Naked Science Forum

Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Titanscape on 30/01/2012 07:35:44

Title: Defining Hawking's "Nothing"?
Post by: Titanscape on 30/01/2012 07:35:44
Good day, how do we define "nothing"? Since Hawking describes it as possible for a universe, or universes to come from nothing.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html
As in the link above in the third last paragraph.

No matter, no dimensions?
Title: Re: Defining Hawking's "Nothing"?
Post by: MikeS on 30/01/2012 08:47:55
I imagine the book was written with the general public in mind and is an oversimplification of reality.  It is difficult to see how the universe could come literally from nothing but it could come from quantum uncertainty, which is sort of nothing with the possibility of a touch of something.
Title: Re: Defining Hawking's "Nothing"?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 30/01/2012 09:20:03
The problem is that we, being creatures of space and time, in a universe dominated by space and time,  tend to think in terms of space and time as fixed properties of a universe however they are in fact emergent properties of a "bulk" that consists of energy (the ability to change?) and momentum (motion).  Most of the things that happen will only contain tiny bits of space and time but If you look at things from that point of view the possibility that the energy and momentum conspire to create something that contains a lot of space and time like our universe seems to be a possibility and if it did if it had the potential to create other things containing large quantities of space and time it would dominate things.
Title: Re: Defining Hawking's "Nothing"?
Post by: yor_on on 30/01/2012 10:41:16
 If some ideas, like Smolins for example, are 'correct' we're all 'discrete bits of information'. Those 'bits' could, as some sees it, be of two dimensions, with what we observe becoming a 'holographic reality', describing both our third as well as the fourth (time). String-theory talks about 'one dimensional reality, but they also speaks of 'vibrations' of those higly 'tensed' strings, meaning that they vibrate in a 'plane'. To do that you must presume something for them to 'vibrate in' as i think of it, as a sheet of paper, and that should mean two dimensions although we must include some aspect of 'time'.

Maybe that is it?

'Time' and one dimensional strings? And then 'pressure'? As some fountain, every point in SpaceTime locally defined, projecting and defining what we call our 'reality'? Ah well, any QM-hypothesis/theory today will, finally, either have to exclude or include Einsteins definitions of a 'SpaceTime'. Myself I belive it must be included, and if one fail to consider that, then ones hypothesis most probably will be wrong.

As for 'motion', and 'distance'?
Distance as a description must follow an arrow (of time), without a arrow there can be no distance. And 'motion' in SpaceTime is always a local definition as I understands it. I don't really know what that is. Einstein split it into accelerations which is provable to 'change' and uniform motion as Earths which in some manner seems to be the same for all uniformly moving objects, if you go from 'black box scenarios.

Hope the spelling works here?
Anyway :)

This is how I think of it..