Universe from Nothing.

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

  1. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    Would you say the Emulation Theory is a combination of the explanations identified so far for the existence of the universe where Cyclic Theory is the current state of a universe that changes state and progresses to the future from a universe that is built and once built, the point of creation establishes the “past” but the past cannot be quantified, therefore any attempt to explain the past is nothing more than speculation but if we are diligent in developing the prototype that emerges from Emulation Theory we may someday have a model that explains all?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,015
    The BBC recently released two TV programs referred to as "Everything and Nothing". The show on Nothing may answer a few questions.

    In the series they showed a large metal cylinder that they that had pumped everything out of, and yet they could show that the vacuum of nothing still turned into something.

    Since this happens in any vacuum anywhere, it can be said that stuff was around forever; it's just that it isn’t the same exact stuff. This completes the idea that there is nothing to make anything of.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    I watched the show:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ8rd7AkMmY

    They are using the term *nothing* in a relative-to-a-container way. For example, we say "there is *nothing* in the glass". A quantum vaccum is a container all the same, but if we apply an objective meaning of *nothing* (i.e. an absence of everything and anything) then we can see that the container itself is *something*. It has the dimensions of length, width, and height... it has time.

    This distinction is important because it mis-informs people into thinking that the vaccum is objective *nothing*... which is simply false and very misleading.

    Furthemore, virtual particles are actually produced by fluctuations in existing fields that permeate the vaccum. A field fluctuates and out pops a virtual particle pair... then they combine and back to the field they go. The show posits these particle and antiparticle pairs but leaves an important distinction out. Normal particle-antiparticle pairs when combined release all their energy *boom*. If virtual particles were like that then you would be in a world of hurt :3. One of the virtual particle pairs actually has negative energy (kind of like an IOU). When it combines with the particle with positive energy, they cancel (which is the act of returning to the field).
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,015
    Could be, Crunchy, but I'm not sure if energy exists all by itself or if it is just a measurement of substance.

    Certainly a vacuum is never a vacuum, as emptiness doesn't seem to be possible.

    On the other end of the spectrum I suppose total and complete solidity is not possible either.
     
  8. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    I am not sure what you mean.

    If the fields were removed from the vacuum (assuming that was possible) then emptiness might be achievable; however, emptiness is not *nothing*... it just means the "container" is lacking some specific content. To have *nothing* would also require the container to be absent.

    Again I am not sure what you mean.
     
  9. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,015
    Well, Crunchy, if there can be energy by itself then we still have to say how it could be in existence and there isn't really any possible source for it other than nothing. Can't have it just sitting around forever all defined in its nature, whatever that is, specifically, without it ever having been defined.
     
  10. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    I see. You're questioning whether or not energy can be a standalone entity completely separated from the fabric of space-time. I don't recall anything in physics that suggests energy is separated.
     
  11. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,015
    Or that I'm not a physicist but that many seem to say that energy requires matter to be around. Guess I don't really know.
     
  12. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    What makes matter what it is... is mass. Energy and mass are different forms of the same thing. Mass is compressed energy and energy is uncompressed mass. They have an identity with each other that is approximated by E=MC^2.
     
  13. Rod Farmer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    22
    Quantum Wave, you deserve that red headed assistant! Your post #76 has shown me that my notions are consistant with Lorentz.
     
  14. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
  15. Rod Farmer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    22
    Another way of looking at a universe originating from nothing is: that all opposits are inherent in its non-structural being. "To be" can not exist without "not to be". This lies at the heart of everything, yet it can't be measured. So the universe creates itself, its issues, its physics and its morality in infinite recurring patterns with finite solutions.
     
  16. Joe Green Banned Banned

    Messages:
    130
    You know, I think philosophy will eventually prove to lead as a major factor for the progression of science as we know it. As far as we know, there is no possible way to even observe the true first instances of creation, nor can we speculate beyond the singularity of perfect curvature - beyond that time, relativity would state time ceases to exist, and no current theory today tackles it in the most simplest of matters; I include Ekpyrotic Theory, it requires the dimensions of string theory, the introduction of branes and parallel universes.

    I think the question of the subject of having a universe from nothing is an oxymoron itself. We all know it makes no logical sense to imagine something sporadically appearing without any prior cause. It makes no sense in relativity to think this way.

    I think, if we want to know what has happened before the first instant of time, then we need to assume that all the ingredients which are required to create a universe was already there. There is a unique way to solve this problem and it involves a type of absorber theory which states that things in the future are shaping the past. So actions today are sending information back to the initial beginnings of the universe; Hawking calls these models, ''up-down models'', indicating that it is the reverse way of understanding causality.
     
