Something from Nothing

[Graybeard]

I carried this over from the 'Time & Relativity' thread as I was getting off track.

To be totally honest and upfront, I have changed my mind on the impossibility of 'something from nothing' scenario. But its only ideas at the moment.

UHHH-OHHH.....does this mean you'll be born again soon too?

No ... but it does mean that I am considering Kenosis, a greek theological term : Kenosis is a Greek word for emptiness, which is used as for example Philippians 2:7, "Jesus made himself nothing (κένωσε ekénōse) ..." or "...he emptied himself..."

However, you will find no theology in this post ..... lol ... rest easy

Recently I have been doing my best, with a very small brain, trying to understand Inflationary Cosmology. It took a very long time before Astronomers realised that by examining very small things (particles) it would aid in their examination of the very large (galaxies, etc) Now it appears, that the reverse is also true. Inflationary Cosmology appears to answer many of the problems that Science is burdened with in the Quantum domain. In fact, Inflation is more allied to Quantum Mechanics than it is to Classical.

In short, the Big Bang suffers from many deficiencies, Inflation solves these deficiencies ... and in particular, Chaotic Inflation has become the one I feel actually describes the Universe best, provisionally ... lol. Please note that I do not agree or disagree with the WIKI version of Chaotic Inflation, nor with multi-verses, etc .... perhaps they have merit ... but I am only interested in how Chaotic inflation describes our Universe.

I am indebted to another ToeQuest forum member Michael Turner for his help in describing Gravity as the source of energy for cosmic evolution. Tho I may not be using it in the same way that he does ?

• Spacetime is the overall emission and unification of each and all gravitational fields as they blend and synchronize to align all of known space along a single synchronizing field in which each piece of matter and energy is contributing to non-locally and yet still in control locally. The nature of gravity is both local and non local alignment of gravitational fields as they continuously emit and synchronize. ... Michael Turner

In any case, I have found that Inflation explains everything (?) down to the initial fundamental substance. And, if you can accept it, this FS would only need to 'weigh' a few kilograms, or in one of Andrew Linde's versions of chaotic inflation, it would only need to weigh the same as a grain of dust (10^-5 grams, diameter 10^-33 cm) .... as for all the rest, as Michael says, it just feeds off Gravity ... This Russian, Linde, does not seem to be as well known as he should be ... a pretty remarkable guy.

Anyway, these are my views. At this point inflationary cosmology stops, or does it. What came before ? Can something come from nothing.

Well, I'm starting to think that something can come from nothing. Science, and in particular Classical, would describe 'nothing' as a field. Prior to QM, scientists believed that a complete description of physical reality could be given by specifying the position and velocity of every atom of matter that makes up the universe, (you reading this Tim .. lol) with the introduction of the 'field' concept, they too were given the same treatment, that is, fields were given a value and a rate of change of that value.

And here I am indebted to Tim (Analog) for an excellent classical description of a 'nothing' field ...

The initial state would have a zero-value relative to itself, but it would be in a state of great potential in response to the magnitude of an external event, of which it would have to work out the vector forces of such an event, whereby establishing such things as direction and speed. The importance of such concepts are overlooked, but within the realm which establishes the rules of existence such common concepts must find their fundamental mechanics at the absolute scale. A classical event exhibits many parameters which need defining when building a world from scratch.

But Tim also says that measuring this 'nothing' field is too abstract, as all measurments would need to be conducted externally (to the universe ?)

Nothing to measure nor measure with while in this state as all abstract forms and the asymmetrical state which provided for them is no longer around. All reference frames thus become external.

But Quantum mechanics can measure it, and QM also recognises it as a field !

A Field with a zero value. A nothing field. According to Heisenberg this cannot be known with certainty. Or at least it value and its rate-of-change of that value can only be determined to a level of accuracy where their combined uncertainty is greater than Planck's constant.

This means, the way I see it, that just as a particle cannot have a definite position and a definite velocity, so a field cannot have a definite value and a definite rate of change. Further ... The more definite the fields value, the more uncertain the rate of change.

So my question is this:

Why can't a field with a value of Zero, have a wildly fluctuating rate of change ? If you measure its value here at this moment as zero, in the time it takes a nano-second to fart its change could be dramatic, and given fair odds, it could hang momentarily. I don't really want to get involved here in the shapes of energy bowls, etc.

If this question is fair ... then the field of 'nothing' (classical: zero value, zero rate of change) a whisper of a moment after it was measured at zero, could have risen to a value, in only a tiny volume of 'space' as to be picked up by Inflation Cosmology and carried off into a Universe.

A Something from Nothing ??

Whew ..... did I explain that so everyone understood ?? And does anyone have an answer ??

cool bananas ... greg

[austintorn@aol.com]

See Jack's 'Dynamic Matter' theory, as it says how very small everything used to be.

