[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Opening Post:
What is nothingness?

This is a topic that comes up to help differentiate between various cosmological models. It is a topic that is discussed in regard to the explanation of the existence of the universe. Case in point, Big Bang Theory, the consensus cosmology; though BBT doesn’t address the beginning directly, it leads to discussions of a Singularity referred to as simply the Big Bang event.

One option, mentioned only in passing in this OP (not intended for discussion, but that is commonly preferred in the religious community), is that God created the universe. That isn’t considered a scientific explanation, and I’m not entertaining any discussion about the Supernatural in this thread. The Supernatural is excluded from scientific discussions on the basis that the scientific method doesn’t recognize the Supernatural.

A second explanation, and the one under which the Big Bang Singularity falls, is that the universe spontaneously was generated out of nothingness, and several proposals that might apply to that explanation are mentioned: The Singularity, Quantum fluctuations, spontaneous symmetry breaking are a few.

The third explanation is that the universe has always existed. There are various models, like the steady state models, cyclical models, and the idea referred to as the Perfect Cosmological Principle, which states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a grand scale in both space and time. That view says the universe looks the same everywhere (on the large scale), the same as it always has and always will (a steady state).

One definition of nothingness:
No space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time or energy.

Does that definition of nothingness seem complete? If not, how would you change it to better express the concept of nothingness in regard to cosmology? What cosmological models address something from nothingness, and what explanation is given for such an event.

[Bill S]

What cosmological models address something from nothingness, and what explanation is given for such an event.

The first part might not present too great a problem; but I genuinely wish you luck with the second part.

I'll be quite happy to chip in later, but I think there is a tendency to run away when I climb on my soapbox about "something from nothing", so I'll hold off rather than put your chances at risk.

[Colin2B]

Big Bang Theory, the consensus cosmology; though BBT doesn’t address the beginning directly, it leads to discussions of a Singularity referred to as simply the Big Bang event.

The original BBT had a point singularity, but most modern theories are still called BBT and don’t. Current lead view, still being debated and tested, is inflation but it (and most of the others) don’t go right back to a point of nothingness. Remember, singularities aren’t nothing; and quantum fluctuations - a vacuum where particles pop in and out of existence aren’t nothing - except for a infinitesimally short time.
There is a strong view from qm that ‘nothing’ is inherently unstable and if it did exist it was for a very, very short time.
So, most theories avoid the question by not dealing with nothing at all.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #3

The original BBT had a point singularity, but most modern theories are still called BBT and don’t. Current lead view, still being debated and tested, is inflation but it (and most of the others) don’t go right back to a point of nothingness. Remember, singularities aren’t nothing; and quantum fluctuations - a vacuum where particles pop in and out of existence aren’t nothing - except for a infinitesimally short time.
There is a strong view from qm that ‘nothing’ is inherently unstable and if it did exist it was for a very, very short time.
So, most theories avoid the question by not dealing with nothing at all.

In order for a cosmological model to fit in the second category, “Something from nothingness”, it would seem necessary that they address the issue of a beginning. Your point, that the condition of nothingness is [perhaps intentionally] avoided, is well taken. It is probably true because there is no scientific explanation for how the universe could exist, if at first there was nothingness.

It is fair to correct the OP to say that the models that don’t address the issue directly do not necessarily intended to suggest the universe emerged from nothingness. It is also appropriate to correct the OP to acknowledge the more recent current lead view of BBT to include Inflationary Theory, and to recognize the more current contending models.

Those improvements to the OP make category two, something from nothing, a lonely place.

Is it fair to say that those models that avoid addressing the beginning, but that don’t intend to convey the idea that they are “Something from nothing” models, might actually fit into the category of “Always existed” when more knowledge about preconditions become available?

[Bill S]

Remember, singularities aren’t nothing; and quantum fluctuations - a vacuum where particles pop in and out of existence aren’t nothing - except for a infinitesimally short time.

I’m fine with the first part of that, but wonder about the idea that something can be nothing, even for an “infinitesimally short time”, and can then become something again.

