Something from Nothing

[melanie]

Little wrinkles on the tiny sweetpea at the beginning made much ado about 'nothing' by swelling and magnifying through inflation into some really huge ripply believe it or not massive stuff.

[Graybeard]

....... particles/waves display uncertainty. This is the only fact we know.

As an armchair scientist you know as well as I that this is our only empirical evidence that matches experiment, and therefore the only conclusion we are allowed to draw.

Tim ... I'm taking it that we have agreement on this ?

....I'm not arguing that the events during a measurement aren't as Heisenberg suggests, as I'm not arguing with any currently accepted theories or observations.

I accept that we are both making interpretations, and we needn't argue about current theories or observations.

My argument is with the interpretations often taken from such theories, calculations, observations, etc.

Lets explore them ?? We have nothing else to do, apart from our jobs ... and keeping the other half distracted for long enough to get a post in .... lol

Also, I don't agree that this thread is related to 'time and relativity', this comes after the Big Bang.

I think we both agree on the general explanation of the Big Bang. And I'm quite happy to accept it as leading to our current universe.

The problem, or multiple problems, with the BB are:

It can't explain the Horizon Problem ......

..... the uniformity of the CMBR. And yet because of the 'BANG' in the BB, and because it BANGED so quickly, there should be no uniformity !! COBE measurements shows that causality, or isotrophy, or uniformity, is too 'accidental' to ignore. This suggests we need another explanation.

It can't explain the 'Flatness' problem of space ......

..... Imagine a Sniper shooting for a target the size of a pea over 2 klms away. A millionth of a degree off target and, by the time the bullet arrives it will be nowhere near the pea.

The Big Bang randomly fired a bullet that has been travelling for 14 billion light years, and yet it is still averaging on target. The initial critical density of the universe would have had to be so finely tuned that the degree of error is unimaginable.

You could say, 'Its so, because it's so', or, thats just the way it worked out'. This suggests we need another explanation.

It can't explain what caused the BANG ...

It can't explain the initial Low Entropy ...

It can't explain the Arrow of Time .....

Some of us are simply of the opinion, that when not focusing on one strict discipline, but rather taking into account all of the current accepted theories and methodologies, a fundamental paradigm is suggested whereby seemingly, and currently considered to be, conflicting concepts such as QM and Relativity can find common ground by merely establishing the physical mechanics of the wave nature of matter and its ability to form structures and fields and interact by means of those structures and fields.

My belief is that the Big Bang is a very good explanation, if it can be shown how the initial conditions were so finely tuned as to allow it to occur.

Inflationary Cosmology, explains those critical conditions in those first few moments of a whisper of a nanosecond ... and how they formed, how they apparently were so well balanced, so finely mixed in the exact receipe. And points to a irrational idea that it all may have come from nothing.

Your interpretation does not ???

Your turn to bring your interpretation into line with the BB old buddy.... ??

cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

RIP Rest in presence.

Now that the Drift is not around, am I still in with a chance babe ??

(Sadly missed, I hope all is well with him)

cool bananas ... greg

[austintorn@aol.com]

be nowhere near the pea

We'll leave you in peas, now, as Mel and I have a date in a pea pod. Since we are everywhere, we are already together. We just have to give a nod in the pod.


may have come from nothing

How about a near nothing, which I call 'nothing', due to quantum uncertainty?

[Graybeard]

How about a near nothing, which I call 'nothing', due to quantum uncertainty?

As Tim says, this may be a good interpretation.

But a near nothing, is still something and has to be explained ... where it came from.

Tho we may both have the same idea, my 'nothing' matches the mathematical description of nothing. And it does not have to come from anywhere.

Can quantum fluctuation occur in/on nothing ? or only on 'near nothing' ?

My argument that, as 'nothing' can be described as a field then QM applies. I know of no method of describing a vacuum that does not also require a field ? (not a near vacuum)

cool bananas ... greg

[austintorn@aol.com]

And it does not have to come from anywhere.

Yes, and I'll be showing that eventually in the 'S vs G' thread, that is, no cause is needed. This will for sure leave out any Designer.

Seems like we have been having the same thoughts at the same time again lately.

That proves, well, nothing, but someone will think of how it proves that all is connected in the continuum, but that's like remembering all the times that you 'knew' that a particular someone was ringing your phone, but forgot the hundreds of times it didn't turn out that way.

