Universe From Nothing

[Vox]

Is there any possibility or at least any sort of smallest evidence that the universe started from nothing and came into being everything.

It is simply impossible for me to think the existence of something from nothingness.

If there is some sort of proof it may enhance my understanding of nothingness's definition and its truth.

 

My current view is that "universe" "shows" "us" as much as we can see/understand/comprehend. As our understanding grows we can "see more". There is no limit in the universe how much "can be seen". The limit is our minds capabilities to "see / understand". What we are actually observing is our mind and our mind´s limits not the universe´s limits itself.

 

Main problem always will be; You can not know what you do not know, now. You can only know afterwards, step by step. Not knowing is not known.

[spellbound]

Welcome to the Forum, Spellbound. Nothing to be nervous about here, mostly friendly and very helpful people. Concerning the 'big bounce' hypothesis for the universe, see this Wiki link for additional information:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

 

Hi Rade, thanks for the link :)

[granpa]

Is there any possibility or at least any sort of smallest evidence that the universe started from nothing and came into being everything.

It is simply impossible for me to think the existence of something from nothingness.

If there is some sort of proof it may enhance my understanding of nothingness's definition and its truth.

 

you can go north only so far.

eventually you reach a point where 'north' is meaningless.

 

its the same with time.

asking what caused the first cause is simply meaningless.

 

yes, something from nothing is impossible.

[G Anthony Kent]

Is there any possibility or at least any sort of smallest evidence that the universe started from nothing and came into being everything.

It is simply impossible for me to think the existence of something from nothingness.

If there is some sort of proof it may enhance my understanding of nothingness's definition and its truth.

 

Origins, emergence and eschatology of the Universe: Dark Energy & Dark Matter

 

Should we mean "the universe" or "the meta-verse" or "the multi-verse"? (Hugh Everett)

 

Presumably, when the universe formed from an ensemble of some sort of "inflaton" point particles (Alan Guth) as a statistically inevitable child of an extremely excited field, possibly the gravitational field itself, its hyperbolic (proportional to 1/r) field began to collapse into a parabolic (1/r^2) one as soon as Inflation began. The universe did not arise out of “nothing”. Nothing is NO THING. Therefore, as an object or “thing” it does not exist. Its existence would be an oxymoron.

 

This collapse continues to this day. But, the process is almost done. There cannot be an infinite amount of energy sequestered in the hyperbolic 1/r field that would be available to fuel acceleration of the Hubble expansion rate by such a transformation. Transition to a lower potential energy parabolic field must provide a distinctly limited supply of extra impetus. Surely, after 13.72 billion years, the (1/r) potential energy mainspring has almost run down by now. The remaining (1/r) potential energy is called Dark Energy.

 

It accounts for the "missing mass " or "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" in audits of universe contents and provides a convenient, theoretically rigorous and parsimonious basis for "acceleration". Dark Energy could account for around 80% of the universe's total mass, but audits are not so accurate. Dark Matter accounts for another 15%. Still, The Mainspring may still has enough oomph to last for at least 140 billion years more! The total mass, including Dark Matter, of the universe is enough to "flatten" it while acceleration may stop, but Hubble expansion will not.

 

The hyper-excited gravitational field sprang into existence simply because it could. It came to be in a tremendously excited state because very high excited states are much more probable than lower ones, because of the zero point cut-off. This is just like virtual particles come to exist and be annihilated all the time on the quantum level (this is confirmed by experiment). None of them become universes, though, because there is already one here. It's a sort of a Pauli exclusion principle.

 

There has been some confusion about variable labels. So, let us switch definitions of "r". In the following, r is the rate of acceleration of expansion of the universe (or rotational acceleration around black-hole).

 

If the acceleration of the expansion rate is called a, and its present value is called P, then a = P at any given time, including the present. The simplest equation for the expansion rate's effect on P would be an exponential decay expression, P = ho e^(-rt), where ho is an initial value for h, r is the rate of increase in this expansion and t is time.

 

We can get an estimate of a value for ho from Alan Guth's formulation of the theory of simple inflation. The presentvalues of both the expansion rate, P1, and acceleration rate, r, is observable. We can set t = 1, for the present value of t. So, we can summarize all relevant observations with this simple equation or the associated exponential expansion equation, R = Ro ^e(rt),where R is the putative instantaneous "radius" or scale factor of the universe.

 

The current value of the expansion rate is Ho, the Hubble "constant", so P1 = Ho.

