Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
August 10, 2013 at 1:08 am (This post was last modified: August 10, 2013 at 1:10 am by Whateverist.)
Sorry to leave you hanging. I quit coming back to this thread when it became clear that the OP wasn't coming back. Just another shit-and-run bible-belter it would seem.
(August 7, 2013 at 8:38 pm)Terr Wrote: The Big Bang theory simply describes an expanding, cooling universe. As has been demonstrated to be the case.
It sayes NOTHING about what what caused it, or the state before (if there was one). Without evidence this would be utterly un-scientific. However there are a number of competeing hypotheses, time and evidence will tell.
I completely agree with you that to make broad sweeping statements about there being no space and no time before the big bang is extremely loose scientific speculation and many have been guilty. Frankly I don't know that we will ever find a way to peer beyond the singularity event of which we are a part. It may be unique and final and involve everything coming from nothing, but I find that highly unlikely. I assume that there are preconditions for a singularity event and that there have been and will be more than one. That, of course, is not a scientific theory. It is pure speculation on a par with, but no better than, that of those who believe in everything from nothing but only once.
(August 7, 2013 at 9:36 pm)Terr Wrote:
(August 7, 2013 at 9:01 pm)ManMachine Wrote: I think you've understated the 'unscientific' argument. Karl Popper spent a large part of his academic life trying to establish demarcation.
I wouldn't like to mislead the OP. The only generally accepted requirement for scientific theory is that it is falsifiable. Even that has problems, I could put forward the theory that the spots on the Sun indicate it will explode in a thousand years, it's falsifiable in principle but not by you or anyone else alive today.
MM
Fair comment, but without some observational evidence my view is that you are would be presenting a hypotheses, not a fully fledged theory.
Agreed. Leastwise if it represents a sincere effort to fit the best available data that wasn't obvious and in fact the tone was flippant, so probably not. Hypothesis at best, non sequitur more likely.
(August 10, 2013 at 1:08 am)whateverist Wrote: Sorry to leave you hanging. I quit coming back to this thread when it became clear that the OP wasn't coming back. Just another shit-and-run bible-belter it would seem.
(August 7, 2013 at 8:38 pm)Terr Wrote:
The Big Bang theory simply describes an expanding, cooling universe. As has been demonstrated to be the case.
It sayes NOTHING about what what caused it, or the state before (if there was one). Without evidence this would be utterly un-scientific. However there are a number of competeing hypotheses, time and evidence will tell.
I completely agree with you that to make broad sweeping statements about there being no space and no time before the big bang is extremely loose scientific speculation and many have been guilty. Frankly I don't know that we will ever find a way to peer beyond the singularity event of which we are a part. It may be unique and final and involve everything coming from nothing, but I find that highly unlikely. I assume that there are preconditions for a singularity event and that there have been and will be more than one. That, of course, is not a scientific theory. It is pure speculation on a par with, but no better than, that of those who believe in everything from nothing but only once.
I've posted on this before. The Theory of Something from nothing is as sound as any other. It's mainly predicated on two widely accepted principles, one being the underlying symmetries in all Physical Constants (Noether's Theorem) - which also works for Quantum Theory as well. The other is Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, largely built on the work by Nobel Physicist Yoichiro Nambu.
What's interesting and perhaps more telling is that a number of different fields of study are converging on the same conclusion, and we all know what this usually indicates.
Dr Stephan Dürr's work on the Standard Model (in particular the mass of hydrogen nuclei), Yoichiro Nambu's Broken Symmetry (which rather interestingly brings along with it The Laws of conservation of Energy, Momentum and even quantum spin among others), Igor Sokolov, John Nees and Gerard Mourou's work with high-energy electron beams, Victor Stenger, Stephen Hawking, Makoto Kobayashi, Toshihide Maskawa, etc.
Something from nothing is an established feature of the Quantum Vacuum, I accept this does not mean it's the right Theory for Universe Origins but with so much work pointing in this direction it's becoming harder to ignore. As you rightly pointed out we do not know the mechanics of the early Universe, but then that can be said of any Early Universe Theory, the unusual feature about the Something from Nothing Theory is the weight of convergence from across the fields of Physics.
