The Universe comes from nowhere

[southerncross]

To keep things simple lets ignor the matter in the universe for the moment.

 

The universe comes from nowhere, there must be an explanation as to why nowhere becomes somewhere and this leads people to think of highly speculative theories.

[iNow]

The universe comes from nowhere

Prove it.

[YT2095]

it is hoped that the LHC will provide some clues as to why or How it is the way it is.

[elas]

To keep things simple lets ignor the matter in the universe for the moment.

 

The universe comes from nowhere, there must be an explanation as to why nowhere becomes somewhere and this leads people to think of highly speculative theories.

 

There is a need to define 'nowhere' and 'somewhere', (I prefer to use the terms 'nothing' and 'something'). Does your 'nowhere' have dimensions? If so how do dimensions exist in 'nowhere'? (i.e. what defines the borders of 'nowhere'). Keep in mind that infinity has dimensions, they are infinite and real; How can real dimensions exist in 'nowhere'?

 

If the universe came out of a point of nothing, how was the point created? Given that for every force there is an equal opposite force then the force of nothing (nowhere) cannot exist without the force of something (somewhere). If a (dimensionless) point of 'nothing' (zero point) has force then an assembly of Zero points has a multiple of that force; So the zero point at the center of each particle vacuum field is simply a sub division of a super zero point.

 

Infinity is infinite in all dimensions including time (no beginning, no end), 'something' and 'nothing' have always existed and always will exist because time (i.e. history) is infinite. Zero points are swept up by vortexes to create a single super force zero point that eventually disintegrates to form a universe. The anti-vacuum force (the force of something) is compelled (by the vacuum force) to maintain equality with the vacuum force. (Just as a black hole cannot exist without mass).

 

That suggest five dimensions Zero (the dimension of 'nothing'), Length, Breadth, Height (the dimensions of 'something'), and Time (the dimension of change). Zero and Time are the fixed dimension - 'nothing' is always 'nothing' and the only real time is 'now'.

 

The unanswerable question is why does 'nothing' have 'force'.

[southerncross]

iNow Originally Posted by southerncross

The universe comes from nowhere

 

Prove it.

 

People find it hard not to assign a place or a person for the universe to have come from; extrapolate somewhere back and you get nowhere, I see no sense in complicating it further.

 

YT2095 it is hoped that the LHC will provide some clues as to why or how it is the way it is.

 

It’s encouraging to see how much time and money we are willing to spend.

 

elas

 

There is a need to define 'nowhere' and 'somewhere', (I prefer to use the terms 'nothing' and 'something').

 

The problem I encountered was nothing can be somewhere and nowhere. The vacuum of space is nothing in 3 dimensions and nothing that space came from and expands into is nothing in 0 dimensions, it is nothing that is nowhere or just simply nowhere.

 

"Something", would be describing matter, to be ignored for the moment, let’s just work with nothing without a place (nowhere) and nothing with a place (somewhere).

 

Does your 'nowhere' have dimensions?

 

No. I think people find it hard not to assign a place. Other dimensions, in my opinion, are just another way to give a place to that which has none.

 

what defines the borders of 'nowhere'). Keep in mind that infinity has dimensions, they are infinite and real; how can real dimensions exist in 'nowhere'?

 

Only places have borders, the universe is not "IN" nowhere, nowhere is not a place.

 

I have spoke of the universe expanding "INTO" nowhere but this is incorrect also, the universe expands from nowhere (coverts nowhere to somewhere), what was once nowhere becomes somewhere but somewhere is not "IN" nowhere because nowhere is not a place.

 

If the universe came out of a point of nothing, how was the point created?

 

How does nowhere convert to somewhere? That is the question.

I see no sense in assigning a place or a person for nowhere, extrapolate forward or back and this is what you get.

 

You may start a thread: "The universe comes from other dimensions" or "The Universe comes from a God" but this thread is a thought experiment and assumes the universe comes from nowhere, and the question is how does nowhere convert to somewhere.

[iNow]

People find it hard not to assign a place or a person for the universe to have come from; extrapolate somewhere back and you get nowhere, I see no sense in complicating it further.

