Universe from Nothing.

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by praty, Apr 27, 2011.

  1. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    FR: SciWriter (post #57):

    "According to quantum theory, there is no state of 'emptiness'," agrees Frank Close of the University of Oxford. Emptiness would have precisely zero energy, far too exacting a requirement for the uncertain quantum world. Instead, a vacuum is actually filled with a roiling broth of particles that pop in and out of existence.

    Ref: wlminex post #47 (this thread) and read some of Hemut Satz' QGP work

    wlminex
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. juliet2011 Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    it makes sense, but i guess universe could be created out of matter.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    Emulation theory suggests that "particles don't pop in and out of existence". Physicists would obviously disagree with this because of empirical observation (i.e. they have observed this, so it must be true.), however the method of emulation implies that an emulator volume deals with a specific level of energy, this however does not mean that the emulator itself only deals with a specific volume perimeter. A particle being emulated by one emulator can actually exist outside of the volume constraints, as the emulator would be designed to create a "non-volatile" representation, where the particle isn't consumed or combined with other bodies emulated from other emulator volumes.

    The observation of these particulars as a "Broth" or "Brew" would be seen from a multiworld's perspective, where all emulations combine into a Composite and are observed at a single universe observational level.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106

    Is the vacuum filled with a roiling broth of particles or is the vacuum made of a broth of particles, this is what I would like to know otherwise the vacuum being filled with particles implies it can be empty which is contrary to what you are saying.
     
  8. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    I'd speculate that the vacuum we "see" is an apparent vacuum, because we don't see (observe) anything in it, but we infer (and predict) virtual particles, etc. I prefer to interpret the vacuum as your second option - vacuum is made (up) of a "roiling broth" of (probable, or virtual) particles roiling in a sea of extremely high energy (ca. 10 x E 120 ergs/cc) It could be that these 'particles' ARE the roiling sea. H. Satz calls this "sea" the Quark-Gluon Plasma. Since our detectors (so far) fail to 'see-this-sea' (i.e. >>>>> energy = >>>>> frequency = <<<<< wavelength), because the sea does not interact observably with matter (read: detectors), it appears to us as a vacuum - or Krauss' "nothingness".

    Yes, AlexG . . . I know . . . I know . . . . your response.

    I welcome reasonable responses/discussions.

    wlminex
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2011
  9. George1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    929
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0T1ePceR6c&feature=related
    i suggest you watch this documentary in which Michio Kaku puts this issue this way: there are two types of vacuum:
    1)the one in which there is no matter, but virtual particles pop in and out all the time, hence energy and
    2)the vacuum in which there is no energy, i.e, space, time, anything.

    this is quite an interesting show, and shows a lot of explanations for the ''Universe from Nothing'' issue.
     
  10. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    It's an interesting idea; however, what makes virtual particles different between quarks as compared to anything else?

    So far, *nothing* (i.e. the absence of anything/everything) doesn't appear to be real.

    There is no evidence that the universe was created and no evidence that *nothing* is a real entity; therefore, the answer to your questions is very likely a "no" :3.
     
  11. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,015
    We are led to Nothing when as it becomes the only choice, further noting that a lack of anything is not a stable situation, hinting that it must be perfectly unstable, as are the simpler and and simpler states that lead to it, and so it is that we find nothing nowhere, for the sum-things always appear, as in the experiments making vacuums.

    If there was rapid inflation then the virtual particles that pop in and out of existence all the time would be separated much quicker than they could get back together to make nothing. In that case, the say, the energy for inflation is somehow fed by gravity's negative well.

    At least there are some things to go on here.
     
  12. jmpet Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,891
    Post #69 and we're no closer to what I said in post #2. A whole lot of you peed your pants and peed all over each other but no answer has been reached.
     
  13. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,015
    Yes, what gave rise to the universe is the place of the actual basis of all, and that's what I am onto.
     
  14. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    Yes, I'll go along with post #2. There are three main explanations for the existence of the universe IMHO: Something from nothing, God did it, or the universe has always existed.