The theory of something from nothing is not 'extremely loose scientific speculation', it is built on solid mathematical reasoning and experimental evidence. Observations by Maldacena, Ryu and Takayanagi and a rather elegant paper from Brian Swingle in 2009, Mark Van Raamsdonk has proposed that quantum entanglement is the fundamental ingredient underlying spacetime geometry. This, in turn, has led to further work from Juan Maldacena and Lenny Susskind.
As I've said all along, it is extremely difficult to get the Something from Nothing Theory across to people because of how difficult it is to explain in simple terms. Oversimplified it reads like metaphysics in Disneyland, but the alternative is to exclude those who don't have a working understanding of quantum mechanics and relativity.
There is no easy way to explain these concepts without seeming to be flippant and somewhat cavalier with Relativity, when neither is the case.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
August 11, 2013 at 2:55 am (This post was last modified: August 11, 2013 at 2:56 am by Whateverist.)
(August 10, 2013 at 11:11 pm)ManMachine Wrote:
(August 10, 2013 at 1:08 am)whateverist Wrote: Sorry to leave you hanging. I quit coming back to this thread when it became clear that the OP wasn't coming back. Just another shit-and-run bible-belter it would seem.
I completely agree with you that to make broad sweeping statements about there being no space and no time before the big bang is extremely loose scientific speculation and many have been guilty. Frankly I don't know that we will ever find a way to peer beyond the singularity event of which we are a part. It may be unique and final and involve everything coming from nothing, but I find that highly unlikely. I assume that there are preconditions for a singularity event and that there have been and will be more than one. That, of course, is not a scientific theory. It is pure speculation on a par with, but no better than, that of those who believe in everything from nothing but only once.
I've posted on this before. The Theory of Something from nothing is as sound as any other. It's mainly predicated on two widely accepted principles, one being the underlying symmetries in all Physical Constants (Noether's Theorem) - which also works for Quantum Theory as well. The other is Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, largely built on the work by Nobel Physicist Yoichiro Nambu.
What's interesting and perhaps more telling is that a number of different fields of study are converging on the same conclusion, and we all know what this usually indicates.
Dr Stephan Dürr's work on the Standard Model (in particular the mass of hydrogen nuclei), Yoichiro Nambu's Broken Symmetry (which rather interestingly brings along with it The Laws of conservation of Energy, Momentum and even quantum spin among others), Igor Sokolov, John Nees and Gerard Mourou's work with high-energy electron beams, Victor Stenger, Stephen Hawking, Makoto Kobayashi, Toshihide Maskawa, etc.
Something from nothing is an established feature of the Quantum Vacuum, I accept this does not mean it's the right Theory for Universe Origins but with so much work pointing in this direction it's becoming harder to ignore. As you rightly pointed out we do not know the mechanics of the early Universe, but then that can be said of any Early Universe Theory, the unusual feature about the Something from Nothing Theory is the weight of convergence from across the fields of Physics.
The theory of something from nothing is not 'extremely loose scientific speculation', it is built on solid mathematical reasoning and experimental evidence. Observations by Maldacena, Ryu and Takayanagi and a rather elegant paper from Brian Swingle in 2009, Mark Van Raamsdonk has proposed that quantum entanglement is the fundamental ingredient underlying spacetime geometry. This, in turn, has led to further work from Juan Maldacena and Lenny Susskind.
As I've said all along, it is extremely difficult to get the Something from Nothing Theory across to people because of how difficult it is to explain in simple terms. Oversimplified it reads like metaphysics in Disneyland, but the alternative is to exclude those who don't have a working understanding of quantum mechanics and relativity.
There is no easy way to explain these concepts without seeming to be flippant and somewhat cavalier with Relativity, when neither is the case.
MM
That went completely over my head. Nonetheless, I remain convinced that observations obtained within the singularity event of which we are a part cannot possibly yield evidence for everything from nothing and once only. Mathematical models are just that and they may very well describe what we observe without shedding one bit of light on the question of prior conditions. Sorry, I just find it absurd on the face of it. If you're asking me to accept it on the theorizing of experts, I would still need to understand at least in some approximate way how what we are able to observe within this singularity event reflects upon the larger picture. To assume there is no larger picture just because that isn't contained within this singularity event strikes me as obtuse. If I may ask, what expertise do you have to speak on this?
