Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
#37360 02/06/11 07:17 AM
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
The beginning: where is it ?
===.
The beginning of Universe can be:
‘ big bang’ , ‘closed- gravity’ or ‘open - empty’.
#
First question:
Where did the mass for ‘ big bang’ come from?
Second question:
Where did the mass for ‘closed- gravity’ come from?
It is clear that these two questions lead to the third question:
How can the real mass appear from ‘open - empty’ space?
#
In my opinion to answer to this question we need to analyze
three theories: QT, SRT and Theory of Ideal gas.
1
Ideal gas.
100% of physicists believe that Theory of Ideal gas is an
abstract theory with abstract – virtual particles.
And then something happens there
( a temperature or volume or pressure changes maybe by
god’s interference) and it becomes real physical gas with
real particles.

I don’t believe in their opinion, I don’t believe in their god.
I believe in science and therefore I say that only QT and SRT
can explain the changes in the Ideal gas.
Only QT and SRT can explain how the virtual world of Ideal gas
becomes real one.
2
QT.
Dirac’s quantum theory says that a ‘open - empty’ space-
- vacuum is not empty at all - virtual particles exist there.
But Dirac didn’t give us the physical parameters of this
‘open - empty’ vacuum space.
This its weak point .
3
SRT.
The basis of SRT is an abstract ( -4D).
This its weak point.
#
In my opinion, if instead of ( -4D) and Dirac’s space
we take the physical laws and parameters of Ideal gas -
- all abstractions disappear and the real
picture of Universe will appear in front of us.
=============.
All the best.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==============================.

.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Surely an ideal gas is a hypothetical substance that is no more able to produce matter than is any mathematical concept able to conjure up reality.

IMO, the matter resulting from the Big Bang came from the energy of the BB, which must already have existed in some form.

It is reasonable to accept the BB as the birth of our Universe, but it is much more difficult to argue that it can have been the start of everything.

Nothing can come from absolutely nothing, so something must always have existed. One may call that something "God", "quantum foam", "eternal cosmos" or whatever one chooses, it must always have been there. The BB must have been simply a conversion of one kind of "something" into another.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
After looking at some of the problems involved in trying to understand the origin of the Universe, Paul Davies (State of the Universe. New Scientist Supplement. 09.10.2004. Davies. Paul, When Time Began.) says:

“In spite of these technical obstacles, one may say quite generally that once space and time are made subject to quantum principles, the possibility immediately arises of space and time ‘switching on’, or popping into existence without the need for prior causation, entirely in accordance with the laws of quantum physics.”

The “nit-picker” within refuses to remain subdued and bursts out with a loud cry of “But!”. It is reasonably easy to see how the laws of quantum physics can be applied to the spontaneous decay of a uranium atom (as Davies had done earlier). The uranium already existed, so did the laws of quantum physics, therefore the laws could be applied to the uranium atom without any problem. The same cannot be said of the Universe, that, according to this theory, did not exist before the laws of quantum mechanics were applied to it; nothing (except, presumably, the laws of quantum mechanics), existed, so these laws would have had to be applied to “nothing”. It might be argued that this can be achieved if we take, for example, the concept of quantum uncertainty. If we try to apply uncertainty to nothing, what happens? Surely the only uncertainty that can be applied to nothing is that it might be “something”. One assumes that that is the way the argument goes.

First there was nothing, but according to the laws of quantum mechanics we cannot be sure that it was nothing, therefore it could have been something. If nothing became something, then that something could have been the infant Universe. Once uncertainty has turned nothing into something, that something is “real” and we can dispense with uncertainty. Does anyone feel that the ring of familiarity here is due to the fact that we treated God in much the same way? Seriously though, I have a bit of a problem with applying quantum mechanics in a situation in which there is absolutely nothing, because in such a situation, there would, surely, be no quantum mechanics to be applied, and therefore no uncertainty to apply to that “nothing”; unless, that is, we regard quantum mechanics as having some abstract “eternity”, in which case we would be taking it out of space and time and making it “supernatural”.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
socratus

This is just a nit, but I thought I would mention it. When you use SRT are you referring to the Special Theory of Relativity (SR)? If you are then I think in this post you should be using the General Theory of Relativity (GR). SR is special because it only applies to reference frames moving at constant velocity. The universe has many reference frames moving at varying velocities. As I said, this is a nit, not something to get all excited about.

