Something from Nothing

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Scathing criticism coming from one who asserts that e.g., evolutionary psychology, cognitive linguistics, Indo-European linguistics, psychiatry, embodied cognition, etc., are based on mathematics (here's a hint: probability theory is used in many sciences, is a field of pure mathematics, and yet the field most fundamentally based upon mathematics- quantum physics - required introducing an entirely different method of computing probability that was based upon empirical results; i.e., math based on science, not the reverse). You assert some drivel about "Boolean interchangeablility" which is blatantly wrong, and as this is math you could easily defend your nonsense here if it were defensible. It isn't. Then you leave even the semblance of mathematics with this mystical "1 is rewritten from 0" garbage.

I can refer to work, theory, findings, etc., in mathematics and the sciences (and have now done so) to support my view of the incredibly inaccurate position you've espoused. You, apparently, rely on your own authority, then characterize my post as "Authoritarian gabage" (and your misusing the word authoritarian).

It is just more authoritarian garbage.

 

[Milton Platt]

One wonders, if physics fails so completely here, how we can say there was a big bang.


And if one does, one will find, in general, something fairly close to what you describe, particularly in more popular sources:
"Despite the uncertainties, what can be confidently stated is that, at a time of the order of 14,000 million years ago, the Universe was much smaller and much more congested than it is at present. This observationally-based conclusion has led to the current theory that most, but not all, astronomers accept for the origin of the Universe — that at some time in the past all the energy in the Universe was concentrated at a point, a point with no volume that scientists refer to as a singularity. That is a challenging idea. The implication of it is that, at the instant the Universe came into being, space did not exist and time did not exist! Once again we are in the position that we cannot imagine or understand what this means. Try the following experiment — close your eyes and try to think of nothing — absolutely nothing. You can no more do this than we can properly understand — really understand — a Universe of zero volume in which time did not exist. This theory, called the Big Bang theory, postulates that starting from the singularity the Universe expanded so creating space and also creating time. Like any sensible person you will ask the question, “What was the state of affairs before the Big Bang?”, to which you will receive the answer, “There is no such thing as before the Big Bang because time did not exist until the Big Bang occurred.” You might try again with the question, “Into what did the Universe expand?”, to which the answer is, “There was no space for the Universe to expand into since the only space that existed was what it created as it expanded.”
Woolfson, M. M. (2009). Time, Space, Stars and Man: The Story of the Big Bang. Imperial College Press.

Not all descriptions are as dramatic, though:

"But what exactly do we mean by the Big Bang?
As the term suggests, a Big Bang is certainly a big explosion. More precisely, a rather violent and fast production of radiation and matter particles characterized by extremely high density and temperature. The cooling produced by the expansion (according to the standard laws of thermodynamics) has “firmed up” such particles into matter lumps, that have eventually combined into the large scale structures of the Universe we observe today. We can say that these aspects of cosmological evolution are well understood and widely accepted, barring some still debated issues concerning, for instance, the problem of baryogenesis (i.e., the mechanism by which only matter particles are produced from the relics of the primordial explosion, while large lumps of antimatter seem to be completely absent today on large scales).
The term “Big Bang”, however, is often used (even in a scientific context) in a broader sense, as synonymous with the birth and origin of the Universe as a whole. In other words, this term is used also to indicate the single event from which everything (including space and time themselves) directly originated, emerging from an initial singular state, i.e., a state characterized by infinitely high values of energy, density and temperature.
This second interpretation is certainly suggestive, and even scientifically motivated within the standard cosmological model. Nonetheless, it has been challenged by recent developments in theoretical physics that took place at the end of the twentieth century."
Gasperini, M. (2008). The Universe Before the Big Bang: Cosmology and String Theory (Astronomers' Universe). Springer.

However, it does not necessarily follow that there was nothing before the singularity. We can't really know.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

However, it does not necessarily follow that there was nothing before the singularity. We can't really know.

