[Jaaanosik]

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?

This is good, you are coming to the conclusion that your definition of "nothingness" is not compatible with any model.
Nobody is using your definition of "nothingness".

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #61

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?

This is good, you are coming to the conclusion that your definition of "nothingness" is not compatible with any model.
Nobody is using your definition of “nothingness”.

It is not compatible with any model that invokes nothingness, or “something from nothing”. There are models that aren’t excluded by that restriction, and that don’t invoke the Supernatural.

If there never was nothingness, and therefore the universe has always existed, filling all space and time, then we have the basis for defeating that restriction.

[Jaaanosik]

...

It is not compatible with any model that invokes nothingness, or “something from nothing”. There are models that aren’t excluded by that restriction, and that don’t invoke the Supernatural.

If there never was nothingness, and therefore the universe has always existed, filling all space and time, then we have the basis for defeating that restriction.

Is there a proof that the universe has always existed?

[Bill S]

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

Agreed!

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

Are you suggesting that there is a way of redefining nothing to make it something, while still remaining “nothing”? 

  Is there a proof that the universe has always existed?

I believe there are some respected arguments in favour of the Universe having always existed, but proof is quite another matter.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #64

...

It is not compatible with any model that invokes nothingness, or “something from nothing”. There are models that aren’t excluded by that restriction, and that don’t invoke the Supernatural.

If there never was nothingness, and therefore the universe has always existed, filling all space and time, then we have the basis for defeating that restriction.

Is there a proof that the universe has always existed?

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

Agreed!

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

Are you suggesting that there is a way of redefining nothing to make it something, while still remaining “nothing”? 

  Is there a proof that the universe has always existed?

I believe there are some respected arguments in favour of the Universe having always existed, but proof is quite another matter.

Is there proof that there was a beginning?


The MIT Technology Review had an article on the topic in April 24, 2012:


https://www.technologyreview.com/s/427722/mathematics-of-eternity-prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning/


A View from Emerging Technology from the arXiv
Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning
Cosmologists use the mathematical properties of eternity to show that although universe may last forever, it must have had a beginning
April 24, 2012

The Big Bang has become part of popular culture since the phrase was coined by the maverick physicist Fred Hoyle in the 1940s. That’s hardly surprising for an event that represents the ultimate birth of everything.

However, Hoyle much preferred a different model of the cosmos: a steady state universe with no beginning or end, that stretches infinitely into the past and the future. That idea never really took off.

In recent years, however, cosmologists have begun to study a number of new ideas that have similar properties. Curiously, these ideas are not necessarily at odds with the notion of a Big Bang.

For instance, one idea is that the universe is cyclical with big bangs followed by big crunches followed by big bangs in an infinite cycle.

Another is the notion of eternal inflation in which different parts of the universe expand and contract at different rates. These regions can be thought of as different universes in a giant multiverse.

So although we seem to live in an inflating cosmos,  other universes may be very different. And while our universe may look as if it has a beginning, the multiverse need not have a beginning.

Then there is the idea of an emergent universe which exists as a kind of seed for eternity and then suddenly expands.

So these modern cosmologies suggest that the observational evidence of an expanding universe is consistent with a cosmos with no beginning or end. That may be set to change.

Today, Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin at Tufts University in Massachusetts say that these models are mathematically incompatible with an eternal past. Indeed, their analysis suggests that these three models of the universe must have had a beginning too.

Their argument focuses on the mathematical properties of eternity–a universe with no beginning and no end. Such a universe must contain trajectories that stretch infinitely into the past.

However, Mithani and Vilenkin point to a proof dating from 2003 that these kind of past trajectories cannot be infinite if they are part of a universe that expands in a specific way.

They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have had a beginning. “Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past,” they say.

They treat the emergent model of the universe differently, showing that although it may seem stable from a classical point of view, it is unstable from a quantum mechanical point of view. “A simple emergent universe model…cannot escape quantum collapse,” they say.

The conclusion is inescapable. “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal,” say Mithani and Vilenkin.

Since the observational evidence is that our universe is expanding, then it must also have been born in the past. A profound conclusion (albeit the same one that lead to the idea of the big bang in the first place).
 
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658: Did The Universe Have A Beginning?

