north

Originally Posted by north

Martin

 

if the Universe is expanding then could this not be simply an illusion ?

 

for example and this is my biggest argument against BB is that when thinking three dimensionaly why would not all expansion from say 100 different galaxies around our galaxy , come to a conclusion that there is null expansion ?

 

because all perspectives from different galaxies would see expansion toward us

try it with dots on graph paper. make a pattern of dots and then on the next sheet scale up all the distances by a factor of two.

 

the thing is that graph paper is two dimensional

 

my graph paper , so to speak , is three dimensional

 

it has volume , a sphere

Golly, with a well supported and logically structured response like that, who can argue with you?

apparently you can't

It does.

 

First you claim that Something can't come from Nothing, but then when it is shown that something can come from nothing, you then claim that it must therefore have been something in the first place.

 

You have used your original assumption (that something can't come from nothing) to disprove the evidence that it can. But the evidence actually disproves your original assumption, so how can it be used as a argument against the evidence?

 

your argument is called a: Bare Assertion logical fallacy. The only reason that one accepts your assumption, is that one first accepts your assumption.

 

If you start from the position: Is there any evidence for either argument (Something can come from nothing, or that something can't come from nothing)?

 

Then you find that there is evidence that supports: "Something can come from nothing".

 

 

The thing is, there is no law that states that the Universe must make sense to Humans. As the equations are a description of the evidence gathered from reality, I would say that the equations are important.

 

But lets ignore the equations, like you said. Id ther any physical evidence that something can come from nothing?

 

Yes. The Casimir Effect.

 

In this, two electrically neutral plates are placed very close to each other. As gravity between these plates is negligible, we shouldn't see any attraction between them (at the distances involved, direct attraction between the atoms is also negligible). However, we do see a force between the plates that attempts to pull the plates together.

 

But, where does this force come form?

 

Well, the only place it can come from is when particles hit the plates. As this experiment takes place in a vacuum (it can never be a complete vacuum, but we can come close) there will be little or no force from atoms colliding with the plates (and that can be factored in too).

 

We know that if enough energy is concentrated in one location, that it can form a particle/antiparticle pair. However, we can also measure the amount of energy within the device and can see that there is not enough energy to produce enough particles to create the observed force between the plates.

 

However, if we assume that the energy of space is subject to the uncertainty principle, the we can work out that there will be energy that comes from nothing in great enough amount to produce particle/antiparticle pairs.

 

Now, the big question is does this match with reality? Well this is where the maths comes in. If the theory underlying the uncertainty principle and the particle/antiparticle pair production aspect, then this should give a force between the plates of a very specific amount. As we can measure the force, this gives us a way to check the theory that according to QM and the Uncertainty principle, something can actually come form nothing.

 

Based off actual experiments, the forces on the plates matches the forces predicted by the theory. This means that the Uncertainty Principle and QM comes to the conclusion that Something can come from nothing, and it has been experimentally confirmed.

 

This means that there is evidence to support the assumption that Something can come from nothing and that the opposite assumption has evidence against it.

 

It may not make sense to us mere Humans, but then there is no law that states that the Universe has to make sense to us.

 

 

Since the equations are based off experimentation and observation of reality, and have been modified to conform to reality, then those equations are probably a good description of reality.

 

The Equations don't "allow it", the equations describe what reality allows. As the equations make testable predictions as to the behaviour of reality, we can confirm the accuracy of the equations as a description of reality by performing experiments. The Casimir Effect is one such experiment that has been done and disproves the assumption that Something can not come form Nothing.

 

It is you that is erroneous. The Equations predict what we think will occur. Experiment confirms these predictions.

 

 

Firstly, the Uncertainly Principle is not only applicable to particles, the same maths can be applied to space and time.

 

Secondly, it is not the total energy that creates the uncertainty in a particle, but the particle itself.

 

The higher the energy of a particle the more momentum it can have (the uncertainty principle relates to energy and momentum is just one aspect of the energy that a particle can have). However, it is the accuracy with which you know the energy, not the amount of energy.

