Jump to content

Nothing can come from nothing so something always existed!


Recommended Posts

I have heard recognized physicists stating "Nothing can come from nothing" and if this is accepted as a postulate applying basic logic follows:

As something do exist now (for instance we exist) it can be deduced that:

_ The absolute nothing never existed. (If it it would have existed before nothing would have come up.)

_ Something always has existed.

Am I wrong in something?

I think this is important in the tries to explain the origins of the Universe. The Universe didn't come from nothing then, it came from something. Something that could have always existed before.

Not so easy to grasp may be but seems right...

 

And if the above is right, must we assume that Space and Time are things that just always existed?

Seems so...

Edited by martillo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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 subjec

Einstein vacuum is a classical concept; a volume that is still permeated by fields, such as gravity ( or rather, its geometry ). Quantum 'foam' was a concept, or description if you will, of quant

It opens for me, so I can't help you. But if you are interested, you can search for Frank Wilczek and the phrase nothing is unstable   That's not how science works. You go where the eviden

5 hours ago, martillo said:

I have heard recognized physicists stating "Nothing can come from nothing"

Who, and under what context?

 

5 hours ago, martillo said:

 

and if this is accepted as a postulate applying basic logic follows:

Can you find a mainstream physics citation that list this as a postulate?

 

5 hours ago, martillo said:

As something do exist now (for instance we exist) it can be deduced that:

_ The absolute nothing never existed. (If it it would have existed before nothing would have come up.)

_ Something always has existed.

Am I wrong in something?

A shaky premise, that you are taking as true, instead of conditionally.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, swansont said:

Who, and under what context?

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...

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Can you find a mainstream physics citation that list this as a postulate?

No, it is a philosophic expression. That's why I said "... if this is accepted as a postulate..." 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

A shaky premise, that you are taking as true, instead of conditionally.

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...

Edited by martillo
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, joigus said:

It must have been Lawrence Krauss:

It could have been...

10 minutes ago, joigus said:

But it's not a postulate. I would call it a philosophical argument on the periphery of physics.

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

Edited by martillo
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, swansont said:

A universe from nothing is the opposite position.

:doh: Oops!

6 minutes ago, martillo said:

Right. What I show is that it is totally compatible in physics with the conclusion "Something always existed".

Mmmm. Ok. I have nothing to oppose to that. But, as Swansont has pointed out, I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about arguments in the direction that "something can come from nothing", when you were talking about the argument "anything must come from something".

These kind of arguments always give me a headache. Please, carry on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 hours ago, martillo said:

I have heard recognized physicists stating "Nothing can come from nothing" and if this is accepted as a postulate applying basic logic follows:

As something do exist now (for instance we exist) it can be deduced that:

_ The absolute nothing never existed. (If it it would have existed before nothing would have come up.)

_ Something always has existed.

Am I wrong in something?

I think this is important in the tries to explain the origins of the Universe. The Universe didn't come from nothing then, it came from something. Something that could have always existed before.

Not so easy to grasp may be but seems right...

 

And if the above is right, must we assume that Space and Time are things that just always existed?

Seems so...

Perhaps it's our definition of "nothing" that needs revaluating. It is speculated that the BB was a fluctuation in the quantum foam. Will an observationally verifiable QGT support that? Is the "quantum foam" as close to nothingness as can ever be? in effect, is the quantum foam really  "nothing"? Obviously it is this quantum foam [nothing]  that is inherently unstable.

And I specifically remember reading somewhere about "In quantum theory, if something is not forbidden it will happen" or words to that effect with relation to quantum theory.

While obviously still scientifically speculative, it is far more acceptable speculation then other speculative assumptions of how our Universe/space/time  came to be.

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beecee said:

Perhaps it's our definition of "nothing" that needs revaluating.

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.

