A Universe from Nothing:

I probably also lean in that direction. Simple reason being that according to the evidence, the universe/space/time has been found to be topologically flat, within very small error bars. And this denotes a universe that is infinite, if we don't allow or consider for more exotic shapes such as a torus for example.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So for all intents and purposes, I believe an infinite concept is more likely, as a torus shape or similar, does sound possibly contrived, although not impossible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hmmmm doughnuts.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe. But if I would write a popular book, then the reason would be that I don't think any of the mainstream scientists will read it.

Conspiracies requires something done by certain individuals with some evil intention and, moreover, some coordination between them which they try to hide. In my explanation, everything is open, nobody has any evil intention, the scientific community is what it is, with young scientists having having to look for new grants every two years or so, with strong competition, with "publish or perish" deciding about who wins. This is not an allegation, but a well-known fact, I have never seen anybody disputing this, beyond claims that there are yet exceptions (which is correct) and that those with permanent jobs have some security (but they also compete for getting grants, now a level higher for their university, and if they fail completely, the permanent job may appear not that permanent too).

That the consequence of this is that scientists in such a situation prefer to follow the mainstream fads is a triviality, it is in no way evil, in no way hidden, follows simply from self-interest and quite obvious expectations where it is easier to reach the necessary number of publications.

I see you together with Krauss fighting believers of that magical sky daddy, a problem which is completely irrelevant for me.

Which BB - that with the singularity, including the creation, or that without singularity, and therefore without creation? What is supported is only the first part.

A similarity in some of my argument with a creationist would be, indeed, an ad hominem argument. Fortunately it fights only something which exists in your fantasy only, so I couldn't care less.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There would be a good reason for that.

Be that as it may for the occasional individual, mainstream science as a whole, continues to progress and make discoveries and continues to do what science does best.
Perhaps if you dropped this "over the top"persona of independence, and came in from the cold, you yourself may make some achievement...

Not at all, and you know that, so why all the flowery condescending rhetoric? Firstly, I'm just a forum participant, who is interested in science, and the scientific method and all that it has done and achieved...secondly Krauss and his ilk are not in any imaginary fight against any religious folk, rather simply getting the truth out there for all to see. I'm sure even you can recognise that fact.

The BB as overwhelmingly evident according to the evidence from around t+10-43 second.
Which singularity are you talking about? the singularity as defined at the quantum/Planck level, where GR and our laws fail, or the singularity of infinite spacetime curvature and density?
I'm reasonably sure most mainstream cosmologists reject the singularity of infinite spacetime curvature and density.

Whatever.

 

If you were to write a book I certainly would buy it...which is a high complement as I rarely buy a book.

I am most proud that I was the first person from the general public to join your site and found your writings dependable, thoughtful and well supported by logic and evidence.
It is on a higher level than I can join in meaningful input and out of respect for what you do there avoid being the site rat bag...also I know that your high standard would not tolerate foolishness..I respect that.

But clearly because you support the recognition that there is indeed an ether you will be rejected and I must say I find your approach entirely compelling even if that means I will draw the same scorn.

Why there is this refusal to entertain an ether is beyond me particularly when one sees how contemplation of an ether was somewhat foundational to the early work.

The eagerness to reject an ether can only, in my view, be attributed to perhaps something we are not privy to which I suspect is somehow maybe religious based. I don't know and I merely have a gut feeling and I do wonder if you hold any views as to why an ether is so unacceptable.

Now Paddo I know this will be like waving a red flag at a bull to you and you will be driven to cite MM etc and do so if you wish but realise that I am not unaware of why we do not have an ether from the point of approach by GR..my view is is not needed as opposed to it not existing..but hey let's discuss it because as you say discussing stuff that swims in a sea of evidence of some kind beats the nonsense in the religious forum..but here I will be compelled to think of course.

We are very lucky to have our friend, Schmelzer, in this discussion he impresses me greatly and I expect you would enjoy his site.

I probably will regret opening the can of worms as I don't have the time required to input properly.

Anyways let's see how we go.