———————————

[Jaaanosik]

Are you suggesting that there is a way of redefining nothing to make it something, while still remaining “nothing”? 

What do you mean by 'still remaining "nothing"'?
If it is supposed to be still your definition of nothing with your "units of measure" of nothing (no space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time or energy) then I already said it cannot be done. You closed the door on "nothingness".

... but if we define our space-time as something and everything else what is outside of our space-time as nothing then it is going to work.

[Jaaanosik]

Hmmm, actually thinking about it, I can 'clarify' your definition of nothingness and it is going to work.
Later...

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #67

Hmmm, actually thinking about it, I can 'clarify' your definition of nothingness and it is going to work.
Later...

I'm skeptical that there can be a clarification that doesn't make the definition loose something in translation,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #68

…


Is there a proof that the universe has always existed?

To which I replied by asking, “Is there a proof that there was a beginning?”


That question came from the link I provided in Reply #64 to the article in The MIT Technology Review on the topic in April 24, 2012. See reply #64 above for the content of the article. MIT’s lead in to the article said:
“Cosmologists use the mathematical properties of eternity to show that although [the] universe may last forever, it must have had a beginning”.


Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin at Tufts University in Massachusetts go on to conclude that the “always existed” models that they discuss are mathematically incompatible with an eternal past. Indeed, their analysis suggests that, “[those] models of the universe must have had a beginning too.”


They reason that, “Since the observational evidence is that our universe is expanding, then it must also have been born in the past. A profound conclusion (albeit the same one that lead to the idea of the big bang in the first place).”


There is an obvious flaw to that reasoning if you consider what we can and can’t see of our known universe. We can see a large segment showing the history of our big bang environment, but no one claims we can see back to the beginning, or that what we can see indicates that is all there is. We see only the observable segment of the greater universe, with strong evidence that a big bang event occurred in the past. There is sufficient evidence of a big bang event in the “Hubble” red shift data (link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp29hu.html).



That view is giving us a look back of about 14 billion years, back to the time when our "big bang" event was very young, and from a period when photon light was beginning to be emitted from the newly forming atoms as the extreme hot high density of the big bang expanded and cooled.


However, Mithani and Vilenkin are making a judgement call if you accept the law of cause and effect. (Link:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality), and there is sound reasoning that such an event would have an event horizon that limits our ability to look back to the big bang itself. Reaching the conclusion that the expansion we can observe can be back tracked to the beginning of the universe is not the same thing as saying, “Since the observational evidence is that our universe is expanding …”. The observable universe is expanding, but that is only the part that we can observe.


The distinction between our big bang being born in the past, and the universe being born in the past seems to equate the two as being “one and the same” buy they are not. That conclusion is flawed, simply based on the reasoning of cause and effect. It is much more prudent to conclude that our big bang happened as a result of preconditions that were present before our big bang event, and not from the very birth of the universe out of nothingness.

[syhprum]

There is a small village near me on the liver Loose also called loose it has a women's  institute appropriately called the Loose women's institute which would lose its amusing title if everyone spelt lose as loose

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

North Yorkshire, I presume.

[Jaaanosik]

When electron emits a photon in the hydrogen atom where is photon coming from?
Is it somehow related to nothingness? Quantum fluctuations?
What is electron? Positron and electron collision leads to two gamma ray photons.

Could we imagine an electron as a bunch of tiny photons 'trapped' in a rotation?
Photons translational kinetic energy is 'trapped' into the rotational kinetic energy?
When the collision between electron and positron happens the bunch of tiny photons change the rotational kinetic energy to translational kinetic energy and the bunch flies away as what we observe like a gamma ray photon.

So what is photon? Let us imagine a 3D matrix of quantum fluctuations.
The fluctuations are like Newton cradle with elastic interactions between the points:

Photon is an energy traveling through the matrix of quantum fluctuations like it is a case in the Newton cradle.

This is very simple world view concept of our space-time fabric.
Going back to your definition of nothingness. Do you consider quantum fluctuations as something that has potential for energy or that quantum fluctuations are already energy? In other words energy exists only when it propagates through the quantum fluctuations - photons or existence of quantum fluctuations is energy already.

[Bill S]

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

Are you suggesting that there is a way of redefining nothing to make it something, while still remaining “nothing”? 

What do you mean by 'still remaining "nothing"'?