 

So, what you asserted as fact is really nothing more than your own opinion. That's entirely fair, I just want you to be clear when that is the case. If you assert facts, you need to support them. If share opinions, you need to make it clear that is what you are doing.

 

Enjoy.

[foodchain]

To keep things simple lets ignor the matter in the universe for the moment.

 

I think the reason physics is not unified points to the idea they dont know everything yet. The other thing I think is important is conservation laws, can those be applied to the big bang? I think some people are trying to use QM on such a thing though I don't know how any of that works.

 

If for instance though conservation laws are never broken could it be in that just a particular conservation law. To me energy seems to be my big question? If “energy” simply cant be got rid of made from nothing how does that not hold implications on the big bang? I know its simply a philosphical question being I dont know how you would even test any of these concepts. Could you imagine some point in human society collectively when we have the technology to manipulate galaxies, I just think so much is really alien at this point to even talk about going from the reasons for the LHC.

[southerncross]

elas

The unanswerable question is why does 'nothing' have 'force'.

 

foodchain

To me energy seems to be my big question? If “energy” simply cant be got rid of made from nothing how does that not hold implications on the big bang? I know its simply a philosphical question being I dont know how you would even test any of these concepts.

 

Go down the philosophical track a little, don't let testability be such a brick wall. You may find that further down this track there is something that is testable.

 

Please, this is up for speculation if you have an ideas they only need be feasible.

 

ok here is a speculation pulled from wiki:

 

If the zero point field energy density decreases as the volume of the universe expands then, by definition, the upper bound for each quantum oscillator must be reduced and consequently the "average" total energy for each quantum space in the universe must be reduced correspondingly. Perhaps the Planck length is not a constant but stretches out as the universe expands? There would be some precedence for this in the stretching out of light in the cosmic microwave background radiation. There are three constants used to create the Planck length constant. Is it possible that the gravitational constant, always assumed to be constant throughout the expansion of the universe, is not a constant? This seems plausible, in view of structural changes that would occur in the universe as the fabric of space becomes less dense as it expands. Of the three constants included in the Planck length the gravitational constant seems to be most directly correlated with the expansion of this primordial field.

[mooeypoo]

Go down the philosophical track a little, don't let testability be such a brick wall. You may find that further down this track there is something that is testable.

 

Please, this is up for speculation if you have an ideas they only need be feasible.

 

ok here is a speculation pulled from wiki:

 

If the zero point field energy density decreases as the volume of the universe expands then, by definition, the upper bound for each quantum oscillator must be reduced and consequently the "average" total energy for each quantum space in the universe must be reduced correspondingly. Perhaps the Planck length is not a constant but stretches out as the universe expands? There would be some precedence for this in the stretching out of light in the cosmic microwave background radiation. There are three constants used to create the Planck length constant. Is it possible that the gravitational constant, always assumed to be constant throughout the expansion of the universe, is not a constant? This seems plausible, in view of structural changes that would occur in the universe as the fabric of space becomes less dense as it expands. Of the three constants included in the Planck length the gravitational constant seems to be most directly correlated with the expansion of this primordial field.

 

This is a very interesting debate, but please, just a side note (and important one, at that) - First, please please please use the "Quote" button when you're quoting another member. It's very hard to see their quotes with no reference to where they said it and what the context was.

 

Second, please supply references to your sources, *ESPECIALLY* if you're quoting them.. and particularly here, can you please give the complete URL this paragraph is in? I want to read the entire section

[Realitycheck]

Go down the philosophical track a little, don't let testability be such a brick wall. You may find that further down this track there is something that is testable.

 

Since this thread is all speculation, I'll reiterate conservation as the only thing in the Universe that really makes sense. Nowhere is really not a valid term. It means that something, anything, does not exist. Everything is finite. Logic rules. Ideas are just ideas, even when they suggest that somehow everything came from "nowhere", that everything was nothing. What an idea.

 

Everything became everything. Everything is as simple as that.

Edited October 16, 2008 by agentchange

[southerncross]

This is a very interesting debate, but please, just a side note (and important one, at that) - First, please please please use the "Quote" button when you're quoting another member. It's very hard to see their quotes with no reference to where they said it and what the context was.