  17. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    That sounds like it has some commonality with the Emulation Theory mentioned by Stryder.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler–Feynman_absorber_theory

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2787412&postcount=63

    We need a link to Emulation Theory (yes, I already Googled it and didn't see anything that looked like Stryder's reference).
     
  18. Joe Green Banned Banned

    Messages:
    130
    I don't understand what stryder means in his post, and I'm sure it doesn't have much to do with the Transactional Interpretation. It doesn't seem much like it :shrug:
     
  19. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    It's nothing more than a temporary local reversal of entropy--an increase in order. This is permitted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is a rather large reversal, to be sure. But the Second Law places no limit on the magnitude of the reversal, only that it be spatially and temporally local.

    Bear in mind that "random" means, "anything can happen that does not violate the laws of nature." In a spatially and temporally infinite continuum, "random" therefore means "absolutely anything that conforms to natural laws." The net matter and energy in the universe is still zero, so no natural laws have been violated.
    But the net mass and energy of the universe is zero. There were no net ingredients to start with, and there are no net ingredients now. The universe is still a rather fancy instance of nothing, merely nothing with a whole lot more order than it had before: the quarks and antiquarks, etc., have all distanced themselves from each other so they can combine with other particles and antiparticles (respectively) to form matter and radiation. This increase in order is by definition a decrease in entropy, but the Second Law allows this, so long as it is temporary. And it is: the order in the universe is decreasing steadily.
     
  20. Joe Green Banned Banned

    Messages:
    130
    Not exactly the point. The reversal of any symmetry in physics still implies causal events. The future might form the past for instance, but that past needs to make some logical sense

    I certainly am not advocating any random system.

    The beginning of time should not incur random system. That is my whole arguement, time needs a cause; reality needs a precurser.

    I say nothing about ''net ingredients'' which seems a bit flamboyant to be honest. All I am saying is the total information required to make a universe, must be encoded into another era of a purely different existence; if we take relativity seriously, then time ceased to exist at one point and it is this point which our undetrstanding of natural laws break down.
     
  21. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,385
    Actually to be honest, I haven't heard anything specific to suggest that as yet. Apparently the idea of a zero-energy universe is consistent with what astronomers have observed to date, but there are many unproven assumptions behind this model, including Big Bang inflation theory. Last I remember when discussing this subject with my GR prof many years ago, he made some comment like "the total energy of an infinite universe isn't well-defined in general relativity."

    I don't think that's quite how it worked out. For instance the force between a quark and an anti-quark gets stronger as you pull them apart, like a spring which can stretch to infinity without losing its tensile strength or snapping. You put enough energy into separating a quark and an anti-quark and they do eventually separate, but only because they rip a new quark anti-quark pair out of the vacuum with the energy that was put into separating them, so each member of the original pair gets a new quark partner to screen it from the forces of the other quarks, and you're left with two quark anti-quark pairs at the end.

    I'm not pretending to be an expert on particle cosmology, but I believe the idea is that matter and anti-matter began in equal proportions, and since then anti-matter has been decaying into ordinary matter faster than the reverse process. There are actually known and experimentally confirmed examples of CP (charge-parity/matter anti-matter) asymmetry contained in the Standard Model, and this is one of the natural features the collaboration I've been working with is trying to understand and explore in greater detail.

    As for the something from nothing argument, if there are physical laws and a vacuum from which positive (and possibly negative) energy can be created, then that means there already is a something, even if that something hasn't yet spawned a universe of stars and galaxies and contains zero net energy.
     
  22. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,385
    The vast majority of particle physicists and cosmologists are engaged in attempts to either catalogue the phenomena of the universe or else to explain/model known features which haven't yet been effectively modeled by existing theories. Very few scientists get paid to speculate on how our universe with all its laws came to be in the first place, and those speculations are still based on modifying and extrapolating existing theories, often with the primary goal being merely to reconcile conflicts between those existing theories. Most scientists are interested in understanding the Big Bang because we still don't have a working theory for physics at energy scales in the very early universe, not because they insist on there having been something previously existing to spawn it.
     
  23. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    In a nutshell, yes you understood what I was trying to convey.

    The theory implied suggests multiple future scenarios and of course past's which people have disputed when Prof. Hawking brought it up.

    So we have the potential onset of entropy (through a tangent of ignorance) where we can no longer rationalise the universes existance because it "popped into existance" and a paradoxical potential where we actually fathom the mechanics out, thereby undermining entropy as a container, establishing an order.

    Order is not born from entropy, entropy is born from order.

    What I mean here is you do not just pick a spot of ground to build a house and hope the walls stand true, instead you dig out the area and put in some footings, the foundations. Once you have done that, the house is near enough built to a specification that includes any tolerances you incorporate into the design.

    I guess what I am implying is I am not just studying an element of cosmology, I am analyzing it's synthesis to make sure it stays true.
     

Share This Page