Was there ever a Nothing?

[Serena2003]

Or, was there ever something? Something as a cause or something as an effect, either way our understand is as ambiguous as the causation of 'nothing.'

[rigney]

Or, was there ever something? Something as a cause or something as an effect, either way our understand is as ambiguous as the causation of 'nothing.'

 

I sure hope the ambiguities of ignorance never get totally in the way of science. I can't do much to prevent it, but somewhere; someone out there has the answers as to why it all began and why it continues.

Edited September 6, 2010 by rigney

[rigney]

If Nucleosynthesis is correct, at some point under extreme heat no element can exist as that element, then what is that heat as any element decays back (opposed to natural isotope decay). Keeping in mind most all current and stable elements are results of fusion during solar activity. That is if elements were produced or capable of being produced, there should be a temperature connection and the reverse of nucleosysthesis possible....IMO.

 

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

 

Fred Hoyle, an advocate for an eternal Universe (Steady State), tried to argue both expansion, by way of Hydrogen Production, via the idea Hydrogen was and had been consistently been created from empty space, think an atom or so per square meter, per some time period. Said another way, he was promoting an evolution of the Universe or additional matter, basically in arguing BBT, which IMO was an error. IMO, if over time Hydrogen or any stable element is subject to heat/cold, it either reverts back to subatomic particles or during some process (event) is defused back into those particles. Said another way, matter in the Universe is today, whatever form it's in is the same as it's always been. Expansion then, if even true (I seriously doubt), should have been argued differently, as could any of the additional "SO CALLED" supporting evidence for BBT.

 

 

 

http://www.phys-astro.sonoma.edu/BruceMedalists/Hoyle/index.html

 

To the thread rigney and without extending your question into a SSU vs. BBT argument, the above is the essence of my argument for an eternal existence/future Universe and would suggest pretty much as it is today.

 

As for your "Pulsating Universe", "Cyclical" or a death of and regeneration from either a cold/heat death of the previous, they are of course plausible. Since we have no idea just how big this Universe is it could just as well also be endless or we could be as an atom in an endless space full of similar atoms, it seems unimportant/redundant to discuss what could never be known.

 

 

 

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Heat_death_of_the_Universe

 

Out of curiosity, are you familiar with the origin of BBT itself, the connection to the Catholic Church, although that's not my reason to oppose. I seriously believe, if Astronomy/Astrophysics had approached this issue from a different angle (not most all experimentation directed at proving), what's being taught or investigated, would be much different than it is today.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

 

Thanks Jackson. A lot of good reading material there. Just hope I can absorb some of it.