As far as the ideal gas laws are concerned. They are ideal, because they are simplifications. They assume that all the particles in the gas are point masses, that is they have no length, width, or breadth. That is the idealization, because gasses are not composed of point masses. The gas laws were developed before the theory of atoms was developed, because nobody knew just what gases were composed of. One of the major factors in the use of the gas laws is that they apply only over a certain range of temperatures and pressures. For what we consider normal temperatures and pressures they work extremely well, but they are classical laws. Classical laws were the laws developed before quantum theory (QT) and GR were developed. To figure out what was happening scientists made the simplifying assumption that the gases were point masses, just so they could work with them. As far as I know they did not really think they were working with point masses, but since they didn't know what they were, they used them to work things out. The point masses didn't just suddenly become atoms and molecules.


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Say something, Socratus! You can't leave us in no-man's-land. smile


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
After looking at some of the problems involved in trying to understand the origin of the Universe, Paul Davies (State of the Universe. New Scientist Supplement. 09.10.2004. Davies. Paul, When Time Began.) says:

“In spite of these technical obstacles, one may say quite generally that once space and time are made subject to quantum principles, the possibility immediately arises of space and time ‘switching on’, or popping into existence without the need for prior causation, entirely in accordance with the laws of quantum physics.”

The “nit-picker” within refuses to remain subdued and bursts out with a loud cry of “But!”. It is reasonably easy to see how the laws of quantum physics can be applied to the spontaneous decay of a uranium atom (as Davies had done earlier). The uranium already existed, so did the laws of quantum physics, therefore the laws could be applied to the uranium atom without any problem. The same cannot be said of the Universe, that, according to this theory, did not exist before the laws of quantum mechanics were applied to it; nothing (except, presumably, the laws of quantum mechanics), existed, so these laws would have had to be applied to “nothing”. It might be argued that this can be achieved if we take, for example, the concept of quantum uncertainty. If we try to apply uncertainty to nothing, what happens? Surely the only uncertainty that can be applied to nothing is that it might be “something”. One assumes that that is the way the argument goes.

First there was nothing, but according to the laws of quantum mechanics we cannot be sure that it was nothing, therefore it could have been something. If nothing became something, then that something could have been the infant Universe. Once uncertainty has turned nothing into something, that something is “real” and we can dispense with uncertainty. Does anyone feel that the ring of familiarity here is due to the fact that we treated God in much the same way? Seriously though, I have a bit of a problem with applying quantum mechanics in a situation in which there is absolutely nothing, because in such a situation, there would, surely, be no quantum mechanics to be applied, and therefore no uncertainty to apply to that “nothing”; unless, that is, we regard quantum mechanics as having some abstract “eternity”, in which case we would be taking it out of space and time and making it “supernatural”.


If I try to apply uncertainty to ‘nothing’, what happens?
/ Bill S. /
==========================.
In brief. / my opinion /

In the beginning there was ‘Nothing’.
Then according to the law of Heisenberg’s
Uncertainty principle we cannot be sure that it was
‘nothing’ as absence of everything.
If Uncertainty law can be applied to ‘Nothing’ is that
it might be ‘something ‘ there.
If ‘nothing ‘ became ‘something real ‘, then that
something could have been the infant Universe.
#
But then you have problem:
!
Seriously though, I have a bit of a problem with
applying quantum mechanics in a situation in which there
is absolutely nothing, because in such a situation, there would,
surely, be no quantum mechanics to be applied,
and therefore no uncertainty to apply to that “nothing”;
unless, that is, we regard quantum mechanics as having some
abstract “eternity”, in which case we would be taking it out of space
and time and making it “supernatural”.
/ Bill S. /

What problem do you have?
You don’t believe yourself that this is possible.

What to do?
It needs long time to accept not only the another
but also the own ideas.
Take for example Planck. Long time he didn’t believe
that his own quant is independent particle.

I know this situation also by myself.
I also didn’t believe myself that ideas which
I began to understand can be true ideas.
It took for me long time to accept my own ideas.

Maybe this is also your way.( !?)

Best wishes
Socratus.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Any 'nothing' that can host a law or a deity or anything else, either concrete or abstract, is not absolutely nothing.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Any 'nothing' that can host a law
or a deity or anything else,
either concrete or abstract,
is not absolutely nothing.


In brief: Any 'nothing' is not absolutely nothing.
So.
1
Can any 'nothing' be not ‘absolutely nothing’?
For example:
‘ Ideal gas’, ‘ Kirchhoff black body’, Minkowski (-4D)
and ‘Minkowski light cone’,
etc . . . and . . .
2
And can ‘ something’ (!) be ‘absolutely nothing’?
For example:
‘Quark’, ‘String theory’, .’Black hole’, (!) . .’CERN’ (!) . .
. . . . etc . . and . .
3.
And many years ago Aristotle wrote:
‘The Nature is afraid of Nothingness’.
And now some people think that ‘ Nothingness’
is not exactly ‘nothing’.
And now the Quantum theory agrees with Aristotle.
And so, maybe, Aristotle was right separating the knowledge
of Nature on two parts: Physics and Metaphysics.

Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
===================.

Last edited by socratus; 02/11/11 10:38 AM.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: socratus
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Any 'nothing' that can host a law
or a deity or anything else,
either concrete or abstract,
is not absolutely nothing.


In brief: Any 'nothing' is not absolutely nothing

That's not exactly what I attempted to say, i.e. that absolute 'nothing' is a valid concept that excludes any kind of existence whatsoever. So for me, it appears true that 'something', not absolute 'nothing', produced our universe.
The kind of 'nothing' that physicists say can produce 'something' is not absolutely nothing.



"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
The kind of 'nothing' that physicists say can produce 'something' is not absolutely nothing.


To talk of nothing that is really something is butchering the English language. "Absolutely nothing" is a tautology that becomes a necessity only when one starts messing about with nothingness. Why can't we just have "nothing" and "something" and find another term for that kind of 'nothing' that physicists say can produce 'something'.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
To talk of nothing that is really something is butchering the English language. "Absolutely nothing" is a tautology that becomes a necessity only when one starts messing about with nothingness.
It's not a tautology, Bill, it's a means of labeling different two concepts of nothing. Perhaps you might say that the physicists in question have been "messing about with nothingness"
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Why can't we just have "nothing" and "something" and find another term for that kind of 'nothing' that physicists say can produce 'something'.
All you have to do is convince those physicists who insist that something did come from nothing, that the 'nothing' they refer to is in fact 'something'.



"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: rede
All you have to do is convince those physicists who insist that something did come from nothing, that the 'nothing' they refer to is in fact 'something'.


That sounds a bit like convincing the Pope that St Peter was an atheist. smile


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
What part of nothing is something?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: rede
It's not a tautology, Bill,


I'm glad you said that, because looking back through this thread, I find I used "absolutely nothing" myself. frown


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: rede
Bill, it's a means of labeling different two concepts of nothing.


I've been giving this some thought and I have just one question: Is there a concept of nothing that is not nothing, if so, how do you distinguish it from something? (Actually, I think that's two questions!)


There never was nothing.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Well, let's look at it. There's "the glass with nothing in it" kind of nothing. We know very well what that means, and it doesn't mean "nothing at all". Then there's the idea of spacetime with nothing at all in it. Unlike the "nothing" in the glass, this "nothing" means "not a single atom or quark"; yet neither does this mean "nothing at all" - it means "nothing except the existence of dimensions". Then there's a comprehensive "nothing" that means "the non-existence of every conceivable thing, including dimensions".


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Rede, I appreciate what you are saying, but I was under the impression that science, as far as possible, dealt in precision. We all know that when we say a glass has nothing in it, we don't really mean nothing; simply none of the things one might expect to find in a full glass.

The idea of spacetime with nothing in it is only a little less imprecise if we accept that it is a mass of virtual particles, all doing their thing.

I'm not sure that I accept dimensions alone as constituting "something". Like numbers, which I believe have no existence of their own, dimensions are concepts which we impose upon space for our own purposes.

I accept that it is sometimes convenient to use "nothing" in an imprecise way, but there has to be a danger that without care it can lead to the same sort of confusion of thought as failing to make a distinction between mathematical and physical infinities.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
It is, of course, for you to decide what you should believe regarding numbers and dimensions, and your comments are a fitting reminder regarding the essence of this thread. The title "the beginning: where is it" leaves plenty of scope for philosophizing and belief, and precious little for science. I don't have anything useful to add to the (evidently useless) things I've already said smile


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
(for some unknown reason I can't edit the above post so...)

I won't try to speak for those scientists concerned regarding their personal views on the meaning of "nothing", but the "nothing" to which they sometimes refer is necessarily a multi-dimensional continuum in which quantum events occur. That, excuse my persistence, is not nothing. It's multi-dimensional continuum in which quantum events occur!


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Rede, I don't recall your ever having said anything "useless". One of the reasons I persist in posting odd ideas I am trying to make sense of, is that you patiently treat them with liberal doses of common sense.

Your last post suggests that, philosophy notwithstanding, there may be less distance between our positions that at first appeared.

Quote:
the "nothing" to which they sometimes refer is necessarily a multi-dimensional continuum in which quantum events occur. That, excuse my persistence, is not nothing.


Perhaps I have just been expressing it badly, but that is precisely my point: the nothing to which they refer "is not nothing". It must, therefore, be something. smile


There never was nothing.
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5