Creating the Universe from Nothing

[HydrogenBond]

If one starts with infinite-empty space, everything is the same no matter where one is. Nothing changes state, so the frquency for a change of state in infinite empty space is zero, indicative of infinite wavelength, which is another aspect of infinite empty space. So one has essentially, a speed of light reference that distance/time contracts infinity at every point, making all points the same, analogous to infinite wavelength energy at every point.

 

Infinite empty space is equivilent to near zero potential energy quanta, at every point, which all overlap because of infinite wavelength. This allows all points to be exactly the same, close to zero energy density, all seeing the same reference, but together all add up to infinite potential.

 

To form the BB from this, is actually easier than it appears. All we need to do is slow one of those tiny energy quanta to less than C. This will be exothermic since kinetic energy will decrease. If we slow one tiny quanta to less than C, it is not infinite wavelength energy anymore but becomes a tiny unit of infintessimal mass. Energy doesn't travel less than C. To restore infinite empty space, in all its empty glory, one can not just tiny bump the velocity of the tiny mass back to C. Because it is mass, it will now require infinite energy to bring it back to C.

 

What essentially happens, is that a tiny mass anomaly creates a potential between the uniform C reference of infinite empty space and itself, with all the potential enegy in infinite empty space required to return infinite empty space back to uniformity. The little mass doesn't quite get the full treatment. Somewhere along the line, "BB".

[marrstians]

what could possibly cause one of those energy quantas to slow down to less than C, if applied to the BB theroy?

[CraigD]

… the frquency for a change of state in infinite empty space is zero, indicative of infinite wavelength …

What do you mean by “the frequency for a change of state”? If this is the kind of frequency associated with a wavelength (not every frequency is – for example the frequency of my front porch light, which is typically 1 cycle/day, is not), “the velocity for a change of state” is implied. What is (and is it constant), and what is the significance of this velocity?

 

Without understanding this first unfamiliar concept, I can’t make sense of the rest of the post.

[CHADS]

cool theory ... but in the emptiness and infinite nothing ... Where did energy come from?

 

If you knew the thoery of every thing in the universe from start to finish then in theory with stupendous amounts of energy you could potentially create a universe personally in a lab.

[arkain101]

If one starts with infinite-empty space, everything is the same no matter where one is.

In a physics sense, have you said the universe does not exist?

 

Philisohically, this theory would say you are big bunch of infinite nothing?

[HydrogenBond]

With energy, the product of wavelength and frequency will equal the speed of light. If we have infinite wavelength "energy" the frequency will need to approach zero. However, "almost zero" times infinity does not equal C. This state is a mathematical discontinuity. As such, the term "infinite wavelength energy" is a misnomer since there is no number times infinity that will equal C. As such, "infinite wavelength energy" isn't energy, but something else.

 

So if you look at infinite empty space as being composed of infinite wavelength "energy" it is actually composed of stuff moving at C with a wavelength of infinite, but it is not energy, due to a mathematical discontinuity. The net affect is that infinite empty space has zero energy, although it has something in it moving at C, but that something is neither matter or energy, since what it is, does not fit into the definition of either of these two terms.

 

We are not getting something from nothing. We are getting mass and energy from something else, that is neither mass or energy, but this something else defines zero energy. This something else has zero mass and zero energy but can travel at the speed of light.

 

All we need to do is get one of these, something elses, to drop below C and a nonequilibirum state is created between this anomaly and the rest of "somethings elses" in infinite empty space.

 

If you look at mass and energy, energy can condense into mass but mass can't go directly back into energy unless force is present. For example, if an electron-positron pair formed from energy, without any of the four forces of nature present, there would be no attrraction for annihilation. As such, the single anomaly could not be directly converted back to C until force appeared.

[ErlyRisa]

Trying to coceptualise nothingness.... repeat this phrase untill ur brain liiterally hurts....

 

"Nothing is ever different"

 

when that phrase can be understood... then the idea of the big bang can finally be discounted and thrown out the door.

 

Instead of trying to imagine 'empty' space...try to imagine nothing.

 

...which is technically impossible, how would we pertain to describe zero, even empty space is somewhat an oxymoronical statement...if the space is empty, what defines the space.

[snoopy]

 

Instead of trying to imagine 'empty' space...try to imagine nothing.

 

...which is technically impossible, how would we pertain to describe zero, even empty space is somewhat an oxymoronical statement...if the space is empty, what defines the space.

 

The concept of zero is an Ancient Indian idea and it is very improtant to the history of Mathematics. If I can one egg or three eggs I can have `no` eggs.

 

So I can describe the basic idea of `nothing` or `zero` I think you mean `absolute zero` or `absolute nothingness`.

 

The laws of Thermodynamics say that `absolute zero` is unachievable you just get ever closer to `zero` without ever quite getting there. So zero `may` just be an approximation.

 

`Absolute Nothingness` is more a philosophical question rather than anything that Physics is concerned about it.

 

In Mathematics zeroes exist and are quite important to the theory of numbers. In Nature they dont seem to exist nature doesnt really like them all that much but things can be very nearly zero so as I said it might just be an `approximation`. Like when physicists talk of `empty` space its just an approximation they dont `literally` mean it. Its just useful sometimes to use approximations.

[jungjedi]

Trying to coceptualise nothingness.... repeat this phrase untill ur brain liiterally hurts....

 

"Nothing is ever different"

 

when that phrase can be understood... then the idea of the big bang can finally be discounted and thrown out the door.

 

Instead of trying to imagine 'empty' space...try to imagine nothing.

 

...which is technically impossible, how would we pertain to describe zero, even empty space is somewhat an oxymoronical statement...if the space is empty, what defines the space.

 

then what is null or null-space.is it a set containing zero?

[arkain101]

Instead of trying to imagine 'empty' space...try to imagine nothing.

 

...which is technically impossible, how would we pertain to describe zero, even empty space is somewhat an oxymoronical statement...if the space is empty, what defines the space.

 

I just though I would add a thought related to this.

 

Imagine being born without the capability to have any memory what so ever. Your body functions, people see you moving around and doing things, but you, life was over as soon as it began, as you lived an infinite now. Infinite is also valueless like nothing.