August 11, 2013 at 7:20 pm (This post was last modified: August 11, 2013 at 7:24 pm by ManMachine.)
(August 11, 2013 at 2:55 am)whateverist Wrote:
(August 10, 2013 at 11:11 pm)ManMachine Wrote:
I've posted on this before. The Theory of Something from nothing is as sound as any other. It's mainly predicated on two widely accepted principles, one being the underlying symmetries in all Physical Constants (Noether's Theorem) - which also works for Quantum Theory as well. The other is Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, largely built on the work by Nobel Physicist Yoichiro Nambu.
What's interesting and perhaps more telling is that a number of different fields of study are converging on the same conclusion, and we all know what this usually indicates.
Dr Stephan Dürr's work on the Standard Model (in particular the mass of hydrogen nuclei), Yoichiro Nambu's Broken Symmetry (which rather interestingly brings along with it The Laws of conservation of Energy, Momentum and even quantum spin among others), Igor Sokolov, John Nees and Gerard Mourou's work with high-energy electron beams, Victor Stenger, Stephen Hawking, Makoto Kobayashi, Toshihide Maskawa, etc.
Something from nothing is an established feature of the Quantum Vacuum, I accept this does not mean it's the right Theory for Universe Origins but with so much work pointing in this direction it's becoming harder to ignore. As you rightly pointed out we do not know the mechanics of the early Universe, but then that can be said of any Early Universe Theory, the unusual feature about the Something from Nothing Theory is the weight of convergence from across the fields of Physics.
The theory of something from nothing is not 'extremely loose scientific speculation', it is built on solid mathematical reasoning and experimental evidence. Observations by Maldacena, Ryu and Takayanagi and a rather elegant paper from Brian Swingle in 2009, Mark Van Raamsdonk has proposed that quantum entanglement is the fundamental ingredient underlying spacetime geometry. This, in turn, has led to further work from Juan Maldacena and Lenny Susskind.
As I've said all along, it is extremely difficult to get the Something from Nothing Theory across to people because of how difficult it is to explain in simple terms. Oversimplified it reads like metaphysics in Disneyland, but the alternative is to exclude those who don't have a working understanding of quantum mechanics and relativity.
There is no easy way to explain these concepts without seeming to be flippant and somewhat cavalier with Relativity, when neither is the case.
MM
That went completely over my head. Nonetheless, I remain convinced that observations obtained within the singularity event of which we are a part cannot possibly yield evidence for everything from nothing and once only. Mathematical models are just that and they may very well describe what we observe without shedding one bit of light on the question of prior conditions. Sorry, I just find it absurd on the face of it. If you're asking me to accept it on the theorizing of experts, I would still need to understand at least in some approximate way how what we are able to observe within this singularity event reflects upon the larger picture. To assume there is no larger picture just because that isn't contained within this singularity event strikes me as obtuse. If I may ask, what expertise do you have to speak on this?
Don't get me wrong, I think you're right to be sceptical, and you should not be convinced by me or any other person but by weight of reason, and there, as Shakespeare wrote, is the rub.
When it was published Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity was based on Mathematical Models, and a lot of people at the time were sceptical of his work. In fact others and Einstein himself refined the Mathematical Models after the original presentation of special relativity in 1905. Pretty much all of Quantum Theory is built on Mathematical Models and much of the evidence we now have only came along a considerable time after the theory.
Quantum Theory suggest that there are many more dimensions that the four we can comprehend in a physical sense, do we disregard all quantum theory because we cannot grasp the concepts? Einstein was so displeased with Quantum Theory he uttered those now infamous words 'God does not play with dice', and he remained displeased until his death. So you are in good company.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'singularity event', but I have given a more detailed description of how something from nothing works in another thread (below).
Something from Nothing, in a little bit more detail;
The something from nothing theory has been around for a number of years. There is much more to it than just the Casimir effect. There's another similar observable phenomenon called the Lamb shift.
