[Bill S (OP)]

Hi Justin, welcome.

You are right, there are countable and uncountable infinities in mathematics.  My (non-mathematical) understanding of that is that this works well because we can put things/concepts into one-to-one relationships; or be unable to do so; in finite perception; then we imagine we can extrapolate that to infinity, which, of course, we cannot.   Even Cantor could not do that.

[Bill S (OP)]

I've not abandoned this thread.  Some technical difficulties, plus non-related problems, combined with my not being entirely happy with my material, conspire to delay progress. 

[puppypower]

Where do we stand on: “can there ever have been nothing”?

There seems to be a fairly general feeling that there can never have been nothing, with some even saying so.  However, there are some doubts, but efforts to discover any example of something coming from nothing have drawn a blank.

The nearest we have come so far is: “Brian Cox said that it is possible that there was nothing before the Big Bang.”  (#82).  Seemingly he does not say how this could be possible.

Or; (#83) “If Cox speculated about a quantum fluctuation “before” the Big Bang, I think someone should say, “Welcome to the world of infinite regress”, i.e., what caused the quantum fluctuation?” Of course, “infinite regress” is another form of the infinite sequence, with all its problems.

IMO, “nothing” and an infinite “something” are incompatible, so the question of whether or not there is an infinity that transcends maths is linked to the question of “nothing”; but let’s take one part at a time.

One way to create something from nothing is an artifact of waves. Say we had a wave tank, with wave generators on either side of the tank, each 180 degree out of phase with the other. Although energy is being pumped into the tank from both sides, the cancelling of the two waves creates stillness in the center of the tank. The energy is hidden due to wave addition. If we hid the wave generators and allowed the tank to reach steady state, and then had an audience look at the tan they will assume, no energy, since it is hidden.

We can makes this energy reappear, like magic, if we placed a partition in the stillness. Say we place a broad in the middle. One wave would rise on one side of the partition, and another wave will appear to sink on the other side. The audience would marvel since it appears like we have opened a worm hole.

In the case of the BB, the needed partition was the induction of particle matter. If we started with just waves without particles we can hide all the energy. Particles are different from waves, in the sense that particles cannot occupy the same space. Particles always need to add, whereas waves can add or subtract.

The question becomes how can you partition the stillness, to release the energy for the primordial particles? One such partition is the speed of light, which is distinct from slower inertial references; mass particles exist <C but cannot cross over into C. This can be done by introducing time and space to the universe; departure from the original C ground state of the hidden potential energy.

According to Special Relativity it would take infinite energy for a mass particle to cross over from inertial to C. If we go the other way, there is a lot of potential energy to release.

[Bill S (OP)]

One way to create something from nothing is an artifact of waves. Say we had a wave tank, with wave generators on either side of the tank.....

 I hesitate to believe you are really saying that waves, tanks generators etc are "nothing"; and even that "we" are nothing.

Something from nothing must require an initial "nothing".

[Bill S (OP)]

According to Special Relativity it would take infinite energy for a mass particle to cross over from inertial to C. If we go the other way, there is a lot of potential energy to release.

This seems to say that a massive particle cannot accelerate from subluminal speed to c (agreed), but if a massive particle travelling at c were to decelerate to subluminal speed, it would release a lot of energy. (?)

Are you referring to tachyons?