Jump to content
martillo

Nothing can come from nothing so something always existed!

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

It opens for me, so I can't help you.

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...

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

Which means science isn't going to be able to answer the question.

I think you are forgotting the power of rationalism.

Edited by martillo

Share this post


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

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.

The problem isn't with logic. The disagreement is with your premise, which, of course, isn't something that you have shown to be true.

Share this post


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

The problem isn't with logic. The disagreement is with your premise, which, of course, isn't something that you have shown to be true.

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.

Edited by martillo

Share this post


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

I think you are forgotting the power of rationalism.

What are you then rationalizing? 

Last century space was rationalized as nothing. We know better now. It actually forms a four dimensional framework with time, we call spacetime. And both are interchangeable... The BB is the evolution of this space and time [as we know them] 

Again, as I surmised before, perhaps this quantum foam [which isn't really much anyway] is actually nothing. Perhaps "nothing" as you seem to visualize,  is quantum foam, and the inherent instability that goes with it.  Again, what do you rationalize to be the answer? 

PS: It's also alright for science to say we don't know.

Share this post


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

What are you then rationalizing? 

Last century space was rationalized as nothing. We know better now. It actually forms a four dimensional framework with time, we call spacetime. And both are interchangeable... The BB is the evolution of this space and time [as we know them] 

Again, as I surmised before, perhaps this quantum foam [which isn't really much anyway] is actually nothing. Perhaps "nothing" as you seem to visualize,  is quantum foam, and the inherent instability that goes with it.  Again, what do you rationalize to be the answer? 

PS: It's also alright for science to say we don't know.

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.

 

 

Edited by martillo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2021 at 5:12 AM, martillo said:

Nothing can come from nothing so something always existed!

This seems to imply several unstated premises, without any of which the conclusion does not hold.

1) "Nothing can come from nothing".  This seems to assume physical law (that governing the initial conditions for the BB) that disallows uncaused events. Even now, QM allows uncaused events such as the emission of a photon from a lightbulb atom in an excited state which has admittedly a short halflife but is hardly a direct effect of the excitation event putting the atom in that state.

2) "Something always" seems to assume time is unbounded and the universe is contained within it, which contradicts every model I know. Time is part of the structure, not a container for the structure, so talking about time before the BB is like talking about Earth altitude being unbounded, and thus material at altitudes of -13000 km and beyond being required to hold up my house at the top of the pile. I.E., the naive premise can be used as as a proof of the flat Earth with turtles all the way down with Earth sitting atop an unbounded altitude and not having altitude built into the object.

3) "existed" assumes that the universe has the property of existence, despite the fact that existence is not necessarily a property in all views (for instance, it is a relation under RQM), and the fact that no empirical observation would be any different in an objectively existing universe and the same universe without the property of objective existence.

I am kind of loosely willing to accept the first premise so long as its status as an unproven premise is acknowledged, but my personal view does not hold to the other two premises which I consider instinctual biases, which is precisely why I favor said personal view.  Given the three premises (and perhaps more), the argument is valid, but seemingly not sound.

Disclaimer: Have not read the entire thread. Just my comments on the title.

Edit: Another one:

4) 'from nothing' contradicts 'always'. If there was nothing before the BB, then there was no time before it. Time is something. So is the state of absence of state. This doesn't invalidate the title statement. It only invalidates a model of "There was once nothing in existence and later on there was something in existence" and I know of no accepted physical model that suggests that.

Edited by Halc

Share this post


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

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.

But as physics isn’t claiming to know what happened that first instant, it doesn’t need to prove anything false.

What we know is that “nothing” is unstable under conditions we observe, so if that applied to the origin of everything, there is no conflict that needs to be explained away.

Whereas “something always existed” raises the question of why a big bang happened, and happened the way it did.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Nothing can come from nothing so something always existed!

Well I can't agree with that statement.

but I can (almost) agree with this one

Quote
On 1/10/2021 at 10:12 AM, martillo said:

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

 

As always it is instructive to consider the behaviour of a simpler system than the universe.

So I propose a football match between teams A and B.

Now at kick-off there are no goals, and no football.

Sometime into the match team A scores a goal.

Later team A scores another goal.

Later team B scores a goal.

Now we could set up coordinate axes, including time, which extend beyond the game and pitch.

But from the point of view of the match (which B won) there are 3 'events' of importance, since the object is to score more goals than the other side.

So 'nothing' happened before kick off  (ie there were no events) all time before kickoff is the same and effectively does not exist.

'Nothing' happened between kickoff and the first goal so nothing happened in measurable time before the first goal, but after kickoff.

There were two further events before full time but again nothing happened between the third goal and full time, after which all time is the same.

Hwever the entire match could be described in terms of those three goals and the (time) distance between them is fixed.

Nothing else matters.

 

Thus there is a simple system which has all the essential characteristics of a relativistic universe viz a fixed chain of events and a coordinate system which could extend empty to infinity.

