A Universe from Nothing:

My text and thoughts in blue to distinguish from links....
There has been much said and written about Lawrence Krauss' book, a "Universe from Nothing"
I have yet to read the book, other then some extracts...anyone here read it?
While obviously crossing over into educated speculative territory, much is based on current knowledge re GR and quantum theory.
I would imagine the greatest question from the book, is the definition of nothing, and the inference that perhaps the quantum foam is that nothing, and we need to redefine our collective definition of what nothing is.
Let's look at the quantum foam...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/much-ado-about-nothing/
Quantum foam creation. The “nothing” of the vacuum of space actually consists of subatomic spacetime turbulence at extremely small distances measurable at the Planck scale—the length at which the structure of spacetime is dominated by quantum gravity. At this scale, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows energy to briefly decay into particles and antiparticles, thereby producing “something” from “nothing.”
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Pretty close to what we could think of as nothing...I mean at one time, one would effectively gaze into nothing, that nothing being space...Today we know that space to be far from nothing.
Now defining nothing.....
Nothing is unstable. In his new book, A Universe from Nothing, cosmologist Lawrence M. Krauss attempts to link quantum physics to Einstein’s general theory of relativity to explain the origin of a universe from nothing: “In quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing. Such universes need not be empty, but can have matter and radiation in them, as long as the total energy, including the negative energy associated with gravity [balancing the positive energy of matter], is zero.” Furthermore, “for the closed universes that might be created through such mechanisms to last for longer than infinitesimal times, something like inflation is necessary.” Observations show that the universe is in fact flat (there is just enough matter to slow its expansion but not to halt it), has zero total energy and underwent rapid inflation, or expansion, soon after the big bang, as described by inflationary cosmology. Krauss concludes: “Quantum gravity not only appears to allow universes to be created from nothing—meaning ... absence of space and time—it may require them. ‘Nothing’—in this case no space, no time, no anything!—is unstable.”
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
While still speculative, it is of course supported by current knowledge.
I like the quantum foam as nothing......far better then some pseudoscientific crap like the electric universe, or a sky daddy.
Of course Krauss has copped much criticism due to his thoughts on Philosophy. But I also see some logic in those comments.

from the same link above......
The other hypotheses are also testable. The idea that new universes can emerge from collapsing black holes may be illuminated through additional knowledge about the properties of black holes, which are being studied now. Other bubble universes might be detected in the subtle temperature variations of the cosmic microwave background radiation left over from the big bang of our own universe. NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) spacecraft is collecting data on this radiation. Additionally, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) is designed to detect exceptionally faint gravitational waves. If there are other universes, perhaps ripples in gravitational waves will signal their presence. Maybe gravity is such a relatively weak force (compared with electromagnetism and the nuclear forces) because some of it “leaks” out to other universes.

Even if God is hypothesized as the creator of the laws of nature that caused the universe (or multiverse) to pop into existence out of nothing—if such laws are deterministic—then God had no choice in the creation of the universe and thus was not needed. In any case, why turn to the supernatural when our understanding of the natural is still in its incipient stages? We would be wise to heed this skeptical principle: before you say something is out of this world, first make sure that it is not in this world.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Any further comments on the title, on what I have said?
Obviously more will be known when we have a observationally validated QGT, and possibly knowledge that may be gained from the momentous discoveries of gravitational waves.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Another link, that while inconclusive, appears to favour a smooth spacetime without the quantum foam.........
https://www.nature.com/news/cosmic-race-ends-in-a-tie-1.9768
Cosmic race ends in a tie:
A race between two energetic photons that began more than 7 billion years ago and spanned half the cosmos has ended in a virtual dead heat. The result, if it stands up to scrutiny, would tighten the limits, suggested by some theories, on how ‘lumpy’ space-time can be.

The work, to be presented on 11 January at the 219th meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Austin, Texas, by Robert Nemiroff of the Michigan Technological University in Houghton and his colleagues1, relies on an analysis of a short-lived, powerful stellar explosion known as a γ-ray burst that was recorded by NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope in May 2009 and dubbed GRB 090510A. The study focused on two photons, one with an energy of 25 gigaelectronvolts (GeV) and another of about 1.5 GeV, which were separated by just 0.00136 seconds.

