Something from Nothing

[austintorn@aol.com]

“Nature abhors a vacuum”
— Aristotle


“Absolute Nothing cannot be;
therefore there must be something”
— Austin

[Graybeard]

For thread purposes here I am going to give my value of 'Nothing'. Nothing has many philosophical and meta-physical interpretations .... None of which apply here !! Zero, or absence, or emptiness, are the values I am associating with Nothing !!

For the technical terms here I am plagiarising from the WIKI. If I state it right now I won't have to continually attribute the correct authors.

Fields: Fields are physical quantities that extend throughout the whole of space. A field has a physical reality. It occupies space. It contains energy, it transfers energy. Its presence eliminates a true vacuum. The vacuum is free of matter, but never free of field.
The field creates a 'condition in space'.

Force Fields: The Gravitational, the Electromagnetic, and the Strong and Weak Nuclear force fields. Each field has a messenger particle associated with it. ie: For the electromagnetic field you can think of it as notifying you of its presence by a photon entering your eye .... or a 'condensed wave ripple' entering your eye, and stimulating the retina. Messenger particles are field quanta, not little marbles.

Classical fields are usually used to describe Electromagnetism and Gravity. But if Quantum Mechanics underlies all physical phenomena, then all fields should be capable of being described by QM. In fact the EM field is 'quantised' in QM as Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED) and is the most successful theory, with predictions confirmed to a higher degree than any other theory ever.

The Gravitational field is the only field yet to be quantised. The other three are described by QM.

These then are the force fields.

Matter Fields: But there are also Matter fields. Matter fields are probability fields, space-filling fields that provide the probabilities of matter particles being in certain locations, because particles must also be considered as 'waves' or condensed ripples of the field.

Other Fields: There may be another type, a third type of field. Not experimentally tested. Yet ?? The Higg's field, a cold relic of inflation, that is responsible, or is believed to be responsible, for the 'attributes' of matter particles. This field is the field I am discussing, or at least a close relative of it, maybe even its ancestor.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The early universe was a very hot place, and fields are subject to temperature the same as matter is. Matter goes through phase transitions as temperature increases or decreases. For Water this would be Ice to Water to Steam. All matter undergoes phase transitions the same as water does.



Two things happen in a phase transition: there is a change in appearance, and a change in symmetry. As Ice changes to water, symmetry increases. As Water changes to Steam symmetry increases further. In the reverse action symmetry decreases. As symmertry decreases, overall Entropy increases.

Fields also undergo phase transitions as temperature increases or decreases. From a few moments after the Big Bang at 10^-35 seconds the temperature was at 10^28 degrees Kelvin. The universe has cooled from that moment to now, and its temperature has dropped from 10^28 degrees Kelvin to 2.7 Degrees Kelvin.

My contention is that prior to the BB, there existed a field of perfect symmetry.

Perfect symmetry could be described as a field with zero value and zero rate of change .... a vacuum, or an absence, or an emptiness. It could also be described as a Fundamental Substance in uniform linear motion (I think)

Perfect symmetry in such a field would imply that all matter (if matter existed) would have zero mass. This field underwent spontaneous symmetry breaking, initiated by QM uncertainty, which caused the universe to come into being and to commence cooling thru rapid expansion.
With symmetry broken, entropy increases, which gives an arrow to time ...... and after 13.7 billion years, here we are.

This explains the Horizon Problem in the standard cosmological model of the Big Bang. It explains the 'Flatness problem' without cosmological fine tuning, and it explains what 'initiated' the Big Bang

I have not explained the details of Inflation, just the overall summary.

cool bananas ... greg

[austintorn@aol.com]

I abhor vacuuming.
— Austin

"Hi, Austin," said Aristotle, "My universal rug is dirty and my vacuum sucks."

"Good. That's just what it is supposed to do."

"I got it at a dollar store. I mean that it really doesn't suck at all."

"Oh, then keep it if it's so great."

"At least Graybeard's vacuum was completely empty."

"Then of what use is it?"

[austintorn@aol.com]

Even the threat of Nothing happening caused a bunch of jiggles of something. This is true for females, too.

[analog]

I think you should elaborate on how your using 'uncertainty' as a mechanism to trigger a genesis type creation (e.g. "let there be light"). I see it more as a consequence or observation of nature myself.

The early universe was a very hot place, and fields are subject to temperature the same as matter is.

