[Bill S]

No luck with the time last night, but I've cobbled something together.

On the subject of the scalar fields; one question must be: how big are they? 

This is a question that is commonly ignored, possibly with good reason, but in developing his argument, Vilenkin regards them as quantum objects, but he also talks of “a false vacuum at every point in space”, so it is probably reasonable to assume that he does not equate these scalar fields with the false vacuum.  That would seem to make good sense, but is not always apparent in popular science writing.

    Imagine a landscape without a false vacuum “valley”.  There is a sphere at, or near the top of a very gently sloping crest.  It is a quon, Vilenkin says, it will be subject to quantum “kicks” which cause it to move about randomly.  Eventually it will migrate downslope, which will trigger inflation.  The bottom of the valley into which the sphere rolls is considered to be the true vacuum, and this is where the scalar field discharges its energy. 

    Next consider a false vacuum “valley”, with the sphere resting in the bottom.  Quantum theory tells us that the energy input needed to lift the sphere over the energy barrier can be eliminated if the sphere tunnels through the barrier.  Such an occurrence is vanishingly unlikely if the sphere is anything other than a quon; but a quon is what we are visualising. 

Vilenkin states: “Despite the similarity between the tunneling of a ball and that of a scalar field, there is an important difference.  The ball tunnels between two different points in space, while for the scalar field the tunneling is between two different values of the field at the same location.”  Presumably, “location” can be taken to mean “at every point in space”.

  A single quon with the immense energy that it derives from its position in false energy value, tunnels to a lower energy value, and in so doing, gives birth to a universe.  If eternal inflation is the answer, this has always been happening, and will always happen.  There has always been a vacuum with a non-zero vacuum energy, and there always will be.  Quantum scale universes have been tunnelling through energy barriers and “erupting” eternally in the past, and they will continue to do so, infinitely, into the future. 

    Vilenkin formulates a seductive argument for reducing his initial quon to nothing, thus having “nothing” tunnelling through the energy barrier and becoming something – a universe. 

    Having minimised the initial quon until there is nothing, Vilenkin says:  “The initial state prior to the tunneling is a universe of vanishing radius, that is, no universe at all.  There is no matter and no space in this very peculiar state.  Also, there is no time.  Time has meaning only if something is happening in the universe.”

    We seem to be back to a point where we are confronted with a situation in which “nothing” involves no time, so nothing can change.  There can be no tunnelling, no emergent universe and, therefore, no subsequent inflation.  Vilenkin acknowledges this, as he continues: “And yet, this state of “nothing” cannot be identified with absolute nothingness.  The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus “nothing” should be subjected to these laws.  The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe.”

Vilenkin’s book (or at least this section of it) is an interesting read, and I have certainly not done it justice here.
However, he does seem to have gone to considerable lengths to demonstrate how a universe can come from nothing, only to concede that this “nothing” must be “something”.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #41

No luck with the time last night, but I've cobbled something together.

I recognize the name now; he is the “something from nothing man”. There are quite a few links that come up in a DuckDuckGo search.

Here’s a Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Vilenkin


Also,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0370269382908668

Creation of universes from nothing
Author links open overlay panel
AlexanderVilenkin
Show more
https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(82)90866-8
Get rights and content



Abstract
A cosmological model is proposed in which the universe is created by quantum tunneling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space. After the tunneling, the model evolves along the lines of the inflationary scenario. This model does not have a big-bang singularity and does not require any initial or boundary conditions.

————————————

According to my definition, you can’t get a universe from literally nothing, so when I looked up Vilekin and saw his work, I realized I had come across his view somewhere back in time.  I am approaching your post with a skeptical view

1) On the subject of the scalar fields; one question must be: how big are they?

This is a question that is commonly ignored, possibly with good reason, but in developing his argument, Vilenkin regards them as quantum objects, but he also talks of “a false vacuum at every point in space”, so it is probably reasonable to assume that he does not equate these scalar fields with the false vacuum.  That would seem to make good sense, but is not always apparent in popular science writing.

I’ll go along with your thinking on that.