Your quote suggests that you think there is more than one definition of “nothing”.  As I see it, there is only one definition: “nothing”.  I was asking if you could give an example of another definition that was not “something”.

It gets convoluted when you start “messing” with nothing; doesn’t it?

[Jaaanosik]

I have to clarify I still have the OP definition in mind:

No space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time or energy.

When we consider the quantum fluctuations as something, then where do they come from?
It seems like 'nothing' from within our space-time dimensions. That 'nothingness' outside of our space-time has no potential for energy that we can observe within our space-time therefore I would say it qualifies as 'nothingness' from our space-time point of view.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #74

I have to clarify I still have the OP definition in mind:

No space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time or energy.

When we consider the quantum fluctuations as something, then where do they come from?
It seems like 'nothing' from within our space-time dimensions. That 'nothingness' outside of our space-time has no potential for energy that we can observe within our space-time therefore I would say it qualifies as 'nothingness' from our space-time point of view.

You raise questions, and propose ideas about some aspects of nature that are addressed by different scientific disciplines, pertain to different theories of cosmology, and that aren’t expected to work together.

I do not agree that you have a case of nothingness yet either, and note that the intention of the definition in the OP is to preclude the possibility that there can ever be nothingness, given the fact that the universe exists.

Here are the Wikis on spacetime and quantum fluctuations for review:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

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

[Jaaanosik]

I have to clarify I still have the OP definition in mind:

No space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time or energy.

When we consider the quantum fluctuations as something, then where do they come from?
It seems like 'nothing' from within our space-time dimensions. That 'nothingness' outside of our space-time has no potential for energy that we can observe within our space-time therefore I would say it qualifies as 'nothingness' from our space-time point of view.

You raise questions, and propose ideas about some aspects of nature that are addressed by different scientific disciplines, pertain to different theories of cosmology, and that aren’t expected to work together.

I do not agree that you have a case of nothingness yet either, and note that the intention of the definition in the OP is to preclude the possibility that there can ever be nothingness, given the fact that the universe exists.

Here are the Wikis on spacetime and quantum fluctuations for review:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

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

Where do quantum fluctuations come from?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #76

Where do quantum fluctuations come from?

The link to “quantum fluctuation” answers that question, from the perspective of quantum physics, also known as quantum mechanics:
Quantum fluctuations of a field
“A quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of empty space (see my note below), as allowed by the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle states that for a pair of conjugate variables such as position/momentum or energy/time, it is impossible to have a precisely determined value of each member of the pair at the same time.”

This description may not resonate with you if you are not familiar with the basics of quantum mechanics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Note: In regard to your search for some example of nothingness in the universe, the use of the phrase “empty space” does not denote a condition of nothingness. Quantum mechanics is incomplete, and the origin of the universe is a concern, as indicated by the statement in the QM link:

“Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the origin of the structure of the universe: according to the model of expansive inflation the ones that existed when inflation began were amplified and formed the seed of all current observed structure.”

You can tell from that quote that when they mention the “origin of the structure of the universe”, there were quantum fluctuations in existence when the inflation began, i.e., a precondition to inflation, but not a state of nothingness.

The explanation goes on: “In the modern view, energy is always conserved, but because the particle number operator does not commute with a field's Hamiltonian or energy operator, the field's lowest-energy or ground state, often called the vacuum state, is not, as one might expect from that name, a state with no particles, but rather a quantum superposition of particle number eigenstates with 0, 1, 2...etc. particles.”

[Jaaanosik]

Where do quantum fluctuations come from?

The link to “quantum fluctuation” answers that question, from the perspective of quantum physics, also known as quantum mechanics:
Quantum fluctuations of a field
“A quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of empty space (see my note below), as allowed by the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle states that for a pair of conjugate variables such as position/momentum or energy/time, it is impossible to have a precisely determined value of each member of the pair at the same time.”

This description may not resonate with you if you are not familiar with the basics of quantum mechanics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Note: In regard to your search for some example of nothingness in the universe, the use of the phrase “empty space” does not denote a condition of nothingness. Quantum mechanics is incomplete, and the origin of the universe is a concern, as indicated by the statement in the QM link:

“Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the origin of the structure of the universe: according to the model of expansive inflation the ones that existed when inflation began were amplified and formed the seed of all current observed structure.”