Alex

 

So may I. I once bought a book entitled, "The BB Never Happened"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Except Alex, this is not about Schmelzer's ether theory or any other ether theory. It's about a universe essentially arising from nothing, how we should define that nothing, and whether the nothing/quantum foam is a reasonable speculative scenario.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I respect Schmezer as a scientist [even if one from outside the box] but I have plenty of reservations about the similarity he has with Jan, and his rather weird interpretations of adhoms, particularly adhoms against his person, compared to how he sees his own adhoms against others. His political views also at times appear rather strange and biased.

You bloody love it you old codger you!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes sorry we need another thread.
I am unfortunately conditioned with bad habits gained elsewhere.

My experience is limited so I have not yet noticed.

Again I have no idea as to his political views.

I sure do.

My problem these days I know enough to realise I should not comment in science matters and although strangely I do not like the big bang notion I support it because it is a well evidenced, well tested theory that provides predictions that have been observed. But it is so much better to understand science than to rail against it. We both know that the big bang theory can be altered if you can provided a better model that does what it does and more go for it...and the fact is we are still waiting for a better model....which will never come from me that much is for sure.

My gut feeling is as the big bang was thought up by a priest it for no other reason should be treated as suspect...and I think it is reasonable to expect his search for a creation point may have had some religious bias...and others thought similar at the time..Could one not think the idea arose as an after thought whilst busy stealing the pagan idea of a cosmic egg...let's face it the church got really handy material from the pagans.

I can argue over the coffee table but in an unriver like approach have no difficulty in separating unsupported feelings from our current best model of cosmology.
Moreover even after years of reading know I can not understand at a level of a professional cosmologists.

I believe dark matter not to exist yet I support the search for it...odd but science research is science research..heck in the search for dark matter they may find a better way to make peanut butter...but we will find something.

I think it is exciting to speculate on conditions pre big bang.

And although one can only speculate, even the cosmologists can only speculate, I believe there can only be something before the big bang, certainly nothing ( unless you redefine nothing as Mr Kraus effectively did) is not the answer and on that point it is interesting that Prof Hawking mentioned nothing however I have no doubt if we were priveledged with his presence and contribution here he would perhaps provide good logic to support a quantum foam.

In any event as I have said before the most compelling reason to speculate that we have something pre big bang is it makes us confront the fact we still have yet to find a point of creation...the next interesting thing to speculate upon is how to see time in those pre conditions.

Great thread Paddo.

And isn't it wonderful that guys like us were lucky enough to find an interest in cosmology and science generally..like look at each of our backgrounds and more importantly the mates we have..well let me say it..at the pub...where half backed ideas flow like the beer.

Now with the net you can get access to information in an instant and if you think about it back in our younger days if you went to uni you could be on a waiting list to read a book on most subjects you could think of..well certainly I expect the uni library was no different to the local library where a wait was par for the course.

Alex

 

Schmelzer and I do have somewhat of a history, but that has not been evident for a while. I hope that mutual respect will now transpire while we are presently crossing swords.

Well said, and pleasing in that while you find problems with it [and it does have a couple of minor problems] you likewise understand it still fits the observational data better then any alternative.

I'm not sure I agree on that point. Georgy was essentially doing science and standing on the shoulders of giants that had already hypothesised that the universe was expanding. He simply reached logical conclusions on that matter....here....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe#History
In 1912, Vesto Slipher discovered that light from remote galaxies was redshifted,[8][9] which was later interpreted as galaxies receding from the Earth. In 1922, Alexander Friedmann used Einstein field equations to provide theoretical evidence that the universe is expanding.[10] In 1927, Georges Lemaître independently reached a similar conclusion to Friedmann on a theoretical basis, and also presented the first observational evidence for a linear relationship between distance to galaxies and their recessional velocity.[11]Edwin Hubble observationally confirmed Lemaître's findings two years later.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Also I believe you are somewhat a bit unfair in passing judgement on Georgy. I went to a Catholic school all my life [Christian Brothers Technical High School Paddington] and we [11 of us] still have regular old boys reunion. None of us was ever molested in any way shape or form. Other then corporal punishment for being little arseholes on occasions, and which to this day, we all believe, did us far more good then harm. I once copped six of the best on the backside when as an Altar boy, me and another were caught drinking the Altar wine!!

Just as we should be able to separate fact and theory from educated speculation, and educated speculation from down right nonsensical gobblydook as per my mate river.