Perhaps it makes a difference if we are distinguishing between actual particles and virtual particles.

My understanding is that it is virtual particles that pop in and out of existence; and that Matt Strassler advises not thinking of them as particles.
 
Be that as it may, these virtual particles borrow energy from the vacuum for such a short time that it the vacuum “doesn’t notice”.  Putting it that way leaves me with the question: if the “particle” was nothing before it popped into existence, what borrowed the energy?

I’ll try a different approach.  Let’s go for not thinking of the “emergence” of the particle as its origin. 
The vacuum is a mass of virtual particles constantly popping in and out of existence.  These are not different particles, constantly being created and destroyed; rather they exist as the vacuum energy that is always present.  If this interpretation were correct, every particle would exist, in some form, at all times. It would never be “nothing”, even for an “infinitesimally short time”.

I tried to stay out - honest Guv!

[Colin2B]

My understanding is that it is virtual particles that pop in and out of existence; and that Matt Strassler advises not thinking of them as particles.

Yes, even Feynman says not to think of them as real. General consensus is that they are seriously misnamed
 

The vacuum is a mass of virtual particles constantly popping in and out of existence.  These are not different particles, constantly being created and destroyed; rather they exist as the vacuum energy that is always present.  If this interpretation were correct, every particle would exist, in some form, at all times. It would never be “nothing”, even for an “infinitesimally short time”.

It would be hard to say they were ‘nothing’. Experiments suggest that to make them persist requires a great deal of energy. Energy is not nothing, it has to be in the form of something.

There is no doubt that what existed before this universe began was different.

You might like to read sec 6 p14 of this https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0702178.pdf
Someone was asking about Alan Guth & inflation, can’t remember who.

[guest45734]

There is no doubt that what existed before this universe began was different.

Our universe exists in an expanding space, to answer what is nothing, you have to define what space is. Space time does not exist without quantum fluctuations, some theories argue that the expansion of space is driven by quantum foam. So in defining nothingness, what would space time be without quantum foam.
It is possible () that gravity is caused by the absorption of space/quantum foam also. Following that reasoning inside a BH quantum foam may be absorbed completely creating a void in space time. Before the initial BB event a void in space may have existed that made the BB event/expansion of space inevitable. 

To define nothing you have to define exactly what space is, and what dimensions it has. Then you need to define just how stable it is, and if it is unstable how inevitable was the BB/expansion space from this nothing.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #7

There is no doubt that what existed before this universe began was different.

Our universe exists in an expanding space, to answer what is nothing, you have to define what space is. Space time does not exist without quantum fluctuations, some theories argue that the expansion of space is driven by quantum foam. So in defining nothingness, what would space time be without quantum foam.
It is possible ( ) that gravity is caused by the absorption of space/quantum foam also. Following that reasoning inside a BH quantum foam may be absorbed completely creating a void in space time. Before the initial BB event a void in space may have existed that made the BB event/expansion of space inevitable. 

To define nothing you have to define exactly what space is, and what dimensions it has. Then you need to define just how stable it is, and if it is unstable how inevitable was the BB/expansion space from this nothing.

Some of your post is getting off topic in regard to speculations, and might be too close to ideas that are generally better addressed in New Theories.

The definition of "nothingness" was offered in the OP, and I asked if there were changes to that definition to improve it. Do you want to change or modify the stated definition of nothingness?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #8

You might like to read sec 6 p14 of this https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0702178.pdf
[Eternal Inflation and its Implications]

Someone was asking about Alan Guth & inflation, can’t remember who.

I mentioned it in a thread in New Theories, by TheBox, “Wave Particle Duality”, and you commented re. Alan Guth.

