Start from Nothing: An Exploration of Pre BB Thinking

[edjoyce]

Pre Big Bang

A previous writer stated

why can't it be a zero-sum game? vacuum flux can "create" a particle pair out of "nothing". perhaps the universe is just an extremely large-scale version of this same concept.

This begs a few questions

1. If the universe was created out of nothing in an outerverse and is a zero sum game does that entity still exist ?
2. Does that external entity/outerverse have an observable influence on our universe ?
3. What is the nature of the outerverse ie the scale and dimensions of it.
4. When was it created.

I propose some answers to these questions

1. I propose that the outerverse does still exist
2. I propose that the outerverse does have an observable influence on our universe in the following ways
a. It creates the phenomena of the non existent substance called dark matter. The expansion in the external outerverse means that the universe appears larger than it should and therefore less dense as a result missing matter is required mathmatically but that matter does not exist.
b. It creates two values for the Hubble constant one related to the age of the universe and the other related to its size.
These two are related one is double the other is cubed and therefore the proportion of missing to actual matter is 7 to 1.
3. The nature of the outerverse is that his has dimension but it does not have time. The dimension that it has include the elctromagnetic force. This can be seen from the work of Kaluza. I believe that work on sixth and higher dimensions would reveal some of the nature of the outerverse but that it would not have mass because mass and time are linked.
4. The outerverse does not have a time dimension and therefore does not have a creation point it is a timeless electromagnetic field.

I am not a physicist - I am a novelist and this is the basis for a novel that I am working on rather than a cosmological theroy - but I hope that some of this makes some sense.

 

[scarecrow]

0! = 1

Something from nothing. lol

 

[Pippo]

If "nothing equals no space ,no time, no matter" how does the something fit into it? Seems to me there is nowhere to put the something.

Something fit into the space that is something as well.

 

[my_wan]

If "nothing equals no space ,no time, no matter" how does the something fit into it? Seems to me there is nowhere to put the something.

True.

Yet that begs a question. If space-time (false vacuum) is made of something is empty space (true vacuum) a something or a nothing? How could empty space be a nothing if something can exist in it? How can empty space be a something if there is no time, no parts, no events, etc., of any kind? Do these parts have size? If so they must be made of more parts. If their size is zero how do you call it a part? Do these parts effect other parts from a distance? If so it seems they must send other parts to have an effect. If their size is zero how does another part with zero size have different properties?

The main issue here is not that Universe is made of nothing but that when you a priori require the ultimate constituents to be defined up front you are immediately mired in an ontological conundrum. If we limited ourselves in this way we would be stuck with a world full of Aristotelian thinkers, with very little actual technology or knowledge.

Fortunately we can do much better with a more pragmatic approach. We consider the results of experiments real and call it empirical data. We derive symmetries from the results of experiment and organize them in a higher order descriptions, called theories, from which we can make predictions to test with new experiments. Some people theorize about meta-theories, which are interpretations of theories. It is these meta-theories that people read about and often mistake it for the actual theory. Perhaps one day we will discover a theory of everything (TOE). Maybe a meta-TOE will provide us with a consistent definition of an ultimate something that makes intuitive sense to us, maybe not. It's not looking very likely at the moment, but I still think about it and hold out a little hope.

It remains absurd to assume scientist are delusional on the basis of failing to define the parts of a system to your satisfaction. Scientist are generally far more pragmatic. It is far more useful to provide tools and knowledge for our wealth, safety, and enjoyment than to provide you with the ultimate ontology of your liking. Few scientist really believe that everything is made of nothing. Yet so long as those parts are empirically and theoretically inaccessible it is absurd to talk about what they are. What they do is the primary question we ask. If you think you can do better go for it, else your ontological rants are without value.

 

[Phrak]

... the universe is a conceptual entity.

Hu, What?

Are you deliberately confusing the thing, A with the symbol for A? --the concept of A?

 

[wolram]

Yet that begs a question. If space-time (false vacuum) is made of something is empty space (true vacuum) a something or a nothing? How could empty space be a nothing if something can exist in it? How can empty space be a something if there is no time, no parts, no events, etc., of any kind? Do these parts have size? If so they must be made of more parts. If their size is zero how do you call it a part? Do these parts effect other parts from a distance? If so it seems they must send other parts to have an effect. If their size is zero how does another part with zero size have different properties?

The main issue here is not that Universe is made of nothing but that when you a priori require the ultimate constituents to be defined up front you are immediately mired in an ontological conundrum. If we limited ourselves in this way we would be stuck with a world full of Aristotelian thinkers, with very little actual technology or knowledge.