Assuming the photons were emitted at the same time, this would mean the speed of light can not vary by more than seven parts in one billion trillion, a limit similar to that found using lower-energy photons from another γ-ray burst recorded a decade ago by astronomer Brad Schaefer, then at Yale University in New Haven Connecticut, the team reports2.

Lumpy space
In some theories of quantum gravity, space-time isn't smoothly continuous, but is composed of fundamental units or grains less than a trillionth of a trillionth the diameter of a hydrogen atom — 10–35 metres, also known as the Planck length. In a simplified explanation, photons with the highest energies have wavelengths comparable to the Planck length, so are more likely to interact with and be slowed down by these 'lumps'. Although the slowing effect is minuscule, the difference is amplified as the particles journey for billions of years across the vast distances of the cosmos.

Nemiroff's result places a more stringent constraint on the variation of the speed of light with energy, which in turn determines the size of the lumps in space-time. The team's findings indicate that the graininess of space-time only becomes important on scales of about 1/500 the Planck length. That could begin to put serious limitations on theories of quantum gravity, some of which require that the effect be seen at larger scales.

There is, however, a 1% chance that the photons were not emitted at exactly the same time, and that uncertainty exceeds the margin of error physicists require for proof, acknowledges Nemiroff. Another distant γ-ray burst that has a greater number of energetic photons would make the result more certain, Nemiroff says.
more at link......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

γ-ray bursts provide a way to study the 'lumpiness' of space-time predicted by some quantum theories.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He has a book it needed a catchy title but he then sets out there is nothing that is really nothing.
Clearly the universe is eternal unless we are to wrestle with the question on my lips and perhaps no one's else's...where did the quantum foam come from...
Great post very interesting thank you yet again.
Alex

 

I'm not adverse to any eternal Universe Alex, but the BB does not really invalidate that scenario. The problem appears to be that there is no conclusive evidence to support a finite or infinite universe.
Thanks again for your complimentary remarks.

 

Well part of my motivation is to show that we do not need a creation point and hence no creator and the big bang in no way points to a creation point in fact even when we speculate prior to we find we must have something...look mum no creation point.
Alex

 

I have downloaded it, just for fun.

No. It can as well mean that we are lost in some dead end and have to go back.

Boast yourself when no one else does.

In fact, the theory that there are similar "island universes" similar to the Milky Way far away from it is much older than 1917. Kant has already known and supported the theory. And in 1917, there was already key empirical evidence known: "In 1912, Vesto Slipher used spectroscopy to measure the radial velocity of Andromeda with respect to our Solar System—the largest velocity yet measured, at 300 km/s". And that large velocity means that even if Andromeda would be actually inside the Milky Way, it would fly away, gravity would not be sufficient to hold it inside. And 1917 came the key evidence, namely the observation of Nova in Andromeda, which were orders of magnitude weaker than those observed in the Milky Way. So it took only a few years to convince the majority that this question is settled. See here. One can see this as an acceptable exaggeration in a popular book, but it means you have to expect similar exaggerations.

Such weak suggestions have profound significance? Sorry, no.

Here he fails to distinguish the Big Bang, as simply a very dense state of the universe, from the singularity. Only the singularity would mean a creation. A dense state is simply a different state of the same universe, not a creation.

LOL. For a physicist, it makes no difference too, given that it does not change any empirical prediction even a little bit.

Actually, the impeachment process is ongoing. An impeachment going on three different fronts:
1.) The acceleration seems anisotropic. If it is, it is plausibly nothing but a local flow.
2.) The "standard candle" is not a standard one, but depends on the age of the involved stars in such a way that it creates a fake acceleration.
3.) Wiltshire's "timescape cosmology" explains the acceleration as a fake effect created by the inhomogeneity and our position at the border of a void.
But these are recent developments, no reason to blame Krauss for not desribing this.

An exaggeration. There is a more moderate term which would, if very large, lead to a linear expansion. (I have such a term in my theory.) With this term, any deceleration during the early universe could be avoided, making it older. And if the evidence for an actual acceleration vanishes, this could make the universe even older than expected now.

