Something from nothing?

[Guest rght of cntr]

Hi, I'm involved in another forum and someone has speculated on how something can come from nothing. It's a bit over my head, but I get the gist of it. I wanted to see what others think of it. It involves physics, so that's why i'm posting here. Here it is:

 

If the origins of the universe did not follow physical law, there

isn't much we'll ever be able to say about it based on facts

and logic - it will remain a matter of opinion. But what if

the origins of our universe did follow natural law and logic?

If so, we may eventually be able to figure this out. So,

what known physical laws (if any) would the origin of our

universe from nothing violate? As far as I can tell: none.

 

The physical laws that theists usually claim are violated by

the universe just popping into existance are usually the

laws of thermodynamics. (Sorry, but 'nothing can't produce

something' is not a physical law, it is a speculation by some

people with little or no basis in physics.) Does the origin

of the universe actually violate any of thermodynamics?

 

Well, the '0th Law' (If T1 = T2 and T2 = T3 then T1=T3)

is basically trivial (it's really just the transitive property from

mathematics), and I don't see any way it could be violated.

 

The '1st Law' (conservation of energy) is often quoted as

being violated by 'the universe from nothing', but that no

longer seems to be the case: Scientists have found that

the total energy of the universe seems to be zero. (There

are positive and negative energy terms, not just positive

ones, and they seem to cancel out to zero.) If the energy

of nothing is zero (which seems likely ), and the energy

of the universe is zero (which also seems likely), then

the universe coming from nothing would result in no energy

change ... thus, no violation of the 1st law.

 

So, on to the second law (and here's the speculation)

 

The second law is where things get really interesting (and

speculative). The second law basically states that if

the entropy of the universe would decrease during a process,

the process cannot occur. (If the entropy of the universe

would be constant, the process is reversible if it can occur

at all, and if the entropy of the universe would increase,

the process is spontaneous if it can occur at all.) So,

would entropy decrease, stay constant, or decrease if

something came from nothing? Unfortunately, the entropy

of nothing is undefined. Entropy is related to the number

of possible arrangements of particles (N) by an Ln N term

times a constant. For instance, if there is only 1 way to

arrange the particles under a given set of conditions,

the entropy is the constant times Ln 1 = 0, which occurs

at a temperature of zero Kelvin (that is the third law of

thermodynamics: entropy of a substance = 0 at absolute

zero). How many ways are there to arrange zero particles

(nothing)? Zero, and Ln 0 is undefined ... Which makes

determining whether something from nothing violates the

second law basically impossible.

 

Now, here's the speculation: Many undefined quantities

can be defined by setting their value at the discontinuity

based on their limit as they approach the discontinuity.

For instance, (sin 0)/0 is undefined, but the limit of

(sin x)/x as x --> 0 is 1, so the discontinuity can be 'plugged'

by just setting (sin 0)/0 = 1; this makes the altered function

continuous. Mathematicians have found many uses for

finding the limits as you approach a discontinuity. The

limit of Ln x as x --> 0 is negative infinity (itself an

undefined quantity). If the entropy of nothingness is

indeed negative infinity, what would this mean?

 

Well, the entropy of even a completely ordered universe

(minimum entropy) is 0 (and then it increases from there).

Negative infinity to 0 is an increase in entropy, and

thus not forbidden by the second law; indeed, it would

be spontaneous (occur on its own) if it is possible at all.

As a general rule of thumb, the greater the increase in

entropy of the universe, the 'more spontaneous' the

process (the more likely to go forward). An increase from

negative infinity to zero would be an infinite increase

in entropy, and thus ... infinitely spontaneous?

 

By this speculation, we would conclude that the second

law not only allows the occurance of something from

nothing, it might even make it inevitable: nothing may

be unstable, spontaneously becoming something. Nature

would really, truly, completely abhore a vacuum.