 

Back to our original definition of r (not R) as a radius or scale factor:

 

Exponential decay equations exhibit what is called a "dormancy" period or late plateau region. In this part of the discussion, here, "r" refers to distance from a center of rotation. Sorry. I missed this inconsistency in previous posts. I need a nicer symbol for the exponential period, another name for r; maybe Cyrillic backward "R"? Maybe a lower case Cyrillic "r"?

 

Using "r" as a radius or scale factor: the hyperbolic 1/r curve levels off to near zero and continues to subside gently almost linearly for an indefinite time. Plot a graph yourself on the back of an envelope! Use mass M = 1, the smaller mass, m, drops out for acceleration. And, assume G is any self consistent constant like G = 1. This is just for comparison purposes, so it matters not. The equation for orbital acceleration around a galactic center, say, levels off to a constant, even at infinity, for a hyperbolic 1/r black-hole galactic gravitational field potential diagram. (You have just DERIVED modified Newtonian Dynamics or MOND!) You must multiply r by the constant k = 1m (Systeme Internationale) for dimensional purity.

 

NOW, let us MIX the "r" metaphors. The current state of the universe itself may be considered as being in this (1/r) – implying both of the ways we defined "r" - exponential decay late dormancy or plateau period. The conclusion here is that acceleration of expansion may continue for a long time while very slowly decreasing nearer to zero.

 

The black-hole rotational acceleration connection implies that the universe may be rotating very very slowly right now. But, we cannot know. We would have to observe the universe from the outside, from the perspective of the meta-universe, to tell. From the standpoint of general relativity, we simply cannot tell from our perspective here and now.

 

Yet, in other words, even with acknowledged acceleration of the Hubble expansion rate, there does not necessarily have to be a "Big Rip" wherein the fabric of the cosmos is irreparably torn apart as expansion proceeds beyond a certain point.

 

By the way, "M Theory" doesn't exist. M Theory is just an "ideal". Brane Theory is not M Theory. Neither one has ever predicted anything that can be experimentally verified and neither one is falsifiable. Therefore, they cannot qualify as legitimate scientific propositions. Not one single unique result has ever come from either. Furthermore, they are both unnecessary. Shrewd development of general relativity and quantum are slowly causing both to merge. What's the hurry? Let true "M Theory" and "Brane theory" grow organically directly out of quantum and GR. Each step will be independently validated, then. No worry.

 

Origins, emergence and eschatology are fertile fields for philosophers. This is why we scientists are sometimes called "Doctors of Philosophies", Ph.D. Philosophi Doctori. I took Latin for three years and I am still not sure of this. German and Russian too, but this is no help. What happened to my old Latin grammar texts?

 

I got tired of converting superscripts and subscripts to their proper forms. So, I quit. You can figure it out.

[newdealtn]

Is there any possibility or at least any sort of smallest evidence that the universe started from nothing and came into being everything.

It is simply impossible for me to think the existence of something from nothingness.

If there is some sort of proof it may enhance my understanding of nothingness's definition and its truth.

Time_Travel, I think you're spot on in feeling that something cannot come from nothing. When scientists talk of nothing, they often think of a roiling false vacuum full of all manner of quantum particles, photons, neutrinos, and virtual particles. Philosophically, the term nothing I think connotes the absence of any existing thing. Anything we can even imagine must be an object with some manner of properties and attributes. Therefore, it is impossible to imagine nothing. Nothing is not capable of having any property or attribute, including causal efficacy or the potentiality that produces it. That is why something cannot come from nothing, that is why not even God can bring something forth out of nothing, it resulting therefore that whatever God creates "from nothing" as some propose must instead come from the creator, which is not what those proposers would have us believe; for then we creatures of God are ourselves made from God. That is why creationists say that God creates us from nothing. But its a flawed argument.

 

The scientists who say the universe came from nothing know better and do not mean true nothing, as I explained above. But if by nothing they mean a false vacuum roiling with quantum particles, they must still explain where that false vacuum and spatial extension holding the false vacuum and all the energy supporting those particles came from. It's as bad as membrane theory. We are not back to the beginning of things as long as something is moving or changing in some manner of space-time. Scientists are apparently unwilling to consider an existence outside of space-time and other scenarios of extension and dimension. Space-time is the very superstructure of the universe, but existence is not contained or restrained by space-time, existence is possible outside of space-time, but mathematics is not, and frankly this is unacceptable to many scientists. This is a world philosophers may stumble blindly around in, but scientists will not go there. Existence beyond space-time is beyond their scope and they rightly know it. It may be beyond the realm of scientific consideration, but it is possible and probable and is likely the ground-state of being from which all observable being comes.

