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 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
How do you know what the physics near the big bang looks like so I am curious how you exclude the nothing condition with certainty?


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
How do you know what the physics near the big bang looks like so I am curious how you exclude the nothing condition with certainty?


Because the BB is something.

Are you suggesting that immediately prior to the BB there could have been conditions in which something could have emerged spontaneously from nothing?


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Are you suggesting that immediately prior to the BB there could have been conditions in which something could have emerged spontaneously from nothing?

Yes .. no way to know what physics even looked like before that point.

Essentially you are arguing that based on your experience with our current universe that something can't come from nothing. However pre-big bang we aren't in our current universe so that sort of extension is dangerous.

So lets test your faith the universe isn't conserving energy as a whole right now it is rapidly making energy. So following your thinking there must be something outside our universe right now?


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
Yes .. no way to know what physics even looked like before that point.


Do you see what you said there?

If physics existed before the BB, there must have been something.
If there was something, there was not nothing.

You carefully side-stepped the actual question, presumably because you thought I would point out that "conditions" were something, but the outcome was the same.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
I'm going to bump in here just to give my 2 cents worth. Can Something come from Nothing? My answer: We don't know. I don't know of any way for it to happen, but then I don't know anything like all there is to know, particularly about the origin of the universe. There might be some way in which it is possible. One of the things about the idea that there was never Nothing is that it implies there was always Something. Possibly it would be the Quantum Foam, and our universe is a pimple on the foam. This does imply that your idea that the universe, or at least the substrate from which it formed, is infinite and eternal. The thing about it is that we have no way to determine this, at least not right now.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I completely agree with Bill G he takes the same view a scientist must take, that you can't exclude the possibility something can come from nothing.

In your answer you seem to be turning the concept of physics (a set of rules) into a something? Your response seems to make that point that physics existing = something.

To me you are making a concept into something in the same way a ghost is something to some people. I have no way of dealing with what amounts to philosophy or religion beliefs with science, so your answer is fine with me just not scientific.

I am sticking with a definition something means a thing that is measurable (a physical quantity) not a concept or idea. If I start believing concepts and ideas are "really somethings" then I might as well believe in GOD.

Lets throw you a very recent topical example, recently a weird connection between QM and Pi was discovered
http://phys.org/news/2015-11-derivation-pi-links-quantum-physics.html
Now most likely this is is just one of those weird chance things but lets play devils advocate and say we suddenly find a number PI seems to connect and control everything in the universe. My question to you would PI be a something in that situation to you?

Last edited by Orac; 11/16/15 01:59 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Bill
One of the things about the idea that there was never Nothing is that it implies there was always Something.


Exactly! I doubt that Bill Ockham actually said: "Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate"; but consider the choice between:

"There has always been something" and

" Once upon a time (sorry, there was no time) there was nothing. Suddenly, something (oops, there was no something)nothing caused something magically to appear."

Ubi necessitas sit?

Maybe there's another choice. "Orac's pink unicorn farts half a dozen universes before breakfast". I'm not a scientist, so I can go with that one, just because I like it. smile

Last edited by Bill S.; 11/17/15 01:09 AM.

There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
I apologise if the previous post was a little flippant. Let's try to serious up a bit.

Originally Posted By: Orac
In your answer you seem to be turning the concept of physics (a set of rules) into a something? Your response seems to make that point that physics existing = something.


What possible reality could "a set of rules" have if there were nothing to which they applied?

Quote:
To me you are making a concept into something in the same way a ghost is something to some people.


A concept may not be something, but it must be a concept of something. You want to have a concept of nothing, floating about in nothing, and you say I am chasing ghosts?

On second thoughts, I don't apologise.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
What possible reality could "a set of rules" have if there were nothing to which they applied?

If you are Max Tegmark mathematics smile
If you want to go right on the edge we are a computer simulation laugh

You are however getting to the crux of the problem which is what is reality. You seem to be doing a lot of expanding on your reality and imposing it on the universe ... do you remember the problem that got you into with classical physics?

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
A concept may not be something, but it must be a concept of something.

Ok lets try an example what something does the concept of the mathematical constant "e" represent?

Last edited by Orac; 11/17/15 08:36 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
Ok lets try an example what something does the concept of the mathematical constant "e" represent?


This calls to mind a quote from Blastland & Dilnot:

“Counting is easy when you don’t have to count anything with it”

The same principle applies to “e” and any other Log or irrational, or any number. It is also true that these things are meaningless when you don’t have anything to calculate with them.

What is the meaning of 1?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
You seem to be doing a lot of expanding on your reality and imposing it on the universe


How is claiming that nothing does not exist expanding reality?

Quote:
do you remember the problem that got you into with classical physics?


Which one? smile


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
What is the meaning of 1?

One, like all positive integer numbers, is a good christian number as they can represent good people you know. All the others numbers are the work of the devil laugh

OR perhaps

Mathematics consists of true facts about imaginary objects ... Philip Davis and Reuben Hersh


Mathematicians believe nothing until it is proven
Physicist believe everything until it is proven wrong
Chemist's doesn't care
Biologist doesn't understand the question.

Last edited by Orac; 11/17/15 04:42 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
How is claiming that nothing does not exist expanding reality?

Your only basis for that statement is your own reality or can you offer any other lines of evidence?

I may also ask what is outside our universe or are you now going to argue a real infinity which you have heavily argued against?


