celestial objects. it's not a vacuum) but to always go back to petty explanations when dealing with other subjects is just against the point. If we want to hypothesize on the behavior of light in between galaxies, we will sometimes make the statement that "it travels in a void", knowing that the void is not PRECISELY a void, it's ALMOST a void, but it's irrelevant to the specific hypothesis at hand, at the moment...

[swansont]

Another point about our 'language' is that we tend to say that space is a void - when in reality, it's FAR from it (there are plenty of "stuff"/matter in between stars and celestial objects. it's not a vacuum)

 

It is a vacuum; vacuum has more than one definition, and the one that generally gets used in physics is "a region with significantly lower pressure than one atmosphere." You run into a problem when people want to use the definition of absolute vacuum, "a region that is completely empty" without acknowledging that they are using that definition.

[THoR]

That someone does not find QM or relativity to be logical is a flaw in their logic. This is not suspending the rules, just recognizing that the rules are a little different, and more subtle, than originally thought. Calling this supernatural is just a strawman.

 

So, 'i' (sqrt -1) is LOGICAL?

 

Sorry, an equation has just performed an illegal operation and will be shut down. If this problem persists, please contact a mathematician.

 

When the INTERPRETATION of experimental results by contemporary science flies in the face of that which is obvious to any sentient being, I tend to challenge the 'unconventional wisdom'.

"Something must exist in order to change or be changed." is a premise, which is part of a logical statement. As with "Something cannot be in two separate locations simultaneously." But I can devise an experiment (the double-slit with a single particle) that proves this wrong, so any conclusion based on theis false premise is invalid.

You interpret what you see to be a particle - like a photon - but it is also a wave...well....sort of...well...or maybe not...see what I mean. The same phenomenon can be easily explained IF instead of intuitively assuming (interpreting) you are observing a particle you understand that what you see is just the simple propagation of change (energy if you wish) through space - or whatever media in which the experiment resides. It can even mimic the property of mass.

Again, there is a specific definition for what is called a "real" vs a "virtual" particle. Let's try to stay away from equivocation.

Most phenomena can be interpreted MANY ways. Only one is correct. And it is usually the one which corresponds to the precepts of simple common sense and logic.

 

I don't. Because our understanding of physics shows that matter is neither created or destroyed I presume that the matter of our universe has always existed. I concede that the evidence indicates some type of event occurred approximately 14 billion years ago and acknowledge that such an event may have distributed existing matter into the universe as we know it.

 

If the universe is expanding I also believe that it must exist in a space larger than the universe itself in order for such expansion to occur. This means that there is space beyond the horizon which is the limit of our observation. This space may in fact be infinite with many universes like our own but I don't presume that. It does make me wonder, "Are there intersections of expanding universes that give birth to contracting universes which then go through big crunches, resulting in big bangs, giving birth to new expanding universes?"

 

What I do presume is that we do not have the necessary data to conclude anything about the matter, space or time beyond the limits of our observation. We can toss out theories like God or the Big Crunch theory but they are really just meaningless exercises in speculation since they have no foundational evidence to support them and cannot be used to make testable predictions and in the end are not really valid theories at all.

 

Given a finite number of moving objects randomly vectored at random velocities within a finite volume, eventually all collisions which could occur WILL occur - within a finite period of time. Many of those collisions may occur outside of the original volume, but they will still take place within a finite period and within a finite distance. Once all collisions have occurred, all objects will eventually reach the boundary of the initial volume and except for those very few which may be moving at exactly the same velocity in precisely parallel paths, they will all be moving away from each other.

 

The sound of galloping hooves does NOT mean the unicorns are stampeding.

 

The appearance that clusters of material within our tiny suburb of the cosmos seem to be fleeing some epicenter does not mean the universe, itself, is expanding. If our corner of the cosmos is surrounded by a vast depth of void and no ambient matter is currently entering our vicinity, the above scenario may well explain the phenomenon. It is also quite possible that the Universe is an infinity of enormous cosmic engines which alternately collapse and explode when they reach critical mass - forever mingling material with other adjacent engines. To think the miniscule corner of the universe we can detect with our puny technology is all there is to the cosmos is silly.

[swansont]

So, 'i' (sqrt -1) is LOGICAL?

 

Yes. That you may not find it logical is not the proper metric. There are rules to math; it's not arbitrary.

 

You interpret what you see to be a particle - like a photon - but it is also a wave...well....sort of...well...or maybe not...see what I mean. The same phenomenon can be easily explained IF instead of intuitively assuming (interpreting) you are observing a particle you understand that what you see is just the simple propagation of change (energy if you wish) through space - or whatever media in which the experiment resides. It can even mimic the property of mass.

 

Works for atoms, too.

 

 

Most phenomena can be interpreted MANY ways. Only one is correct. And it is usually the one which corresponds to the precepts of simple common sense and logic.

 

But not always. You'e demanding that it always be the simple logic that you can comprehend, and frankly, that's crap. Nature is not compelled to behave in a way that you understand or find logical.

[doG]

To think the miniscule corner of the universe we can detect with our puny technology is all there is to the cosmos is silly.

 

Irrelevant! What matters is what is supported by the observable evidence. All that's supported is the fact that "we don't know", nothing more, nothing less. To presume that there is or is not more to the cosmos than our universe is not science.

[revprez]

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.

 

Big Bang theory says nothing of the sort, nor does it even attempt to. It is only concerned with the nature of the event that gave rise to the universe today. Period.

 

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.

 

This is also not entirely accurate. Kaku is simply pointing out that the universe may have begun from a slight perturbation in a false vacuum; basically, the ground gave out underneath a thermodynamically stagnant region of space-time. Before that happens, it is entirely reasonable to say that the universe is in thermal equilibrium and, consequently, there is no free energy to flow as heat or work.

 

BB states that the universe began as an infinitely small volume of spacetime that was also infinitely hot.

 

With one qualification. Big Bang theory only attempts to describe the universe physically to the actual event and no further. Anything farther requires further theory.

 

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.

 

Creationism has never shown to be wrong. Only to be in the most prevailing cases unscientific. Creationism touches on subjects that can't be falsified by observation or experience, and the availability of a competing, more successful theory is not a measure of incorrectness.