[Bill S (OP)]

Gently back into the thread. 

I’d like to go back to the content of #52.

We won't ever know if there was ever nothing. We can assume that there wasn't ever nothing but that is by choice.

Has anyone demonstrated a mechanism by which something can emerge from nothing?

Although the quote is Jeffrey’s, I would appreciate an example from anyone.

[Bill S (OP)]

Assume a substance s is infinite. Here is a volume of space with no s. If this space is filled with s, then the total volume of s is increased. This is a contradiction since by definition s is unlimited.

I would anticipate a response from a mathematician along the lines:

Not necessarily, because the infinite amount of s might simply spread into the space where there was previously no s, with no increase in the amount of s.  Of course, this is similar to “Hilbert’s Hotel” that works only because we can never reach infinity, in our physical world.

There cannot be an infinite amount of any substance.

That is, unless you accept the (dreaded) infinite sequence; or subscribe to the idea of an infinite, changeless cosmos.

The universe shows us just the opposite. Matter is discrete finite units at all levels, from astronomical to atomic. The closest candidate to qualify as infinite would be space.

 

I understand that experts are still arguing as to whether space is continuous or quantised.  In any case, the only space of which we have any direct experience is our 3+1 D spacetime (Yes I did say 4+1 earlier but it was a typo.). 

Unless/until we can establish a way in which something can come from nothing, it seems reasonable to suspect there might be more than that “out there”.

[evan_au]

Has anyone demonstrated a mechanism by which something can emerge from nothing?

Brian Cox said that it is possible that there was nothing before the Big Bang.

I think he referred to quantum fluctuations as a possible source for something to appear from nothing.

Of course, that assumes that there is some potential energy somewhere that would produce the something, and allow it to continue to exist.

I'm just home from a short stay in Hosp.

Was that the inspiration for this thread on the infinite and eternity?
I'm glad to see you back online!

[Bogie_smiles]

Brian Cox said that it is possible that there was nothing before the Big Bang.

I think he referred to quantum fluctuations as a possible source for something to appear from nothing.

Of course, that assumes that there is some potential energy somewhere that would produce the something, and allow it to continue to exist.

It isn’t unusual to see well known science personalities talk about “before the Big Bang”. 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?


Is the Supernatural excluded from the scientific method? Would a quantum fluctuation with no cause qualify as the Supernatural?

I'm just home from a short stay in Hosp.

Hope all is well. Thanks for picking back up on the activity

[Bill S (OP)]

Brian Cox said that it is possible that there was nothing before the Big Bang.

I think he referred to quantum fluctuations as a possible source for something to appear from nothing.

For an erstwhile one-hit-wonder Pop "Star", Brian Cox makes an interesting science presenter.  His enthusiasm comes over as real, and I like (most) of his programs that I've seen. I've even bought some of his DVD to re-watch. However his comments about nothing and quantum fluctuations make no more sense now than when Stephen Hawking said the same thing. 

Of course, that assumes that there is some potential energy somewhere that would produce the something, and allow it to continue to exist.

It's that very somethingy nothing again.  It keeps appearing, but no one seems to explain it.

Was that the inspiration for this thread on the infinite and eternity?
I'm glad to see you back online!

No, but the idea appeals.

Thanks for the sentiment.

[Bill S (OP)]

Is the Supernatural excluded from the scientific method? Would a quantum fluctuation with no cause qualify as the Supernatural?

IMO, "preternatural", perhaps; "supernatural", no.  (Interesting to see what Alan says about that).

Hope all is well. Thanks for picking back up on the activity

Thanks.  Good to be back.

 

[evan_au]

We have been talking about infinities that occur after a seemingly unreachable infinity of steps.

But related problems can occur at finite levels, such as the "sinc" function: sinc(x) = sine(x)/x.

What happens to sinc(x) as x → 0? It looks like sinc(0) = 0/0.
- Is the answer 0, because the numerator is 0?
- Is the answer ∞, because the denominator is 0?
- Or is it somewhere in-between?