[analog]

HMMMM.....I think we should align our terminology and paradigms first before we get too far off into this one...lol.

First some questions and answers:

Are we speaking strictly in terms of materialism (i.e. all things within our universe including perceived 'space' formed of a single volume of fundamental material substance) definable in terms of varying degrees of densities and their arrangement?

If so, then perhaps we should just forget the terminology we so often use, which can lead to confusion, and discuss the dynamics we view such a substance going through.

Do I believe that its entire volume used to be contained within much less rigid spatial dimensions? Yes, but perhaps not a conventional singularity.

Do I believe that non-local spatial dimensions are expanding between galaxies? Yes, I believe the universe has a non-local expansion dynamic (a.k.a. inflation).

Do I believe there is an opposite dynamic locally within galaxies? Yes, I think such a dynamic would be a local contraction within galaxies and solar systems which explains why they aren't internally spatially separating by the same rates as they are externally separating relative to other galaxies and such (a.k.a. gravity).

If viewed from a materialist perspective then perhaps we can simplify the discussion by merely recognizing an outward dynamic, an inward dynamic, and if neglecting any angular dynamic which would allow for stabilization of the other two opposing dynamics, there would merely be a linear dynamic of universally internal autonomous volumes which had a degree of stability from inward and outward, whereby they could change position relative to each other. IN, OUT, and seemingly undecided thus allowing for forward, backward, up, down, left and right relative to each other...lol. All volumes no matter the resolution whether micro or macro could plausibly be explained in these terms (a.k.a. forces).

If we go from there, then we could get to the questions pertaining to such concepts.

Do I believe there was a 'nothing' state where no volume of this FS existed, whereby a true 'nothing' state would have been, thus having to explain the emergence of a volume into existence? No...I think an abstract amount is eternal. We can work out the details on the 'abstract amount' part later....lol...but some was always here.

Do I believe there was/is an arrangement of such a volume whereby it doesn't internally display inward, outward, left, right, up, down, forward or backward dynamics amongst/within itself? Yes...this would be an internal symmetrical zero energy state (a.k.a. initial state), but for conservation reasons all 'energy' is conserved to one degree of freedom absolute uniform forward linear motion of the entire volume definable by a velocity, whereby avoiding a true something from nothing. The kinetic 'energy' behind internal creation is conserved into its absolute potential 'energy' state relative to itself and its ability to emerge and evolve internal structure and volume, yet it is in a full kinetic 'energy' state as it travels through a hypothetical external void or possibly even less dense medium relative to any other autonomous volume it may encounter and interact with.

Let's see where this goes before we continue...lol. I don't want to get our paradigms and terminology crossed, and I also think we can simplify the dynamics we're discussing if we are speaking strictly materialistically.

later,

Tim

[austintorn@aol.com]

Graybeard (it's really him) designing something from nothing.

[melanie]

The Tao is a void.
Used but never filled.
An abyss, it is like an ancestor
from which all things come.

Tao Te Ching


This familiar symbol for Sunyata was made with a single brush stroke by the old zen master Shibayama.
It represents a perfect circle, perfection, that is, within the limitations of the always imperfect material world.
It conveys the sense of some-thing emanating from no-thing-ness.
It represents the vagina, the gateway of birth into manifestation, and also the first moment of the creation of the universe,
the big bang, when every thing emerged from the unformed vacuum point.
Female precedes male in manifestation just as the x-chromosome precedes the formation of the male y-chromosome in genetic conception.


I THE LAW OF NOTHINGNESS
http://www.fmbr.org/cosmiclaw/1nothingness.htm
IAM Nothing
IAM Everything

ONE I

[analog]

Hey GB,

But Quantum mechanics can measure it, and QM also recognises it as a field !

A Field with a zero value. A nothing field.......

........Why can't a field with a value of Zero, have a wildly fluctuating rate of change ? If you measure its value here at this moment as zero....

I also need some clarification. I have a small brain also...lol. Speaking in common terminology, the zero-point field of quantum field theory is the lowest energy state (i.e. ground state) of a field which is non zero. This means that even when at absolute zero a quantum/atomic system still exhibits a measurable energy level as seen with the residual energy of oscillators first suggested by Einstein and Stern, and further suggested by the Casimir effect. Thus, even the vacuum of space has a measurable amount of residual energy to do work in terms of residual electromagnetic radiation along with suggested zero-point energies of the weak and strong forces.

Conventionally, this implies to me the non-existence of a 'nothing field', whereby we seemingly can't find a void in which something isn't happening at some scale or resolution due to detectable amounts of energy.

Personally, and as suggested before, I do believe that quantum fluctuations and kinetic energy of all forms ceases within a closed autonomous system at true absolute zero, but I would agree with Dave's implication that this is the temperature equivalent of one degree of freedom of linear motion; whereby it demands the uniformity of the entire system, whereby the motions of structured matter become uniform; thus no detectable energy fields due to energy and fields being the byproduct of matter in motion. Motion is where matter is and fields, along with the residual energy they exhibit, only exist where matter in motion is. To my understanding, the more chaotic the interference within the motions of the aether, the greater the zero-point value of a presumed 'vacuum' would theoretically be.