Edited by martillo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quantum foam is the vacuum ( or a description of it at very small scales, See J A Wheeler ).
Quantum fluctuations arise out of the quantum foam, or vacuum, on 'borrowed energy which has to be re-paid back to the Universe after a time determined by the HUP. These quantum fluctuations manifest as virtual particles, which have measurable consequences.
IOW, something from the vacuum.
What did you intend 'nothing' to mean ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MigL said:

Quantum foam is the vacuum ( or a description of it at very small scales, See J A Wheeler ).
Quantum fluctuations arise out of the quantum foam, or vacuum, on 'borrowed energy which has to be re-paid back to the Universe after a time determined by the HUP. These quantum fluctuations manifest as virtual particles, which have measurable consequences.
IOW, something from the vacuum.
What did you intend 'nothing' to mean ?

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.

Edited by martillo
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, martillo said:

Nothing is the abscence of anything existing. Not any kind of particles, nor fields, nor physics laws... Not anything at all.

Is there any evidence such a state existed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swansont said:

Is there any evidence such a state existed?

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.

 

Edited by martillo
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, martillo said:

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.

28 minutes ago, martillo said:

This way it could be stated as a consequence that something always existed.

Isn't nothing something?

Edited for clarity...

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Where can you find nothing?

Nowhere.

36 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If something is missing?

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, martillo said:

It never existed.

So there could have been a law that said something can come from nothing.

2 hours ago, martillo said:

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.

Or it could have come from a consequence of something coming from nothing (that "nothing" is an unstable condition)

So how do you get away from the philosophy and get to the science of this? You posted this in "physics"

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, swansont said:

So there could have been a law that said something can come from nothing.

If there was a law there was something and something to implement it, not nothing.

 

34 minutes ago, swansont said:

Or it could have come from a consequence of something coming from nothing (that "nothing" is an unstable condition)

I don't know why you state that "nothing" is an unstable condition. How could it be?

34 minutes ago, swansont said:

So how do you get away from the philosophy and get to the science of this? You posted this in "physics"

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.

27 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Are the Einstein  vacuum and quantum foam the same thing, or is the vacuum a lower level of existence?

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.

Edited by martillo
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Are the Einstein  vacuum and quantum foam the same thing, or is the vacuum a lower level of existence?

Einstein vacuum is a classical concept; a volume that is still permeated by fields, such as gravity ( or rather, its geometry ).

Quantum 'foam' was a concept, or description if you will, of quantum fields at very small ( below Planck ) scales, by J A Wheeler, and, is attributable to the HUP, with 'stuff' chaotically popping in, and out, of existence.

Not the same thing, or different hierarchy of description, but rather, different models.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, martillo said:

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 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.

Good point. I forgot the two ideas are from different theories.... 'Foam' is an attempt at quantization.

Cheers MigL. I forgot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, martillo said:

 I don't know why you state that "nothing" is an unstable condition. How could it be?

Unlike your situation where you can't provide a source for your quote, I can: Frank Wilczek

https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/the-physics-of-nothing/

 

26 minutes ago, martillo said:

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?

Some interest in Cosmology, to be sure, but we've got things covered after ~10^-34 sec or so.

Most of physics gets along quite well without the answer to this particular problem, and the interested parties would likely want a physics answer, rather than a philosophical one.

 

Quote

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.

You need more than logic if it's going to be physics. What is the evidence of something always existing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, swansont said:

Unlike your situation where you can't provide a source for your quote, I can: Frank Wilczek

https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/the-physics-of-nothing/

I couldn't open your link. Seems it doesn't work.

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

Most of physics gets along quite well without the answer to this particular problem, and the interested parties would likely want a physics answer, rather than a philosophical one.

What answer would they likely want?

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

You need more than logic if it's going to be physics. What is the evidence of something always existing?

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.

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

Some interest in Cosmology, to be sure, but we've got things covered after ~10^-34 sec or so.

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.

Edited by martillo
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, martillo said:

I couldn't open your link. Seems it doesn't work.

It opens for me, so I can't help you. But if you are interested, you can search for Frank Wilczek and the phrase nothing is unstable

 

8 minutes ago, martillo said:

What answer would they likely want?

That's not how science works. You go where the evidence takes you.

 

8 minutes ago, martillo said:

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.

Which means science isn't going to be able to answer the question. Which is preferable to just making up a simple answer we like or that comforts us; that's what religion is for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.