 

Second, please supply references to your sources, *ESPECIALLY* if you're quoting them.. and particularly here, can you please give the complete URL this paragraph is in? I want to read the entire section

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_point_field

 

Since this thread is all speculation, I'll reiterate conservation as the only thing in the Universe that really makes sense. Nowhere is really not a valid term. It means that something, anything, does not exist. Everything is finite. Logic rules. Ideas are just ideas, even when they suggest that somehow everything came from "nowhere", that everything was nothing. What an idea.

 

Everything became everything. Everything is as simple as that.

 

Nowhere became somewhere. It is also as simple as that.

 

 

from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

 

[edit] Definition as reality

See also: Reality and Physics

More customarily, the universe is defined as everything that exists, has existed and will exist. According to this definition and our present understanding, the universe consists of three elements: space and time, collectively known as space-time or the vacuum; matter and various forms of energy and momentum occupying space-time; and the physical laws that govern the first two. These elements will be discussed in greater detail below. A related definition of "universe" is everything that exists at a single moment of time, such as the present, as in the sentence "The universe is now bathed uniformly in microwave radiation".

 

 

Everything that is somewhere comes from a moment called the present?

The present is not a place but places come from it?

[Mr Skeptic]

If the universe came from nowhere, how did it do that? Is there anything preventing other things appearing out of nowhere, or the universe going back into nowhere? I think that if you want to claim the universe came from nowhere, you give up on cause and effect, which I am rather fond of.

[southerncross]

I see your point, do you see mine?

 

I am not saying a place comes from nothing just that it didn't come some other place or a divine being.

 

I am asking everyone here to speculate that a place, any place and all places, the universe, came from, was converted into or is a side effect of, something that is not a place and what that could be.

 

I can have the same argument as you:

If the universe came from somewhere else, how did it do this? Is there anything preventing other things appearing out of this other somewhere, or the universe going back into this other somewhere?

 

From my previous post there was a wiki definition of the universe that pointed loosely to time as the cause for the effect of a place, so I find your whole post kinda negative.

[Mr Skeptic]

I see your point, do you see mine?

 

Not sure about that.

 

I am not saying a place comes from nothing just that it didn't come some other place or a divine being.

 

I never said that what it came from was or wasn't a place. Just that it must have been something.

 

I am asking everyone here to speculate that a place, any place and all places, the universe, came from, was converted into or is a side effect of, something that is not a place and what that could be.

 

String theorists have suggested that the universe came from a collision of branes in like a dozen dimensions. The theory I like best is that the universe cyclically collapses into a Big Crunch and expands again in a Big Bang.

 

I can have the same argument as you:

If the universe came from somewhere else, how did it do this? Is there anything preventing other things appearing out of this other somewhere, or the universe going back into this other somewhere?

 

In our universe there are conservation laws. Energy and momentum are conserved. If this applies to the meta-universe that our universe came from, it would have used energy from the meta-universe to create our universe. Also, the energy in this universe would have to be returned to the meta-universe if our universe is to be destroyed.

 

From my previous post there was a wiki definition of the universe that pointed loosely to time as the cause for the effect of a place, so I find your whole post kinda negative.

 

Unfortunately, I don't know nearly as much as I would like about time. But cause and effect is what I'm looking for, so I'll have a look.

 

edit: I found nothing about time being a cause for place, only that one definition restricted "universe" to "the present universe".

Edited October 18, 2008 by Mr Skeptic
read the wiki

[npts2020]

Part of the problem is that humans live a limited existance with a definite beginning and end and it makes it difficult to envision something that may have no beginning or end.

[southerncross]

Ok back to conservation of energy:

 

It said in wiki: If the zero point field energy density decreases as the volume of the universe expands.

 

I took the "IF" as not knowing if the fabric of space becomes less dense as it expands.

If it is not getting less dense then as the universe expands then more energy is still coming from its original source.

 

From somewhere else?

 

A doorway from some other place opens for an arbitrary moment and an arbitrary amount of energy is sent through then the doorway closes. This creates an arbitrary sized place that expands and becomes less dense over time.