Outside of these features of quantum vacuums there is also the bigger debate and arguments in support of the something from nothing theory are gaining in momentum.
In mathematics we have something called Noether's Theorem (names after Amalie Emmy Noether, a German mathematician who's ground-breaking work abstract algebra and theoretical physics paved the way for Einstein, Weyl, Wiener, etc.).
Noether demonstrated fundamental connections between symmetry (or invariance) and conservation theories using the principle of least action as a modulator.
To illuminate this, if we carry out a scientific experiment in London at the same time as carrying out an identical experiment in New York the results will be the same. This means the 'laws of physics' have symmetry in space. Similarly if we carry out an experiment on a Monday then repeat an identical experiment on a Wednesday we can demonstrate the 'laws of physics' have symmetry in time, furthermore it doesn't matter the orientation of our identical experiments, the 'laws of physics' have symmetry in orientation as well.
These symmetries when modulated by the principle of least action and applied to Noether's theorem lead directly to the conservation of energy, the conservation of momentum and the conservation of angular momentum respectively. But it goes deeper.
Not only are the 'laws of physics' symmetrical in space and time but also in spacetime. We all know from Einstein's special theory of relativity that space 'contracts' and time 'dilates' for a moving observer. This contraction and dilation is given by a mathematical formula called a Lorentz transformation. Einstein postulated that all observers moving at a uniform speed have equally valid viewpoints, consequently the 'laws of physics' are symmetrical under a Lorentz transformation.
We know from Noether's work that a symmetry always implies a Physical constant, in this special case it turns out to be the law of conservation of the speed of light.
You might think Noether's theorem would run out of steam when we move from Newtonian Physics to Quantum Physics, but it doesn't.
Quantum particles are described as waves, to be more precise they are described as abstract mathematical waves, but these abstract waves still have a very concrete effect in our world. These quantum waves are not observable, the only thing about these waves with any physical significance is the square of the wave height at any point in space, which represents the probability of locating the quantum particle at that point. We can plot Quantum Particles on a set of axises and draw an arrow from the axises origin (0,0) to the point we plotted. It turns out that the square of the quantum wave height is the same as the square of the arrow we drew.
This means as long as the arrow stays the same length the probability will remain the same (remembering the square of the wave height represents the probability of locating the quantum particle). If the arrow representing the square of the wave height is rotated by the same amount, it makes no physical difference to the particle. This is 'global' gauge symmetry.
However, despite our abstract arrow drawings, the 'law of physics' that governs the motion of a Quantum Particle (the Schroedinger equation) is different. The Schroedinger equation allows a quantum wave to interfere with itself, so the combined effects of peaks and troughs are amplified. This means the quantum wave is not symmetrical through 'local' rotations in complex space, or local phase changes.
Once again Noether's fundamental constants come to the rescue. Working backward this time, symmetry can be restored if we apply a field of force, it turns out that the field we need to apply is the electromagnetic field. This means that the symmetry that can be found, even in abstracts, leads us once again to universal constants, in this case the electromagnetic field.
So, how does all this relate to a something from nothing universe?
The answer is simple. If we try a thought experiment and imagine a cube of nothing. No matter what direction we observe this cube from it is symmetrical, no matter how long we look at the cube it remains symmetrical, and regardless of its orientation, the cube is symmetrical. This can also be demonstrated for abstract symmetries.
In short, the deep underlying symmetries of our universe that give rise to all the fundamental 'laws of physics', are identical to the symmetries of nothing. To get from nothing to our universe full of matter requires no change in the fundamental laws of physics.
Nobel-Prize winning physicist Frank Wilczek noted that theories about the origins of the universe suggest that the Universe can exist in different phases. He then goes on to point out that in the most symmetrical phases the Universe is most unstable. This means that the perfect state of symmetry - nothing - is the least stable. The less symmetrical the Universe is, the more stable it becomes and the less energy is required. Not only does this rapid moving from a state of high energy to low energy explain why matter and not nothing is the preferred state of the universe, it is also a tidy description of what has become to be known as the Big Bang.
You don't have to accept anything, it's up to you to decide what level and type of proof you find reasonable and satisfactory and I can understand you wanting to remain within a framework you feel comfortable with.
