martillo

I was thinking about and seems to me now you could be very right on these two comments. It was my intuition that tends to think something beginning from nothing. As if a first nothing existing before everything and forever is what has sense. But the Parmenides premise of "Nothing can come from nothing" tell us that this is wrong. So something must always have existed and it doesn't need to be so simple like an elementary automata or an unstable point in a "fields foam". This is a turn again on the same error of thinking in something coming from nothing. We can think then in something always existing and with some inherent complexity, complex enough to generate the Universe we are living. So we can well think in some eternal and powerfull enough computing machine executing the curent Laws of Physics over this Universe. Of course I know there are different theories about which Universe is this but this is another story. I think they all could run in that powerful machine. This way I would fall into the "Simulation Theories" as they are being currently called, I know. It's only that with the Parmenides premise they are having more sense to me now except that I don't think precisely in a simulation, I think this Universe and life is for real...

Thanks for the comment. I'll take a look on those methods and theories.

What inspired me to take a look into Perturbation Field Theory is the statement "In the quantum field theory view, actual particles are viewed as being detectable excitations of underlying quantum fields." which I have found at wikipedia in the page of virtual particles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle). But actually I'm not thinking in virtual particles nor in Quantum Fields but in more classical ones. I'm interested in what could be described by classical fields. I think in things like particles or just variable states of small elements of space that could be described by excitations of underlying classical fields. I'm a newbie in this subject and only know the mathematics on the classical fields like electric, magnetic, gravitational. May be also something about Special Relativity. I just would like to take a look into these subjects for if I could find something I could work on. My mathematical expertisse is limited but I used to be good in the mathematics of classical fields. May be it could be not easy but who knows, may be I could do something in this subject. Something that you or anyone could recommend to me in this case? Any comment, good or bad, is wellcome.

Fractals and multiverses weren't within my still vague ideas but I will google about...

This second model you are considering must have an alternative explanation for the observed redshift in spite of the Doppler effect. Could it be that the physics' parameters like the "constants" in the fields equations like the electric and magnetic ones have changed through time? which are the considerations against this possibility?

Well, in this case, is there something else in the "Perturbation Fields" theories that could match this idea of some ethernal "medium" where Universes could continuosly appear and disappear times to times?

I apologize. I tried to clarify something and only brought confusion. It not be mentioned anymore. I think you didn't understand my point. I think in some "quantum foam" as some always existing kind of "medium" where Universes can continuously appear, grow and disappear again. Couldn't it be thought this way?

It was just to explain why in this thread I'm talking about the "quantum foam" while in the Speculations forum I'm talking about a Universe in a computing machine.

Which uncertainty? I didn't get it. If you think in the question: how the "quantum foam" appears then? The answer would be that the "quantum foam" has no beginning nor an end, it always existed and forever. Universes would just appear and disappear in it. There would be no uncertainty in that. I must mention that actually, in spite of an ethernal "quantum foam" generating continuos Universes, I'm thinking in an ethernal "computing machine" generating discrete Universes the same as the currently being called "simulations". At this time both seems possible to me but I prefer this second possibility at least for now. As I already said I'm currently exploring this possibility and that's why I have opened a thread about it in the Speculations forum.

I can think in Universes continuosly appearing, evolving and finally disappearing times to times. They could be different ones each time, who knows.

When I said "I think you are forgotting the power of rationalism." it was because swansont said "Which means science isn't going to be able to answer the question." in response to me saying "Current Physics' Science has not any empirical data related to times before the Big Bang, how do you suppose I could have it? The only thing we can do is to try to rationalize something about and this is what I have done here." I thought I would be able to demonstrate that "something always existed" whatever that would be but I failed , at least for now, I have to admit. It doesn't mean it is wrong , just that it cannot be proven true, at least for now.

To show to be a truth... Nobody did it, isn't it? You are right asking that. After some google searchs I have realized that if it could be proven true it would invalidate the possibility of an "unstable nothing" that could come up with the initial "quantum foam" that Quantum Physics propose... I don't think I could do that but the opposite, to demonstrate it false, hasn't also been done yet, isn't it? I will remain thinking about this but I think I will not be able to definetly demonstrate it true nor false. I will just say now that between a "quantum foam" from an "unstable nothing" or from an "ethernal something" I would stay with this second one but it would be just an opinion, not a really valid statement I admit.

It worked for me now. So I must conclude that you with some other physicists consider valid the concept of "Something from nothing" which goes against the Logical premise of "Nothing comes from nothing". I think Hawking reached same conclusion while stating something like "Something for free". I got why your disagreement now. Well, what I can say is that there's a logical problem in that current assumption. I think a right Physics' statement cannot have logical inconsistencies. If you find this as not scientific I just will not understand... I think you are forgotting the power of rationalism.

I couldn't open your link. Seems it doesn't work. What answer would they likely want? Current Physics' Science has not any empirical data related to times before the Big Bang, how do you suppose I could have it? The only thing we can do is to try to rationalize something about and this is what I have done here. Well, those 10^-34 sec are missing then to explain preciselly the origin the Universe and much things would need an explanation like which and how the initial particles and fields begun at time zero. I think the contribution about considering something always existing would be very important in this subject.