 

So the uncertainty in position of a particle relates to how certain you are of its energy, not the total amount of energy it has. But knowing that it has a lot of energy means that you are more certain of the energy it has, thus you become less certain about its position. Also, if you know that it has only a small amount of energy, this is also being more certain about its energy, thus you will be equally less certain about its position.

 

 

I am not sure what you are really saying here. The mathematics used have been tested against reality and been shown to match it. If you think that these mathematics and the experiments that show that they work in prediction what will occur in reality is not what you are talking about, then you seem to be saying that you don't care if your theory matches with reality.

 

If this is the case, then perhaps you really are trolling as the purpose of this discussion was to discuss what occurs in reality.

just one question

was the vibration frequency by each atom accounted and if so how ?

Originally Posted by north

I use Sound Reasoning above all else when I think

 

as you've read

Was that the point where you asked if time had essense, or somewhere else?

I didn't ask if time had essence because time doesn't

I would never ask " if time has essence " I know better

Maybe where you said that space has no subsance?

it doesn't

Perhaps when you said "duration on the other hand is based on the energy applied to either system or just by one system to move together or apart."?

yes

They can produce anything they want. If TV were nothing but a reflection of present day scientific accuracy, then we clearly wouldn't have shows like Ghost Hunters. Also, there's a very good chance that the data they share WAS current when they made the program. That's another challenge with TV. Despite our perception of motion in television, it really is a stamp in time from when it was produced.

Ghost Hunters they try but one night !!? give me break

as for the rest agreed !!

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. You cannot just make an assertion, then when questioned on that assertion support it by saying, "that's just what I think" and expect to be taken seriously.

I use Sound Reasoning above all else when I think

as you've read

Good. Maybe I can find some accessible research papers for you, to use in discussion with people who think there is some weight of scientific evidence or authoritative opinion backing the claim that nothing came before BB.

 

There isn't. It's an open question, running models back before BB has become an active field of research. But nobody should be claiming one model is right and the others wrong--the new models need to be tested with observational data. some preliminary ideas of how to do that are beginning to appear but it will take a while. If I sound too confident on occasion, it is a mistake.

 

you are Refreshing Martin , you truly are Refreshing

 

 

 

 

can't always believe popular TV science shows---often some years out of date.

 

why is it then allowed that these programs can even be produced without current info ?

 

damned frustrating really

 

Here is something to try. There was recently a big international conference in the UK called QGQG (quantum geometry and quantum gravity) and

a prominent QC guy spoke. Audio and slides are available. You can download his slides and then listen to the audio and scroll thru the slides as he talks.

I will give you the whole conference menu and then specific links to this one guy's audio and slides (which you can also get off the menu)

the speaker is Abhay Ashtekar.

 

The menu is here

http://echo.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/qg/wiki/index.php/QGsquared-slides

 

Ashtekar gave the first talk on Tuesday, so the links are easy to find there on the menu there on the menu. But I will get the direct links anyway. They might come in handy.

 

Here are the slides pdf

http://echo.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/qg/wiki/images/d/d9/AshtekarAbhay1234.pdf

 

Here's the mp3 audio

http://www.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/research/conferences/qg2_2008_quantum_geometry_and_quantum_gravity_conference/audible/02Tuesday/AbhayAshtekar.mp3

 

I don't know if this would be at all useful to you. It's recent (July 2008) the guy is a leader (recently elected president of the profession association that cosmologists and General Relativity experts belong to---elected at their last international meeting a year ago in Sydney Australia. He has the largest most active research institute in cosmology and quantum gravity in the USA etc etc so this talk is representative of where a certain field is right now). The talk may be useless to you or not. You can sample it and see. Or not, as you choose.

 

If this isnt right for you maybe I will think of something else later.