I was researching Eternal Inflation a few years ago, and just refreshed my memory on the following:
Two papers by Laura Mersini-Houghtion; both of them reference Guth’s “Eternal Inflation and its Implications”

These papers contradict the idea that Inflation has an eternal past, i.e. it takes the position that Eternal Inflation might not be eternal as suggest in section 7 of A. H. Guth’s paper, “Eternal Inflation and its Implications”. Both Mersini-Houghton papers make multiple references to A. H. Guth’s papers on Eternal Inflation.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.3542v1.pdf
Is Eternal Inflation Eternal?
Laura Mersini-Houghton
Is Eternal Inflation Eternal ?
L. Mersini-Houghton∗ Department of Physics and Astrononmy, UNC-Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-3255, USA and,
CITA, University of Toronto, Canada (Dated: June 5, 2018)
Abstract:
In this paper we explore the relationship between the existence of eternal inflation and the initial conditions leading to inflation. We demonstrate that past and future completion of inflation is related, in that past-incomplete inflation can not be future eternal. Bubble universes nucleating close to the initial conditions hypersurface have the largest Lorentz boosts and experience the highest anisotropy. Consequently, their probability to collide upon formation is one. Thus instead of continuing eternally inflation ends soon after it starts. The difficulty in actualizing eternal inflation originates from the breaking of two underlying symmetries: Lorentz invariance and the general covariance of the theory which lead to an inconsistency of Einstein equations. Eternal inflation may not be eternal.


http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.1347v1.pdf
End of Eternal Inflation
The End of Eternal Inflation
Laura Mersini-Houghton and Malcolm J Perry
DAMTP, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Rd., Cambridge, CB3 0WA, England and Department of Physics and Astronomy, UNC Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. (Dated: November 7, 2012)
Abstract:
We propose a new measure for eternal inflation that includes both conditions, large field fluctuations and smooth homogeneous domains, in the self reproducing probability estimate. We show that due to the increasing inhomogeneities in the background spacetime fractal, self-reproductions stops within a finite time tf , thus inflation can not be eternal.


These papers contradict the idea the Inflation has an eternal past, i.e. it takes the position that Eternal Inflation might not be eternal (A. H. Guth Inflationary Theory). Both papers make multiple references to A. H. Guth’s papers on Eternal Inflation.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #9

These papers contradict the idea the Inflation has an eternal past, i.e. it takes the position that Eternal Inflation might not be eternal (A. H. Guth Inflationary Theory). Both papers make multiple references to A. H. Guth’s papers on Eternal Inflation.

Yes, this is Alan Guth’s early paper which I thought @Bill S  might like to see, it gives an idea of the types of argument being put forward.
Since then there have been a number of papers some supporting others offering alternatives. Big work in progress, lots of very detailed analysis, not a top level subject.

If you look at the Alan Guth paper you will see just how unnothing the vacuum is. Is nothing sacred? 

Lol.
Lots of on going analysis, new tools, instruments, scientific advances, and views/models of the cosmology of the universe … and some express the view that we may never know for sure, but one thing is likely, and that is that the consensus will evolve as advances are made.

Still, my intent here is to air out a view of what nothingness really means, and give anyone who is interested a chance to modify it.

If nothingness is well described by the definition in the OP, then any cosmology that says nothingness preceded our observable universe will be hard pressed to explain how something can come from nothingness.

[Colin2B]

One definition of nothingness: No space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time or energy.

I think by including “and no potential for any space, time or energy.“ you have pre-defined nothing as unable to create anything. If a room contains no furniture I can bring some in through the door, but to say it has no potential for furniture might suggest it has no door. 
Most would say “No space, no time, no energy”

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #11

I think by including “and no potential for any space, time or energy” you have pre-defined nothing as unable to create anything. If a room contains no furniture I can bring some in through the door, but to say it has no potential for furniture might suggest it has no door. 
Most would say “No space, no time, no energy”

That is true. “No space, no time, no energy” leaves a loophole that I am trying to close.

Why close it? If there is no space, time, or energy, but there is a potential for space, time, or energy, then that opens a door to “bring in the furniture”; you didn’t have nothingness to begin with, you had the potential for something.

Instead of having to explain how you got furniture from nothingness, all you have to do is say it came from another dimension; maybe you can posit an infinite number of dimensions.

Or maybe you can use the loophole to explain that nothingness is really two opposites that can spontaneously separate. Maybe the nothingness can split, annihilate itself, and split again; you might get a cyclical action going .