    I always come back to #3, "the universe has always existed", because something from nothing is not possible in my view of the definition of "nothing", and "God did it" invokes the supernatural and that is not science. But which ever option you lean toward is still just personal speculation and there seems to be no possible way to test it.
     
  15. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,015
    I can grant that if something of substance always existed then it would have to be only one thing of no other choice, such as the tiniest points, for example, since there would have been no before in order to define them as specific and particular versus anything else.

    But don't ask me what a points really are, but they would have to be everywhere, again, as not in some certain or specific place. As for how many, that's got to be endless, as again, they could have had no specific placement, as having been around forever.

    Any other non-specifics to cover?
     
  16. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    How does *nothing* even become a choice? I don't think it has ever cropped up except in people's minds.

    I don't understand what you mean. Instability is *something* and what experiments for makign vaccums are being referred to?

    I see your line of thinking; however, it is based on mis-understanding unfortunately. When a virtual particle pair combines, it's not becoming nothing. It's being returned to the field where it came from. For example, an EM field jiggles and out pops a virtual electron pair... then they combine and return back to the EM field.
     
  17. Rod Farmer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    22
    A perfect void, where there is not one particle that can be called matter, can not exist in a relative universe because it has nothing to relate to. Therefore it is unquantifiable. But metrics can point to it. Any state, that admits to no other, all absolutes, are the same, outside of relativity.
     
  18. jmpet Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,891
    Obviously before the Big Bang we were outside of relativity, as all four fundamental forces congealed into one force.

    One answer is branes and the collision of two of them created this finite nothingness-space from which the universe came from.

    Another is that this universe HAS ALWAYS been closed with a fixed quanta of potential matter/anti-matter (see: Fraggle's post)... at one point it all came to one point and a new universe was formed.

    Another is that God created this space called "this universe" then He either made the universe or allowed physics to take over (I prefer the latter).
     
  19. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    Let me see if I have this straight. SciWriter is for a grand net zero that separates into opposite somethings that could net back to zero. Farmer is for something from nothing from which Lorentz invariance emerges from an otherwise perfect void. Impet is for "God created the space" and the physics and let the chips fall where they will. While I stick with "the universe has always existed" and has always looked much the same on a grand scale where the potentially infinite landscape is composed of Big Bang arenas like ours that form and mature and pass on their energy to new big bangs that form as they expand and overlap. Interesting choices if you ask me.
     
  20. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,015
    We will have to better understand quantum uncertainty, in which the lack of anything would be too precise (zero), and so is not allowed, ever making for something to be.
     
  21. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    I get it, but you are saying that it would all net out to zero, right?
     
  22. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,015
    It would, in actuality, if allowed, but it isn't, by QM; so, in that way, there was stuff forever (as ever generated), and this stuff at least shows it is of a balance of opposites and so that is a clue.

    The other way for stuff forever, as said, would be of something like basic 'points', but I'm not sure how they would be the only way that they could be, which is necessary because they could have had no prior time for their design.

    These points would then make up higher things in the only way that they could, such as in thinking of how marbles pack efficiently and with stability in groups of 6 (electron?) or 12 (proton?) or 13 with 12 around 1 (proton?) but I'm not up on these packing schemes. There's a guy on YouTube named tverse who has it all figured out.

    Must be a reason why there can only be two stable matter particles.
     
  23. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    Emulation theory tends to encompass a certain amount of Cyclic theory, however the suggestion is that the universe is "built" at a future point and we have existed after it's creation which is seen as a past.

    It also tends to encompass that when we reach the point that it's "built" we don't necessarily build it the same way or in fact build it at all, this of course generates entropic concerns and potentials for exploitation by Elitists.

    Right now I couldn't suggest if the world was destined to create a planar entry into a multiworlds collaberation because currently we assume either the universe exists (period, with no question as to it's origin) or assume that fantasiful methods are too beyond fringe to be taken seriously by the consensus of scientists.

    All I can suggest is there is a prototype supported by emulation theory, but it's not beyond drawing board stages (Much like quantum computing).
     

Share This Page