 

Or

 

A doorway opens from somewhere else and stays open letting energy pour in creating space in equilibrium with energy.

 

Any thoughts?

[mooeypoo]

Ok back to conservation of energy:

 

It said in wiki: If the zero point field energy density decreases as the volume of the universe expands.

 

I took the "IF" as not knowing if the fabric of space becomes less dense as it expands.

If it is not getting less dense then as the universe expands then more energy is still coming from its original source.

 

From somewhere else?

 

A doorway from some other place opens for an arbitrary moment and an arbitrary amount of energy is sent through then the doorway closes. This creates an arbitrary sized place that expands and becomes less dense over time.

 

Or

 

A doorway opens from somewhere else and stays open letting energy pour in creating space in equilibrium with energy.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Wouldn't this affect "The fabric of space" in a way that would be detectable, though?

[padren]

Wouldn't this affect "The fabric of space" in a way that would be detectable, though?

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't space/time expanding as the universe expands, and accelerating for unknown reasons? It's a HUGE stretch to say it is even likely to be tied to 'external energy' but could it fit speculatively? I honestly don't know how much we know about the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, why it's happening, or the mechanics involved, so I don't know if that is already a failed premise.

 

 

 

This question about "before the big bang" always throws my head for a loop: I can't get around the paradox that either "causality started" from some sort of "acausal event" or, causality is infinite which makes even less sense to me as there would be no "initial prior form" that through causality created the form of the universe we see today.

 

Then I remind myself my brain evolved in this universe to deal with this universe, and there is no real reason for it to be geared to deal with the factors that could have lead to this universe.

[elas]

Ok back to conservation of energy:

 

It said in wiki: If the zero point field energy density decreases as the volume of the universe expands.......any thoughts?

 

ZPE decreases because mass times radius = constant. Quantum theory tells us that space (infinity) has a minimum energy state that is greater than zero (the rest energy of infinity).

Big Bang originates from an assembly of ZPs (just as an atomic nucleus is an assemble or particles etc)

Hubbles 'Steady State universe' dealt with the creation of galaxies in space and was quickly dismissed. But, if in 'Steady State theory' galaxies are replaced by universes; then, taken together with the above statements, we have an outline of how infinity works. The universe is expanding towards the minimum energy state of infinity. Momentum, mass and energy are conserved, they will contribute towards the creation of other universes by the creation of vortexes (just as two particles create a vortex within a meson and the [meson] vortex can break free to create a new particle [lepton or quark] by the [vortex] compaction of an adjacent at rest particle[graviton]).

Hubble together with those who work in the belief that there is only one universe are thinking too small; in an end to the scale of things there is, of course, only one infinity. Within infinity, the same simple process is repeated on all scales (i.e. within each compaction).

Edited October 20, 2008 by elas

[Royston]

The universe comes from nowhere, there must be an explanation as to why nowhere becomes somewhere and this leads people to think of highly speculative theories.

 

I just want to address the OP before this goes any further.

 

If we can agree that the Universe is not expanding into anything, then this principle alone picks a flaw with the above. The best way to picture it is, imagine a three dimensional graph [math](x, \theta,\phi)[/math] and I embed a sphere, so that I can find the coordinates of the centre of the sphere et.c This implies absolute space, I could stick clocks on any coordinate and syncronise them, so absolute time...blah blah blah. Apart from relativity telling us otherwise, as this is a Newtonian view of the Universe, what's outside this graph ?

 

Well we could come up with new models for the location, or nature of this graph et.c, but a much simpler solution, is to wrap the graph around the sphere, so the sphere defines it's own space. Therefore the Universe is essentially 'nowhere' because there are no coordiantes in which to state it's position. This is a whopping simplification, but I hope you can see that 'nowhere' becomes 'somewhere' isn't correct...the nowhere remains nowhere.

[southerncross]

Nowhere remains nowhere.

 

SPACETIME

Imagine a time line of infinitely divisible moments, match each of theses moments with a line of infinitely divisible physical points. Merge the lines together into a single line of space-time.

