RE: Something from Nothing
March 7, 2018 at 8:14 am
(This post was last modified: March 7, 2018 at 8:17 am by Banned.)
(March 6, 2018 at 3:15 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: What Hawking was saying that the term "before" has no meaning in the context of the universe as he describes it.
It did not come from anything because there was no anywhere for it to come from and no time for it to come from.
Seems strange to me, but he is the world renowned physicist and I'm not.
Yes, I get that. It is subsequent to the idea of space and time, being created in the BB, and it follows that there isn't a "when" that all began, and that it's position would also have been irrelevant.
While the idea of "nothing" accommodates this scenario, so would "something" cater for it. Something which is able to multiply and or diminish the values of space and time from the infinite to nothing.
For example, something which is able to operate many times faster than the speed of light, would change the values of our ordinary space time.
(March 7, 2018 at 8:03 am)Khemikal Wrote: You'd have to ask them...but, broadly...Krauss and Hawking have wildly divergent opinions on the matter..part of it due to each man's own opinion.. and another likely part of the demographics of their readership. Both men address concepts in the popular mind, concepts important or interesting to their readers. Hawking considers the subject line incoherent, and could be described as a non-cognitivist in this regard. Krauss considers the traditional concepts close enough for govt. work..and could be considered a compatibilist.
Neither man assigns credence to the baggage of nothing, and neither man is discussing what spacetime arose from. That would be the BB. Their comments surround the conditions prior to the bb...if it's a coherent notion...not after it. In neither mans explanation is spacetime anything other than a physical product of a physical event.
Then they are both following the constraints of scientific thinking, which is basically this - seeing is believing.