Perhaps, something to think about. What is temperature within a paradigm? What is it a measurement of? Are energy fields subject to temperature or is the measurement of temperature subject to the effects of energy fields on structured matter? Did the hot temperatures of the early Big Bang model get inferred due to the obvious thermodynamic work which was to come later as we look back, similar to our temporal gathering of the forces that move matter? The potential work appears to be after such an arrangement as the system becomes kinetic; thus if the provision for work is a dynamic of an energy closed system then the providers for doing the work must be followed against the arrow of time and entropy to an initial state. Thus, such a model as the Big Bang would possibly infer that the movers (energy) and that which is being moved (matter) are all in close proximity along with the space in which they will someday dance, which would traditionally implicate a very hot place and time. Ultimately, even the mercury within a thermometer is an analog measurement of the molecular state of its surrounding environment and their relative degrees of freedom.

Not to disagree with common interpretation, but absolute temperature within a matter/motion paradigm is also measured in degrees of freedom, whereby the initial state was absolute zero rather than the extremely hot condition of the big bang. Thus an absolute solid matter particle with 'zero' field energy due to the rigidity and uniformity of all resolutions would be the initial arrangement.

Relative to the entire volume of fundamental matter, our current state would have many more degrees of internal freedom as it would take many more variables to calculate its internal motions as a whole; thus it would also be considered a much 'hotter' state. Due to the implication of the bonding property, the potential to do work is in the opposite direction back towards the initial state when the system is closed. The potential for inflation is a consequence of the conservation of motion and its effect on such bonding when not uniform. Once in an initial state the system would be locked relative to its closed status. This would require the energy/mechanism required to cause our current state to be theoretically provided externally by an event/collision within the cosmos to our universe rather than by the thermodynamic entropy and such of the standard model; thus also establishing the arrow of time (i.e. order of causal events) within such a model. The system ultimately would be open in terms of gaining energy in the form of motion from other autonomous volumes upon impact, but closed once the energy exchange was worked out. This changes the entire game in terms of thermodynamics, entropy, energy, etc, and the initial state to which they point, IMHO.

One of the problems with implying that nature is analogous to such things as a paradigm of matter in motion is that it perhaps is possible to account for our universal mechanics and such, but they always must be traced back to an initial arrangement, whereby either a genesis event takes place; a mechanism must be presented to explain a cyclical existence where the end of entropy somehow triggers a new beginning of potential; some type of mechanics for a steady state must be established (which has its own obstacles to overcome); or a mirror to mirror effect is established by acknowledging our universe and cosmos as ever smaller scales to much larger interacting resolutions, whereby we can only see replicating interactions into infinity and eternity, thus cannot conclude where the end or beginning may lie. We would just appear to be somewhere between seemingly never ending events in all directions and the end of entropy for one resolution (which would normally be considered as a one-shot universe) would be offset by potential interactions to restart the process in the next larger resolution.

None are provable, but just as we must admit to material substance because of its obvious presence, the only one of these scenarios that we can honestly acknowledge the potential existence of is apparent interaction in all spatial and temporal directions from our position. The question is; does the concepts we've learned by studying the forces of our visible universe which allow us to trace existence back to a perceived initial state give us the authority to declare such to be the beginning of interactions in that specific temporal direction (i.e. the past) or is it merely our physical 'event horizon'?

Personally, I believe it's merely a type of 'event horizon' whereby we have no reason or proof to conclude that interactions ever cease in any direction, whether spatial or temporal, but that's just my opinion and it doesn't prevent me from considering other scenarios.

My thoughts for today.

later,

Tim

[labelwench]

None are provable, but just as we must admit to material substance because of its obvious presence, the only one of these scenarios that we can honestly acknowledge the potential existence of is apparent interaction in all spatial and temporal directions from our position. The question is; does the concepts we've learned by studying the forces of our visible universe which allow us to trace existence back to a perceived initial state give us the authority to declare such to be the beginning of interactions in that specific temporal direction (i.e. the past) or is it merely our physical 'event horizon'?
Personally, I believe it's merely a type of 'event horizon' whereby we have no reason or proof to conclude that interactions ever cease in any direction, whether spatial or temporal, but that's just my opinion and it doesn't prevent me from considering other scenarios.

My thoughts for today.

later,

Tim
__________________

You state your case clearly, as always, and you raise an interesting question.

It has been said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and with the penchant of our species to boldly rush in where angels fear to tread, such action is well documented. Not debating the existence of any entities by my use of a common turn of phrase, lol....

For all that we are able to measure anything with preciseness, there is always danger in extrapolation, as a very tiny error at any point in the process, will be magnified by the extension, leaving us worse off in the understanding than before our projection.

