Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Feb 3, 2017.
How can you have debunked something in someone else's post?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Lawrence Krauss defined nothing as ;
no particles , radiation , space , time
it is not complete definition
to add ;
no length , depth or breadth
nor ability to change form
Not sure what all that useless rhetoric is about, but Krauss expresses a universe from nothing as essentially arising out of the quantum foam: Perhaps you need to watch the video and other reputable science videos and stop twisting views to suit your own misconceptions about the universe, life and everything.
Again though in short form I believe it is succullently put in the following science and evidence based speculation.....
and the Quantum foam is something
Or nothing as defined by some scientists...a "nothing" that has existed for infinity.
nothing for infinity is exactly the problem .
because nothing existed for infinity because nothing can never change .
No problem at all...the universe does not exist for you or I and really does not give a f%$# for you or I, and neither were you or I taken into any consideration, when the universe, as we know it, evolved from that pre existing quantum foam or nothing as some would claim.
A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
Cosmologists assume that natural quantum fluctuations allowed the Big Bang to happen spontaneously. Now they have a mathematical proof
Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing:
An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE). Explicit solutions of the WDWE for the special operator ordering factor p = −2 (or 4) show that, once a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially no matter whether the bubble is closed, flat or open. The exponential expansion will end when the bubble becomes large and thus the early universe appears. With the de Broglie-Bohm quantum trajectory theory, we show explicitly that it is the quantum potential that plays the role of the cosmological constant and provides the power for the exponential expansion of the true vacuum bubble. So it is clear that the birth of the early universe completely depends on the quantum nature of the theory.
So you see, it is wise to see that "nothing" sometimes is not defined as you intuitively believe.
The problem I see is that the abstract makes the a priori assumption of vacuum existing before BB.
Whatever it might have been, it had properties that allowed it to form that first bubble.
So, nothing wasn't nothing.
Which means something else must have brought that state into existence. And so on.
this theory is still based on something
Bingo!! Beautifully and admirably put! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It's not really a theory as has been mentioned numerous times. We know nothing about t+10-43 seconds. It is though reasonable scientific speculation, formulated on many observational processes particularly the LHC and other particle accelerators.
therefore something was always there .
Well, that we don't know.
Having no precedent - nothing to compare to - there is no reason why the universe has to live up to any of our expectations.
Just one example where there wasn't "always something there" is if the universe is looped. Its birth was catalyzed by its death in a loop of time.
No, we don't have any theories as to how or why this might be the case, just a caution to not assume something has to be so.
hmmm.... how can the Universe " loop " ? if there is nothing there to loop through ?
And that something some call nothing. But hey! thanks for re enforcing my statement re the definition of nothing needs to be re evaluated.
see the following
something has to be so .
without something , which all these theories are based , and they are all based on something , then nothing , nothing , is no more than an abstract theory . hence the theory of nothing has no substance on which to be based .
No, nothing is as I and the reputable professionals has described and accepting that one's definition [yours] needs be re evaluated. Accepting that as yet science has no absolute evidence to support the speculative claim, of a universe from nothing, one needs to accept that the universe from nothing is in effect the only scientific possibility of how the universe arose.
That is as described from nothing and/or the pre existing quantum foam.
The most amazing thing about the universe arising from nothing, is of course no matter how one views nothing, whether the quantum foam and as hinted by quantum physics in general, or some forced belief of the absence of even that, is that we have a reasonably evidenced backed model of how the universe arose from t+10-43 seconds, the creation of matter, stars, planets synthesisation of the elements and consequently life as evolution and chemical reactions took hold, [ we are afterall, just star stuff!] to what we know today. And pretty spectacular albeit still speculative, that we are even able to delve backwards to t and even before, to reasonably scientifically speculate as to how and why it happened.
which has NO possibility of being true . the theory is grasping at the edge of a cliff , hoping that nothing rescues its theory .
the quantum foam is nothing more that a wave dividing into particles at the crest of the wave . which has nothing to do with something from nothing .
Separate names with a comma.