Fortunately we can do much better with a more pragmatic approach. We consider the results of experiments real and call it empirical data. We derive symmetries from the results of experiment and organize them in a higher order descriptions, called theories, from which we can make predictions to test with new experiments. Some people theorize about meta-theories, which are interpretations of theories. It is these meta-theories that people read about and often mistake it for the actual theory. Perhaps one day we will discover a theory of everything (TOE). Maybe a meta-TOE will provide us with a consistent definition of an ultimate something that makes intuitive sense to us, maybe not. It's not looking very likely at the moment, but I still think about it and hold out a little hope.

It remains absurd to assume scientist are delusional on the basis of failing to define the parts of a system to your satisfaction. Scientist are generally far more pragmatic. It is far more useful to provide tools and knowledge for our wealth, safety, and enjoyment than to provide you with the ultimate ontology of your liking. Few scientist really believe that everything is made of nothing. Yet so long as those parts are empirically and theoretically inaccessible it is absurd to talk about what they are. What they do is the primary question we ask. If you think you can do better go for it, else your ontological rants are without value.

May be your efforts are without value, in the end one has to admit to some base, a place to start from, without it any thing is possible, you call it a rant, i call it reality.

 

[my_wan]

May be your efforts are without value, in the end one has to admit to some base, a place to start from, without it any thing is possible, you call it a rant, i call it reality.

It would be untenable to assert that efforts to date are without value. Do you think this Earth could support the people it does today without our technology? Even your ability to post that claim here is dependent on said value. Our place to start from is the result of experiments, not the identity of the ultimate constituents of matter. Anything is not possible, the result of experiments again is what determines what is possible. Therefore, your claim that not predefining the hypothetical ultimate constituents does not lead to anything being possible.

I didn't call your opinion here a rant because I think that you are completely wrong about reality. I called it a rant because the ontologies you attach to something and nothing are ill defined and lack even basic designations suitable for the construction of physical theories. Perhaps if you are so sure you can define for us the physical properties of these parts?

You can start with:
1) What are their size if any and/or size range?
2) Are there forces or fields associated with these parts?
3) Do forces and fields have parts associated with them?
4) Are the parts for fields the same parts as the parts of matter?
5) How many different kind of parts are there?
Purely ontological issues:
6) Can space that contains nothing be considered something?
7) If empty space is something what properties can be defined without parts?
More difficult theoretical issues:
8) What role do infinities play, if any, in reality?
9) Is there an infinite hierarchy of parts?
10) Can spatial degrees of freedom be fully specified with 3 or 3+1 dimensions?

Any choice you make here will spawn more question and consequences. I can construct problematic versions of Special and General Relativity from various ethereal type assumptions so I will not rule it out a priori. Just don't come to me with demands that you must be on to something with your ethereal assumption based on some perceived ontological solution! However, answer these questions wolram and I will play this game for a limited time.

 

[castlegates]

Nothing is the opposite of the possible existence of any thing, nothing equals no space ,no time, no matter, so maybe one can envision a beginning from that?

Maybe you have this backwards so that, nothing makes it possible for things to exist, and maybe nothing equals, space, time, and matter, because if the universe came from nothing, it must necessarily be made of nothing. You give (nothing) no properties whatsoever, but fail to recognize that that is not possible. There must be at the very least (one) nothing from the onset, and that is a property tantamount to a fundamental building block.

I'll repeat this - A universe from nothing is a conceptual undertaking, wherein a universe from nothing must be conceptually represented. In other words: The universe is not to be understood as a physical entity, but a conceptual entity, ostensibly to be made of nothing out of absolute necessity.

 

[wolram]

If there is a vague consensus that there is no such thing as nothing would it make a difference?

 

[castlegates]

If there is a vague consensus that there is no such thing as nothing would it make a difference?

You only give an example that (nothing) cannot be defined, Yet it must be defined, if the universe came from nothing. (Nothing) has no meaning in the absence of a thing. In other words, you must use a thing to give meaning to (no) thing. So the definition of (nothing) is in part a (thing) I.E. A form with no thing, and that form is equal to (one).

If the universe came from nothing, it must necessarily be the definition of it, and that definition must be incomplete, for I agree with you that nothing is undefinable. This is to say that the universe is an ongoing definition process, by which it shall take forever to complete. A complete definition cannot exist in reality, only an incomplete one, and the universe is the representation, and a conceptual one at that.

 

[wolram]

You only give an example that (nothing) cannot be defined, Yet it must be defined, if the universe came from nothing. (Nothing) has no meaning in the absence of a thing. In other words, you must use a thing to give meaning to (no) thing. So the definition of (nothing) is in part a (thing) I.E. A form with no thing, and that form is equal to (one).

If the universe came from nothing, it must necessarily be the definition of it, and that definition must be incomplete, for I agree with you that nothing is undefinable. This is to say that the universe is an ongoing definition process, by which it shall take forever to complete. A complete definition cannot exist in reality, only an incomplete one, and the universe is the representation, and a conceptual one at that.

This is where i do not know if i have out thought you guys or not, may be it is best to go with the scientists and just play with what we have, but _________.

 

[castlegates]

This is where i do not know if i have out thought you guys or not, may be it is best to go with the scientists and just play with what we have, but _________.

I'm not inclined to think that the origin of the universe will be answered by scientific means. Most certainly not if the universe has always been, but with a universe from nothing, perhaps an explanation can be had through flawless logic, by which a belief can be fostered with a great deal of certainty as to it's veracity.

 

[Troponin]

Could energy create mass (something) as a necessity for its (energy) existence?
If Energy and mass are linked by E=mc2, then the non-existance of mass could create an infinite energy potential.
Infinite energy could create mass as a necessity of that infinite energy.

Sorry about the philosophy laden first post...its not a good representation of my typical thoughts. lol

 

[my_wan]

Could energy create mass (something) as a necessity for its (energy) existence?
If Energy and mass are linked by E=mc2, then the non-existance of mass could create an infinite energy potential.
Infinite energy could create mass as a necessity of that infinite energy.

Sorry about the philosophy laden first post...its not a good representation of my typical thoughts. lol

Actually your thinking here is roughly related to some very real problems in physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy#Gravitation_and_cosmology

Welcome to the forum Troponin.

 

[my_wan]

If there is a vague consensus that there is no such thing as nothing would it make a difference?

We judge theories to a large degree on consensus but consensus does not give us a good starting point on which to construct a theory. You did say "if" but this is further hampered by the fact that no such consensus.

This is where i do not know if i have out thought you guys or not, may be it is best to go with the scientists and just play with what we have, but _________.

I for one take your issues with some degree of seriousness and attempt to fill your "but _________" with something useful occasionally. Perhaps you are at least getting an understanding of why we can't waste our time demanding that it must be so. We simply don't know, yet we must not let that prevent us from learning more about nature the way ancient thinkers did.

 

[Sorry!]

why can't we just accept that we necessarily exist on this here planet Earth and call it a day? I don't see why it would really matter what came prior to our universe when we have no possible way to see this 'out of our universe' where we came from...

As well people here are talking about god, i hope they aren't referring to a supernatural religious god and saying it's the only logical conclusion. God also necessarily exist by it's definition but who says it's a 'being' with 'powers'?

 

[litewave]

A poetic interlude:

Eons ago, before there was physical matter, you were one with us. Your essence remains, even now, indistinguishable from the unified field of being out of which flow duality, multiplicity, and all that flourishes in the eternal play of polarities. In oneness with the Eternal Source, in flowing, fluid realms of all-spectrum light and love, we lived together in the early ages of the morning. Together we shared a common "I." As waves of energy, we flowed through fields of dreams, the landscape of our eternal home.
There was a game we would sometimes play, an elementary energy exchange, an early form of relationship. A segment of source energy would break itself free from the main body and assume momentary individuality, personifying selected frequencies in order to experience relationships with others who had done the same. From the realm of eternal unity we chose frequencies, hues, and rates of vibration. Like crystals of snow forming in a stratospheric cloud, we personified them in the field of our common being. Our locations created space, our movements, time.
Throughout eternity, this thought comes into being again and again. While it is sustained, time also comes into being. When it is no longer animated, time ceases. The creation of specific beings or angels to sustain this thought over an open-ended stretch of time brought forth the steady stream of cumulative creation that has made possible, and given birth to, this present universe.
(Ken Carey, The Third Millennium)

 

[siphon]

If we look at infinite wavelength energy, this is a misnomer. The product of the frequency and wavelength needs to result in C, which can not happen with the product of infinite wavelength and zero frequency. So if we began the universe with this, we would be beginning the universe without mass or energy. There is still something there, but it is technically neither mass or energy. We will make the energy out of this.

One possible way is to blue shift it until the wavelength-frequency product becomes C again. This would require sort of a contraction of space-time. I will get back to this.

If these quanta, of not-energy, are moving at C, all will see the same thing in their C reference. Infinite space and time would appear to overlap, so they all appear to overlap. But in a zero reference, they will appear distinct and spread out to occupy infinite space for all time. To get the needed contraction of the zero reference, for the blue shift, the potential or ambiguity between these two extreme references need to equilibrate. This requires at least some of the C reference fall from C for the blue shift of the O-reference. The C- aspect, will see itself as a point inside a bigger sphere of not-energy. The 0+-reference, will sees things gaining this endothermic blue shift potential.

The aspect lowering from C to C-, is neither not-energy or energy since it is in a reference that is less than C. It is the onset of mass. While the contracting and blue shifting reference is starting to gain the characteristics of energy. One way to do this, without the top end dropping below C, is with a medium affect that makes the speed of light only appear to slow from C. What this implies is cause and affect appearing to reverse, with the blue shift providing the medium that allows the apparent below C, that makes the medium possible, so that it can fall below C to generate the mass.

This can be accomplished with a siphon effect in space-time. The final goal is convert not-energy into mass-energy. Like the siphon, we first need to pull the not-energy up the siphon hill, so its gains potential. The siphon, is recycling some of its output potential up front, for the siphon hill, to create the medium by which C will not initially be violated, but appear to slow, until it gets over the hump, and then it can drop below C and form mass as it flows out the bottom of the siphon.

 

[siphon]

The model presented is different in many ways from most universe formation theories. The primary difference is that because it is modeled on a siphon, it only requires a spark or limited events, to prime the siphon. After that, the siphon is self perpetuating. The result would be less like a big bang but more like a fountain that starts as a trickle, accelerates its affect, until it gushers matter-energy.

Another siphon analogy is fire. We can get the campfire going with only a spark. This grows into a flame. As the flame gets bigger the fire begins to set up its own forced convection as the hot air rises and the fresh air is pulled in. The result is the fire begins to accelerate until it peaks and decays.

In the case of the universe, we only need a limited event to prime the siphon. It can happen on either side of the ambiguity, with one implying and accelerating the other, until the siphon is primed. Then it goes to town. The siphon prime approach helps lower the impossible odds of having everything at the same time.

 

[zankaon]

Something from nothing?

I know this idea scares a lot of you, but the fact is the universe either started from nothing , or it started from some thing, i state that nothing means the absence of any thing, so if one thinks that some thing can come from the absence of any thing seems illogical that leaves only one idea, that there has all ways been some thing, this may be pre BB thinking
but i think it is more logic, there has all ways been some thing, no thing can come from no thing.

It's interesting that in math, one can start with { } empty set. Then for a set of such { }, one has {{ } }, which is not an empty set. That is, the set has one element; so this could be a set representation for one. Thus mathematically, one can build up a set of numbers, starting with just { } empty set.

 

[wolram]

It's interesting that in math, one can start with { } empty set. Then for a set of such { }, one has {{ } }, which is not an empty set. That is, the set has one element; so this could be a set representation for one. Thus mathematically, one can build up a set of numbers, starting with just { } empty set.

Interesting, but can one build up real matter and energy from an empty set?

 

[castlegates]

Interesting, but can one build up real matter and energy from an empty set?

Not in the way that I think that you think of matter as being, but if matter is thought of in the conceptual sense, all of reality is just a matter of one two three ...
A display of logic.

 

[Troponin]

It's interesting that in math, one can start with { } empty set. Then for a set of such { }, one has {{ } }, which is not an empty set. That is, the set has one element; so this could be a set representation for one. Thus mathematically, one can build up a set of numbers, starting with just { } empty set.

I'm horrible at math, so this may be a spectacular misunderstanding of your point...(up until recently, I thought Algebra was an underground terrorist operative...)

Could this be related somehow as: The big bang was the initiation of matter/galaxy formation, not the start of the universe?

The universe (empty set) was an already-present "nothing" that allowed the formation of matter (not an empty set)?

{}(universe) allowed {{} }(matter created from universe) to now be a representation of more than nothing?

 

[Cuetek]

Yeah, I'm with Trop. The Big Bang is a local phenomenon and the universe existed in diverse circumstance around it long before the Bang part.

 

[castlegates]

If we were to accept that if we start with nothing, and that there must be at least one of them (one nothing). We must also accept that nothing has some dimensions, like a mile high, a mile wide, by a mile deep for instance. Of course we might ask - What is beyond those dimensions, to which we reply ... nothing? This is to say through implication, that nothing must have dimensions that are infinite in scope in order to include all of nothing, to which we must accept through further implication, that nothing cannot exist in reality, at least not from our standpoint as finite beings, yet nothing must exist if there is one of them.

Nothing absent of anything else can exist, but it can be no more than a concept (thought) of infinite proportions, by which any other (set) thoughts can coexist within it's domain.

One might ask if there can be more than one nothing? To that I would reply why not?
Why couldn't we have a nothing with finite dimensions that exist from our perspective? A conceptual entity, or many many conceptual entities that interact with each other, such as to make man, or a pig rolling in the mud? Keep in mind that this is a conceptual undertaking, wherein these entities interact not under physical laws, but conceptual ones, which is a way of saying the same thing, but with a slightly different understanding. The interactions are not one of Ping, pang, pow!, but like an if then statement of a computer (conceptual laws).

 

[Capernicus]

You have these as the options:

1. nothing causes something
2. something causes something (or something always existed without cause, but that's basically the same thing)
I can see another option:
3. "something" doesn't exist. The universe is really nothing so there is no need to worry about what caused it.
Of course, #3 contradicts all available evidence and makes no sense to me whatsoever. I agree with you that something has always existed (and it ain't God).

* * *

I think the major premise is catastrophically and incurably flawed i.e. the concept of "nothing" for "nothing" is merely a word of language for use by poets etc. In fact it is is "nothing" that does not exist. Stated another way there is always "something" and never "nothing". Now once we have done away with "nothing" then things can make sense instead of nonsense. That is to say in cosmology when you see "nothing" spend the time to ascertain what that supposed "nothing" is composed of and don't simply declare the unknown as "nothing" and carry on.

 

[castlegates]

Stated another way there is always "something" and never "nothing".

Or rather "there is always nothing between those somethings". We cannot tell one thing from another without a good dose of nothing in between. It can't be any other way near as I can tell. Put another way - Nothing is the equivalent of time, or space, or both, pick your poison, it's all the same. There is a dimensional characteristic to nothing that allows for distance between anyone thing from any other thing. Keep in mind that all things in a conceptual existence must be composed of nothing. The plot thickens.

confusing?

It sure is.

In a universe from nothing, all we have to go with is the (concept of one nothing), but that's actually plenty enough to build upon.

 

[Spoof]

There is a world of difference between "something and never nothing" and "always nothing between those somethings".

 

[MeJennifer]

I know this idea scares a lot of you, but the fact is the universe either started from nothing , or it started from some thing.

How do you conclude it started?

 

[wolram]

How do you conclude it started?

One does not, only that some evolution has been (eternal), now that is philosophy and the thread will be closed if that goes to far.

 

[Tbeer]

A word about philosophy

[ RANT ]
Wasn't it the ancient Greeks that thought the whole universe could be revealed by logic alone, that observation and experiment were needless details?

And wasn't that long LONG before the creation of the scientific method in the Renaissance? - where we discovered that, brilliant as the Greek philosophers were, they got that part COMPLETELY WRONG?

Why are we reverting to a method of discovery that's a half millenium out-of-date?

It is silly to "suppose" that something cannot come out of nothing. These are philosophical concepts! The only way to answers is to observe and collect empirical data.

But, since we can't currently (or likely, ever) do that for the beginning of the universe, that doesn't give us license to sudddenly hand-wave away things we "just don't think can happen" - such as something out of nothing.

So, to that theory I say: "If you can't show me evidence that something can't come out of nothing, then you can't claim it to be so."

[ /RANT ]

Hi Dave,

listen up! The ancient Greeks were surely up to something, but most of the just presumed that the world had always persisted. Well, I guess they preferred to think of static things and essences. But guess what! The ancient Jews didn't, they thought that the world was in the process of something, just as scientist do today! I guess for day-to-day practical problems observation is a good thing, but for the more existentialist questions I think the answer lies in the realm of the intuitive.

 

[DaveC426913]

I guess for day-to-day practical problems observation is a good thing, but for the more existentialist questions I think the answer lies in the realm of the intuitive.

Absolutely. All things real and physical should be studied by scientists through observation, while all things imaginary and supernatural should be studied by non-scientists in their own heads.

 

[jonmtkisco]

Great way to summarize the discussion!

Jon

 

[Tbeer]

I don't see that sharp distinction!

Absolutely. All things real and physical should be studied by scientists through observation, while all things imaginary and supernatural should be studied by non-scientists in their own heads.

What you try to depict as black and white, I perceive to be more like shades of gray. Even scientist need to use their heads, don't they? I mean a priori knowledge play a great role in scientific process, and observation is only one aspect of the process. I think many scientist have been greatly influenced by intuition (imagination) in their work.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think many scientist have been greatly influenced by intuition (imagination) in their work...

...on physical and real things. I agree 100%.