However, Mel somewhat agrees more with us now. Hmmmm. We stole both her heart and her mind.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Absolute Nothing or a near ‘nothing’?

Or both?

Anyone, how do we reconcile that an absolute Nothing could never make anything versus the fact of there being something existing, along with the impossibility of this something obviously ‘defined’, but having been around forever, which certainly implies no possible defining moment of definition, plus, to continue, that an absolute Nothing is not just sitting around ready to be used in a ‘space’, such as when we remove everything from a cabinet (and forget about the cabinet even) ready to do and make something—because Nothing is not even there at all in any ‘where’, being as it cannot be, which is even also its very definition, which means, then, that it can have no power since it doesn’t even have being.

How do we get to having something, since it is here, assuming, again, that there can be no completed ‘forever here’ possible, as again by the very definition of the word?

Thus, the problem is that the near ‘nothing’ of the quantum realm must still be a kind of ‘thing’, yet an absolute Nothing cannot be a ‘thing’, it not even existing.

How did the twain of reality ever become, such as our universe?

Is it, somehow, though, that precisely since Nothing can’t be, having no properties at all, that some kind of possibility—the near ’nothing’—had to be, ‘half’ existing as the possibility itself inherent in the quantum realm— that necessarily lawless, formless realm of near ‘nothing’ that has only the potential to make our regular happenings, at random times, of course, that is, along with, naturally, the inseparable accompanying nature of laws and form?

Could it be that an absolute Nothing so impossible and is therefore so totally ‘unstable’ that there then must be the jitterbugging, fluctuating near ‘nothing’ possibility and potential of the quantum realm, which again is also less unstable but enough so that it must emit elementary real somethings as events, although necessarily doing so with no rhyme or reason—since it cannot have mind (which is not elementary at all, since that would have to be complexly composite)?

Now, we do, of course, know that the quantum ‘vacuum’ actually does ‘exist’ and does fluctuate and emit and act randomly, but why did it have to be that way and how did that come about?

It’s even a problem here in this post making the sentences make some sense semantically and syntactically somewhat, too. Maybe someone could rephrase the post.

[analog]

Hi GB,

My analogy to the time and relativity thread wasn't to imply the subject matter was the same, as I know where it is divided, but rather the underlying scenario of QM is similar to Relativity in terms of our instruments dictating reality, which is the only reality we can believe in.

Observing our instruments in various inertial and gravitational reference frames tells us of a story of the interrelation of space and time as clocks change frequency and rulers contract. Similarly, observing how we apply those same instruments in various forms to determining the properties of our surroundings, and a tale of uncertainty and probability emerges as we try and fail to determine with any precision the complete parameters of a system.

It would seem that we have exhausted the dynamics of measuring from all angles and are left with the seemingly conflicting mental paradigms suggested from each discipline. A temporal texture of curved and warped space vs. a chaotic field of zero-point energies with emerging and annihilating structures. It's no wonder science hasn't recognized a true ToE.....lol.....we can't see it because our scientific foot is kicking us in our intellectual ass ....rotflmao.

Your interpretation does not ???

Is this a question or a statement (sometimes I can't interpret how you use question marks...lol), and I assume it is addressing the all coming from nothing part of your previous statement?

If so and either way, no I don't believe in nothing as a state of existence as quantum vacuums are indeed something whether we set their fluctuating zero-point energy values to an arbitrary zero or not....there's still something there, and in my views it's merely a less dense more randomly moving version of the same stuff which forms everything else. Thus, the energy state of the inflaton field would have to be a non-zero value from my views, as a possibility for it to have a zero value is only theoretical to my knowledge even by conventional science. I don't think my views require even a model of such a field either though as the mechanisms for expansion and such are built in through the conservation of motion and momentum.

Your turn to bring your interpretation into line with the BB old buddy.... ??

O'tay Buckwheat. (Little Rascals humor)

Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[23] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly not earlier than the Planck epoch. The early hot, dense phase is itself referred to as "the Big Bang",[notes 2] and is considered the "birth" of our universe.

Take the condensing geometry of the space-time matrices from their current configuration to where they approach the initial state and relate it to a manifold representing the distribution of quantized motion within a material aether from its current random state reaching back to an absolute uniform configuration (i.e. one degree of freedom). The density of the entire volume (i.e. universe) will increase accordingly to a maximum value along with the re-convergence of forces to a seemingly unified singular super force (as some interpretations theorize) merely due to forces being our recognition of the resolution at which matter is moving; thus the increasing uniformity establishing ever larger scales of uniform motion alters the dynamics of contrasting and varying resolutions which give rise to forces which act only at certain distances. The entire volume basically reassembles to a time when it linearly moved as a whole with a much smaller diameter rather than its current state of exhibiting areas of conflict and chaos and the expansion which conservatively comes along with such.

