A Universe from Nothing: Not that hard to understand.

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Feb 3, 2017.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    The following is a lengthy article on the question/s raised in Professor Krauss'book with also a "not so complementary" critical appraisal from a philosopher....It appeared in DISCOVER magazine.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/04/28/a-universe-from-nothing/#.WhIOrraWY2w

    Executive summary

    This is going to be kind of long, so here’s the upshot. Very roughly, there are two different kinds of questions lurking around the issue of “Why is there something rather than nothing?” One question is, within some framework of physical laws that is flexible enough to allow for the possible existence of either “stuff” or “no stuff” (where “stuff” might include space and time itself), why does the actual manifestation of reality seem to feature all this stuff? The other is, why do we have this particular framework of physical law, or even something called “physical law” at all? Lawrence (again, roughly) addresses the first question, and David cares about the second, and both sides expend a lot of energy insisting that their question is the “right” one rather than just admitting they are different questions. Nothing about modern physics explains why we have these laws rather than some totally different laws, although physicists sometimes talk that way — a mistake they might be able to avoid if they took philosophers more seriously. Then the discussion quickly degrades into name-calling and point-missing, which is unfortunate because these are smart people who agree about 95% of the interesting issues, and the chance for productive engagement diminishes considerably with each installment.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,093
    And if I may add a speculation.
    If the universe is expanding (unfolding) it seems to do so in a wave-like manner.
    Waves are fractal in nature and I believe this is the basis for the development of Loll's "Causal Dyamical Triangulation" hypothesis.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    The problem is , is that , BB is the foundation on which we try to understand the Universe . Hence the search and understanding of " prior " . Prior , is only a problem for BB thinking theorist .

    Something has always been .
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,236
    You ask him to respect your wishes about communication - after posting a private message in its entirety.

    Dude, not cool.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    The expansion is nothing like an "unfolding" or anything like a "wave like manner" I suggest. It is simply expanding much as one expands an elastic band, remembering analogies are limited.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,093
    If the Pilot Wave proves to be correct, then we are dealing with a wave function, no?
     
  10. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Nothing has no wave like of anything .
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    The BB and GR. The BB says the universe/space/time as we know them, had a beginning.
    Prior to that sure is speculation at this time, but no theory yet gives any empirical evidence of any happening/scenario prior to 10-43 seconds.
    If any infinity is involved to any extent, it would be at its most basic and fundamental level of nothingness that we know of...the quantum foam.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    I'm not really into that Write4U, but its a long way to being shown to be correct as far as I know.

    Spacetime expands...spacetime is not nothing.
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,093
    That's a double negative which implies that a wave behaves in a wave like manner.
     
  14. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Quantum foam is not an example of nothing .
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Quantum physics and its applications disagrees with you. Which gets back again to my correct statement that its people's definition of "nothing" that needs reappraised.
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    And of course not only does spacetime expand, it also twists [Lense Thirring effect] warps and waves!
     
  17. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Quantum physics is based on something not nothing .
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Quantum physics entails many things that act against your intuition, one being a universe arising from nothing.
     
  19. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Which is nonsense .

    They do so in order to explain BB , which is the essence of Quantum existence in any form .
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Do I need to remind you of your own unsupported unevidenced nonsense that you post on this forum? Ghosts? Aliens? living rocks? atomic war by Aliens on Mars?
    No its not nonsense..that is simply your own lay person's opinion. I have given many educated speculative accounts of a universe from nothing, If you chose to ignore that in favour of your own agenda, then that's no skin of my nose and makes absolutely no difference to the greater scheme of things, and the scientists at the coal face, with access to many state of the art equipment, who also do proper research into these things.
     
  21. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Quantum is by its essence is based on " something " .

    Quantum has length , breadth and depth . Hence why it exists to even have a discussion about .
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    You have avoided your hypocritical remark...that's OK.
    And we are also discussing nothing, so by your own reckoning and reasoning, nothing exists...but as I told you, its how one defines nothing that counts. And again, the quantum foam is the closest we can get there, and is defined by some of those that do count as nothing.
    And actually no, the quantum foam does not have any length breadth or width to speak of
     
  23. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    No , nothing can never exist , ever . Where did you get this so called " your own reckoning and resoning nothing exists " ? Never happened .

    Quantum foam the is a concept , an idea , hence why it has none of the fundamental dimensions in order to manifest .
     

Share This Page