 

What do you suppose existence outside of space-time would be like? What can you tell me about such a place or thing? A number of people have "observed" this ground-state of being, but they have often had prior biases that affected their understanding of what they observed. Can you imagine it as Einstein might have imagined it in one of his thought games? More later.

 

Samm

[Time_Travel]

What do you suppose existence outside of space-time would be like?

Can you tell me what exists outside space?

 

What can you tell me about such a place or thing?

Can you tell me about such a place or thing because i am sensing you know answers :D

[newdealtn]

Can you tell me what exists outside space?

 

 

Can you tell me about such a place or thing because i am sensing you know answers :D

Actually, Time_Travel, I was hoping you could tell me. :)

 

First, I think something must exist outside of space-time. Any time we try to explain the ultimate origin of anything in space-time we are forced into infinite regress, which I think is a sorry place to be, don't you? But existence can only be explained by existence; non-existence can explain absolutely nothing except non-existence.

 

But if existence is greater than space-time, what is the nature of existence beyond space-time? We can know this much by definition, as it were. If there is no space, there can be neither size nor shape nor location, no inside (undifferentiated) and no outside (unbounded), hence a one without other. There can be no multiplicity, no number, no measure, no relation or experience, no motion ergo no heat. Existence outside of space must be indiscriminate, ineffable, beyond knowing through experience as we know the things of our world.

 

And if existence is outside of time, then there can be no beginning or end, no duration. There can be no events, no process or change.

 

There can be only one thing, a thing which must be, there can only be potentiality, the limitless potentiality of which universes may be born.

 

What I am describing is the ground-state of existence or being, the initial condition from which all universes that may be must have as their origin and initial impulse. Because their can be no beginning or end of it, then it is what I call a boolean being, it either is (1) or isn't (0), and whichever is the case is forever the case. Because we are here, I suspect that it is. Because change is impossible outside of time, I believe that this ground-state of being is not diminished or disturbed by the awakening of universes from its boundless storehouse of potential. Because location is impossible outside of space, I believe the bubbles of universes, however vast the distances within them, occupy no location within the body of that existence beyond space-time.

 

As you can see, those who have described mystical experiences often describe such a reality, but they flower it often with images from their religious experience. It is really nothing but pure existence in its ground-state, unmanifest and frothing with potentiality. If it is not God, it is what God would wish to be.

 

Samm

[Time_Travel]

Actually, Time_Travel, I was hoping you could tell me. :)

 

 

I wouldn't have asked the question if i knew. :D :D

The rest of the part is ,IDK, is confusing.

[URAIN]

Is there any possibility or at least any sort of smallest evidence that the universe started from nothing and came into being everything.

It is simply impossible for me to think the existence of something from nothingness.

If there is some sort of proof it may enhance my understanding of nothingness's definition and its truth.

 

"nothingness " has discussed in fallowing thread.

 

http://scienceforums.com/topic/24079-natural-phenomena-for-conservation-and-invariance/

 

If we think about nothing, we can say it is out of imagination. You can't imagine the nothing.

 

Because the real 'nothing' is that which has never (here I am using 'Rade'suggestion) existed in past, which is not existed in present and which will never exist in future.

 

 

Other than this 'nothing' everything is existence.

 

We can't indentify this 'nothing' idea by any word or by any symbol. Because from which we identify it, those all are existences. (It means we identify 'not existence' only by existences)

[newdealtn]

I guess existence itself is as close as you can get to nothing. It can't be seen or felt or heard. It has no size or shape or location or motion, no beginning or end. It only has boundless and immeasurable potential.

 

Samm

[maddog]

What do you suppose existence outside of space-time would be like?

Can you tell me what exists outside space?

On the surface sounds like a nonsensical question without qualifications:

1) Outside of say this universe begs the question that THE universe is inside "something else".

 

In terms of Wheeler's notion of a Multiverse then this universe is just a bubble universe inside that multiverse.

So outside that is everything else.

2) I'm not sure who started this line, so I plan not to go further with this.

 

Maddog

[maddog]

I guess existence itself is as close as you can get to nothing. It can't be seen or felt or heard. It has no size or shape or location or motion, no beginning or end. It only has boundless and immeasurable potential.

 

Samm

Huh? I'm not sure I follow... Existence is what is. How do you get "nothing" from that ? You can see/taste/hear/feel what you observe. These are measures of existence. We determine what exists by assessing these measurements. Of course I could be totally missing your point which I think I am. Please clarify. <_<

 

Now as for "something from nothing" -- this is clearly derived in Quantum Mechanics (QM) from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle on the limitations of what you can know. In fact this is used by Hawking for explaining radiative processes near the event horizon of a Black Hole can account for Black Holes eventually losing their total mass to evaporation in this way. In the last evaporation gasp you then go from something to nothing (full circle). :rolleyes:

 

maddog

[newdealtn]

On the surface sounds like a nonsensical question without qualifications:

1) Outside of say this universe begs the question that THE universe is inside "something else".

