"Something was created from nothing"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-07-2014, 12:37 PM
RE: "Something was created from nothing"
(31-07-2014 11:23 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(31-07-2014 11:15 AM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  Mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed. There is no evidence that the universe was ever in a state of "nothing" [ie, no mass energy]. The Big Bang marks the start of our universe, and of time. We start with something -- mass-energy. There is never a "time" that mass-energy did not exist. Before we start asking questions about how something came from "nothing," it is incumbent on us to prove that "nothing" was the state of the universe prior to the presence of "something." Scientifically, there is no such proof (nor could there be). Even as you listen to Krauss in the video above, you see that he describes "nothing" in scientific terms rather than in philosophical terms. In scientific terms, "nothing" doesn't exist. [It's always something].

The notion that the universe is "created" from "nothing" in the philosophical sense of "nothing" is a myth. It presumes a time of "nothing" that cannot be supported by the evidence. It's pure philosophy. It is not science.

If you are trying to prove that energy always existed then you have to define energy in a different way. All forms of energy basically measure two things; light and motion. You can't have either without space, and space certainly did not exist before the big bang. Correct me if I am wrong, I am not a physics major.

Not... as such. Or rather, light (which is to say, electromagnetism) is itself a sort of motion. Or rather, light is carried by photons, which are the mediating bosons (ie travelling excitations) of a certain universal quantum field. But motion too is just a way of quantifying causal interaction - that's what dimensions are, the separation between observable (distinct) events.

Indeed, there's no physically coherent definition of "nothing". Quantum field theories don't admit of such - you can't "get rid" of the field itself, and so long as the field exists, it will do stuff. An exchange of energy produces excitations, but there are probabilistic interactions which have zero net energy - virtual particles, or vacuum fluctuations.

As a comparison we might consider quasiparticles. At a finite scale all excitations can be conceived of as similar (discrete) quantum objects. If we consider a mesh of sites (in some substance), the quanta of displacement represent the propagating vibration, and this we call that propagation sound if it happens in a fluid. Similarly, in considering semiconductors, there is no difference mathematically between considering sparse electrons in an n-type layer or sparse holes (quasi-positrons) in a p-type layer. Although phonons are boson-like and holes are fermion-like. But still.

There are virtual-particle pair annihilations all the time in free space - that process is probabilistic and has zero net energy. Such pair interactions are the source of Hawking radiation - if they occur near an event horizon, only one path becomes free. But this requires an energy transfer (the black hole is influencing the paths) and that's why black holes lose mass-energy and have finite lifespans.

...

Now, where was I going with this? Right. All likely cosmological models posit a universe like ours existing as a fluctuation within some greater manifold (string theories are really keen on this), but as yet those are untestable predictions. What this means is that if the universe is an energy-neutral closed system, our understanding of causality (thus, time and entropy) is an artifact of our position within it. A zero-energy interaction is time-reversible by definition, and indeed running a virtual pair interaction "backwards" flips the particle to antiparticle and antiparticle to particle and nothing changes.

tl;dr - nothing doesn't exist and physics is cool.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2014, 01:51 PM
RE: "Something was created from nothing"
(31-07-2014 10:44 AM)smileXsmileXsmile Wrote:  So I'm watching one of seth's videos, awesome as usual. (this one actually: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUDPfknwq8U) Anyway, I think big bang, and I'm like wow! 'something from nothing' how incredible. To me this is the theists' best argument. Myself, I think, well, I don't really know how it happened, but just because it happened doesn't mean God. "Correlation doesn't mean causation"

What are your thoughts on this. I know what I would say, but what would you say if someone came up to you with this argument. my mind is boggled. I guess it's possible for there to be a God, and it is quite an elegant solution to this senario, but again correlation does not mean causation. hmmmmmmm


http://youtu.be/8XmtW_fIj68
^lol, but for real what do you think

No it's not elegant at all. Just presumptuous and erroneous application of what is sometimes observed inside this universe to a situation which is in no way similar.
It's also not an example of "correlation is not causation".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2014, 04:16 PM
RE: "Something was created from nothing"
I don't think the question of "why is there something rather than nothing" is a useful question. Philosophically it is an intuitive question to ask but scientifically it conflicts with known and proven quantum mechanics such as the uncertainty principle as well as conservation of energy.
I read a cosmology book "From eternity to here" that convinced me the question is more apt as
"Why is entropy significantly lower today 10^80 and in the early universe than the maximum entropy state that our observable universe can have 10^120?"