The combined strength of bonding and absolute motion at such a stage allowing for maximum rigidity could possibly only be broken by an initial collision with another such volume. Thus, the dynamics and parameters of a classical event may be all that's needed to explain our current cosmology (i.e. conservation of energy and momentum in the form of establishing/DETERMINING velocity and direction as motion internally changes states to account for such vector forces). Such scenarios happen at quantum resolutions each and everyday, IMHO. Thus, we've given quantum mechanics for Newton's macro world events. Perhaps, the sum of the Quantum Mechanics of a system is how Classical Mechanics are so deterministic. A Classical event is calculated Quantumly to the smallest scale needed to complete the algorithm. Is anyone still with me? Rotflmao.

later,

Tim

[Graybeard]

Your interpretation does not ???

Is this a question or a statement (sometimes I can't interpret how you use question marks...lol), and I assume it is addressing the all coming from nothing part of your previous statement?

Inflationary Cosmology is a quantum explanation, not general relativity. By 'yours' I meant, how do you explain the BBang, because relativity cannot explain the problems.

still reading the rest

greg

[Graybeard]

Take the condensing geometry of the space-time matrices from their current configuration to where they approach the initial state and relate it to a manifold representing the distribution of quantized motion within a material aether from its current random state reaching back to an absolute uniform configuration (i.e. one degree of freedom).

I'm unsure what you mean by 1-degree of freedom ? I'm taking it that the above means that you are describing the universe as we go back towards an initial state, the singularity ??

The density of the entire volume (i.e. universe) will increase accordingly to a maximum value along with the re-convergence of forces to a seemingly unified singular super force (as some interpretations theorize) merely due to forces being our recognition of the resolution at which matter is moving; thus the increasing uniformity establishing ever larger scales of uniform motion alters the dynamics of contrasting and varying resolutions which give rise to forces which act only at certain distances.

ummmm ... As we approach the singularity, the forces reunite into a single force, creating uniformity, removing contrast. In this way the singularity can be seen as a 'nothing'. or a simplistic something ?

Is that a fair interpretation ?

The entire volume basically reassembles to a time when it linearly moved as a whole with a much smaller diameter rather than its current state of exhibiting areas of conflict and chaos and the expansion which conservatively comes along with such.

Same as above, but a bit more detail ?

The combined strength of bonding and absolute motion at such a stage allowing for maximum rigidity could possibly only be broken by an initial collision with another such volume. Thus, the dynamics and parameters of a classical event may be all that's needed to explain our current cosmology (i.e. conservation of energy and momentum in the form of establishing/DETERMINING velocity and direction as motion internally changes states to account for such vector forces). Such scenarios happen at quantum resolutions each and everyday, IMHO. Thus, we've given quantum mechanics for Newton's macro world events. Perhaps, the sum of the Quantum Mechanics of a system is how Classical Mechanics are so deterministic. A Classical event is calculated Quantumly to the smallest scale needed to complete the algorithm.

Is anyone still with me? Rotflmao.

Not exactly on this last para ??

To make it a bit simpler lets view it like this:

The Expanding Universe today is explained by the Big Bang.
The Big Bang can only explain so far back ... and then it fails. The Big bang cannot explain the BANG!!

QM explains the BANG by saying the BANG was not the creation of the universe, but an event that happened in a Universe that was already in existence. It does this with inflationary cosmology.

Inflationary cosmology cannot explain the creation of the Universe.

So we have:

Expanding Universe ----> Big Bang ------> Inflation -----> Unknown

Because inflation is described by QM, and because Inflation goes back further than the Big Bang (it picks up the relay baton from the BB)..... then ...... If you don't accept QM, you are back at the BB.

How do you explain the problems associated with the BB ?

Flatness, Isotrophy, fine tuning, etc. If your last paragraph is about this, then I didn't get it. Do you have a theory that addresses these problems ? Or does your theory circumvent these problems along with the Big Bang ??

genuinely confused .... greg

PS: Tim, I realise that I have not yet explained Inflation in its mechanics. But this is detail we can do later.