[Bill S (OP)]

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.

[Bogie_smiles]

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?

A good place to start is to say that the space in our observable universe has always contained wave energy. One theory that supports that is Big Bang Theory; an instant after the implied Big Bang event, theory has it that a hot, dense, ball of energy emerged in a huge wave and expanded/inflated in volume. That would have been an extremely high energy plasma wave as the source of wave energy as it expanded and cooled.


Stable particles got their mass from exotic massive bosons (perhaps the Higgs boson or mechanism), that formed from the decay of the hot plasma, which is the logical source of the stable particles that exist today.

Expansion caused cooling, and the density of the expanding ball decreased, until those very massive bosons formed, and they continued to cool, separate form each other as expansion continued, and they also decayed due to their instability in the declining energy density environment, until stable particles formed.

The wave energy of the hot dense ball of energy was never destroyed, it became contained in the decay products and eventually in the stable particles, and in the space between them as the first atoms formed. Gravity in that young universe was the natural consequence of both particles and space being composed of wave energy, and so that process of absorption and emission of gravitational wave energy between particles and space began right from the start.

LIGO, and logic say it continues to function today, and is responsible for maintaining the presence of particles and objects, as well as the huge amount of energy that resides in and traverses space at the speed of light.

The amount of energy in the quantum would likely have evolved as the expansion, cooling, and particle decay occurred, until it is what it is today; a tiny quantum increment of which particles are composed.

This scenario closely follows theory, I think, but if it is bad science, I trust I will hear about it. Also, I know you are working on the issue of nothingness, and infinities, so I apologize if I am getting off track.

[Bill S (OP)]

That's all good stuff as I see it.

Forgive me if I'm being extra dim, but I don't see an answer to the question: do you regard a quantum as something which has an independent existence, or is it just a measure of something?

[Bogie_smiles]

That's all good stuff as I see it.


Forgive me if I'm being extra dim, but I don't see an answer to the question: do you regard a quantum as something which has an independent existence, …

No. (Edit)The quantum: At this point call this a thought experiment where the term “quantum”, as it pertains to the processes involving particles, mass, and energy that I am discussing is a way to equate wave energy in the sense that wave-particle duality might include wave energy in quantum increments, and quantum action would be a process of wave convergences related to particle interactions (not to be confused with the Quantum of Action, aka the Planck Constant; a photon is said to be one quantum of action that can have a range of energy, but the same photon particle will have numerous quanta of the sort that are found in the process of quantum action to account for the different energies that the photon can carry)(/edit)

or is it just a measure of something?

Hmm, this is all controversial, but let me put it this way. A particular photon, say in the microwave energy range, might have a precise number of quanta in its given energy density environment, like in the CMB. If you know how many quanta there are in that low energy photon, then you have a measure of the energy of the photon in quanta. If you know the amount of energy in a quantum, relative to some appropriate standard unit of measure (a tiny fraction of a Newton maybe), then you have a measure that can be used to compare the energies of various particles.


However, if the universe continues to expand for another billion years, the energy density environment will decline. The same photon will occupy more space and have less density, so if the number of quanta remains the same, then the value of the energy in its quanta will be lower because of the lower energy density, I think. But this has to be off topic, and I’m not an authority on anything.

[guest4091]

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?

No.
There are discreteness of matter, ‘fundamental’ particles, composite objects, from extremely small to extremely large, and quantization of energy. None of these suggest ‘infinity’, and all  are measurable.
What is questionble are fields, quantum, em, gravitational, as to composition. discrete or continuous. These also are measurable.
‘Infinity’ remains a mental abstract concept with no physical counterpart.

[evan_au]

A particular photon, say in the microwave energy range, might have a precise number of quanta

We would normally say that a single photon has a precise number of quanta: 1.

The quantum of energy measured for that photon is dependent on the relative motion of source and observer.

[jeffreyH]

The quantum of action is Planck's constant. The energy of a photon is this action multiplied by the frequency. Each wave represents one of these quanta. The number of waves or cycles per second produces the magnitude of the energy.

[Bill S (OP)]

We would normally say that a single photon has a precise number of quanta: 1.

That would be my understanding.

Each wave represents one of these quanta.

I'm OK with the rest of your post, but this seems to suggest that a photon may = more than one quantum.

[Colin2B]

Each wave represents one of these quanta.

I'm OK with the rest of your post, but this seems to suggest that a photon may = more than one quantum.