 

If all this were true, we would expect that nothingness

would never be observable - if we got a situation close

to nothingness, something should spontaneously pop

into existance (with a total energy of zero, of course, so

as to not violate the 1st law). Emptiness is not truly

possible, it would spontaneously fill itself with ... virtual

particles, anyone? ... if there is any mechanism to do so.

 

All that last part is speculation, but I found it amusing:

rather than violating natural law, the spontaneous creation

of something from nothing might be an inevitable

consequence of natural law - rather than impossible,

unavoidable!

[Guest rght of cntr]

In my opinion, he's making a category mistake. He's treating nothing as if it is something. Especially when he says that "nothing may be unstable." Also, how can nothing be subject to the laws of physics?

[5614]

Yeah, it is an unusual point of view.

 

It's almost logical with a totaly flawed senseless base!

 

I kinda agree with your 2nd post.

[ed84c]

Especially when he says that "nothing may be unstable."

 

Heisenberg Uncertanty Pricipile.

 

This postulates that (in around about way) we have energy fluctations of posative energy and negative energy on a micro scale. This does not affect the macro scale, unless you have a black hole inwhich case you have Posative energy photons and negative energy photons.

 

So really you dont GET something from nothing, you get SOMETHING and the OPPOSITE which cancels it out.

[ed84c]

How many ways are there to arrange zero particles

(nothing)? Zero' date=' and Ln 0 is undefined ... Which makes

determining whether something from nothing violates the

second law basically impossible.

[/quote']

 

To me this appears to be another one of those things where some clever matemataical appears to have reprocussions, but just doesnt, like 0.9999= 1 etc.

 

In my opinion here what you have done is start fiddling around with 0 and come across a strange phenominan. This tends to happen a lot and mathematics cannot ALWAYS explain a situation where a 0 is involved.

 

In my thinking having 0 particles, means it is impossible for any of those particles to have positions, never mind start working out the possible microstates, or finding a logartithm for its entropy.

[1veedo]

.999.......... does in fact = 1. They are completely replaceable.

---------

 

I did not read the italics in the OP, but "nothing is unstable" is a standard principle in the realms of quantum cosmology and other sortof quasy-physics dealing w/ the "something from nothing." I have read a lot on this subject but cant say that I'm an expert. I understand more then I can actually communicate in words. The one thing that people seem to not be able to get is this:

 

Something cannot come from nothing!

 

But when you actually take a look at what nothing really is (nothing), then you begin to understand how it's possible. Nothing has no time, energy, space, laws, nor principles. Just noting. But "Something cannot come from nothing" is indeed a property that you're trying to apply to it. So therefore nothing is unrestricted. There is an infinite probability range: including nothing. Everything has an equal chance to exist. Because in fact, nothing cannot exist.

 

Nothing is a subset of any and every set. Everything is also (partially) nothing.

 

But lets get back to "no properties" can be applied to nothing. One cannot say that "X will result of nothing" in the same way that one cannot say "Z will fluctuate," "nothing will happen and will remain nothing," and "a + b will emerge as an imaginary particle-like relation."

 

This is why I believe the universe is governed by quantum mechanics. The very idea of nothing along w/ some anthropic observations almost guarantee that the highest probability will indeed be a universe governed by probability. It's really not that difficult of a concept to understand.

 

I'm not going to rant, but here is a link to what I personally think about this:

http://1veedo.homelinux.com/index.php?1veedo=blog&&blog=2&&t=1

 

However, this is a bit more "in depth;" if you don't know what the implications of a + b = 0 are, then you may want to read this before the article:

 

In algibra you do a number of things to dimonstrate that something can coem from nothing and that indeed everything is nothing. Factor this

xx + 2x + 1 = 0

(x + 1)^2 = 0

xx + x + x + 1 = 0

xx + 2x + 1 = 0

 

What happened? Did you notice that we created some values?

 

a + b = 0 We could be looking at a and b when in fact they sum to 0.

0

55 = 55

55 - 55 =0. Do you see where I'm going?

 

Just think about it. I'll be around to clarify some of this.