What Is The Physics Of Nothing? So we can say that our Universe did, indeed, come from nothing, and its eventual end state may well asymptote to nothing as well after an arbitrarily long amount of time. But that’s only if you accept our description of a physical nothing as true nothingness. The definition of nothing itself may not be independent of our definitions of space, time, and the “rules” of the Universe; it’s not something anyone — physicists, philosophers or otherwise — can necessarily agree on. There isn’t a physical test we can perform to say, “have we really reduced this to nothing” yet? http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/22/what-is-the-physics-of-nothing/#7997fa521451
I'm sure you have been told before many times, despite your sensationalistic large highlighted font. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! We can say nothing with confidence re the first 10-43 seconds after the initial BB event, except that is where time as we no it began, and spacetime expanded from a hotter, denser state. Anything prior, we can only speculate....bubble universes, multiverses, or as you speculate nothing as explained here...... https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
Not to put too fine a point on it but "nothing" is not a scientifically-defined term. This thread is doomed to perpetually commit the fallacy of equivocation - debate due to the use of a contextually-ambiguous term.
Friend you are wrong I am not to sensacional it as I push the button copy it comes out that way, I am not very literate in mastering the computer, Remember I am a dishwasher in the lab. Honestly I don't have the intention overexpress. I wish scientist would not use such words : as nothingness , then vacuum ( except )if is used in pressure, dark matter, dark energy , there should be some other words with less doubtful meaning.
As far as computers are concerned, likewise and my apologies.....as far as dishwasher is concerned, :shrug: It's a job and someone has to do it. When science/cosmology talks of nothing, it generally means, no time, no space, no nothing: The vacuum of space is not really nothing in that context.
Agree with Dave. This thread is really about philosophy rather than physics. "Nothing" is a philosophical idea. "Vacuum", on the other hand, has a meaning in physics. But that is evidently not what you want to talk about, title of the thread notwithstanding.
*Nothing* is merely a permittive condition, *vacuum* is a specific state within the permittive condition, IMO.
In a previous lifetime I used to badger folks here about basically nothing because at last there was a subject I knew, or thought I knew, as much as anyone else about. I endorse Guth's inflationary theory because until something better comes along, it explains many intriguing ideas better than anything else out there. This may come as a shock to some of you. Both paddoboy and brucep finally convinced me the idea had merit. I will even allow FTL expansion in that particular case, and that should shock a few more folks who probably noticed how I don't allow it to occur at all for the acceleration attributed to Dark Energy. The universe was evidently much different in the beginning than it is now. There exist ample ways to squirrel away "or 'bind" wholesale universes bursting with energy in ways you wouldn't even notice the energy was there and it would not violate the law of the conservation of energy to any noticeable degree. Somehow, the Big Bang or something like it must have done this. If you allow something like entanglement to come into play, energy density, like information channel capacity or speed, really has no practical limits. And truth is almost always stranger than fiction. You can easily verify this to be true mathematically by dividing any number by zero. This is equivalent to the process of recording every detail of every interaction going on in the quantum foam everywhere for a fraction of a fraction of the smallest interval of time on the Planck scale. How much energy would that be? Parts of these ideas have stood up to the tests of science, or enough of them that it is difficult not to notice. But it is also true that we have barely begun to scratch the surface of what can be known about nothing at all.
It's important to acknowledge that a 'vacuum' isn't 'nothing'. It certainly isn't if the vacuum plays host to fields, to geometrical properties and to quantum processes like pair-production and if it is subject to the principles of physics in general. Those are all very specific kinds of something. I don't think that nothing can possibly have a physics. If it did, then it wouldn't be nothing. In fact it's probably a conceptual error to even conceive of nothing as a kind of very empty and featureless... something. Nothing is more along the lines of a boundary of being, in which everything that characterizes any kind of being is removed and simply... isn't. It's a limit where reality stops and where the whole idea of there being anything beyond the boundary is meaningless. (The Big Bang may or may not be such a boundary.) 'Nothing' shouldn't be thought of as a place or as a primordial state of being (a Greek arche) or anything like that. We can make that hypothetical suggestion, but I don't think that anyone really knows that. The suggestion would amount to saying that reality has its origin at spacetime point 0 and then unfolds from there at t = 1, t = 2 and so on. No scientific explanation would seem to be possible for that origin event, certainly not any conventional causal explanation. These currently popular quantum fluctuation explanations seem to be bootstrap explanations that try to use some principles of reality after it's up and running to explain the initial origin of reality itself. Unfortunately, that can only be circular, assuming as explanatory principles the very things that need to be explained. I think that the individuals referred to in the Forbes article are using 'nothing' to refer to the lowest energy state of space or something. Then if they mix the principles of quantum mechanics into that story and shake it up very well, they think that they can pour our kind of universe out of it. That may or may not be true. But I don't think that it really addresses the something from nothing question.