 

In terms of Wheeler's notion of a Multiverse then this universe is just a bubble universe inside that multiverse.

So outside that is everything else.

2) I'm not sure who started this line, so I plan not to go further with this.

 

Maddog

You're quite right, maddog. But "outside of" is just language that's easy to use. I do not mean it to be accurate. The most correct phrase I can think of would be "independent of", existence independent of space-time is more precise. As to the bubble reference, I often call the universe an inside with no outside, a space-time bubble inside a singularity. We must remember that space and time both exist, according to most theories, only as elements of the universe and not as elements of the multiverse.

 

Samm

[newdealtn]

Huh? I'm not sure I follow... Existence is what is. How do you get "nothing" from that ? You can see/taste/hear/feel what you observe. These are measures of existence. We determine what exists by assessing these measurements. Of course I could be totally missing your point which I think I am. Please clarify. <_<

 

Now as for "something from nothing" -- this is clearly derived in Quantum Mechanics (QM) from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle on the limitations of what you can know. In fact this is used by Hawking for explaining radiative processes near the event horizon of a Black Hole can account for Black Holes eventually losing their total mass to evaporation in this way. In the last evaporation gasp you then go from something to nothing (full circle). :rolleyes:

 

maddog

I'm talking about existence itself. Not the bells and whistles that can also be experienced as hallucinations, not the "esse est percipi" of Berkeley. More like "the thing in itself". I'm talking about what it means to exist, to be real. Now you are right; it is by experience that we assess the reality of things, because experience is all that we can know. We can know nothing that we have not experienced. Thus, reality is communicated by experience. We cannot experience anything unless (1) we exist to experience it and (2) it exists to be experienced. In this way, experience validates existence, not because we actually experience the existence of things but because things must exist in order to be experienced; because experience derives from existence. And I'm talking about existence as a principle independent of and transcendent to space and time; space and time are only two other things that exist, elements of the set of existing things, so existence cannot be restricted by the qualities of space-time, although every observable and measurable quality we associate with beings in our experiences are space-time qualities and not existence itself.

 

Hawking's something from nothing is virtual particle pairs created from an existing energy potency in space. This false vacuum sort of phenomenon is not a true "nothing" of course, although it appears to be nothing. What we think to be nothing is often only what is hidden. Such is the existence of things.

 

Samm

[Time_Travel]

On the surface sounds like a nonsensical question without qualifications:

 

What kind of qualification do i need to ask questions... PHD in Astrophysics???? :D

This is a place where we discuss sense or non sense questions with proof.

The subject of "Universe from Nothing" is a theory by Theoretical physicist. So he must be asked whether its a question with any sensible qualification :D

I may sound a bit odd with this reply, but it wasn't some non sensible questions by some ignorant person but a theory proposed by an Theoretical Physicist, his name is Lawrence Krauss. My link

[JMJones0424]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/qualification

 

Definition of QUALIFICATION

 

1 : a restriction in meaning or application : a limiting modification <this statement stands without qualification>

2a obsolete : nature

b archaic : characteristic

3a : a quality or skill that fits a person (as for an office) <the applicant with the best qualifications>

b : a condition or standard that must be complied with (as for the attainment of a privilege) <a qualification for membership>

 

 

It seems to me that maddog's statement could be more correctly interpreted as, "At first glance, the question seems nonsensical without further clarification of what you mean by outside space-time," instead of "If you don't have the proper qualifications, asking `what is outside space-time' sounds nonsensical."

[Time_Travel]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/qualification

 

Definition of QUALIFICATION

 

1 : a restriction in meaning or application : a limiting modification <this statement stands without qualification>

2a obsolete : nature

b archaic : characteristic

3a : a quality or skill that fits a person (as for an office) <the applicant with the best qualifications>

b : a condition or standard that must be complied with (as for the attainment of a privilege) <a qualification for membership>

 

 

It seems to me that maddog's statement could be more correctly interpreted as, "At first glance, the question seems nonsensical without further clarification of what you mean by outside space-time," instead of "If you don't have the proper qualifications, asking `what is outside space-time' sounds nonsensical."

I mistook the question wrt definition of NONSENSICAL. But still your post made it clear maddog meant non sensical differently while i interpreted it with its literal meaning.

Sorry if i have offended anybody in anyway wrt my earlier post.