Agreed...Another old mate of mine from this forum, mentioned in a message that I sometimes get in over my head...probably true, and probably relevant to the current debate with Schmelzer. But by the same token, as I firmly believe, while individual scientists [like Schmelzer] will always be inclined to stick with there own theories [much like a Mother with her child] even in light of data saying otherwise, science as a whole, and over time, will always, and has always moved on and learnt and progressed.
I use as an example the BICEP2 experiment and the premature release of news that they had discovered GW's.
It received much derision over their mistaken conclusion, but again, it was science and another scientific experiment that showed them the error of that premature release and claim.

It's science, and as long as one accepts it is spec, nothing wrong.

Thanks, and certainly far more gratifying then arguing the toss with some fool fanatical creationist!

My old school mates always get me going on cosmology and astronomy at our reunions....two are still religious and we have a great tooing and froing.
It really stunned one of them when I informed him that the Catholic church recognise both evolution and the BB. He googled it and then sat there like a stunned mullet!!

 

Yes. Even several. The main reason would be that the Lorentz ether is what I have named anathema. The second one would be that there is anyway no chance to develop such things in an institutional setting.

Without doubt, progress continues. The anathema against the Lorentz ether creates a problem only in one particular area, the foundations of physics. There has been no progress in this domain already over a long time, and it will continue this way until string theory will be completely off.

I could have reached some achievements in other areas too. Say, condensed matter theory is an interesting domain, and the techniques useful for ether theory may be useful in condensed matter theory too. The point being? I'm much more comfortable with what I have actually reached in fundamental physics than with what I could have reached instead in the mainstream.

????????? I see some anti-religious rhetoric, in your postings as well as in the book. Already naming God a "magical sky daddy" is such rhetoric. I have simply informed you that this is nothing I'm interested in, that all, no attack, feel free to argue against religious belief.

In fact, there is no evidence at all from that early time. That is simply the time when it is well-known and without any doubt that our actual theories are even unable to make any predictions which could be falsified.
There is not even serious empirical evidence about inflation, beyond the fact that there was some time in the early universe with $a''(\tau)>0$.

The singularity in the GR solutions. There is no other. There is no quantum theory of gravity, so, there is also no singularity defined at some quantum/Planck level. So, the question makes no sense. The question seems to suggest that there is some other singularity which is not rejected by mainstream cosmologists, but there is no such other singularity.

First, let's clarify that ad hominem arguments are not somehow evil, they are simply quite weak arguments. They may even be correct and justified. The only point is that they are weak. So, I may sometimes use them too, no problem. All what follows is that I sometimes use weak arguments too.

Given that you are not a professional physicist, you have much less possibilities to debate physical questions themselves. Without this, the layman has to rely on authority. This is the fate of a layman, and there is nothing one can do against this beyond investing a lot into learning about the particular question more. So, in the climate thread I sometimes research myself, but only up to some level, sometimes I rely on the authority of scientific papers, sometimes (if the claim is anyway plausible enough) even the "authority" of Wiki may be sufficient for me.

But if someone else objects, then I would have to do more, say, looking at the sources given by Wiki, or possibly even finding weak points in the peer-reviewed articles. If I don't do this, if I simply say "I have taken this from reference X, which has higher authority than you", this is only an ad hominem. That means, it is not wrong, but weak. But so what? Sometimes weak arguments are sufficient, to find better arguments would require a lot of time, and if they will be predictably ignored anyway, it may not be worth to invest this time.

This belief would be, if used in a discussion with me to reject my theory, an ad hominem. In itself, there is no problem with this: There are certainly scientists who behave in such a way, and you have no test case to find out so, as a prejudice it is not that problematic. The same holds for all those statements containing the word "agenda". Some people have such things like an agenda, ok. Sometimes it makes sense to inform other people about this. But one has to recognize that such an argument is weak, that those who have arguments about the content have stronger arguments. So, don't take claims that your argument is ad hominem as a personal attack. It is simply a classification of the argument as a weak one.