If there was a law there was something and something to implement it, not nothing. I don't know why you state that "nothing" is an unstable condition. How could it be? This subject has strong implications for the theories of the beginnings of the Universe which is something of much interest in Physics' Science, don't you think so? I think is something with total compatibility between Philosophy's Logic and Physics' Science. It's not my aim to get away from anyone of them. Relativity and Quantum Physics are two main theories in Current Modern Physics which it is said are not totally compatible and efforts are being made to reconcile both. "Einstein vacuum" and "Quantum Foam" should be totally compatible ones but actually I don't know if there are uncompatible differences between them.

A finite discrete Space could have a grid with locations that could be represented by finite numbers or symbols. I said "Turing-like" machine. It could be not exactly a Turing one. The main characteristic of a Turing machine that calls my attention is its simplicity. It would be well suitable for an initially very simple Universe running by a very simple finite automata. I said point-like not exactly a point. The elementary element in a discrete Space is an elementary volume with no zero size. But yes, the initial Universe could be not a single element one. I don't know at this time. We don't know which and how were the laws of Physics at the beginning of the Universe. Surelly not the current ones. I'm not talking about points anywhere. I talk about not zero size elementary elements of a discrete Space.

Nowhere. Fields of force and the Physics' Laws are something present everywhere all the time, they cannot miss anywhere.

No. Is the opposite of something.

It never existed. As mentioned in the OP, as nothing can come from nothing if a universal nothing would have existed at some time before then nothing would have come up after. This way it could be stated as a consequence that something always existed. Locally also not exist anywhere since the lines of Fields would extend in principle still to infinite and the Physics' Laws applies anywhere in the entire Space.

Nothing is the abscence of anything existing. Not any kind of particles, nor fields, nor physics laws... Not anything at all. A "quantum foam" is something, not nothing. I think that "vacuum" you mention is related to a space where no particles ("quantum fluctuations") are present in it but it could contain fields and physics' laws.

A finte discrete 3D space can be represented by a 1D list of all of its elementary elements. I'm thinking in an evolving machine that evolved with the Universe it describes and the initial Universe could have been even a very simple point-like one with a binary state. Both the machine and the Universe would have evolved to the current much more complex ones. I'm thinking in an initial not so efficient but simple Turing-like machine with the capacity of evolve modifying itself to a much more complex and efficient one of course. I'm thinking in a limited but increasing Universe with a variable finite number of elementary elements with finite number of attributes like location, velocity, acceleration, energy, etc with a finite number of physics laws over them representing their possible interactions (the forces) and their behavior (F=mA, Momentum and Energy conservation, etc). Even Super String Theory of the Universe state it could have up to eleven dimensions, still a finite number of them. Why do you think the Universe would be not describable by a finite data set?

Inspired in the thread "Nothing can come from nothing so something always existed!" at the Physics' Forum I'm exploring the idea that what could have ever existed is a Turing-like Machine running over a limited discrete 3D Space. And thinking in an entire Universe evolving from something very simple I think in an evolving Turing-like Machine from may be a very simple binary automata to a more complex one with time over an also evolving 3D Space. The elementary elements of the 3D Space would have some attributes which would let define elementary particles in some places. The elementary particles would obey some rules which would constitute the physics' laws of the Universe. The Turing-like Machine applies then the Physics' Laws over the particles. The elements' attributes and the rules (the physics' laws) could have also evolved becoming more complex with time. Of course the machine would operate at may be an unbelievable huge speed. I'm just exploring the idea and any comment is wellcome. I must mention that my knowledge on the Turing Machine is very limited. I know just the basic principles of operation.

Well, what I think is not to redefine the concept of "nothing" but to think in "something" ever existing. It could be that "quantum foam" you mention but that is "something", not a kind of "nothing". The OP shows that the concept of "nothing comes from nothing" is compatible with the concept of "something always existed". Of course the next question would be of what existed at the beginnings of our Universe then. An unstable "quantum foam" seems to be right within Quantum Physics and the Big Bang theories. Personally I'm exploring the idea of a Universe running in a computer-like machine but it is difficult for me to explain it. Is something I haven't developed enough yet. I could try to talk something about but actually it is just a speculation and would better belong to the Speculations forum, not here. May be I could open a thread for that there, I don't know, I will think about.

It could have been... Right. What I show is that it is totally compatible in Physics with the conclusion "Something always existed".

Good point, I don't remember who, was in a TV interview long time ago. May be it wasn't stated but just commented. The notion of the Big Bang and the notion of nothingness before it was being analyzed. The concept of absolute nothing is a philosophic concept first expressed by ancient greek philosopher Parmenides. In Physics nowadays the concept of an initial kind of nothingness appears but with at least some physics' laws and something obeying it (for instance the notion of virtual particles). I think both concepts can be reconcilled with that conclusion of "Something always existed" I reached. That philosophic "something" could be precisely the physics' concept of "initial nothingness", or initial "vacuum" with "virtual particles" or whatever... No, it is a philosophic expression. That's why I said "... if this is accepted as a postulate..." As I showed in the OP the concept of "Something always existed" can be derived from the concept "Nothing comes from nothing". This way the notion of ethernal Universe comes into place, of course, I know...