Isn't the 'something from nothing' notion wrong?

[Herms]

So something can come out of nothing... No space, no time. no matter and out of nothing a false vacuum can fluctuate into existence and turn into a cosmos.

 

Now, doesn't that mean that the concept of vacuum must exists for it to occur? In other words, doesn't that mean that something always exists, I mean if nothing existed, there is nothing, no possibility of a vacuum, no fluctuation, nada...

 

Or am I totally off?

[Phi for All]

So something can come out of nothing... No space, no time. no matter and out of nothing a false vacuum can fluctuate into existence and turn into a cosmos.

 

Now, doesn't that mean that the concept of vacuum must exists for it to occur? In other words, doesn't that mean that something always exists, I mean if nothing existed, there is nothing, no possibility of a vacuum, no fluctuation, nada...

 

Or am I totally off?

 

Are you talking about the Big Bang? It wasn't nothing, it was EVERYTHING, all in a very hot and dense state, that rapidly expanded (not exploded), causing the cosmological development we observe today.

[Strange]

So something can come out of nothing... No space, no time. no matter and out of nothing a false vacuum can fluctuate into existence and turn into a cosmos.

 

It is worth noting that a false vacuum is a positive energy state. So what is suggested is that that energy was released. However, there is no evidence for that hypothesis. And certainly not the "no space, no time" bit - if there were no space, then there was no space to have a false vacuum state in.

[J.C.MacSwell]

So something can come out of nothing... No space, no time. no matter and out of nothing a false vacuum can fluctuate into existence and turn into a cosmos.

 

Now, doesn't that mean that the concept of vacuum must exists for it to occur? In other words, doesn't that mean that something always exists, I mean if nothing existed, there is nothing, no possibility of a vacuum, no fluctuation, nada...

 

Or am I totally off?

I would have to agree that some potential for something had to exist…though I wonder if "exist" is meaningful with respect to that point in…ah…in... (fill in a new word here)

[pantheory]

I would have to agree that some potential for something had to exist…though I wonder if "exist" is meaningful with respect to that point in…ah…in... (fill in a new word here)

 

The False Vacuum, AKA the Zero Point Field, may have more energy within it than the rest of the universe combined. So it certainly wouldn't be correct to call it nothing.

 

Also the idea that a beginning potential of some kind "had to exist," certainly is a logical conclusion. Potential energy in physics is classified as a type of energy, so I see nothing wrong with using the word "exist" for potential energy, but I understand your thinking that another word might be better than the word "exist" to describe a beginning Potential Energy of the Universe.

Edited September 19, 2015 by pantheory

[Airbrush]

An apparent nothing can exist, but absolutely nothing does not exist, it has not existed, nor will it ever exist.

Edited September 20, 2015 by Airbrush

[puppypower]

Consider the hypothetical state, where space-time breaks down into separate time and separate space. As a visual analogy, picture the fabric of space-time being separated into separate threads of space and separate thread of time that are no longer woven together.

 

In this hypothetical situation, we can follow a time line (thread) without touching a space thread and vice versa. In this state, one can move in time without space limitations and/or one can move in space without time limitations. The latter allows us to be anywhere in the universe in zero time; omnipresent. The former or moving in time without space, allows us to can know the history of any point in the universe; omniscience.

 

In this hypothetical place, nothing we currently know can exist, since nothing can move in space without time and move in time without space. This place is void of substances known to man including energy since the speed of light is not applicable.

 

To form something, all we need a thread of time to intersect a thread of space, thereby placing limits on omnipresent and omniscience; unique point in space and time.