And why does this matter? Anyone thinking that it was the aim of theology to contribute some new knowledge - instead of preserving old knowledge?

The general idea of the "something out of nothing" has no base in established physics. In quantum theory, there is a ground state which has the lowest energy, and this ground state is stable. Point. The only thing which it makes "nothing" is the name, it is called "vacuum state". This name makes sense only if one considers the particle picture as fundamental. In the field-theoretic picture, the photons are simply quantum excitations of the EM field $A_\mu(x.t)$, which exists even in the vacuum state - it has values, even if these values may be zeros.

Hawking radiation is a situation where the gravitational field changes. Thus, there is already something, and this "something" changes. This change also changes the energy operator of the quantum part - thus, the old "vacuum state" is no longer the "vacuum state" but a state with particles. An effect which suggests only that particles are not fundamental, but, instead, it is the field which is more fundamental - which makes the notion of the "vacuum" different from "nothing", it is simply a well-defined field in its lowest energy state.

There is a lot of confusion about the energy of the gravitational field - there are only pseudo-energy-momentum tensors, many of them. The straightforward solution in a quantum theory of gravity would be that it defines some notion of energy, a preferred one - in this case, there will be, again, a single lowest energy state to be named "vacuum state". But it is, of course, a well-defined state with a well-defined gravitational fields and all other fields will be there too. All what requires something more complicate is simply speculation. A speculation which allows to create "something" out of "nothing" without anything external which causes this creation is completely implausible.

Not really impressive competitors, of course. But see above, there is no base in current established knowledge (that means standard quantum theory as well as GR) for creating something out of nothing.
For laymen, it makes sense to learn some facts about what is established theory. And established theory says nothing in support of creation out of nothing - except for the naming convention of calling something highly nontrivial in its lowest energy state "nothing".

The Wilsonian understanding of non-renormalizable theories like gravity as effective field theories already gives an explanation. Namely, non-renormalizable terms become suppressed at large distances.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Just for fun? A strange attitude for a "professional" scientist to have.

Probably..also meaning that you yourself maybe lost in some dead end and need to go back with regards to your own "thoughts"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Perhaps you yourself may achieve your own desired notoriety, if what you say or publish was notable and/or important enough.

In your opinion. Do I detect some envy here?

??? The BB applies to the observable universe from t+10-43 seconds...not sure what else you are inferring. I see the quantum foam from which we think the BB evolved as eternal and as close to any definition of nothing you can get.

That's nice, and here was me beginning to think you may have been envious of him and his success.

Ahhh, yes, your theory! How is it going?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Vacuum state, quantum foam, or whatever term aligns with your own hypothesis, something was the origin, and that origin was as close to the recognised definition of nothing we can get. Fra more logical then a magical sky daddy don't you agree?

While Hawking Radiation makes complete sense what you chose to call the origin is your business....I prefer the quantum foam.

Implausible? Are you suggesting a magical sky daddy?...or god if you prefer.

I'm not out to impress anyone, how about you?

I'll stick with the convention. And yes, please contribute more facts and what is accepted at this time, without any personal agenda...I'm all ears.

I hope I have expressed myself adequately Schmelzer, and have not expressed too much in what you may construe as adhoms?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The discovery that the universe is not static, but rather expanding, has profound philosophical and religious significance, because it suggested that our universe had a beginning.

Beg to differ

Philosophy - gives them else to think about and ponder

Religious - only if they stick their beak in

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know: Religion is what we make up

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And of course the BB only applies to the observable universe.

 

It is a popular book, thus, not addressed to scientists.

Of course, that's the professional risk. You have a 99% certainty to fail.

It is important enough, given that it solves established problems of modern physics. But the Lorentz ether is anathema, so I don't expect anything but ignorance. Perhaps I already have some notoriety among them, it would not change anything, anathema remains anathema.

If you detect envy here, correct your detectors.

I'm inferring that a change of the state is something very different from a creation. Quantum foam is speculation, but certainly not nothing.

LOL. Having success in society was not important for me, even in my childhood dreams.

As expected for anathema, if there are no arguments to present against it. Ignorance continues, and will continue until something changes in the very organization of science, which gives young scientists sufficient independence to follow own ideas.