 

Thanks for all of that. I was not entirely unaware but it's good that you posted for me as well as passers by.
Alex

 

Could have, would have, didn't

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

In the mainstream I didn't. In a domain which is not really mainstream, but close enough to the mainstream to have some groups in universities, some conferences and so on, and also close enough to my own interest, de Broglie-Bohm theory, I have published several papers, and was invited to conferences. So, done this too. In principle, I could have tried to get a job there, but I didn't even try.

 

Anathema? I don't think so.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ana.....69i57j0l7.2926j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
anathema
something or someone that one vehemently dislikes.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, I dont think so. I don't see mainstream vehemently disliking your theory, as in hate, more simply disliking it because they are not convinced? Certainly not as in hate!

Me either, and I have nothing against religious people, other then a couple on this forum who like getting on there white charger, conducting anti science crusades.

Partially agreed, the closer we get to t+10-43 seconds, the less certain we are, and before that is simply spec....I'm sure I have made that clear. Particle accelerators and colliders provide science with some ideas.

I don't believe I ever said there was.

I have had different conveyed to me by professionals. Our laws and GR certainly fail us at the quantum/Planck level...one definition of a singularity, and the other is the hypothetical one where spacetime and densities supposedly reach infinite qualities...the one that is rejected. The same applies to BHs.

Ad hominems are undesirable method in any argument...full stop. Whether it is ad homs by me against your person, or adhoms by you against my person. You don't get to redefine based on who utters the adhoms.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-universe-from-nothing.163080/page-2#post-3631383
Definition of Ad Hominem
Ad hominem is a Latin word that means “against the man.” As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent, to undermine him instead of his arguments

'No I'm not, and I don't see it as fate. We all rely on authority.

It most certainly is not an adhom....It is a natural unconscious aspect of the human psychi, not by all certainly [by the way, your name was mentioned simply to emphasise an independent scientist]. It is not an adhom to convey a condition that may be appropriate and it certainly is appropriate with many scientists speaking individually

 

Still pushing this idea, Paddoboy?

My biggest objection concerns this --

If Krauss is defining "nothing" to mean "no space, no time, no anything!", then what justifies all the physics that one finds in his argument and in his book? Wouldn't "no anything" imply no physics?

That's the fundamental contradiction that I perceive in his argument.

 

The point of my using "anathema" is not about hate, but about the almost religious element. I see a quasi-religious dogma, the dogma of the fundamental character of relativistic symmetry, the rejection of absolute time, absolute contemporaneity. There is no hate against my theory in particular, it questions the fundamental dogma, and therefore one has to reject it, no discussion about this is even imaginable. This is comparable to disagreement about a religious dogma. One may not hate those who follow other religions, but one will not discuss with them the own dogmata.

Psychologically, the mechanism is the same. The basic ideas about special relativity are things which physicists have thought about during their childhood. And they have understood this, accepted this, and it has impressed them a lot, else they would not have started to study physics. Such things easily become unquestionable. (Been there myself, my feelings when I accepted the ether idea were not much different than my feelings when I rejected Marx. I was well aware that this means doing something that should not be done. I have done it anyway - but this decision was possible only because I was always ready to accept the role of the dissident as long as this .)

So that's simply a misunderstanding about terminology. The failure of GR where quantum gravity effects become important is not a singularity. The only relation of this region with the singularity is that near a singularity (the point where something physical becomes infinite) the domain where quantum effects certainly become important will be reached too.

So, in the Friedman solution, the singularity is the point $\tau=0$. The solution for the whole region $\tau>0$ contains no singularity. Even for, say, $\tau=10^{-1000}s$ we have no singularity.

Then there is the region where the classical GR solution is, with sufficient certainty, unreliable because quantum gravity effects will be important, but are not covered by the equations. This is the part of the solution with $0< t < 10^{-43}s$. This part is well-defined in the classical solution, there are no infinities in this part, nothing singular. Simply the classical solution seems unreliable because one cannot reasonably argue that the quantum gravity effects will be small. This region is near the singularity, but not a singularity itself.

I disagree. Ad hominem arguments are simply weak. That's all. No necessity for any full stop. I make no differences here between who makes the argument. If I make ad hominem arguments, I do not claim they are good, strong arguments. But sometimes they may be sufficient, in particular if the other side also makes only ad hominem argument or personal attacks.