=====================

 

Oh yeah, the point is that for this guy---and for hundreds of other experts actively researching the BB and what led up to it, the BB is not the beginning of existence. It is something to model how it happened and what conditions preceded etc etc. It is just an extension of physics, running the model back farther. Because now the model doesn't break down and flash *tilt* and stop computing, the way it used to. So there is no singularity and you just go back and study various possible cases of what preceded. So I'm giving you the links so you can see what kind of things this guy, who is sort of representative of an area of current research, is saying.

 

should be interesting

 

thanks

 

north

Martin

if the Universe is expanding then could this not be simply an illusion ?

for example and this is my biggest argument against BB is that when thinking three dimensionaly why would not all expansion from say 100 different galaxies around our galaxy , come to a conclusion that there is null expansion ?

because all perspectives from different galaxies would see expansion toward us

Are what in your opinion... and as this is a science forum please describe them as physics requires, which means maths

I perfer thinking in terms of phyiscal dynamics , and the consequent interactions by objects since ultimately thats what all mathematics comes down to ( what came first the physical reality or existence of objects or mathematics ? obviously the physical )

does that mean I disrespect the mathematics or that mathematics isn't important ? no

now I'm going to assume your going to disagree with my stand but then what can I say

I think the way I do

Hi North,

It has been suggested you are overly argumentative---more interested in stirring controversy than in progressing towards some conclusions. I don't know if that is true. I can't go back into old discussion at this point. So I have no opinion. I refrain from opinion at this point.

 

Hi Martin

 

I'm I overly argumentative ? some may think so but not really just questioning the Reasoning behind some ideas , its my way

 

I've been doing this for about 5 yrs now and noticed that there are some very misguided ideas

 

 

 

 

 

But going forward, so I can learn what you are thinking about, let me ask you a question. why are you interested in nothing?

 

this one of the misguided ideas that something can come from nothing it can't ( not just here but on other sites as well , manytimes )

 

and it keeps coming up , unfortunatly

 

therefore my response to the concept of nothing

 

 

Could this be a straw man or a dead horse? Or a horse that left town last week?

 

it keeps coming up what can I say

 

Are you under the impression that expansion cosmology claims that the universe started with the Big Bang?

 

yes

 

how can I help it anytime there is a program about cosmology the Big-Bang comes up

 

 

 

Do you think that scientists as a group claim to know that the BB came out of nothing?

 

no

 

 

Cosmology has changed quite a lot in recent years---one new feature being the emergence of quantum cosmology (QC) resolving the classical singularity and running the models back further in time. Talking about nothing seems to be pretty much irrelevant now.

 

good if talking about nothing has become irrelevant I'm all for it

 

but some people still think about " nothing " however

 

 

 

 

But from time to time we get deluded people here at SFN who seem to think they are on a crusade to expose the fallacy of ideas they think are prevalent in conventional science but which, in fact, are not.

 

you are alluding to myself I think here

 

no problem

 

I'm ultimately after the truth , whether that means I disagree or agree with conventional science or mainstream science so be it

 

and my thought process is Reason first logic latter

 

the difference is that Reason gathers in knowledge and derives a conclusion

and logic is the consequence of the reasonable conclusion

 

 

It is hard to figure them out. Undoubtably some must be trolls (but that's not my department.) Others may be sincere but relying on out-of-date information. Others have gotten unreliable information about what scientists believe from a certain type of Religious website. Others may just have a lot of intellectual testosterone and want to debate stuff. I'm not a psychologist. I've got limited time and intelligence and I simply can not figure most of these people out. I'm mostly just tempted to leave them alone and let other SFN folks cope, if there are problems. And I have no idea where you fit in to that catalog, if you do at all.

 

hopefully none of the above , at least I certaintly wouldn't want to be

 

But I will say this. It would help if you asked more questions and tried to find out more about today's Big Bang models---there is lots to read although very little that is purely popular written with zero math. You have to do some selective scanning to get essential content. It would help if you were willing to read some contemporary reseach papers (skipping the mathematical parts) to get an idea of what people are working on now.