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
I may also ask what is outside our universe


As I have no wish to suggest that you and Bill were wrong in your earlier observations, my only possible answer to that is "I don't know".

However, I might suggest two possible answers:

1. Something.
2. There is no outside.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
However, I might suggest two possible answers:

1. Something.
2. There is no outside.

Lets look at your two options

1. Something

Well if there is something then that is not the end of the universe we must include that in the universe. Universe is a science word it has a definition

Universe = all of time and space and its contents.

Something means contents and so the universe gets bigger and must include what before we were calling the outside. You see the problem you are quickly going to end up at the dreaded physical infinity again.


2. There is no outside

So we either have formal containment (like a brick wall prison) or we have the dreaded physical infinity?

So the only answer you will like is formal containment. However that doesn't mean there is no outside it just says you and I and our physics can't go there or measure anything there because we are in a prison. Well that pretty much matches your definition of nothing so now you are a something contained by a nothing. You won't like that so the outside will be a something and we will be back to the dreaded physical infinity.


You see the problem your hate of physical infinities is badly at odds with your other idea there is no such thing as nothing. The two concepts are pretty much mutually exclusive and really all I was trying to get you to see.

The world science festival did a reasonable job arguing the science of nothing you might care to look at there debate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCUmeE8sIVo

Last edited by Orac; 11/18/15 03:47 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
Well if there is something then that is not the end of the universe we must include that in the universe. Universe is a science word it has a definition

Universe = all of time and space and its contents.


Could you be a little out of date here? smile As long ago as 1996 John Gribbin said:

“Universe With the capital “U”, the term used for everything that we can ever have knowledge of, the entire span of space and time accessible to our instruments, now and in the future. This may seem like a fairly comprehensive definition, and in the past has traditionally been regarded as synonymous with the entirety of everything that exists. But the development of ideas such as inflation suggests that there may be something else beyond the boundaries of the observable Universe - regions of space and time that are unobservable in principle, not just because light from them has not yet had time to reach us, or because our telescopes are not sensitive enough to detect their light. This has led to some ambiguity in the use of the term “Universe”. Some people restrict it to the observable Universe, while others argue that it should be used to refer to all of space and time. In this book, we use “Universe” as the name for our own expanding bubble of spacetime, everything that is in principle visible to our telescopes, if we wait long enough for the light to arrive. We suggest that the term “Cosmos” can be used to refer to the entirety of space and time, within which (if the inflationary scenario is correct) there may be an indefinitely large number of other expanding bubbles of spacetime, other universes with which we can never communicate.”

Quote:
So we either have formal containment (like a brick wall prison)…


Only if you assume we know all there is to know about the Universe, which you rightly point out, we don't.

Quote:
… or we have the dreaded physical infinity


You seem to be stuck on the idea that I dread physical infinity. On the contrary; I find it very difficult to see an alternative to physical infinity, but I am open to reasonable discussion. This is one reason why I tend to follow Gribbib’s Universe, universe, cosmos pattern. This permits an infinite cosmos and a Universe that could be finite or infinite. Any combination has its problems, but they are interesting.

Isn’t it Deutsch’s Law that says: “Every problem that is interesting is also soluble.”?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Isn’t it Deutsch’s Law that says: “Every problem that is interesting is also soluble.”?

I'm afraid I can't agree with Dueutsch on that. The question of whether the universe (however you define it) is infinite is basically insoluble.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Bill
I'm afraid I can't agree with Dueutsch on that. The question of whether the universe (however you define it) is infinite is basically insoluble.


Deutsch may well consider that problem uninteresting, or even, not a problem; assuming he still champions the multiverse.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Could you be a little out of date here? smile

More a bad bias on my part, I don't accept much of cosmology and sometimes I forget to filter that bias smile

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
You seem to be stuck on the idea that I dread physical infinity. On the contrary; I find it very difficult to see an alternative to physical infinity, but I am open to reasonable discussion.

Okay I will give you a reasonable alternative, that infinities are relative to a constructed reality. The basic problem with infinities is being crazy humans the first thing we do is think we are working in some absolute system, even though science will tell you it knows of no absolute system of anything.

A rat running on an exercise wheel can run for what it sees as an infinity but a human watching will tell you that the rat is running on the spot and is going to die well before infinity arrives.

Sometimes humans forget they can be the rat, we think we are above that smile

The squared probability amplitudes in quantum mechanics may only be used to predict the properties of the system at a later moment from the properties at an earlier moment, there is no absolute in that process. That means all reality is relative to the observer and no two observers will necessarily agree on an observation which is the same as SR/GR. However that throws up an interesting problem.

To show you the problem look at the very good youtube video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVpXrbZ4bnU

The problem comes at around the 23:00min mark which they correctly describe.

When scientists are talking about reality that is the problem we are struggling with in a simplified form. Two observers seeing two totally different things and cause and effect counter-posed.

Last edited by Orac; 11/19/15 07:24 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
When scientists are talking about reality that is the problem we are struggling with in a simplified form. Two observers seeing two totally different things and cause and effect counter-posed.


That’s no problem, as long as we accept that there is no absolute reality (at least not one we can observe) in our Universe (sensu Gribbin).

“cause and effect counter-posed”. I’ll need to come back to that. In the meantime, an example or two would be great.


There never was nothing.
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

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