2)    Imagine a landscape without a false vacuum “valley”.  There is a sphere at, or near the top of a very gently sloping crest.  It is a quon, Vilenkin says, it will be subject to quantum “kicks” which cause it to move about randomly.  Eventually it will migrate downslope, which will trigger inflation.  The bottom of the valley into which the sphere rolls is considered to be the true vacuum, and this is where the scalar field discharges its energy. 

I can’t place the quon, and I don’t see it in a search “Vilenkin quon”, however, I can picture how he is using the term, from you description. The false vacuum has a randomness about it for sure. As for it being randomly kicked, and migrating downslope to trigger inflation, you know how I feel about inflation being preceded by nothing, so I’m not excited about a quon triggering inflation unless we can establish where the false vacuum came from. I expect he has an answer about cause and effect right back to the first event after nothingness, but how that first event occurred … I probably will not be open to it being something from nothing; are you?

3)    Next consider a false vacuum “valley”, with the sphere resting in the bottom.  Quantum theory tells us that the energy input needed to lift the sphere over the energy barrier can be eliminated if the sphere tunnels through the barrier.  Such an occurrence is vanishingly unlikely if the sphere is anything other than a quon; but a quon is what we are visualising. 

And if it is the quon doing it, I’m still wanting to know about the initial event in his theory after nothingness.

4) Vilenkin states: “Despite the similarity between the tunneling of a ball and that of a scalar field, there is an important difference.  The ball tunnels between two different points in space, while for the scalar field the tunneling is between two different values of the field at the same location.”  Presumably, “location” can be taken to mean “at every point in space”.

Presumably you are right about location being at every point in space. Do you know if he visualizes space to be infinite or finite?

5)  A single quon with the immense energy that it derives from its position in false energy value, tunnels to a lower energy value, and in so doing, gives birth to a universe.  If eternal inflation is the answer, this has always been happening, and will always happen.  There has always been a vacuum with a non-zero vacuum energy, and there always will be.  Quantum scale universes have been tunnelling through energy barriers and “erupting” eternally in the past, and they will continue to do so, infinitely, into the future.

Now you're talking, lol. But why is he associated with it all coming from nothingness?

6)    Vilenkin formulates a seductive argument for reducing his initial quon to nothing, thus having “nothing” tunnelling through the energy barrier and becoming something – a universe.

I don’t think I could be seduced by that reasoning, but I sense that you have some leanings. 

7)   Having minimised the initial quon until there is nothing, Vilenkin says:  “The initial state prior to the tunneling is a universe of vanishing radius, that is, no universe at all.  There is no matter and no space in this very peculiar state.  Also, there is no time.  Time has meaning only if something is happening in the universe.”

But it is not nothingness if there is a potential for all of the fine things he is  speculating about.

    We seem to be back to a point where we are confronted with a situation in which “nothing” involves no time, so nothing can change.  There can be no tunnelling, no emergent universe and, therefore, no subsequent inflation.  Vilenkin acknowledges this, as he continues: “And yet, this state of “nothing” cannot be identified with absolute nothingness.  The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus “nothing” should be subjected to these laws.  The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe.”

That would mean that Vilekin differentiates between that state of “nothing” and absolute nothingness. If the laws of quantum mechanics describe tunneling, and if this state of “nothing” is subjected to QM laws, we are not in the same type of reality; sorry I can’t.

9) Vilenkin’s book (or at least this section of it) is an interesting read, and I have certainly not done it justice here.
However, he does seem to have gone to considerable lengths to demonstrate how a universe can come from nothing, only to concede that this “nothing” must be “something”.

Yes, that has to be the same dilemma that anyone who invokes my OP definition of nothingness will have to deal with. Maybe reading his book would help his case, but I have years of reading I would put ahead of it. Even

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand would come before that, lol.

[Bill S]

I can’t place the quon, and I don’t see it in a search “Vilenkin quon”, however, I can picture how he is using the term, from you description

Actually, Vilenkin doesn't use the word "quon", but you'll find it at:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quon

[Bill S]

  I probably will not be open to it being something from nothing; are you?

Absolutely not.  I tend to approve of open mindedness, but not to the extent that the brain falls out.

I don’t think I could be seduced by that reasoning, but I sense that you have some leanings.

I can appreciate a reasoned argument, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. 