It would help if you stopped arguing about something out of nothing that is irrelevant and that we've heard so much of in past years. That's just my personal take---not as SFN staff, purely private---other folks may have a completely different reaction which is fine with me.

Martin I thank-you for post , for it seems it was needed as to what I was about and for staff and others to understand where I'm coming from

its my fault of course for any misunderstanding towards myself . I tend to come in heavy and fast

but I do enjoy thought throughly , I always have

hence my posts

but to be fair also to myself though , just so that you understand as well , I am on other sites as well and you see certain patterns of thinking by many people from many different perspectives , they are all trying to figure it out in there own way and I'm use to that

north

The statement is a declarative sentence, "There is nothing outside the universe." As you well know, a declarative sentence must be falsifiable to be considered a scientific fact. Therefore, I am simply pointing out that it should be proven before it is accepted.

the Universe is infinite

and infinity is proven by the existence something rather than nothing

so the Universe is not finite

Originally Posted by north

 

good

 

then we are in agreement

 

now the implications of this relisation....

Sorry about that north I guess I didn't really look over what I was writing..

no problem there guy , no problem

Originally Posted by north

think about what you just posted

 

space can help ? how ? space has NO physical substance in and of its self

 

and gravity is based on the physical , physical objects

 

so to you , time is based on gravity and gravity is based on physical objects and therefore time is based on physical objects and the ability of these objects to move other physical objects by gravity

 

hence the essence of time , the movement of physical objects and the resultant measurement of this movement by using time

 

rationally thinking

All I was trying to say is that time cannot move an object on its own.

good

then we are in agreement

now the implications of this relisation....

No you misunderstand. You are applying the very same assumption (that something can't come from nothing) that this refutes to prove it wrong.

 

It is like saying the sky is not blue because it is not green. It just makes no sense.

 

no it does't

 

 

 

 

It is not just matter that can appear from nothing. Energy, as well as space and time can appear from nothing. If the same equations that allow matter to appear from nothing are true (and they have been shown through experiment to be not untrue), then applying those same formulas to space, energy and time also allows them to appear from nothing.

 

but from a physical point of view , forget the equations for a moment , this makes no sense does it ?

 

objectively I mean

 

 

 

Now, if those formulas could not be applied to matter as well as space, time and energy, then certain physical laws would actually produce one kind of effect. If it does then it would produce a different result. Experiments have confirmed that the results show that it is the second case (that those formulas apply not only to matter, but energy space and time as well).

 

then what appears to be nothing where those equations were applied is not true

 

there was always something there in the first place

 

thats my point

 

 

 

 

The only conclusion is that because these formulas allow matter, energy, space and time to appear form nothing, and the result of experiments confirm that this is the case, it means that the Universe can actually appear from nothing (and it can return to nothing as well).

 

you see this is part of the pervasive thinking out there that " equations allow this or that " this thinking is erroneous . in reality it is the physical Universe which ALLOWS the equations to be correct

 

thats like the old philosophical argument that we produce the Universe , which of course is wrong

 

 

 

 

 

Now for the reasons it does apply to space and time and energy.

 

First of all, energy is easy. Einstein's formula E^2 - (pc)^2 = (mc^2)^2 (or it's simplified: E=MC^2) states that Energy and Mass are related and can be converted from one to the other (which has been confirmed experimentally).

 

Now the uncertainty principle states that if you know the position of a particle you are uncertain as to it's momentum (the way it is moving). This too has been confirmed experimentally.

 

perhaps but the uncertainty principle is based on the energy of the particle

 

but the less energy a particle has the position and momentum can be known

 

 

 

 

But, Relativity states that Space and Time are the same and combined into a Space/Time. This too has been confirmed experimentally (GPS systems need to take this into account or they would not be accurate).

 

just mathematics , grid mathematics

 

which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about

 

Now, if we have an absolutely know Space/Time location (say an infinitely small singularity), we are certain as to it's space and time. However, this means that we are completely uncertain as to it's energy.

 

If we are certain of its energy, then we must be uncertain of its Space/Time extents.