Again it comes back to using all the information you have available.
L'Hopital's rule says differentiate the numerator and denominator, and see what you get.
sin(x)/x  for x=0 = cos(0)/1 = 1/1 = 1
This has real commercial application in telecommunications, because sinc(0) comes up frequently.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinc_function

[Bill S (OP)]

Without knowing much about the sinc function other than that I believe it is used in statistics, I would say we are still looking at maths, so, if infinity is not a number, are we looking in the right place for any sort of evaluation of anything other than its mathematical "approximations"?

[Bill S (OP)]

Interestingly the opinions of those who answered the original questions directly enough to assess their actual position seemed to be divided roughly as follows. 

Q1   Yes and Don’t Know where even, with no one giving a direct No.  Although one poster gave a yes and no in the same post; #15.
Q2   No and Don’t Know where even, with no one giving a direct Yes. 

Before trying to review explanations and reasons, I should check if there is anyone who felt that he/she gave a direct “No” to Q!, or “Yes to Q2, that I’ve missed?

[guest4091]

Although one poster gave a yes and no in the same post; #15.

Look again, my reply was no and no.
I broke off the math debate, since it is another issue wandering away from the op.
I would ask, show me something that is in physical reality unbounded/immeasurable.

[Bill S (OP)]

Thanks, Phyti.  I looked several times, but the "Yes" seemed to go with Q1.
Clear now, though; it shall forever be recorded as "No and No".

So, #88 should read:  Q1  "Don’t Know was slightly the favourite, with "No" and "Yes" coming joint second..

[Bill S (OP)]

I would ask, show me something that is in physical reality unbounded/immeasurable

I certainly can't do that, but I suspect it is possible to construct a line of reasoning that .establishes that something "unbounded/immeasurable" must be a reality. I think you agree with that.  Would I be right?

[Bill S (OP)]

It may be silly to post more, while there are still unanswered points, but sometimes answers don't come, and I'm anxious not to let this slip, if possible. 

Position and momentum are continuous functions. A displacement in coordinates is not thought to be quantised. Yet Zeno's paradox suggests that this may not be true at the Planck scale.

 

I'd be interested to know how you draw that conclusion from Zeno's paradox.                                 

Vilenkin (“Many Worlds in One”) says:  “The key observation was that the number of distinct configurations of matter that can possibly be realized in any O-region [his term which doesn’t need explanation here] – or for that matter in any finite system – is finite.  One might think that arbitrarily small changes could be made to the system, thus creating an infinite number of possibilities.  But such is not the case.

If I move my chair by 1 centimerer, I change the state of our 0-region.  I could instead move it by 0.9, or 0.99, 0.999, etc., centimetre – an infinite sequence of possible displacements, which more and more closely approach the limit of 1 centimeter.  The problem, however, is that displacements too close to one another cannot even in principle be distinguished, because of the quantum-mechanical uncertainty.”

If your observation is right, he and Zeno seem to be on the same page.

[Bogie_smiles]

I too want to keep it going, so forgive me if I am hindering progress or stepping in.

It is true that particles are thought to be quantized, but in terms of the mechanics of how particles move, wouldn’t quanta continually be added and removed during motion?

I ask that because not only are particles considered quantized, but they also display wave-particle duality. Adding and removing quanta would then seem to have to be a wave process. Does a wave front move in continuous motion or is it incremental? If it is continuous, how do the invariant laws of nature enforce limits on how much wave motion equals a quantum?

How can we get answers to these kinds of questions without agreeing on the nature of particles themselves? Do  you have that pinned down yet?

[Bill S (OP)]

I too want to keep it going, so forgive me if I am hindering progress or stepping in.

You’re certainly not hindering things, and “stepping in” is, surely, what discussion threads are all about.

It is true that particles are thought to be quantized, but in terms of the mechanics of how particles move, wouldn’t quanta continually be added and removed during motion?

How would the addition of quanta influence the minimum distance Vilenkin could move his chair?  I can see that it might influence the total distance, but not the minimum.

The wave/particle thing becomes difficult because we tend to think in terms of wave or particle; or wave and particle.  Perhaps we should be thinking in terms of neither wave nor particle, but something different.  Only our limited perception/knowledge/understanding/information obliges us to attach familiar labels like particle and wave.