However, he does seem to have gone to considerable lengths to demonstrate how a universe can come from nothing, only to concede that this “nothing” must be “something”.

Could it be that even Vilenkin was not seduced by his own reasoning!

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #44

Absolutely not.  I tend to approve of open mindedness, but not to the extent that the brain falls out.

I can appreciate a reasoned argument, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. 

Could it be that even Vilenkin was not seduced by his own reasoning!

Hard to tell. Maybe so.


You have done a good job of looking at Vilenkin’s model and how he deals with the beginning, something from nothingness in his case, or how he avoids dealing with it, lol. That reminds me that Colin2B didn’t seem appalled by the idea of looking at the various models, and writing a paragraph about how they deal with the issue of a beginning, or should I say, how they avoid dealing with it. You have done that for Vilenkin’s model.

Did your analysis come from his book,  “Birth of Inflationary Universes”, or what was the title of the book you were referring to?

Perhaps one clue that he would fail to satisfy us in regard to the OP definition of nothingness is right there in the title of his book where he used the word “universes” instead of universe. To me, there is a big distinction as to whether there is just one universe, or if it is possible there could be multiple universes, and by multiple, I mean that the universes are completely separate from each other and they can never interact or influence one another. And that separation means that not even a little gravity can leak from one to another, lol.

I’d like to know how you, and or the general membership feel about this definition of universe ...

Universe: There is just one universe and it encompasses all there is, all matter, energy, everything, in one infinite and eternal presence, that had no beginning and will have no end, i.e., the universe has always existed, and has always been governed by the same set of invariant natural laws.   

[Bill S]

Did your analysis come from his book,  “Birth of Inflationary Universes”, or what was the title of the book you were referring to?

Sorry, I omitted the book title. It was:

Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes

BTW, it’s on Amazon at 1P, unless you want it in Spanish, in which case it’s £659.63. It would probably be cheaper to learn English.

Universe: There is just one universe and it encompasses all there is, all matter, energy, everything, in one infinite and eternal presence, that had no beginning and will have no end, i.e., the universe has always existed, and has always been governed by the same set of invariant natural laws. 

Elsewhere, I have explained why I would normally use “cosmos” in this context; but “Universe” seems OK.  I would have to include one serious proviso, but this is neither the time nor place to climb into my soap box about eternity/infinity.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #46

Sorry, I omitted the book title. It was:

Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes

Universe: There is just one universe and it encompasses all there is, all matter, energy, everything, in one infinite and eternal presence, that had no beginning and will have no end, i.e., the universe has always existed, and has always been governed by the same set of invariant natural laws. 

Elsewhere, I have explained why I would normally use “cosmos” in this context; but “Universe” seems OK.  I would have to include one serious proviso, but this is neither the time nor place to climb into my soap box about eternity/infinity.

I seem to remember seeing you suggesting the use of the word “cosmos”, but don’t exactly remember why.

After the discussion of Vilenkin’s “Something from nothing” model and its apparent failure to pass the test of the “nothingness” definition, i.e., if nothingness means no space, no time, and no energy, and not even any potential for space, time, or energy, then I would conclude that no model can feature any occurrence of nothingness. Does anyone disagree?

If that is the case, then from the three explanations offered in the OP, there is only one seemingly viable explanation remaining for the existence of the universe, and that is the “Always existed” option.

Looking at the situation, since the universe does exist, then it has always existed. Therefore, a definition of the word “universe” that is consistent with a universe that has always existed seems appropriate. I’m just testing for any acceptance of my definition that does that:

Universe: There is just one universe and it encompasses all there is, all matter, energy, everything, in one infinite and eternal presence, that had no beginning and will have no end, i.e., the universe has always existed, and has always been governed by the same set of invariant natural laws.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #47

"Universe", as defined above, is proposed as the opposite of “nothingness” from the perspective of Cosmology.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #48

If we analyze the definition of the word “universe” as stated in reply #44 above, the question is between whether just one universe exists, or if there could be multiple universes, each separate from all others.


If there is a connection between them, or even a potential for them interacting with each other, then they fall in the category of being part of one greater universe, and the laws of nature that apply to that greater universe would apply to all the parts.


