Universe from Nothing.

Has anyone thought upon this topic raised recently by Prof. Lawrence Krauss? That matter appearing in and out within the empty spaces between quarks causes all the mass of a body. What are it's implications? Cause 'nothing' is no longer nothing. It's a boiling bubbling brew of such particles. Could this mean universe could be created out of nothing?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wouldn't the universe have to have been here in the first place?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We can't be too sure, but this fact deals with the notion that matter and energy can come into existence from nothing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you look at a photon of energy we define it via wavelength and frequency. One way to introduce energy inot the universe, from nothing, would be to first introduce frequency (time) apart from wavelength. This is not energy since energy has both frequency and wavelength. All we have is potential in time but without distance. Once you add wavelength, space-time and energy appear.

The question becomes are there any examples of space-time that is dissociated into space without time and/or time without space. Quantum jumping allows a continuity in time while detaching from the contunuity of space. In this case, time remain continuous, while space is turned off, so the particle can appear to jump in distance while skipping the space between.

In the first paragraph, we have time potential detached from distance so space-time and energy are not technically there at the beginning. We need to turn on distance to form the universe. The tiniest amount of distance or (point wavelength) and boom.

What is interesting, is we can switch the variables. We can start with distance without time. There is only space, but no time potential to make energy or space-time. ALl there is a a huge expanse of empty space. If we add the smallest amount of time, all we would get is a quanta of the longest wavelength energy sort of like what is created by a black hole.

These are two different formation scenarios, from dissociated space-time with the first or time then space looking like the BB. The second or space then time looks more like continuous creation throughout space with energy appearing out of the void. The bigger the blast of time the stronger the energy fountain.

 

Nope.
Space-time is a requirement before you can have wavelength.

The rest is much the same: word salad.

 

You are reciting science and not thinking science. The goal is to get energy out of not energy and not yet space-time.

 

Um, nope. I was definitely thinking science and not woo woo.
Wavelength is a concomitant of space and time, not vice-versa.

Any chance of getting jelly babies along with it?

 

See

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107627

and

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107254

 

Why not go for a new red headed assistent while you're at it, http://www.google.com/search?q=dr w...weAjOHeBA&sqi=2&ved=0CCMQsAQ&biw=1007&bih=458?

 

Now that a lot more interesting than 'nothing' (as we knew the answer to all had to be simple).

Perhaps I'll get back into my Theory of Sex, which needs more live research.

 

Krauss has it that space is nothing, and this is fine, since, well, it certainly seems as such, and so it is that nothing/space is the ultimate and absolute basis of all. Perhaps space/nothing must jiggle and fluctuate with opposite spacial curvatures due to uncertainty/unstableness-of-nothing/unrestricted-state and, too, because we know that there can be no other source for something but nothing, no other source for existence but a balance of partial nonexistence, as even seen in the opposite charge and matter states, and more.

 

Moving the thought forward, if universe did begin with quantum fluctuations, can our science someday posses the knowledge and technology to do the same?

 

Using the same word for two or more different meanings doesn't make the latter the same.

Nothing-A = "absence of everything"

Nothing-B = "boiling bubbling brew of [virtual] particles"

If the topic's initial appearance of being about *Nothing-A* is not the case, but is instead about *Nothing-B*, then what is actually being referred to is the universe being created out of *Nothing-B*, not the last question's lingering or hovering suggestion that it could still concern *Nothing-A*.

 

Excellent point made. You've got me thinking.

 

Any thing cannot have been forever since there’s nothing to make it out of nor then any way to specify its particulars, and so nonexistence is the only possible prime mover, it necessarily being only this no-thing of nothing that can satisfy the requirement of requiring nothing before itself, it necessarily being boundless in extent of the large and the small and eternal in duration of past and future, such as like space. Existence, then, is a partial and balanced distribution of nonexistence.

These somethings have ever come and gone, as they must and will, summing to the nonexistence of nothing overall. limited in there expression by the only two states of that can provide a zero-balance—positive and negative, as seen and shown in their specific particulars of opposite polarity and matter state for matter particles, as well as the peaceful union of those in the neutral energy particle.

 

Space and time are currently philosophical concepts, instead of descrete things that have potential. Therefore the universe as defined as science, is partially imaginary composed of many concepts of only partial substance or potential. Anything with time part of its units is partially imaginary since time is not tangible.

Those who say space-time has to come first, essentially say the imaginary needs to appear before a real tangible photon. That sounds like atheist creationism.

What I did differently was define time and space as potentials so when two separate potentials combine into photons we get something entrely real. If time is an imaginary concept, than a photon is half imaginary, since it contains time. This may not be a problem, if you don't think science but only memorize science.

 

What becomes real is as real as real can be.

If space is absolute, as nothing, which it may very well be, then whence its potential? 'Nothing', for it is an unstable state, being the simplest of all, this trend and tendency also seen in the simpler and simpler states formed just above it.

Time is a spacial difference; fluctuations may be of opposite spacial curvatures. Time as also motion and charge may well be the single dimension required to nullify all. Seems that all is 4D space externally.

The 'possibility' and 'potential' is because nothing cannot be and stay as such, and this is why we see nothing nowhere, not even in a large metal cylinder with everything pumped out, for then something still appears, and we have observed this happening.

 

I have done this other places. There are some simple experiments which were done over 150 years ago, that showed time was a potential. It is based on an observation in photography called motion blur.

To get motion blur, the speed of the action needs to be faster than the shutter speed. When the camera stops the action there will be excess time potential left in the photo. Since the photo stops time, the extra time potential is captured as uncertainty in distance, since only time is stop, while distance (x,y) is still in play in the photo. This appears to work because space-time is integrated yet interdependent.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

When we stop an arrow or a photon in flight with a really good camera on the right setting we will have a stationary object for which we have no information of motion. Blur is an optical effect of the camera and it s mode.

Time is always a difference in space, an index to the spaces.