Just remember, to make an omelette you need to break a few eggs.
MM
(August 11, 2013 at 6:55 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:
(August 11, 2013 at 12:23 am)Minimalist Wrote: No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle.
Even and I want to make this clear..even if they do say Jehovah.
The life of brian surely the finest movie ever made.
Look, I'd had a lovely supper and all I said to my wife was that piece of Halibut was good enough for Jehovah.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
(August 11, 2013 at 7:20 pm)ManMachine Wrote: Just remember, to make an omelette you need to break a few eggs.
Unless it's a quantum omelette.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
(August 10, 2013 at 1:08 am)whateverist Wrote: Sorry to leave you hanging. I quit coming back to this thread when it became clear that the OP wasn't coming back. Just another shit-and-run bible-belter it would seem.
I completely agree with you that to make broad sweeping statements about there being no space and no time before the big bang is extremely loose scientific speculation and many have been guilty. Frankly I don't know that we will ever find a way to peer beyond the singularity event of which we are a part. It may be unique and final and involve everything coming from nothing, but I find that highly unlikely. I assume that there are preconditions for a singularity event and that there have been and will be more than one. That, of course, is not a scientific theory. It is pure speculation on a par with, but no better than, that of those who believe in everything from nothing but only once.
I've posted on this before. The Theory of Something from nothing is as sound as any other. It's mainly predicated on two widely accepted principles, one being the underlying symmetries in all Physical Constants (Noether's Theorem) - which also works for Quantum Theory as well. The other is Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, largely built on the work by Nobel Physicist Yoichiro Nambu.
What's interesting and perhaps more telling is that a number of different fields of study are converging on the same conclusion, and we all know what this usually indicates.
Dr Stephan Dürr's work on the Standard Model (in particular the mass of hydrogen nuclei), Yoichiro Nambu's Broken Symmetry (which rather interestingly brings along with it The Laws of conservation of Energy, Momentum and even quantum spin among others), Igor Sokolov, John Nees and Gerard Mourou's work with high-energy electron beams, Victor Stenger, Stephen Hawking, Makoto Kobayashi, Toshihide Maskawa, etc.
Something from nothing is an established feature of the Quantum Vacuum, I accept this does not mean it's the right Theory for Universe Origins but with so much work pointing in this direction it's becoming harder to ignore. As you rightly pointed out we do not know the mechanics of the early Universe, but then that can be said of any Early Universe Theory, the unusual feature about the Something from Nothing Theory is the weight of convergence from across the fields of Physics.
The theory of something from nothing is not 'extremely loose scientific speculation', it is built on solid mathematical reasoning and experimental evidence. Observations by Maldacena, Ryu and Takayanagi and a rather elegant paper from Brian Swingle in 2009, Mark Van Raamsdonk has proposed that quantum entanglement is the fundamental ingredient underlying spacetime geometry. This, in turn, has led to further work from Juan Maldacena and Lenny Susskind.
As I've said all along, it is extremely difficult to get the Something from Nothing Theory across to people because of how difficult it is to explain in simple terms. Oversimplified it reads like metaphysics in Disneyland, but the alternative is to exclude those who don't have a working understanding of quantum mechanics and relativity.
There is no easy way to explain these concepts without seeming to be flippant and somewhat cavalier with Relativity, when neither is the case.
MM
I do agree, the theory as is, is sound. I think it's the human langauge of "nothing" and "beginning" that are inadequate. Sorry if I came across otherwise.
I'd appreciate a link to those threads if you have them easily to hand. Trying to do me some learning, I'm out of school a long time.
Quote:i have read some about this theory and I can't find where the cause of it is explained
You are assuming that causation existed at the beginning, when the laws of nature didn't exist, including the dimensions of time and space. As such, I see no reason to make that assumption.
Assumption of most types should be used very carefully when attempting to explain anything through science. Hypothesis, debate, and rhetoric explain things best as we see them. How they really are in the end we may find to be a very different thing. For now though it is a joy to discover the unknown and seek the hidden and dark corners of our universe as we currently see it for answers to all those questions that are the most fun yet painful for our people.