 

When these are applied together, what comes out is that space, time, energy and matter can all appear from nothing.

 

mathematically

 

but to the object(s) they were always there , something , its just that you trying to find them , " appear " is the key word here

 

mathematics does not make or create energy/matter EVER it discovers

Stop trolling.

I asked you a question and if this trolling to you then so be it

define nothing

I want to know how you define nothing

[math]{\Delta}E{\Delta}t{\geq}\frac{\hbar}{2}[/math] so, on a small enough time scale, the uncertainty in energy is sufficiently large for particle-antiparticle creation. So, something CAN come from nothing....for a short time.

look this how I define nothing ;

nothing has no space ( no place to manifest ) , no ability to change ( or time for those of you who perfer ) , no depth and no breadth or therefore no dimensions

ALL of these properties of which something has

Well sort of. According to the Uncertainty principle it can. There can spontaneously arise enough energy in a location to create a particle pair. These then have to annihilate very quickly and go back to nothing.

so then nothing was not really nothing in the first place

since nothing it seems has potential

pure nothing has NO potential whatsoever

So yes, something can be created from nothing.

no not really

Yeah... you're still not winning me over.

and the Reason is ?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, north (despite the fact that I vehemently disagree). Do you have any support for your assertions, or are you expecting everyone to simply take your (relatively incoherent) word for it?

well lets start here ;

can nothing ever produce something

if nothing can to you

define nothing

You remind of Fred, or maybe Graviphoton. Even if you're not them, you're walking down the same path they chose to follow.

I know neither of these people so they are irrelevant

so can you not see the reasoning of my last post ?

That's a tough one. Since the concept of "time" itself came into existence at the Big Bang (spacetime itself was created), then the idea of "before" is not only a challenge, but actually undefined. The idea of "before" doesn't make sense since time didn't exist before then (according to the BB model).

time is irrelevant it plays not part in the " before " BB really or in any discussin about existence really

what is relevant is whether energy/matter existed before BB and they most certainly did

otherwise you get into the something vs nothing discussion

of which something always wins

Humility?

it seems so it seems

Also, unicorns. Can't forget the unicorns.

oh I forgot:D

Time cannot move stilled objects itself, but with the help of space and maybe something like gravity, it is very easy to move objects.

think about what you just posted

space can help ? how ? space has NO physical substance in and of its self

and gravity is based on the physical , physical objects

so to you , time is based on gravity and gravity is based on physical objects and therefore time is based on physical objects and the ability of these objects to move other physical objects by gravity

hence the essence of time , the movement of physical objects and the resultant measurement of this movement by using time

rationally thinking

I put this way

is there anything in this Universe , our Universe , that we lack , physically ?

I'm not really here this weekend but this article should show you an experiment that will allow you to find the muon decay time in the upper atmosphere.

 

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0031-9120/33/5/012

I don't have the money to by it

so be so kind as to give your argument

Time does not require energy, space (distance) does not require energy.

 

I disagree

 

the essence of time is all about movement or energy of objects and their interactions and the consequence(s) of their in the change of position because of an objects energy or movement

 

if ten objects were frozen still in that moment of position how does the addition of time change anything of their position ? time doesn't , at all

Historical note: we use the phrase "space-time" because in Einstein's relativity theories, both space (3 dimensions) and time (1 dimension) get treated in an analogous way, mathematically. Therefore, it was convenient to have a phrase with which to refer to both space and time dimensions at once. Hence, Space-Time.

true

but this is what is happening and this is pervasive , throughout all of physics and astronomy for this is not the first time that I have persented this argument which is ;

that space has some substance asscociated with it and that time has some sort of energy associated with it

both associations are entirely error simply put

you can't grasp space

and time , no matter how much is entered into an equation will NEVER change the situation between two or more objects EVER

but what will change the situation between objects is the energy which is inherent within the objects and the energy which is from the object and projected out beyond the object its self

hence a movement and therefore hence a measure of " time " that this happens because of the objects themselves nothing more nothing less