It is not at all clear that there was an origin at all. The universe may be cyclic. It may be in permanent change forever, without begin or end. Nothing in the actual established theories excludes this. GR simply has a singularity, that means, a point where it is obviously wrong. In QT, time is absolute and infinite in both directions.

Then, the state we can see in the past as the CMBR is something like the surface of the Sun, thus, what was before was like inside the Sun. If we go back in time even more, it will be something like inside an atomic kernel, or inside a neutron star. Going back in time even more, it reaches states of even higher densities. And this being as close to nothing? LOL.

Name it quantum foam if you like to use the name of some completely speculative entity. Your choice. But a foam is at least something.

No. I'm suggesting to follow standard quantum theory. It will not give you any moment of creation.

Learn to read.

It is accepted that the so-called "vacuum state" is far from being nothing, but that it is a quite complex state. So naming it "nothing" is misleading.

To understand this point is easier if you accept that the field picture is the more important one. That means, the EM field, described by the classical potential $A_m(x,t)$, is what matters, and photons are nothing but the discrete energy levels which follow from quantum theory, similar to phonons in condensed matter theory.

Then, the lowest energy state is simply $A_m(x,t)=0$. But this does not mean that there is nothing. There is this field $A_m(x,t)$, but only in a quite simple state. As an analogy: Think about the lowest energy state of a lake. No wind, no waves. The water surface is completely plain. Is this nothing? It is simply no waves.

I have not seen any clear disagreement about the content, thus, noting where ad hominem could be used to make a point. This is simply sloppy smalltalk.

 

Please send copy of mug shot or you in shackles, behind bars, something indication not sufficient independence

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm independent. Because I have enough money to live for myself without a necessity to get a job in science. And that's why I can afford to develop alternative approaches, anathema or not.

You think a scientist who has only a two year grant and has, after this has to apply for a new grant or look for a job as a taxy driver alternatively is independent as a scientist, thus, can decide to develop some non-mainstream approach like the Lorentz ether? He will follow the latest mainstream fad and nothing else. If not, he is out of the game after the end of the grant, given that there will be no publications, not even conference proceedings (there are no conferences about ether theoretical approaches), no grants for such research, nothing. If you are not rich enough to be independent of any institutional support you have no chance but to follow the mainstream.

Even the scientist behind bars is more independent, at least in countries without penal servitude and with a possibility to access the internet he can do independent research in his prison cell, without having to care about "publish or perish" and so on.

 

Written by a scientist, and I'm sure if you were to write a book, it also would be a "popular" book.

Sorry, I don't accept unsupported conspiracies.

Actually your previous reply sent my detectors off again.

Any self respecting person who has read this thread, would understand that it is indeed speculation, including Professor Krauss. And as it is inferred, and as I understand it, perhaaaps a case exists to redefine nothing...perhaps the quantum foam is as nothing as one can ever get, and perhaps that has existed for eternity. Far more logical then a magical sky daddy.

Obviously you don't have anywhere near a majority to support that unevidenced allegation within your own kind.And as an outsider looking in, I see it as nonsense and again setting off my detectors.

The Krauss book was speculation, educated speculation but speculation none the less. And any cyclic universe is alsp speculative and with no evidence. Same with Steady State.
The BB is overwhelmingly supported because it does align with what is known as the four or sometimes three pillars of creation, and O f course in my opinion, how it fits in like a hand in a glove with GR.

If you chose to call nothing something, then yes.

I didn't say it did. Learn to read. The facts are that at this time we are not sure if the universe/space/time is finite or infinite. We can only speculate.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well at least we both can rest easy and not see that remark as an adhom, agreed?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The quantum foam is speculated to be what the BB evolved from due to a quantum fluctuation. The BB of course being the evolution of space and time [spacetime] as we know them.

Funny I have seen you change and define any use of an adhom to suit your own agenda/ Similar to a creationist friend of mine I'm actively crossing swords with.

Instead you appear to indulge in conspiracies.

 

Perhaps, speculatively speaking of course, there is/was a quantum foam that is this supposed nothing. Perhaps that is effectively nothing. Far more reasonable to speculate on something as fragile as quantum foam to be "nothing" rather then invent some mythical all powerful creature.
Of course though, we are speaking speculatively.