Opportunity for fanciful speculations abound, and brilliant mathematicians can show how it might be possible if there is any door at all.

[Colin2B]

Instead of having to explain how you got furniture from nothingness, all you have to do is say it came from another dimension; maybe you can posit an infinite number of dimensions.

But doesn’t that imply a door, which means a potential for ....

Or maybe you can use the loophole to explain that nothingness is really two opposites that can spontaneously separate. Maybe the nothingness can split, annihilate itself, and split again; you might get a cyclical action going .[/font][/size]

Two opposites are still something.

However, you raise an interesting question. Is it that we just can’t see the furniture at times!

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #13

But doesn’t that imply a door, which means a potential for ....

Yes, the door is there unless you don't open it to begin with, and my definition avoids any such door. There are no doors left if at first you have nothingness as defined in the OP.

Two opposites are still something.

Exactly. That is why I include "and no potential for space, time or energy" in the definition of nothingness. The intention is to leave no room for anything to come from nothingness.

However, you raise an interesting question. Is it that we just can’t see the furniture at times!

That is not my point though. I offered those scenarios to show what kind of speculations can be posited if there is any hint of a door in the definition of nothingness; I wasn't suggesting them as viable options. If the definition includes the language of " and no potential", then those cases I mentioned would not stand up simply because they violate the definition of nothingness.

[Colin2B]

But that’s probably not everyone’s definition of nothing. Important to check that definition in each theory.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #15

But that’s probably not everyone’s definition of nothing. Important to check that definition in each theory.

That would work for me, if you mean that any scientific model of cosmology should include a paragraph that deals with the issue of the beginning that the model invokes. A case in point, using the current status of what the scientific community might agree was the BBT model, i.e. GR with Inflation, a paragraph could be proposed and tested among those in the scientific community with the intent of finding a consensus on "how the model addresses the issue of the beginning".


Maybe it would say that the consensus is that we really don't know much about before ~10^-43 seconds, except that we can portray that instant as a hot, dense wave of energy in the form of a plasma emerging from a preceding condition, i.e.,the consensus is that there were preconditions before the time at 10^-43 seconds, and we are not invoking the "something from nothing" explanation for the existence of the universe at that point in time. (Or some such wording, ). Do you think that would fly?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #16

The first part might not present too great a problem; but I genuinely wish you luck with the second part.

Point well taken.

I'll be quite happy to chip in later, but I think there is a tendency to run away when I climb on my soapbox about "something from nothing", so I'll hold off rather than put your chances at risk.

Lol, hopefully by now you see where I am coming from. Whether or not we have some common ground on this issue, your view on the applicability of my definition of nothingness would be valued.

[Colin2B]

@Bogie_smiles , “Do you think that would fly?”
It would certainly help. It is very clear in Alan Guth’s papers as he states that he is not dealing with what happens before inflation.

Are you volunteering to produce a chart showing what assumptions are made in various models. 

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #18

It would certainly help. It is very clear in Alan Guth’s papers as he states that he is not dealing with what happens before inflation.

Are you volunteering to produce a chart showing what assumptions are made in various models. 

I wish I was that smart.

In support of a "beginnings disclaimer" paragraph for each model though, it would be for the benefit of professional peers and layman enthusiasts, but ideally those professionals submitting the model should address their stance on preconditions, the beginning, or acknowledging "we just don't know" much about "before" where the model picks up.

It would provide a partition between what the model is presenting, and what all of the peers and layman might speculate that the preconditions to the model might be.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #19

My understanding is that it is virtual particles that pop in and out of existence; and that Matt Strassler advises not thinking of them as particles.

Be that as it may, these virtual particles borrow energy from the vacuum for such a short time that it the vacuum “doesn’t notice”.  Putting it that way leaves me with the question: if the “particle” was nothing before it popped into existence, what borrowed the energy?

Agreed, there was something to cause the event of a virtual particle “popping” into observability. That something, in accord with the definition of nothingness in the OP, was a potential energy, and it has the potential to form a virtual particle under certain conditions that are in accord with the invariant laws of nature.