There are so many different questions that we cannot become specialists for all of them, so that we are necessarily laymen in many domains of knowledge.

Again, ad hominem arguments may be appropriate, legitimate, completely correct, totally valid. The question is not if it is appropriate or not, the question is if one tries to question something about the content of some statement by giving information about the person who makes the statement. If I say to you "take this claim from Krauss seriously, he is a specialist in this question" this may be as well totally true, but it is also weak, and weak for the same reason as an ad hominem argument, because it is about the person, not the content. So, if I say "this is ad hominem" I do not say "this is wrong" or "this is not appropriate" or "this is invalid", no. It simply means the argument is weak, in comparison with arguments about the content itself.
And the same holds for me if I make ad hominem arguments. They are weak, and I know about this.

There is no such animal as "most valid".

 

Sorry, other then the rare individual case, overall that does not exist, unless you have empirical evidence to show it does.

I have been informed that it [red highlighted]can be inferred as a singularity for the reasons stated. But call it what you like, it exists. The singularity of infinite spacetime curvature and density is generally rejected.

Like I said, we will just have to agree to disagree on that score.

*shrug* I see that as splitting hairs, but if you like I'll rearrange it to say, "Some may even match GR but GR has achieved its place of honour and lofty position because it was the first, and just as obviously still valid".

 

Hi Yazata.
Still? I see it as a rather legitimate way of explaining the awe and wonder of the universe and why it exists.

Good point, and the best I can answer it is, perhaps the laws of the universe simply came into existence when spacetime did. Or more correctly, spacetime as we know it. This is in my opinion what Krauss is saying.
I found the following which may explain it even further......
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/much-ado-about-nothing/
I'll recreate what I see as relevant points to consider....
extracts:
"For millennia humans simply said, “God did it”: a creator existed before the universe and brought it into existence out of nothing. But this just begs the question of what created God—and if God does not need a creator, logic dictates that neither does the universe. Science deals with natural (not supernatural) causes and, as such, has several ways of exploring where the “something” came from."

"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.”
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The second quote conveys what I have been saying, and I believe what Krauss has been saying.
And from the same link, as you have expressed....
“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.”
<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I would add to make things that much more clearer "the absence of space and time, as we know them.
Or in essence the spacetime before we knew them, is the quantum foam or the nothing.
All this says in my opinion, is that what we perceive as nothing is the quantum foam, and it maybe as close to the recognised definition of nothing that it is humanly possible to ever be...it is infinite and has always existed.

 

And off topic

Idiots have ideas. Some could be good, some could be bad. You don't define the good from the bad by proving the person is a idiot

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I have the empirical evidence - my own experience with the communications with the scientific community. But, of course, this is nothing I can transfer to you even if I would like to.

Then either you have been misinformed or you have misunderstood the information.

As long as you don't accuse me of double standards, no problem. (And I hope you will no longer misinterpret my statements that you use some ad hominem as a personal attack or a claim that your argument is wrong/fallacious.)

Fine. (Splitting hairs is part of the job of scientists.)

This is a sort of reasoning I reject. The ground state of quantum theory is a stable state with minimal energy. It does not allow any creation of something non-trivial, it is stable. If it would allow the creation of whatever, it would not be the ground state, but only a sort of false vacuum.

This is, of course, highly speculative because it is about quantum gravity. But it moves away from the standard of QT even more. The "nothing" has to have a higher energy than states with "something" if it is unstable. Here, the only justification is that the notion of energy of the gravitational field is a mess.

Every particular state in this foam is a completely classical manifold, with a well-defined metric (gravitational field) on it. So, it is not even absence of space and time as we know them. Simply the classical equations for these classical spacetimes no longer hold exactly, but only in the average.

 

No that;s just your own personal opinion.

I'll stick to my claim, and just ask, this isn't just your own take on it is it? I mean as an independent free wheeling scientist.

An adhom is an adhom, whether initiating from you or i...full stop.

No, not in all cases. Sometimes its simply uneccessary and driven by personal agendas.

That's your prerogative as an independent free wheeling scientist.

Yes, and no one has said any differently, but again, speculation is also part of science.

It's all speculative but I hold to the Krauss interpretation and see it as promising.