On the other hand, separate universe would mean there is no possibility of interaction between them. If the universes are completely separate from each other in space, or in different dimensions, to the extent that not even a little gravity can leak from one to another, then that scenario would qualify as multiple universes, and there could be, or likely would be different sets of natural laws that govern each separate universe.

But there is a problem with there being separate universes in regard to the proposed definition. What separates them? If it is space, then there is a potential that they can expand into each other’s space, or can move relative to teach other, giving them a potential to converge. That puts them under the definition of “universe” not multiple universes.


Further, If they are separated by another dimension that can never be detected, can we say that they even exist. I don’t think so. If we cannot say that they exist, we cannot say that there are multiple universes, and we are left with one universe, and that fits under the definition.


Conclusion, the definition of “universe” holds up when considering if there is just one universe, or if there could be multiple universes.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #49

Universe: There is just one universe and it encompasses all there is, all matter, energy, everything, in one infinite and eternal presence, that had no beginning and will have no end, i.e., the universe has always existed, and has always been governed by the same set of invariant natural laws. 

Continuing to analyze the definition of “universe” we come to the phrase “... it encompasses all there is, all matter, energy, everything, in one infinite and eternal presence, that had no beginning and will have no end, i.e., the universe has always existed” …



The question of ”an infinite and eternal presence” has to be considered from the perspective of the alternative. If the presence of the universe is not infinite and eternal, i.e., if it has not always existed, then how do we answer the questions, what is outside of the space contained in the universe, and what was before the presence of the universe?

The answer might then logically be nothingness. However, we have already explored the definition of “nothingness” and concluded that if the universe exists, there never was nothingness. There is no provision in either definition for some kind of separation between nothingness and universe; the definitions are intended to mean that it is either complete nothingness, or the complete presence of one universe.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #50

Universe: There is just one universe and it encompasses all there is, all matter, energy, everything, in one infinite and eternal presence, that had no beginning and will have no end, i.e., the universe has always existed, and has always been governed by the same set of invariant natural laws. 

The last phrase in the definition, “… has always been governed by the same set of invariant natural laws” means that the laws of nature don’t change. However, some laws are not yet known, some of the known laws are not yet fully understood, and the various combinations of laws that affect any given situation may be impossible to fully comprehend.

[Bill S]

I expect that black holes will deflect gravitons, just like they deflect photons. So maybe one day we may be able to do graviton spectroscopy by diffracting them with an array of micro-black holes?

Just checking! 

The gravitational field is scalar.  If the gravitational field is composed of gravitons, the gravitons don’t have redirection.  If this is the case; how could they be deflected?

  However, real gravitons propagate away to infinity, as oscillations on the gravitational field. This is what LIGO detected. (And real photons propagate away to infinity, as oscillations on the electromagnetic field. This is what telescopes detect.)

By analogy with water waves, one might reason that individual gravitons within a gravitational wave would not propagate in the direction of the apparent motion of the wave.  Only energy would propagate in that way.

Again; how could the gravitons be deflected?

[Bill S]

Universe: There is just one universe and it encompasses all there is, all matter, energy, everything, in one infinite and eternal presence, that had no beginning and will have no end….

So, the infinite past ends here, and the infinite future begins here?

 “There is something rotten in the eigenstate of Denmark”  (Adam Becker)
I can’t manage a smart remark like that, but it does seem that something is not quite as it should be.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #53

So, the infinite past ends here, and the infinite future begins here?

 “There is something rotten in the eigenstate of Denmark”  (Adam Becker)
I can’t manage a smart remark like that, but it does seem that something is not quite as it should be.

One of my sayings comes to mind:

The universe is as it should be, and could be no other way.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #54

Reply #50

Universe: There is just one universe and it encompasses all there is, all matter, energy, everything, in one infinite and eternal presence, that had no beginning and will have no end, i.e., the universe has always existed, and has always been governed by the same set of invariant natural laws. 

The last phrase in the definition, “… has always been governed by the same set of invariant natural laws” means that the laws of nature don’t change. However, some laws are not yet known, some of the known laws are not yet fully understood, and the various combinations of laws that affect any given situation may be impossible to fully comprehend.