It necessarily follows that there was no "before" the big bang (there is no "the singularity" apart from a mistaken understanding of what singularities are and the comparative importance of the big bang; technically, the "big bang singularity" is, like all singularities, simply the point in a mathematical model or equation at which the model/equation breaks down).

 

[metis]

"Singularity" does not mean that the item that may be refered to is singular in composition. It simply means that evidence points to one "item", composition unknown, that expanded at the BB.

 

[Milton Platt]

It necessarily follows that there was no "before" the big bang (there is no "the singularity" apart from a mistaken understanding of what singularities are and the comparative importance of the big bang; technically, the "big bang singularity" is, like all singularities, simply the point in a mathematical model or equation at which the model/equation breaks down).

In the sensed that for our universe, time also began at that point, I will agree it is in a way nonsensical to contemplate a "before". But I am constrained both by my lack of academic background in theoretical physics and the limitations of the English language. My point was that we cannot know what happened before the big bang, including if there was a before. It is simply a blank space on the slate of knowledge.

 

[ak.yonathan]

It necessarily follows that there was no "before" the big bang (there is no "the singularity" apart from a mistaken understanding of what singularities are and the comparative importance of the big bang; technically, the "big bang singularity" is, like all singularities, simply the point in a mathematical model or equation at which the model/equation breaks down).

Actually, I believe that the singularity means that general relativity needs to be superseded, in much the same way that general relativity superseded Newtonian gravity before. Since general relativity breaks down at a gravitational singularity a new theory is needed. It is logically impossible to formulate such a theory so the only hope for physics is that if quantum gravity can eliminate the singularity.

 

[Straw Dog]

Sum,

As for how something can come from nothing? That'd imply there was something that happened without a cause, and that too breaks cause and effect right?

Well, if there is absolutely nothing, this includes there is no order. This makes there be disorder, chaos, which is a state that is the lack of a state, so while it can be considered something, it is also an absence of something.

From that it gives rise to the existence of infinite potential energy, for there are no boundaries, it isn't a something coming into an existence, but at the same time it is. It is an abstract existence, as work.

From this infinite potential energy there can come existence from nonexistence. But nonetheless while something comes from nothing, it is inaccurate to say there was once nothing. Hope that clears up any confusion

Cool ideas!

In my understanding, 'something' and 'nothing' emerge together conceptually. We cannot think of causality in terms of one single cause leading to one single effect, much less the idea of a First Cause. There are many causes and many effects. Every cause is also an effect and every effect is also a cause. Likewise, 'existence' and 'nonexistence' co-emerge.

 

[Milton Platt]

Sum,



Cool ideas!

In my understanding, 'something' and 'nothing' emerge together conceptually. We cannot think of causality in terms of one single cause leading to one single effect, much less the idea of a First Cause. There are many causes and many effects. Every cause is also an effect and every effect is also a cause. Likewise, 'existence' and 'nonexistence' co-emerge.

Not to get to anal about the subject, we are not able to examine a "nothing" and have no ideas what it's possibilities are.......

 

[Straw Dog]

Not to get to anal about the subject, we are not able to examine a "nothing" and have no ideas what it's possibilities are.......

Yes, we cannot examine it, but we can conceptualize.

 

[Milton Platt]

Yes, we cannot examine it, but we can conceptualize.

We can conceptualize a pink rabbit, but that does not mean it ever existed.

 

[Thief]

"Singularity" does not mean that the item that may be refered to is singular in composition. It simply means that evidence points to one "item", composition unknown, that expanded at the BB.

it's a position....
for the singularity to be truly singular.....a secondary is not allowed.

in the instant a secondary forms....infinity is there.

 

[Milton Platt]

it's a position....
for the singularity to be truly singular.....a secondary is not allowed.

in the instant a secondary forms....infinity is there.

So two things equal infinity???