On a side note, I came close myself to getting tickets to see Laurence when he was in Sydney, at the Hordern Pavillion from memory. I couldn,t though get anyone else interested enough to attend with me sadly.

 

Nothing doesnt have a definition and is impossible. Nothing can be a good, or bad thing but backwards at the same time or separately like an anti-Christ.

 

I must say it is wonderful to see discussion in the science section.

The trouble is Paddo that it is not "nothing" it can never be effectively nothing as it always was something and I think you are so fond of Mr Kraus that you extend to him liberties that are really unjustified.

He may be a scientist but it is clear, at least to me, that his use of "nothing" was no more than a ploy by a man seeking something to make folk interested in buying his book.

I can only employ what I loosely call common sense and here resort to using a loose metaphore to point out what can only be obvious...not science and I am curious to know how the only scientist here may review, or not, my approach.

Consider the prior to big bang environment as the one side of a set of balance scales and the other side of those scales the after big bang environment..surely each side must in some way balance the other..if we look at the quantum foam how could it be less than what came after the big bang...and this useless reference to nothing causes us to think of it as something small and almost insignificant such that the big bang somehow caused it to grow...I am pretty sure the big bang evolution is not similar to a tree growing ..in the case of the universe the seed (quantum foam) must be the same in mass or energy as the tree, the observable universe ..if we could weigh either side of the big bang would not the scale be balanced?

There is no indication of anything near resembling nothing. In fact there can be no such quality in the universe after or prior to the big bang.

And I understand that the manipulation of the nothing may be to answer theists who cry..but you can't make a universe out of nothing...but in the process of dealing them a body blow let's not fall to their level of ignorance.

I say with little fear of reasonable contradiction that Mr Kraus using "nothing" was a grave folly at best and at worse a book sellers ploy to sell his book.

I mean stand back and look at what he does...come see me explain how nothing created the universe..and then he goes about the business of showing there was never no nothing..if that can convey my meaning even if it breaks the rules.

And this ether...I don't know why we can not have an ether, I really don't.

Find the voidest void in space, mark out a cubic meter and tell me what we could expect to find therein...when you think it thru and seek to describe what is in that volume how could one not call it an ether in some loose fashion...it certainly can not be described as nothing...what should we call it...empty space? Even when we know it is full of stuff.

Maybe too much time under the stars last night looking up and thinking.

Alex

 

Yeah, isn't it! Far more beneficial and productive then bloody arguing with some fool irrational creationist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I once was fond of giving a link, in line with the universe being the ultimate free lunch. Can't find the damn thing now!
The thing is though, perhaps it is our definition of nothing that needs redefining. Oh f%$# me dead! What did I just say? I hope Jan doesn't read this.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The message from the book [which as yet I have not read] seems to be that nothing as generally envisaged is this fragile looking quantum foam that existed for eternity.
But most importantly, and I'm sure Krauss agrees, we just don't really know at this time...the same with the infinite universe scenario...we just as yet do not have the evidence to confirm with certainty. But if you think upon it for a while, the quantum foam [or the nothing] maybe as close to infinite we can get.

 

Well it could be benificial for him as you have in a small moment perhaps shown the beauty of science...the ability to review and improve upon a situation and not be bound by holding onto a view if it can be improved upon. I bet he reads here as he loves his science..he said something to that effect..but then you never know with Jan..the problem with liars you catch them on the obvious but I guess there are many lies one does not pick up. Maybe he is not fond of science.

Yes but I do...I have this feeling you see and well it must be right how could I be wrong and I must say it is so nice knowing more than all around me I simply have the gift of seeing reality and add that to my infalibilty you can understand why I don't want to show off and seek a Noble Prize

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

However I do believe everything points to an eternal universe which is not an unreasonable placeholder given that if we don't accept that proposition we need to identify how was the quantum foam created...and certainly the notion of an intelligence creating the quantum foam is without evidence or logic. And I think the greatest hint an eternal universe is the way of things is the way creationists burr up when you put the idea to them, the fact they reject it would be in itself reason to think we are on the money

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Have a great day.
Alex