Follow on questions are:
Shouldn't the universe (given infinite time) reach an equilibrium state of de sitter space with maximum entropy?
If this is the case then why aren't we currently in a maximum entropy de sitter space?
What is the natural mechanism which could result in a new low entropy "universe" being born from a de sitter space?
If this natural mechanism exists then does it require de sitter space to be in a particular state e.g. high entropy or is it merely probabalistic chance?
Is it possible to not have a de sitter space, hence is there a requirement for a first de sitter space, hence an infinite regression problem?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2014, 04:57 PM
RE: "Something was created from nothing"
The universe exists and it's expanding
As we examine the expansion in reverse, we get to a point where all the mass in the universe converges down to something our current understanding of physics doesn't quite understand.

We have something that changed. And in time it will all change again. Our understanding of it will change just as our understanding of weather and storms changed from Thor, the god of Thunder, to meteorology.

The more you know, the less bullshit you have to make up in your head.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2014, 05:41 PM
RE: "Something was created from nothing"
So mankind and the material universe can't be created out of nothing but God can always have been with no beginning......which one is more far fetched?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2014, 07:01 PM
RE: "Something was created from nothing"
oops (apparently i can't delete this post)

"If you cannot explain it simply, you don't understand it enough" -Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2014, 07:02 PM
RE: "Something was created from nothing"
(31-07-2014 10:52 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  


Wow what a great video. I actually watched the whole thing. Thanks for that Michael_Tadlock. Something can in fact come from nothing. How amazing!

"If you cannot explain it simply, you don't understand it enough" -Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2014, 07:39 PM
RE: "Something was created from nothing"
(31-07-2014 11:23 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  If you are trying to prove that energy always existed then you have to define energy in a different way. All forms of energy basically measure two things; light and motion. You can't have either without space, and space certainly did not exist before the big bang. Correct me if I am wrong, I am not a physics major.
I might be out of my league here, but I'm pretty sure the correct statement is space did not exist here before the big bang. We really don't know exactly what, if anything, existed before the big bang so it's certainly possible that space existed somewhere - just not in this universe because this universe didn't exist until the big bang.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2014, 07:40 PM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2014 01:17 AM by smileXsmileXsmile.)
"Something was created from nothing"
Buckyball's response to my original post:
(31-07-2014 01:51 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No it's not elegant at all. Just presumptuous and erroneous application of what is sometimes observed inside this universe to a situation which is in no way similar.
It's also not an example of "correlation is not causation".

I thought 'correlation does not imply causation' fits because you have variable one: the theory God created the universe and variable two: something came from nothing.....so just because something couldn't come from nothing (which i've learned is wrong) does not mean God created the universe. The two ideas are mutually exclusive. How is this not an example of "correlation does not imply causation"? I'm all ears. The two variables appear as if they could fit together but it doesn't necessarily mean they do.

"If you cannot explain it simply, you don't understand it enough" -Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2014, 08:22 PM
RE: "Something was created from nothing"
(31-07-2014 10:44 AM)smileXsmileXsmile Wrote:  So I'm watching one of seth's videos, awesome as usual. (this one actually: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUDPfknwq8U) Anyway, I think big bang, and I'm like wow! 'something from nothing' how incredible. To me this is the theists' best argument. Myself, I think, well, I don't really know how it happened, but just because it happened doesn't mean God. "Correlation doesn't mean causation"

What are your thoughts on this. I know what I would say, but what would you say if someone came up to you with this argument. my mind is boggled. I guess it's possible for there to be a God, and it is quite an elegant solution to this senario, but again correlation does not mean causation. hmmmmmmm


http://youtu.be/8XmtW_fIj68
^lol, but for real what do you think

I would say that they need to go back and read the theory because they are misrepresenting it. The Big Bang Theory doesn't say the universe came from nothing. It says that it expanded from a much hotter and denser condition to what we see today. It really begins with that expansion and posits a "singularity" as the starting point, basically every bit of matter and energy and space time was contained in an infinitesimally small object.

Recently, loop quantum gravity theory posits something called a "plank star" instead of a singularity.

Some scientists speculate that the universe could have come about as a result of quantum fluctuations in space time but space time isn't nothing.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: