Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum The beginning: where is it ?

Then we agree. Coincidentally, I've just seen a snippet of a conversation with Michio Kaku in which he said the same thing - far more eloquently than I did

My sole point is, of course, that, notwithstanding the impossibility of scientific proof, those scientists who hypothesize 'a universe from nothing' should state definitively what they mean by nothing, even if only because it often seems to crop up in religion v science debates (i.e. rows).

Confuses us old pedants, as well.

The physicists say that:
1
The Dirac’s virtual particles are ’something’
2
the dark energy is ’something’
3
the dark matter is ’something’
=.
It is pity that physicists say that they are ’something’
but didn’t give their physical parameters.
===.

rede, I'm don't believe there are very many scientists who really say that the universe came from nothing. That may sound like what they are saying, but in fact they have no idea where the universe came from. At this time they can't extrapolate back in time any further than the big bang. Before that scientists just don't know what was going on. There has been a lot of speculation, but there is nothing to really guide them. Given time we may develop some idea of what happened way back then, but I'm not going to hold my breath. The best we know is at the big bang the universe as we know it came into existence. What it was like before that is completely open. About the best they can say is that the universe came from a singularity where the whole universe was compressed into an infinitely small point. And of course that raises some philosophical questions that I don't want to get into.

Now as far as something coming from nothing, the closest thing I know of are the quantum virtual particles that occur just because the Uncertainty Principle requires them. They pop up and disappear all the time, but have almost no effect on the bigger world around us. I say almost no effect because they have been detected in well constructed experiments on the Casimir Effect. But they are well understood theoretically, even if they don't make any sense to us. And the fact that they don't make sense to us is what bothers a lot of people. For people who evolved to see a macroscopic world, the microscopic quantum world seems to be totally insane.

Bill Gill

Are you saying that these are examples of "something" that really are "nothing"?

I think it raises more than just philosophical questions, but I agree that this is probably not the appropriate place to bring those out again.
However, I am not entirely at ease with virtual particles as an example of something from nothing. Presumably the vacuum energy is a sine qua non of the popping in and out of existence that these virtual particles do, and the vacuum energy seems to be something.

Well, that is what I mean about QM seeming to be totally insane. The vacuum energy is indeed associated with the virtual particles popping in and out. But we have no real experience with something happening at random that way. While we see things happen that we didn't expect, we still figure there must have been something to cause them. But the virtual particles really do seem to happen just because they do. They are to be expected from a study of QM, but at the same time they are some of the results of QM that seem totally insane. So I guess what I am saying is that yes, the vacuum energy is something, but there is nothing in our "real world" experience that can explain where it comes from in a vacuum, where there is supposed to be nothing. Now I hope you feel some of my frustration at trying to figure out what I am talking about. I sometimes have a problems figuring out what I am talking about myself.

Bill Gill

Bill, the feelings of frustration/confusion you mention are my constant companions. As a driving force, though, they keep life interesting.

I'm not sure that my understanding of the vacuum energy is main stream. I see it as something that, in its entirety, always exists, although at an individual level particles are coming and going all the time.

Thanks for the post, Bill. I wouldn't want to mislead you into thinking that I wasn't aware of the info you provided; but, certainly, it does sound like what some are saying. I'm raising the point, as I indicated, that some scientists have presented themselves as keen keen proponents of "a universe from nothing" - evidently in response to creationism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfOL_oGgRVk&feature=related

On the other hand a good deal of re-thinking has occurred in the past 10 yrs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bGx3UB-Slg&feature=related

In my opinion: every elementary particle, which cannot be
pictured as a thing, with its own geometrical and physical
parameters is ‘nothing’
Of course, physicists can use this particle as a ‘point’ and
describe an experiment, but the philosophical essence
will be hidden. And later we will read his rapport:
'this experiment was originally planned with a view to
a possible measurement of . . . . '
but . . . but the essence,
the understanding of micro – subatomic reality lies beyond
the capabilities of rational thought.
===.

Our knowledge.
Quantum of light is point.
Electron is point/ sphere.
Proton is point / sphere.
They created an (point / sphere) atom
The atoms form a cell.
The cells form everything.
All the rest are trivialities.
==.

In fact none of this is true. A photon is not a point, it has a size, which is described by a probability function. The size varies depending on the frequency.

The electron is worked with as a point, but it has many parameters (spin, charge, etc.) which indicate that it has some kind of complex structure, and a point could not support that structure. But it is small enough that it can be considered as a point in the mathematics used to work with it. At a finer scale its size would have to be considered.

The proton is definitely not a point, since it is made up of 3 quarks and some gluons. None of these is in fact a point. The gluons in particular have length, which is variable. But claiming that they are all points is just totally wrong.

Bill Gill

If we can't picture it doesn't exist? Isn't that rather an anthropocentric view of existence?

If we can't reach T=0K it doesn't exist?
Isn't that rather an anthropocentric view of existence?

Our knowledge.

Quantum of light is a point.
Electron is a point/ sphere.
Proton is a point / sphere.
They created an (point / sphere) atom.
The atoms form :
a) stars . . .planet,
b) cells . . . . life (consciousness) .
All the rest are trivialities.
==.
Questions.
Why does Physics have many branches which
don’t incorporate and doesn’t have Unified theory?
Where does consciousness come from?
=============.

I see you are still ignoring the fact that a lot of the things you say are just wrong.

But in response to your question about why physics doesn't have a unified theory. Physics doesn't have a unified theory because we don't know enough yet to develop a unified theory. Keep in mind that there has very seldom been anything that was figured out in one giant step. Before Newton there were a number of different laws about how things moved. People understood about how planets moved, and they knew about how things fall. Newton figured out a small group of laws that covered both things, and did it in a much more complete way. Since then we have gotten a lot further into how things work, but we just haven't gotten far enough to develop a Theory of Everything (TOE). A lot of people are working on it, but it isn't easy. We hope that sooner or late we will figure it out.

Bill Gill

It would be if you believed it!

Actually,do you believe in String Theory or M-theory.
Many Professors like Susskind support this theory. But also have many object it.
If strings combined become membrane and in the 11th dimension, two membrane "touch" each other and form the bing bang in our dimension, will that possible?

gan

Personally I am not much in love with string theory, or its extension M theory. They both seem to be overblown, and without any way to actually match them to the universe we live in. I just read Susskinds book "The Black Hole War" but he didn't go into string theory in that one. I am currently reading "Warped Passages" by Lisa Randall. She discusses string theory and M theory, but still hasn't convinced me. She does point out some of the problems with string theory. However, string theorists do seem to have given us some great mathematical tools for investigating the far reaches of physics.

As far as interaction between branes is concerned, I have absolutely no idea how they work. I have an undergraduate degree in physics, but the math used in any of this is far beyond my understanding. I need to read more popularized information to be able to reach any conclusions.

I have also read "The Trouble With Physics" by Lee Smolin. I think he has some good points in his argument against string theory. I admit that part of his problem with physics today is that his ideas aren't getting the attention he thinks they deserve, because so many physics departments are concentrating on string theory to the exclusion of other approaches. I kind of agree that they are probably concentrating too hard on one approach. I think that real progress is more likely to be made if a lot of different approaches are used.

Bill Gill

TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING
[Simplest Theory Of Everything!]

Creator/Author: Khalid Masood

“TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING” is ‘The Time Universe Theory’!

I propose, only Time exists in the Universe: “Time Creates Space, Life, Consciousness, and the Universe Itself”

The only truth about the physical Universe is that it is not physical ! The smartest thing of the Universe is Universe itself ! Universe is not only small and finite. Universe ‘on the whole’ is smartest phenomenon of the Universe ! ‘On the whole’ Universe is ‘shapeless’, ‘massless’ and ‘weightless’. I CAN PICK IT UP !!! Einstein’s “second law,” m = E/ c^2 i.e. m = E/ c2 [ How mass drives from pure Energy.], raises the question whether mass can be understood more deeply as energy. And can we build, as Wheeler put it, ” Mass Without Mass “,? are the best predictions in favour of my ” Time Theory of Everything “. In my view the first question is “How pure energy drives from TIME?”. ”The Universe is not what it used to be, nor what it appears to be.” as Frank W ilczek of MIT quoted in first chapter ‘Getting to it’ of his book titled ” The Lightness of Being ” [ mass, ether, and the unification of forces ] also supports my theory. Infinity is finity ‘on the whole’. There is nothing original under the physical phenomena. All physical properties of the universe are secondary in nature.There is a Universe behind the ‘Physical Universe’ which is ‘DARK’ and primary Universe. If a “Theory of Everything” is Holy Grail of cosmology, “Time Theory of Everything” is Holy Grail of physics. Physicists are hunting for an elusive particle that would reveal the presence of a new kind of field that permeates all of reality. Finding that Higgs field will give us a more complete understanding about how the elusive universe works! I believe in bold imagination in research. I believe universe is not acadamic, and is not bound of our physical theories. Capture Higgs particle, ‘eyes on a prize particle’, the search for the Higgs boson [God Particle] and creation of micro black holes is nonsense idea. Higgs boson is not Destiny. We have to rethink TIME and ETERNITY. Basic and primary stuff of the universe is not physical. All matter, energy and fundamental forces of nature are secondary and reffered by a unified primary force of nature. There is a ‘co-ordination force’ in between ‘God’ and all secondary forces of nature, which is more important than Higgs boson !! I suggest this force is TIME. TIME is invisible presence and the only BASIC BUILDING BLOCK of the Universe and Everything in it ! Deep down, the particles and forces of the universe are a manifestation of TIME. TIME is a coordination force of the Universe and Multiverse referred by Nature. Nothing has independent existence except TIME. All three and extra dimensions of space are of time’s dimensions. Time is not a 4th dimension of space. TIME IS ALL DIMENSIONS. PASSWORD of TIME is in the Mind of GOD. Tell me about the NATURE OF TIME, I can create the UNIVERSE, a MACRO BLACK HOLE, Higgs boson and even LIFE ! “If all cosmologists of the world say a foolish thing it is still a foolish thing !” I WILL CHANGE THE HISTORY OF TIME ! I have suggested in my ” TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING ” that God does not play PARTICLES game with the Universe ! Three of space and one of time that three space dimensions and one of time dimension is wrong idea. Time is included in three space dimensions, but not as a 4th dimension i.e all dimensions of space are dimensions of time. TIME IS NOT A MANUFACTURED QUANTITY. Time has independent existence and fundamental. Space is a manufactured quantity and secondary form of time. I believe in infinite extra spatial dimensions of ‘TIME’ only, and I know what these dimensions are, but I don’t believe time as extra dimension with space. I don’t believe in extra dimensions of space, I believe in extra dimensions of time! Three dimensions of space and one dimension of of time is absolutely wrong idea. Our physical universe exists in three or 11 dimensions of time! [as string theory proposed,10 of space and one of time dimension] “There isn’t just one dimension of time,” says Itzhak Bars of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.”There are two. One whole dimension has until now gone entirely unnoticed by us. Two time / 2T Physics” [New scientist 13 October 2007, Hypertime, Cover story] Why we need two dimensions of time? Why not we need 11 and many more dimensions of TIME ! Higgs boson should be named “TIME PARTICLE”

A NEW HYPOTHESIS:

I don’t believe particles in any shape or dimensions as basic building blocks of matter, energy, and everything in the universe. I have an alternative “Fluctuating Extreme Levels” hypothesis which is a part of my “Time Theory of Everything” [Extreme Level Theory] Extreme Level Theory suggests that basic building blocks of everything in the universe are composed of ‘Fluctuating Extreme Levels’ of energy. In ‘Extreme Level Theory’ of time, Extreme Levels correspond to different entities and quantities. If Extreme Level Theory proves correct, photons, electrons and neutrinos are different due to changes in the fluctuations of extreme levels. Prior to Extreme Level Theory, subatomic ‘particles’ were envisioned as tiny balls or points of energy. Extreme Level Theory works on the premise that the tiniest subatomic bits that make up the elements of atoms actually behave like ‘Fluctuating Extreme Levels’ and not like vibrating or dancing strings! Higg’s Field is a “Time’s Field”…….. Photon is no more now a particle, a wave, or has features of both! Photon exist at fluctuating extreme level of energy. My “TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING” will change the meaning of Matter, Energy, Natural Forces, Consciousness, Life & Extraterrestrial Life and Death.
Khalid Masood
khalidcustoms@gmail.com