Yet, once in a while, the horse running the long odds makes it to the winners circle, so who am I to suggest you don't bet on the ponies?

Best regards,

Labelwench

[analog]

Just glad to see we're stirring some thoughts for you Labelwench. You seem to have a way with words. Though I've seen you state otherwise concerning your ability to decipher the jargon, you might just make an 'armchair scientist' yet. That's if the spirit squad around here doesn't distract you....lol.

later,

Tim

[labelwench]

Just glad to see we're stirring some thoughts for you Labelwench. You seem to have a way with words. Though I've seen you state otherwise concerning your ability to decipher the jargon, you might just make an 'armchair scientist' yet. That's if the spirit squad around here doesn't distract you....lol.

later,

Tim

Perhaps the "spirit squad", myth, and magic, are all but other attempts to explain and understand.

I have just lifted my posting from another thread, hoping that I have not broken too many rules in so doing, lol....

By exactly such an action do I suggest that human beings are able to absorb sunlight, and to a degree, other energy sources, to the effect that the mind can harness these forces and put the body into motion.

The body must be kept in good maintenance, as the biological part of our being can be pushed beyond sensible limit by our minds, if there is need or desire to do so. History is replete with examples of people accomplishing amazing feats.

We are surrounded by energy fields, many of which we utilize subconsciously. Learning to understand how these energy fields work and interact, with ourselves and each other is the challenge. When we solve this one, it wll be the great equalizer, as it is everywhere, available to everyone, and it shall be beyond industry and politics to control, unlike the nuclear power and fossil fuels of today.

Such is my optimistic forecast, if we don't shipwreck ourselves before the learning.....

__________________

Our biology is quite fascinating in it's ability to interact with those forces which science and mathematics is adamant in seeking the logical explanation behind. Bravo!

One inversely proportionate example that I have been pondering is the relationship of the size of seed to the complexity of the outcome.

Fairly large seeds, such as nasturium and radish, grow into quite simple plant forms. Tiny petunia and others evolve into flowers of far greater form and color.

Human and horse, complex beings whose fertilization or seeding take place at the microscopic level.....

Just one of many little observations that I find of interest.

I thank you for the compliment. Yet it is only because yourself and others take the time to find the words by which you state your understanding, that I and others may benefit.
Knowledge, meant to be shared, should ever be inclusive if we seek to unite in the face of challenge. To yourself, graybeard, and many others, do I return the compliment, and appreciation for this forum of learning, which one from the north might otherwise not have access to.

As for distractions?

'I bet my money on a bob-tail nag, somebody bet on the bay..."

The middle path, always,....lol.....after all, life is a high-stakes game!

Best regards,

Labelwench

[austintorn@aol.com]

The TOE is Causeless, Thus That is the TOE

From Nothing to Eternity

Our reasoning has led us to the answer of the origin of things, via what had to be ruled out:

There cannot be endless causes beneath causes; therefore, intuitive or not, something like the quantum doings are totally causeless, just as we observe that realm to be.

Cause is only of our realm. It is only human to think of more and more cause, ever deeper. It is also human to just abandon this firm notion of cause and declare the existence of the most supreme Life that there ever could be, God, suddenly loving the notion of the causeless that was just previously so unacceptable.

Anyway, these causeless doings like the quantum’s are the potential that was always around. Since the potential is an undefined chaos, there is no problem having it having always been around with no initial definition, since it doesn’t have any. Generally, real things themselves come and go back to this potential, but a lot remain outside as real and are rather enduring as our universe.

So, this potential is as simple as it gets, next to Nothing, of course. This potential has no mind, for that cannot be constituted out of more fundamentals, because there aren’t any, for the potential is the ultimate basis.

Now, most simple things combine and/or go through phase changes, leading to more complex composites or forms. Nothing, not existing, and not being able to, but threatening to, is the simplest state of all, so, it must jiggle about. You might say that is why there had to be the potential for things; otherwise… Nothing. And it would still be ‘here’.

We have perhaps reached the end—the TOE. Is it satisfying? Yes, in the sense that we, looking back, always observe ever descending simplicity in the ever efficient Nature. We didn’t really expect to find some ultimate complexity sitting around there at the simplest point. We are free to be.

The causeless, although it must be, is also the state that is that is really the most ‘magical’, for anything can become of it.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Graybeard, searching for Nothing, in particular.

(Will he be re-tiring this boat soon?)