How can we get answers to these kinds of questions without agreeing on the nature of particles themselves? Do  you have that pinned down yet?

No way!  I have nothing pinned down.  (On second thoughts: I don't have "nothing" pinned down, either. )

[Bogie_smiles]

 

How would the addition of quanta influence the minimum distance Vilenkin could move his chair?  I can see that it might influence the total distance, but not the minimum.

If a particle has a particular number of quanta, and if motion is quantized in waves that carry a quantum of energy, motion might consist of quanta (waves) emitted and quanta (waves) absorbed in difference directions, quanta being added or absorbed in the direction of motion, and quanta being left behind or emitted, as the location of the particle gets redefined with each addition/subtraction.

The wave/particle thing becomes difficult because we tend to think in terms of wave or particle; or wave and particle.  Perhaps we should be thinking in terms of neither wave nor particle, but something different.  Only our limited perception/knowledge/understanding/information obliges us to attach familiar labels like particle and wave.

Particles contain energy, and the energy can be substantial, so there is some logic in the idea that the amount of energy contained in a particle influences the wave energy density within the particle. The more quanta you fit into the particle space, the denser the particle. How do you get more quanta within the particle space, you accelerate the particle. Nature does this all the time, and scientists have gotten pretty good at it too.

No way!  I have nothing pinned down.  (On second thoughts: I don't have "nothing" pinned down, either. )

If you believe there never was nothing, I think you have it pinned down; it is good logic, so there is no need to over analyze it. Just be alert to developments that might falsify your belief (your are on safe ground, lol). Then, as you confirm by answering “yes” to question #1 in the OP that you think there can be a working definition, did you post your working definition yet?

[Bill S (OP)]

Bogie_smiles, you talk as though quanta as though they had an independent existence; is that my misinterpretation?

What would a quantum of nothing be like?   

If you believe there never was nothing, I think you have it pinned down; it is good logic, so there is no need to over analyze it

The problem is not my over analysis; it's more the fact that it seemed to make perfect sense to me, before I started looking for the opinions of others. Once I had done that, and found that there were many who disagreed with me, I had to know why they thought as they did.  Sometimes it is not easy to persuade even the most eloquent that they might need to back up their views.

[Bogie_smiles]

Bogie_smiles, you talk as though quanta as though they had an independent existence; is that my misinterpretation?

Gravitational waves carry energy. LIGO has confirmed Einstein’s prediction. Massive high energy events emit gravitational waves that carry a lot of energy across vast distances, but even an apple falling to the ground will emit gravitational waves. Logic supports the idea that space is filled with wave energy, coming and going in all directions, at the speed of light, form the gravitational wave emissions from nearby and distant particles and objects.

A quantum would be an amount of energy that is quantized in the  exchange of energy between the particle and the gravitational wave energy coming and going at all points in space. When the particle emits a gravitational wave, it is logical to expect it to emit energy in quantum increments, if particles are quantized. That implies that the number of quantum increments is stable while the particle is at rest. If so, the logic is that the amount of energy that it absorbs will then equal the amount of energy it emits; a continual exchange of energy in quantum increments.

What would a quantum of nothing be like?   

I’m tempted to try humor, but will resist, lol.

The problem is not my over analysis; it's more the fact that it seemed to make perfect sense to me, before I started looking for the opinions of others. Once I had done that, and found that there were many who disagreed with me, I had to know why they thought as they did.  Sometimes it is not easy to persuade even the most eloquent that they might need to back up their views.

That is fine. I try to weigh the observational and test evidence presented, and in the lack of that, I consider the logic based on my own reasoning, make up my mind about it, and move on to asking about what causes it.

[Bill S (OP)]

If the first part of your post answers the question about the possible independence of a quantum; I would interpret it as saying that matter/energy must be present for quanta to have any meaning.  A quantum has in common with (eg) an inch the fact that each is a measure of something. 
Would that be right?

[Bill S (OP)]

Then, as you confirm by answering “yes” to question #1 in the OP that you think there can be a working definition, did you post your working definition yet?

Not yet; I tend to think of it as a work in progress, but I'll get there, and then will post it.