Perhaps Dave will start hanging around us again and share some much needed insight. Our conversations seem a bit untraditional with just you and I......lol.

later,

Tim

[Graybeard]

The Dimetrodon is a nice touch Austin ... lol

Hi Mel ... I like the circle. I think I have a more 'material' nothing in mind, a vacuum, or a empty field.

Are we speaking strictly in terms of materialism (i.e. all things within our universe including perceived 'space' formed of a single volume of fundamental material substance) definable in terms of varying degrees of densities and their arrangement?

Yes !

If so, then perhaps we should just forget the terminology we so often use, which can lead to confusion, and discuss the dynamics we view such a substance going through.

Yes !

Do I believe that its entire volume used to be contained within much less rigid spatial dimensions? Yes, but perhaps not a conventional singularity.

Hmmm ... how do you describe a conventional singularity ?

Do I believe that non-local spatial dimensions are expanding between galaxies? Yes, I believe the universe has a non-local expansion dynamic (a.k.a. inflation).

I'm not sure how you mean non-local, but however, I do agree that space is expanding, and that it is the result of inflation.

Do I believe there is an opposite dynamic locally within galaxies? Yes, I think such a dynamic would be a local contraction within galaxies and solar systems which explains why they aren't internally spatially separating by the same rates as they are externally separating relative to other galaxies and such (a.k.a. gravity).

I believe the 2 opposing forces are gravity and inflation. Where gravity is the stronger, but weakens with distance, inflation increases with distance, so ultimately, inflation wins ?

If viewed from a materialist perspective then perhaps we can simplify the discussion by merely recognizing an outward ..... If we go from there, then we could get to the questions pertaining to such concepts.

Yes .... we can clarify as we go.

I also need some clarification. I have a small brain also...lol. Speaking in common terminology, the zero-point field of quantum field theory is the lowest energy state (i.e. ground state) of a field which is non zero. This means that even when at absolute zero a quantum/atomic system still exhibits a measurable energy level as seen with the residual energy of oscillators first suggested by Einstein and Stern, and further suggested by the Casimir effect. Thus, even the vacuum of space has a measurable amount of residual energy to do work in terms of residual electromagnetic radiation along with suggested zero-point energies of the weak and strong forces.

This is the part I want to talk about, after this inflation takes over, evolution, life

Conventionally, this implies to me the non-existence of a 'nothing field',

You'll need to do better than that old buddy ... lol. I can see that we will need to discuss this part.

Personally, and as suggested before, I do believe that quantum fluctuations and kinetic energy of all forms ceases within a closed autonomous system at true absolute zero, but I would agree with Dave's implication that this is the temperature equivalent of one degree of freedom of linear motion; whereby it demands the uniformity of the entire system, whereby the motions of structured matter become uniform; thus no detectable energy fields due to energy and fields being the byproduct of matter in motion. Motion is where matter is and fields, along with the residual energy they exhibit, only exist where matter in motion is. To my understanding, the more chaotic the interference within the motions of the aether, the greater the zero-point value of a presumed 'vacuum' would theoretically be.

First of all, what with one thing and another, I never really kept up with 'absolute rest', so if you feel we're going over old ground, just point me to the post numbers, no problems.

But in general, I don't think that I am in agreement with all of the above quote, not exactly in dis-agreement either

cool bananas ... greg

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Dimetrodon is a nice touch Austin ... lol


You are making the sapiens prototype too large for the planet.

Also, you don't need extra large sensitive parts like the hands and lips being huge (although you forgot to do this on another important part); you could just have more sensory nerves going to the more often used parts.

Not bad though, working from scratch.

I tried to buy some 'scratch' from the supermarket, but they didn't have any.

[Graybeard]

The Dimetrodon is a nice touch Austin ... lol


You are making the sapiens prototype too large for the planet.

Also, you don't need extra large sensitive parts like the hands and lips being huge (although you forgot to do this on another important part); you could just have more sensory nerves going to the more often used parts.

Not bad though, working from scratch.

I tried to buy some 'scratch' from the supermarket, but they didn't have any.

You might have to explain this one. I refer to the Dimetrodon as being a proto mammal because he was the first proto mammal to attempt to control body temperature ? Its believed that he was an early ancestor.

greg

[austintorn@aol.com]

Its believed that he was an early ancestor

I guess that's why I put the Dimetrodon as your great-grandfather in the picture—or maybe it was a subconscious thing—or maybe I'm now just painting a bulls-eye around where the arrow happened to hit since I probably just plucked the little guy out randomly to have something there. Serendipity.