 

Spoiler

Oh and I forgot to tell you that A's second goal was an own goal)


 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I thought the reveal was going to show that Team A is Chelsea, and Team B is Man U.

Share this post


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

Whereas “something always existed” raises the question of why a big bang happened, and happened the way it did.

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

Share this post


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

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

In which case, you’ve merely displaced the uncertainty to a time farther back. You have not removed it. 

It’s turtles all the way down, and at least our current turtles aren’t like yours drawn in crayon that’s red for some reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, iNow said:

In which case, you’ve merely displaced the uncertainty to a time farther back. You have not removed it. 

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.

Edited by martillo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH I’m not terribly inclined to further explore your speculations or to care what you personally do and don’t feel is possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, iNow said:

TBH I’m not terribly inclined to further explore your speculations or to care what you personally do and don’t feel is possible. 

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. 

Share this post


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

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

It can’t disappear if something always has to exist.

Share this post


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

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.

!

Moderator Note

And ANY discussion about it here is OFF-TOPIC, so please stop.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phi for All said:
!

Moderator Note

And ANY discussion about it here is OFF-TOPIC, so please stop.

 

I apologize. I tried to clarify something and only brought confusion. It not be mentioned anymore.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

It can’t disappear if something always has to exist.

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?

Edited by martillo

Share this post


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

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 "medium" where Universes can continuously appear, grow and disappear again. Couldn't it be thought this way?

You are making an error in thinking there is a distinct place/space/volume where universes are born, in this case the quantum foam. The quantum foam is 'the universe'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You are making an error in thinking there is a distinct place/space/volume where universes are born, in this case the quantum foam. The quantum foam is 'the universe'.

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? 

Edited by martillo

Share this post


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

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? 

Maybe one of the more knowledgeable folks can say if there are any theories on that.

Share this post


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

theories that could match this idea of some ethernal "medium" where Universes could continuosly appear and disappear times to times? 

There's eternal inflation theory in all its variants which suggest that inflation never ends but forms fractal regions where inflation ceases thus forming bubbles that can be described as 'universes' with varying properties (different physical laws, constants, numbers of dimensions, etc.).  In such a model, the universes don't 'disappear' since they're all bounded by inflation still going on. The model does not posit an initial condition for the inflation itself, so an infinite 'past' (if such a word is meaningful there) is not off the table.

The 'theory' is an excellent counter to the fine-tuning argument since these bubbles of every conceivable tuning are all inevitable.  I put 'theory' in quotes because lacking any empirical predictions (the fine-tuning thing isn't one??), it can be argued that it doesn't meet the definition of a theory.

Share this post


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

There's eternal inflation theory in all its variants which suggest that inflation never ends but forms fractal regions where inflation ceases thus forming bubbles that can be described as 'universes' with varying properties (different physical laws, constants, numbers of dimensions, etc.).  In such a model, the universes don't 'disappear' since they're all bounded by inflation still going on. The model does not posit an initial condition for the inflation itself, so an infinite 'past' (if such a word is meaningful there) is not off the table.

The 'theory' is an excellent counter to the fine-tuning argument since these bubbles of every conceivable tuning are all inevitable.  I put 'theory' in quotes because lacking any empirical predictions (the fine-tuning thing isn't one??), it can be argued that it doesn't meet the definition of a theory.

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

Share this post


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

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? 

Perturbation techniques is a different idea. It applies to both classical as well as quantum theories. It has to do with studying an interaction that you cannot solve exactly as one that you can solve exactly plus a small deviation from it, or "perturbation," and then expanding the perturbed states as a power series of the small perturbation parameter, and the states of the exactly solvable theory.

The closest to what you're saying is what @Halc has explained, AFAIK.

Share this post


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

Perturbation techniques is a different idea. It applies to both classical as well as quantum theories. It has to do with studying an interaction that you cannot solve exactly as one that you can solve exactly plus a small deviation from it, or "perturbation," and then expanding the perturbed states as a power series of the small perturbation parameter, and the states of the exactly solvable theory.

The closest to what you're saying is what @Halc has explained, AFAIK.

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. :)

Edited by martillo

Share this post


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

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).

Virtual particles indeed appear in QFT always as a result of perturbative calculations. It could make sense to ask "are they really there?" They're really there in the sense that you must take them into account if you want to calculate the renormalised quantities, like mass, charge, etc. They're also "there" in the sense that, whenever you put in the required energy, they "leap into reality" and new real, detectable particles appear.

In the decades after the glorious years of perturbative QFT around the 50s, towards the 80s and 90s, new non-perturbative methods were developed, by people like 't Hooft and Polyakov. Topological field theories are also non-perturbative, but I think we're still not there. I could be wrong, but I don't think we completely understand QFT from a non-perturbative POV. There are new games in town, but it may well be the case that a new synthesis of the formalisms is necessary.

Share this post


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.