Jump to content

Nothing can come from nothing so something always existed!


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, joigus said:

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.

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

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

I couldn't stop thinking about this and I think now that "unstable nothing" is not the same as just "nothing" because it contains something that makes it unstable. Something that could eventually "explode" and turn into a Universe. That counts as something for me, not nothing.

This way Parmenides premise remains as true and the derived statement that then "Something always existed" is also true.

The question would be what would be that eternal something always existing. The answer for me is that for "Quantum Physics" the always existing something would be a "fields' foam" or "particles foam" as whished. In other theories would be other thing. For instance in the "Simulation" theories it would be an eternal "computing machine".

I don't know if only one is true or if they are compatible one being a consequense of the other one. For instance, a "quantum foam" could be "simulated" in a "computing machine" or the inverse, a "computing machine" could surge from a "quantum foam". After any of these a Universe can surge.

Whatever would be the case, this way there would be no problems between Philosophy and Physics.

Subject solved for me this way.

It would be just our instinct that leaves us to think that the Universe must have come from "nothing". Just our instinct has problem to conceive an eternal something ever existing and we must override it...

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

I couldn't stop thinking about this and I think now that "unstable nothing" is not the same as just "nothing" because it contains something that makes it unstable. Something that could eventually "explode" and turn into a Universe. That counts as something for me, not nothing.

What 'unstable nothing' refers to is entities, like virtual particles, which individually have  energies that are less than a quantum. For any entity to exist permanently it must at least have a quantum of energy. Sometimes, virtual particles interact and combine to have enough energy to exist, but only for a very brief time before annhilating back to the state where they aren't measurable i.e they effectively don''t exist... that is the 'nothing' part, and the fact that they pop in and out is the 'unstable' part. So, there is a quasi-state between nothing and something. That is the vacuum field or foam, depending on which theory one is using.

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

What 'unstable nothing' refers to is entities, like virtual particles, which individually have  energies that are less than a quantum. For any entity to exist permanently it must at least have a quantum of energy. Sometimes, virtual particles interact and combine to have enough energy to exist, but only for a very brief time before annhilating back to the state where they aren't measurable i.e they effectively don''t exist... that is the 'nothing' part, and the fact that they pop in and out is the 'unstable' part. So, there is a quasi-state between nothing and something. That is the vacuum field or foam, depending on which theory one is using.

That way there would be an alternating state of the particles but not all the particles synchronized and as there would be an innumerable quantity of particles in the global Space there would be always at least one particle (actually much more I think) in the "something" state. So there always be something. So there's no nothing, never. Always something.

Edited by martillo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
On 1/10/2021 at 1:12 PM, 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...

Of course, we can philosophize on this topic, but I am more than sure that even when humanity becomes a more advanced civilization and it's easy to move between the stars in a fraction of seconds, there will still be no complete understanding of where and how the Universe, Space, Time was formed. It's like trying to unravel infinity itself. 🧐

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/6/2021 at 11:39 PM, Maxim Bronevsky said:

It's like trying to unravel infinity itself.

Infinity was already unravelled in the development of series, limits, integrals, etc. in Calculus and you have also Proyective Geometry treating it. What else do you want to know about infinity?

On 5/6/2021 at 11:39 PM, Maxim Bronevsky said:

I am more than sure that even when humanity becomes a more advanced civilization and it's easy to move between the stars in a fraction of seconds, there will still be no complete understanding of where and how the Universe, Space, Time was formed.

May be you gave up on this. Others didn't.

On 5/6/2021 at 11:39 PM, Maxim Bronevsky said:

Of course, we can philosophize on this topic

Seems you are taking Philosophy it in a rather not rigourous way. Logic is as rigorous as Math.

Edited by martillo
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.