a quantum event An abstract mathematical condition of 50% positive and 50 % negative potentials, creating a zero state condition? What I find most intriguing is the fact that the longest wavelengths are missing from the earliest epochs.. This would indicate that the universe started as a relatively small symmetry breaking quantum event, which then grew exponentially. But an object can only produce a wavelength which is not longer than its entire size. The missing "long" wavelengths from the very "young" universe would suggest a relatively small beginning. Currently we estimate that the current universal "pilot wave" has a wavelength of 7 cycles since the inflationary epoch stabilized, some 14.65 billion years ago, which is a very long wavelength, but is absent from the measurements of the earliest wavelengths..
The limiting case cutoff for EM waves would be without limit except for the Higgs field, and somehow I no longer think even that is a hard limit. Of course that might not have been the case in the epoch of the BB. Time dilation is like that.
I would only change this: No thing --> No energy --> No physics --> No time. Only a *permittive condition* ?
Thanks for the question. How to explain an abstraction? But I used the term and I am expected to at least try to clarify, right or wrong. Please allow this teaser; https://www.wired.com/2012/01/quantum-information-speed/ This implies an abstract universal mathematical function which is *permittive* of some actions, but also *restrictive* (forbidden) of other actions. This seems a fundamental aspect of the evolution of our spacetime. By simple logic there must have been a mathematically *permittive* condition before the Big Bang and the creation of our universe and its constants (restrictions) as we know them. IOW, our reality. IMO, David Bohm's (an eminent physicist) "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" speaks of a hierarchy of mathematical orders, all resting on a single principle of "Insight Intelligence", a self-referencing (universally constant) abstract mathematical condition which permits and restricts dynamical events, depending on their inherent *potentials* and *values*. Bohm called this the Implicate Order, the abstract imperative of what is to become reality. As atheist I was surprised by his use of Insight Intelligence, but then I realized this need not be a religious statement, but might very well compare to the abstract concept of a hierarchy of mathematical functions. An abstract quasi intelligence, somewhat similar to a hive mind, but without physical existence. In this context, a condition of physical *nothingness* would not "forbid" the creation of our universe. The fact that we are here speaks of a pre-universal mathematically permittive condition. Obviously, the BB was not a mathematically "forbidden" event. I hope this clarifies my POV and the context in which I used the phrase. I just realized that this is somewhat philosophical, but I am also a fan of Tegmark and that may be a redeeming quality.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not necessarily.......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There are grounds for thinking Shapiro (aka Tegmark) may be a bit suspect.
I know his hypothesis is being debated, but at least he is a real scientist and mathematician. IMO, it is undeniable that all things have *value* as a common denominator. Science invented mathematics to identify theses values and how they interact mathematically. I particularly like his statement that "while there are a near infinite amount of values, their interactions (work done) requires only a few constants or equations. E = Mc^2, Fibonacci Sequence, and all other known universal functions seem to follow a mathematical process. Even in chemistry.?.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Using human mathematics (borrowed from nature), we have been able to "invent" synthetic materials which do not naturally occur. XNA (synthetic RNA) is one example. IMO, this demonstrates that Tegmark (Shapiro) is looking in the right direction.
This is untrue. Science did not invent mathematics. Mathematics existed, independently of science, for a long time. The statement you quote, if it is really from Teggers, illustrates why I consider him flaky. "While there are a near infinite amount of values, their interactions (work done) requires only a few constants or equations" , is not only bad grammar but meaningless. Work done is nothing to do with something as woolly and vague as "interaction" between "values". Work done is a thermodynamic concept, denoting a form of mechanical energy that results from applying a force through a distance. If you have an "interaction" between values of, say, temperature and time, you do not get work done - in fact you get nothing physical at all. It is the woolliness I detest here. Science goes out of its way to be as exact and precise as it can be, in order to clarify the workings of nature. This jerk seems intent on making it all clouded and obscure again, just to promote himself and sell books.