The concepts of “nothingness”, and “universe”
Which are described to be opposites,
And the conclusion that the universe is governed by a set of invariant natural laws,
Many of which are as yet unknown,
Brings up the need to observe,
and the advances and challenges to our ability to observe.

We use the Scientific Method to advance science, and learn about it at  links like:
https://explorable.com/scientific-observation, with starting points about the Scientific Method and our ability to observe …
(learn or teach, comment freely)

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #55

If the universe is everywhere and there is no nothingness any where, what is the smallest thing that we can observe, and what surrounds it?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #56

Scientists are resolving images of smaller and smaller things, and they seem to be surrounded by fuzzier and fuzzier boundaries.
I found this website about learning, and searched “quantum” to see what was there:
https://quizlet.com/281471125/quantum-flash-cards/

[Jaaanosik]

OP,
Cosmology is ...

Metaphysical philosophy ("logic") was the study of existence, causation, God, logic, forms and other abstract objects ("meta-physika" lit: "what comes after physics").[28]
...
Metaphysical philosophy has birthed formal sciences such as logic, mathematics and philosophy of science, but still includes epistemology, cosmology and others.

by this definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy#Knowledge

You do not want to include God in this thread, fine, but cosmology is metaphysical philosophy, so it is like discussing 'faith, religion', nothing less and nothing more.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #58

OP,
Cosmology is ...

Metaphysical philosophy ("logic") was the study of existence, causation, God, logic, forms and other abstract objects ("meta-physika" lit: "what comes after physics").[28]
...
Metaphysical philosophy has birthed formal sciences such as logic, mathematics and philosophy of science, but still includes epistemology, cosmology and others.

by this definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy#Knowledge

You do not want to include God in this thread, fine, but cosmology is metaphysical philosophy, so it is like discussing 'faith, religion', nothing less and nothing more.

Surely you are correct about the history of cosmology; there are age old roots, astrology, mythology, religious positions, metaphysics, as there are to the beginnings of all sciences, as supported in the Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology


Cosmology (from the Greek κόσμος, kosmos "world" and -λογία, -logia "study of") is the study of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe. Physical cosmology is the scientific study of the universe's origin, its large-scale structures and dynamics, and its ultimate fate, as well as the scientific laws that govern these areas.[2]


The term cosmology was first used in English in 1656 in Thomas Blount's Glossographia,[3] and in 1731 taken up in Latin by German philosopher Christian Wolff, in Cosmologia Generalis.[4]


Religious or mythological cosmology is a body of beliefs based on mythological, religious, and esoteric literature and traditions of creation myths and eschatology.


Physical cosmology is studied by scientists, such as astronomers and physicists, as well as philosophers, such as metaphysicians, philosophers of physics, and philosophers of space and time. Because of this shared scope with philosophy, theories in physical cosmology may include both scientific and non-scientific propositions, and may depend upon assumptions that cannot be tested.


Cosmology differs from astronomy in that the former is concerned with the Universe as a whole while the latter deals with individual celestial objects. Modern physical cosmology is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which attempts to bring together observational astronomy and particle physics;[5] more specifically, a standard parameterization of the Big Bang with dark matter and dark energy, known as the Lambda-CDM model.


Theoretical astrophysicist David N. Spergel has described cosmology as a "historical science" because "when we look out in space, we look back in time" due to the finite nature of the speed of light.[6]
                                                                             
 -----------------------------

The Wiki supports your statement, and all I can say is that my stance on excluding the Supernatural from this thread recognizes the differentiation between modern hard science, which is preferred for discussion in the "hard" sciences sub-forums at the NakedScientis, and the long and varied history of man's efforts to convey the nature of things over the ages. The methodology I am invoking is the scientific method, which is well known to exclude the Supernatural and magical. Recently I mentioned that method, and provided a link for beginners who are just becoming familiar with the process.


Starting the thread with the definition of "nothingness" quickly leads to the definition of "universe", and to me, that is the basis for the discussion of today's cosmology.

[Jaaanosik]

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

This definition shuts the door completely. Nothing comes from nothing.
The potentiality cannot be actualized.

If somebody wants to get something from "nothingness" then this definition of "nothingness" is not good. This definition does not yield anything.