You can tell from that quote that when they mention the “origin of the structure of the universe”, there were quantum fluctuations in existence when the inflation began, i.e., a precondition to inflation, but not a state of nothingness.

The explanation goes on: “In the modern view, energy is always conserved, but because the particle number operator does not commute with a field's Hamiltonian or energy operator, the field's lowest-energy or ground state, often called the vacuum state, is not, as one might expect from that name, a state with no particles, but rather a quantum superposition of particle number eigenstates with 0, 1, 2...etc. particles.”

Everything that you posted has to be taken at faith value. There are lots of unknowns.
We have 'nothing'!
There is no experiment to show where the quantum fluctuations come from!
We have nothing to show what is the cause of their existence.

If QM is incomplete how we can claim we know what is empty space?
We do not know what empty space is, again we have 'nothing'!

Quantum fluctuations of a field

What field? Where does it come from? Is this chicken egg problem? What comes first?
We have 'nothing'!

As I said, everything you posted is full of holes.
Are we going to stay truthful to logic? Are we going to be honest with ourselves?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #78

Everything that you posted has to be taken at faith value. There are lots of unknowns.

It is true. The body of scientific knowledge includes known science, and as yet unknown science, and it is the intention of the scientific community, using the scientific method, to advance the body of scientific knowledge.

We have 'nothing'!
There is no experiment to show where the quantum fluctuations come from!
We have nothing to show what is the cause of their existence.

If QM is incomplete how we can claim we know what is empty space?
We do not know what empty space is, again we have 'nothing'!

Quantum fluctuations of a field …
What field? Where does it come from? Is this chicken egg problem? What comes first?
We have 'nothing'!

As I said, everything you posted is full of holes.

Yes, those are criticisms that can be tossed out if you think that the scientific community is saying we “know” those things. However, one of the pillars of science is called “the tentativeness of science”, meaning that there are generally accepted theories, and every theory is subject to being superseded by new discoveries and new theories that are a better fit to the body of scientific knowledge. The advance of science is a process, and the state of our advance is encompassed in what I referred to as the “body of scientific knowledge”. It doesn’t mean everything is agreed on, or that there aren’t competing theories, but the process is ongoing, and the advance of our knowledge remains a common objective.

Are we going to stay truthful to logic? Are we going to be honest with ourselves?

How about both.  Logic however, is not universal, it is what drives the consensus; when the scientific community agrees on a given theory over other competing theories, it is not unanimous, it is subject to tentativeness, and it exists with the expectation of ongoing discovery and change.

If you are truthful and logical, you will be able to be both a skeptic, and a science enthusiast.

[Jaaanosik]

Everything that you posted has to be taken at faith value. There are lots of unknowns.

It is true. The body of scientific knowledge includes known science, and as yet unknown science, and it is the intention of the scientific community, using the scientific method, to advance the body of scientific knowledge.

We have 'nothing'!
There is no experiment to show where the quantum fluctuations come from!
We have nothing to show what is the cause of their existence.

If QM is incomplete how we can claim we know what is empty space?
We do not know what empty space is, again we have 'nothing'!

Quantum fluctuations of a field …
What field? Where does it come from? Is this chicken egg problem? What comes first?
We have 'nothing'!

As I said, everything you posted is full of holes.

Yes, those are criticisms that can be tossed out if you think that the scientific community is saying we “know” those things. However, one of the pillars of science is called “the tentativeness of science”, meaning that there are generally accepted theories, and every theory is subject to being superseded by new discoveries and new theories that are a better fit to the body of scientific knowledge. The advance of science is a process, and the state of our advance is encompassed in what I referred to as the “body of scientific knowledge”. It doesn’t mean everything is agreed on, or that there aren’t competing theories, but the process is ongoing, and the advance of our knowledge remains a common objective.

Are we going to stay truthful to logic? Are we going to be honest with ourselves?

How about both.  Logic however, is not universal, it is what drives the consensus; when the scientific community agrees on a given theory over other competing theories, it is not unanimous, it is subject to tentativeness, and it exists with the expectation of ongoing discovery and change.

If you are truthful and logical, you will be able to be both a skeptic, and a science enthusiast.

Are you saying, in other words, yeap, we have nothing?