 

RELATIVE TO

Every imaginable point is at the present moment and is at zero along the line. To the left are moments in space and to the right is moments in space relative to every zero point of space-time. (Zero is the same moment even if infinitely divided but space is indiscernible as it is reduced by infinite divisions)

 

If I am one point and you are another we are at different places and at different moments but we are both at zero relative to ourselves and we both experience the present along the same space-time line.

 

QUANTUM

<00000000000000000000000000000>

 

MACRO

<9876543210123456789>

 

Don't ask me to prove it, it is a speculation but do try and falsify it.

[elas]

Nowhere remains nowhere.

 

The way we speak of 'time lines' confuses 'time' with 'history'. We can see an image of the past, i.e. a moment that no longer exists in reality but the time at the point where the image was created is 'now' the same instant that the observer is experiencing.

The last time it had a numerical definition, a 'moment' was defined as 2.4 seconds; which is of course a length of history in units of time: not to be confused with real time which is always 'now' throughout infinity.

[southerncross]

The way we speak of 'time lines' confuses 'time' with 'history'. We can see an image of the past, i.e. a moment that no longer exists in reality but the time at the point where the image was created is 'now' the same instant that the observer is experiencing.

The last time it had a numerical definition, a 'moment' was defined as 2.4 seconds; which is of course a length of history in units of time: not to be confused with real time which is always 'now' throughout infinity.

 

Hi again elas.

 

We can see an image of the past? Do you mean a photo or drawing that really exists in the present? Because you then go on to say "the time at the point where the image was created is 'now' the same instant that the observer is experiencing." I am just saying that the image is not the actual thing.

 

Also; and i am guilty of this as well, you are stating that time is infinite but the fact is we don't really know if infinity exists at all.

 

THE UNIVERSE COMES FROM NOWHERE? (I should have included the question mark) >Hangs Head In Shame<

 

I don't think i will continue with this thread but I will continue posting so thanks, lesson learned, I hope.

[Martin]

People find it hard not to assign a place or a person for the universe to have come from;...

 

You use that as a rhetorical premise, but I don't think it has any logical standing.

 

For example, I don't find it at all hard NOT to assign such a place. For me the universe is what exists and it exists.

 

If you study some small chunk it makes sense to ask. We learn as children the habit of asking where various things came from or who made them or how they were made. But you run into fallacy when you try to extend some mental habit adapted to small subsystems to the whole of existence.

 

So I personally find it easy not to assign a cause or origin to the whole of existence. I am a counter-example to your premise.

=========================

 

If we were in a RELIGION forum, it would be different. We could talk about people's needs. Maybe people are mostly like children in that they need to be told a place that existence comes from. They apply the questions we asked as children to the whole shebang. Maybe people have a need to be told a belief that quiets their questions. So you can invent a "source of being" or "ground of being" called Nothing, and make up poetry about it.

 

Like your poem about a mystical door opening for a brief instant and energy and existence pouring thru the door, for a moment. I thought that was a beautiful poem actually, or poetic image. Worthy of the great religious writings of the past.

 

It speaks to the heart and the heart's desire for beauty and harmony. But it is not science.

 

And it is not rational speculation either, really, because the premise stating people's need for some such notion has no logical force. So they find it hard.

a lot of things are.

Edited October 24, 2008 by Martin

[Rhineowion]

There is a vast difference between "nowhere" and "singularity." I personally can not grasp my mind around nothingness, because it is nothing like singularity: Singularity is everything in an infinitely small space, which is much more fathomable than declaring total and complete Universal absence prior to its "formation." Why must "somewhere" come from "nowhere"? The properties of Physics cannot be ignored... Also, since light exists in a relative freedom from time, would findings that something that exists at a higher velocity infer that the Universe is an unsolvable struggle between the time-forward and time-backward? This is what I speculate. I don't believe that there are boundaries to spacetime; if there were boundaries, the Universe would actually have to be expanding within another body, and that body in another body, and so on. This erroneous rationalization makes things so much more complicated than recognizing infinity - If numbers are infinite, and science is based upon matter, which is quantitative, then infinity should be regarded as just such a reality in science. Whether infinitely small or large, the fabrics of the Universe (or universes: ooh-la-la!) are ultimately existent.

Edited October 24, 2008 by Rhineowion