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Actually, I believe that the singularity means that general relativity needs to be superseded

The big bang theory is supported by and requires the use of the standard model of particle physics, which doesn't and currently can't involve general relativity. In other words, it takes more than just fixing or superseding general relativity to rid ourselves of this particular singularity. And, in fact, most of the work devoted to replacing big bang theory comes from theoretical particle physics (string theory, superstring theory, advances in brane and gauge theories, etc.). After all, general relativity doesn't explain things like neutrino decoupling or the weakness interactions of the BBN, but we find these in big bang cosmology.

Since general relativity breaks down at a gravitational singularity

Physics breaks down not only at the big bang singularity, but immediately after it.

 

[ak.yonathan]

The big bang theory is supported by and requires the use of the standard model of particle physics, which doesn't and currently can't involve general relativity. In other words, it takes more than just fixing or superseding general relativity to rid ourselves of this particular singularity. And, in fact, most of the work devoted to replacing big bang theory comes from theoretical particle physics (string theory, superstring theory, advances in brane and gauge theories, etc.). After all, general relativity doesn't explain things like neutrino decoupling or the weakness interactions of the BBN, but we find these in big bang cosmology.



Physics breaks down not only at the big bang singularity, but immediately after it.

The big bang theory doesn't need to be replaced, but rather general relativity needs to be combined with quantum mechanics into a theory of quantum gravity also known as the theory of everything. Once that is accomplished maybe we will know how something came from nothing.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The big bang theory doesn't need to be replaced, but rather general relativity needs to be combined with quantum mechanics into a theory of quantum gravity also known as the theory if everything.

1) The TOE doesn't refer to the successful merging of gravitation with quantum physics. It's true that it might, but it is also true that we find general relativity must remain and quantum physics must be superseded. Or both must. Quantum gravity either refers to theories we can't verify or to a notion that (the incompatibility of quantum physics with our best theory of gravitation).
2) Quantum gravity doesn't solve the big bang singularity, doesn't prevent the breakdown of quantum physics at and just after the big bang, and doesn't really help us out here at all. Partly this is because quantum gravity doesn't exist, but also because GUTs here don't necessarily (and certainly don't verifiably) solve the set of issues involved.
3) Quantum mechanics has already been combined with special relativity. The results of this (more or less) consistent framework is quantum field theory. It is generally believed that, if general relativity is to be combined with anything, it is QFT, not quantum mechanics.

Once that is accomplished maybe we will know how something came from nothing.

Maybe! One can certainly hope. And, after all, a "theory of everything" ought to explain, well...everything (at least physics related, which I'd say includes an answer to this question).

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The big bang theory doesn't need to be replaced, but rather general relativity needs to be combined with quantum mechanics into a theory of quantum gravity also known as the theory of everything. Once that is accomplished maybe we will know how something came from nothing.

One has to find the common root, from which both theories derive, rather than try to make a bridge from one theory to the other. And the root is obviously zero, and as Galilei said the language of the universe is maths, maths is the theory of everything.

 

[Thief]

So two things equal infinity???

between any two points there are an infinite number more.
(high school geometry class)

 

[ak.yonathan]

One has to find the common root, from which both theories derive, rather than try to make a bridge from one theory to the other. And the root is obviously zero, and as Galilei said the language of the universe is maths, maths is the theory of everything.

General relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics that is why scientists haven't been successful in developing a quantum field theory of gravity. Physical theories can be stated in mathematical equations but that doesn't mean that mathematics is the theory of everything.

 

[ak.yonathan]

between any two points there are an infinite number more.
(high school geometry class)

Do you know of Zeno's paradox?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

General relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics that is why scientists haven't been successful in developing a quantum field theory of gravity. Physical theories can be stated in mathematical equations but that doesn't mean that mathematics is the theory of everything.

Why not? It does mean exactly that. It requires to derive mathematics from the symbol 0. It requires considering objects as consisting of the laws of nature. Meaning that objects such as the earth, compute things.