ACG52 Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) Au contraire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing Edited July 20, 2015 by ACG52 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truedeity Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 This books title is misleading, Krauss does not propose a universe from nothing, he refers to "primitive beginnings", which is not "nothing", I think nothing is a technical impossibility. The reason I say this is a technical impossibility is because dimensionlessness is just a crackpot concept. "Absolute nothing" implies lack of dimension so people need to be specific about the word nothing, by nothing you really mean "still something" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neutrinosalad Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 I've posted this before; the conservation of mass/energy is not applicable at t=0 ( the beginning ). Conservation of mass/energy is a direct result of time translational symmetry ( Noether's theorem ), and at time t=0, time is asymmetric as there is only the forward direction. Mass/energy conservation does not apply and so, cannot be used as an excuse for disallowing the universe to 'spring' from nothing. You'll have to look elsewhere. Yes, but the definition of time is relative. t=0 would have to be applied in an absolute way to all of existence. Because at t=0, our universe and all other universes (if there are any others) would have had to have sprung forth simultaneously. Also, the underlying assumption in your statement is that time has a start rather than existing without beginning or end. How can we know that there is an absolute t=0? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sorcerer Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 (edited) Why is there something rather than nothing? To answer this question let us look at it from the possible inverted question, why is there nothing rather than something? There isn't, and that question can't be asked. Therefore you're asking the other. Did the universe come from nothing or is there something which is eternal (has no beginning and no end) and this eternal thing is the cause of everything? It makes no sense to call an eternal thing the cause of everything, it would be a part of everything, it would still exist right now. The chain of causality shouldn't see it as a first cause because it is unecessarily complex to detach it from the entirety of everything else. I prefer if you will that everything has always existed but it continually changes from one form to another, it's current form is this universe we observe ourselves in. There doesn't need to be any outside influence or special seperate prime mover. If something (seperate from everything else) can eternally exist, then it is just as reasonable to assume everything eternally existed. I can demonstrate this by showing that the cause of everything either experienced no time or was more than 1 part and if you accept the possibility of more than 1 part being eternal, then the possibility of all parts (everything) being eternal should not be excluded and is a much more simple hypothesis. From a singular first cause's perspective it would be as if no time existed, therefore it being eternal makes no sense, because eternal is a temporal word, requiring time to exist for it to be logically consistent with the semantics. If there was only 1 thing which remained unchanged which then caused the existence of everything else, there would be no time in which that one thing existed. Without more than one part a first cause would have no frame of reference, there would be nothing else relative to it, nothing could have changed (unless it contained more than 1 part). Time requires causality and that objects move relative to each other through space. Therefore there can be no time without it having more than 1 part. If you allow it to have more than one part and thus be able to change and experience time, then you must open up the possibility that every part of the universe existed eternally. It is needlessly complicated to have 1 eternal thing first which then causes everything else, when it is more simple to just have everything eternal all at once. Perhaps the idea that the universe came into being is a flawed one based on our evolved perceptions as animals which survive by perceiving time flowing from past to future. If you take the idea of eternalism seriously then it is possible to say the universe always exists whilst simultaneously having a beginning and end. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time) Edited August 3, 2015 by Sorcerer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Something from nothing. Unlikely. We live in a cause-effect universe where something never comes from nothing. Ever. To suppose the universe itself came from nothing is possible but illogical. How would we know anyway? Not knowing what or if something came before is no roof of anything. I think I said that right.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 We live in a cause-effect universe where something never comes from nothing. 1. There are things which happen with no (apparent) cause. 2. There doesn't seem to be any logical connection between causality and whether something can come from nothing. To suppose the universe itself came from nothing is possible but illogical. You are using "illogical" in the sense of "doesn't make sense to me" I assume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 An old, old question. Did something come from nothing? If there was ever nothing and then something , then something had to come from nothing.Logical? Trite but accurate. Huck Finn: "We had the sky up there all speckled with stars,and we used to lay on our backs and look up at them,and discuss about whether they was made or only just happened.I judged it would take too long to MADE so many.Jim said the moon could a LAID them; well that looked kind of reasonable,so I didnt say nothing against it, because I've seen a frog lay most as many ,so of course it could be done" Actually their view is just as valid as any other opinion. And more poetic. Fun to speculate but we may never know. I do know we live in a space-time continuuom and cause and effect appear to be a vital part of it. Hard to imagine a universe rife with cause and effect that wasnt caused. Possible of course. Maybe it was frogs, or turtles all the way down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vivec Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 In order for something to be eternal, Time must exist. If time does not exist then "eternity" falls apart. In order to have "nothing" then the "something" must exist elsewhere. If there exists an elsewhere then space must exist. If space exists then this suggests the existence of two or more "somethings." If motion can only happen in relation to "something," then these "somethings" suggest to be moving in relation to other "somethings." It is widely believed that the dimensions are curved ever so slightly. I buy that and I believe the same for "time." What if "matter" is "nothing." What if the "matter" we perceive is really the separation of infinitely dense "everything." Division of an infinite system to create finite space infinitely. If "empty space" were actually "infinitely dense space" then this question is put to rest. "Something" doesn't come from "nothing," but rather the "nothing" is a division of "everything." Nassim Haramein did a flick called "The Black Hole," where he suggested this concept using some rather sound logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rahman Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 Does the black hole spots exist in the plants??