The problem is with how you are interpreting ‘wave’.
Most textbooks show the electromagnetic wave as a series of peaks/troughs in the E and B fields, it almost looks like the sort of wave you see on the sea, but it isn’t. It is a time/distance graph of the variation of the E/B fields ie a single wave (or pulse maybe) travelling forward. It’s like flicking a rope and watching the wave travel along it. So the photon is that pulse of energy propagating through space, there is only one wave/pulse for each photon and the energy each one carries is 1 quantum.

I’ll leave Jeff and Evan to talk about the frequency of the photon 

[Bill S (OP)]

The problem is with how you are interpreting ‘wave’.

I've been looking again at EM waves, and I think I see what you mean, and where my confusion crept in.

[Bill S (OP)]

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68443.new#new

Relevant in this thread, but not quite yet.

[Bill S (OP)]

 

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?

 

‘Infinity’ remains a mental abstract concept with no physical counterpart.

 

To me, this says that you think there may have been nothing.  If so, where did the something come from, and how?

[Bogie_smiles]

A particular photon, say in the microwave energy range, might have a precise number of quanta

We would normally say that a single photon has a precise number of quanta: 1.

The quantum of energy measured for that photon is dependent on the relative motion of source and observer.

True. I got into some controversial usage of the term  ”quantum” (not to be confused with the “quantum of action” or "Planck constant” ) when I was talking about thoughts on wave particle duality; in the sense that it might include wave energy in quantum increments. It might have been better if that part of the discussion had been posted to “New Theories”.

[Bill S (OP)]

I’ve been pulling together some more of the content of this thread, there’s some really interesting stuff here.   

 My next task will be to try to integrate the relevant bits into my own, pre-existing, notes.

Therein lies a range of questions:

1.  The whole thing could come to about 8,000 words.  Given that the number of people reading a post is inversely proportional to its length; would anyone read it?   Is it worth posting? 

2.  Where to post?  I thought new theories, but Bohm, Barbour and probably others were there way ahead of me.  So, not new, and probably not a theory in the strict sense.  So, where?

3.  How would I post it?  “Bite-sized” chunks might seem best, but I think the whole will be such that splitting it up would lead to repetition and increased thread drift.

Anyway, it still needs some work, so in the meantime; suggestions welcome.  Be brutal! 

[Bogie_smiles]

8000 words could come to over 40,000 characters, and there is a 20,000 character limit for posts (experience tells me, lol).

It matters more that you do it, and get it on the record for your own benefit, than if anyone reads it, though there are some troopers who will wade through it if they are interested.

It is just me, and you asked, but go to the "New Theories" sub-forum if there is material that you feel is quite alternative, unproven, untestable, etc. However, I find moderation to be lenient in this sub-forum, and if you acknowledge that it may not be generally accepted, but it is a result of an acceptable discussion that is open about the nature of the content, instead of saying you have some exceptional proof or insight, it could pass muster right here.

If it is 8000 words, I would organize it into smaller bits, like you suggest.

[Bill S (OP)]

Thanks for the words of encouragement, Bogie_smiles.  The thought of writing and posting something that no one would read, is a bit bleak; reminiscent of Father McKenzie's sermons. 

I'm hoping for a comment from a Mod, even if its "go away!"

[jeffreyH]

I’ve been pulling together some more of the content of this thread, there’s some really interesting stuff here.   

 My next task will be to try to integrate the relevant bits into my own, pre-existing, notes.

Therein lies a range of questions:

1.  The whole thing could come to about 8,000 words.  Given that the number of people reading a post is inversely proportional to its length; would anyone read it?   Is it worth posting? 

2.  Where to post?  I thought new theories, but Bohm, Barbour and probably others were there way ahead of me.  So, not new, and probably not a theory in the strict sense.  So, where?

3.  How would I post it?  “Bite-sized” chunks might seem best, but I think the whole will be such that splitting it up would lead to repetition and increased thread drift.

Anyway, it still needs some work, so in the meantime; suggestions welcome.  Be brutal!

Save it as a pdf file and attach it.

[Bill S (OP)]

Save it as a pdf file and attach it.

Thanks, Jeffrey.  I'll get my son to show me how to do that when he recovers from the flu.  He's improving. 

[Bill S (OP)]

I've not abandoned this thread.  Just having health/caring/time problems at present. 

[Justin129246]

Not sure if this has been mentioned as yet but I had heard an explanation to these regards recently. There are 2 kinds of infinity. Countable infinity and uncountable infinity. Where countable would refer to whole numbers and uncountable includes the infinite amount of numbers between each whole number as well