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puppypower Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 In terms of something from nothing, consider this thought experiment. Say we have a wave tank, with two wave generators, one on either end of the tank. Each wave generator makes the same size waves, but 180 degrees out of phase. In the center of the tank, since the waves are 180 degrees of out phase, the crests from the left will overlap the troughs from the right and vice versa, causing the waves to cancel. We are adding energy and work to make all these waves, but there is silence in the center of the tank, due to wave addition; canceling. What we have, in the center of the tank, is an example of hidden energy, where wave energy is hidden due to the waves canceling. We can make this hidden energy reappear out of the stillness, if we add a partition in the center of the tank. The partition does not add energy per se, but serves to disrupt the wave addition so energy that was hidden appears out of the stillness. The partition is matter. Matter and energy work as a team to create help something from nothing. Matter cannot move at the speed of light, only energy can. If the entire universe was composed of waves at the C, but there was no matter to serve as partition, then the only reference that will exist will be at the speed of light, since there is nothing inertial; below C. There is stillness in inertial reference, since it does not yet exist; before time. The partition appears with a slow down from C; matter and anti-matter appear from energy. Then the hidden energy appears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkingAtoms Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 In a universe with 0 dimentions the speed of causality can be infinite. with infinite "time" anything can happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 In a universe with 0 dimentions the speed of causality can be infinite. with infinite "time" anything can happen In a universe with 0 dimensions, there can be no time or space. Therefore no universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkingAtoms Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 In a universe with 0 dimensions, there can be no time or space. Therefore no universe. There doesn't need to be unless you can show me a reason there dose have to be. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewcellini Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 There doesn't need to be unless you can show me a reason there dose have to be. because to have space and time means there are dimensions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkingAtoms Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 because to have space and time means there are dimensions... No i meant why dose there need to be space-time in the first place, from my understanding of Special relativity, Space-time only exist because the fact that dimensions exist, so why would you NEED space time at all. Wouldn't it just start when the universe went from 0 to 1 or more dimensions? Or are you stating that because in a 0 dimensional space with out space-time nothing could happen? In which case what is your view on how the universe started? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 No i meant why dose there need to be space-time in the first place, from my understanding of Special relativity, Space-time only exist because the fact that dimensions exist, so why would you NEED space time at all. Wouldn't it just start when the universe went from 0 to 1 or more dimensions? Or are you stating that because in a 0 dimensional space with out space-time nothing could happen? In which case what is your view on how the universe started? I don't really understand what you are saying. The universe exists it has four (space-time) dimensions, and always has had. There is no evidence that the universe "started" (and, even if it did, no evidence of how). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Strange is correct of course.Do you mean,why the universe has to be a space time continuum in the first place? Who says it had to be? It might just happen to be the way it is. Totally different methods,laws or variables might have been used or always been.We cant comprehend a universe like that.Philosophical realm I suppose? We are creatures of 4 space time dimensions and cant likely visualize otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 It is argued that only a universe with 3 spatial and one temporal dimension can be stable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle#Spacetime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkingAtoms Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) It is argued that only a universe with 3 spatial and one temporal dimension can be stable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle#Spacetime Thank you for this info I hadn't come across something like this, Please ignore previous statements. I don't really understand what you are saying. The universe exists it has four (space-time) dimensions, and always has had. There is no evidence that the universe "started" (and, even if it did, no evidence of how). Doesn't the CBR (Cosmic background radiation) show that the universe had to have some kind of start? Also what do you have to say to the "vanishing dimensions" concept that has been floating around Edited October 12, 2015 by ThinkingAtoms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Doesn't the CBR (Cosmic background radiation) show that the universe had to have some kind of start? It shows that the early universe was so dense that it was opaque. The CMB was released when it expanded and cooled enough for photons to be released. Also what do you have to say to the "vanishing dimensions" concept that has been floating around I am not familiar with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkingAtoms Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) In a nutshell it says that in a super high energy system, like lets say right after the "big bang", lower level dimensions would of been possible. even if for a small amount of time. This is how i got to the idea if we had a dimension of 0 with infinite energy that move into 1d of space and 1d of time, it would decay into a 3d universe. I am not familiar with it. Edited October 14, 2015 by ThinkingAtoms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 I haven't heard of this before. Do you have any references / links to more about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkingAtoms Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 (edited) I haven't heard of this before. Do you have any references / links to more about it? https://physics.aps.org/story/v27/st10 http://www.buffalo.edu/ubreporter/archive/2011_04_28/one_dimensional_universe It is hard to find to much about it that isn't behind pay walls. Edited October 15, 2015 by ThinkingAtoms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sorcerer Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) This books title is misleading, Krauss does not propose a universe from nothing, he refers to "primitive beginnings", which is not "nothing", I think nothing is a technical impossibility. The reason I say this is a technical impossibility is because dimensionlessness is just a crackpot concept. "Absolute nothing" implies lack of dimension so people need to be specific about the word nothing, by nothing you really mean "still something" Actually at zero dimensions a single point can still exist. I guess this is just a problem with our dimension nomenclature, maybe it should be pushed up 1. So anyway.... at -1 dimensions there can be nothing? That doesn't seem possible. Edited October 17, 2015 by Sorcerer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angushall19 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 It is possible that you can use spacetime as an almost artificial matter. You could probably even use the principles of warp by compressing space time to propell the spacecraft. This is real physics Nasa is working on and if spacetime is providing force there might be energy in it. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now