[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #80

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

LOL, not exactly. We have many generally accepted scientific observations, and a growing body of knowledge that represents the efforts of the scientific community to understand them.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Science-related_lists

[Jaaanosik]

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

LOL, not exactly. We have many generally accepted scientific observations, and a growing body of knowledge that represents the efforts of the scientific community to understand them.

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

 

We have no experiment to show where the quantum fluctuations come from.
Agreed?
What is your take on causality in physics?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #82

We have no experiment to show where the quantum fluctuations come from.
Agreed?

The understanding of quantum fluctuations is theoretical, and I would agree that from the perspective of our skeptical natures, we don't have any such experiments.

What is your take on causality in physics?

I'm a cause and effect type of individual. The universe, according to the definition that I have offered, has always existed, and so there was no first cause.

Why don't you take a minute and let me know where you are coming from in this exchange.

[Jaaanosik]

We have no experiment to show where the quantum fluctuations come from.
Agreed?

The understanding of quantum fluctuations is theoretical, and I would agree that from the perspective of our skeptical natures, we don't have any such experiments.

What is your take on causality in physics?

I'm a cause and effect type of individual. The universe, according to the definition that I have offered, has always existed, and so there was no first cause.

Why don't you take a minute and let me know where you are coming from in this exchange.

My post #71 is essential to understand my position.
I see quantum fluctuations as fundamental foundation for existence of universe. There would be no photons, no matter without quantum fluctuations.
If quantum fluctuations exist then they have a cause therefore there is some first cause.

Having said that I am fine to admit that the first cause is not 'detectable' to us physically, from within our space-time, so it appears to us as 'nothing'.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #84

My post #71 is essential to understand my position.
I see quantum fluctuations as fundamental foundation for existence of universe. There would be no photons, no matter without quantum fluctuations.
If quantum fluctuations exist then they have a cause therefore there is some first cause.

Having said that I am fine to admit that the first cause is not 'detectable' to us physically, from within our space-time, so it appears to us as 'nothing'.

Are you saying that the quantum fluctuations had to precede the existence of the photons and fundamental particles that currently make up the universe?

If we were to follow that reasoning, within that perspective I could imagine some possibilities:


I would suggest that the quantum fluctuations could have always existed as an ongoing process of random fluctuation across all space, and would have always participated in the process of particle formation. A co-existence of quantum fluctuations which are ongoing, and of the particles that currently make up the universe.

Does that seem logical to you?

[Jaaanosik]

My post #71 is essential to understand my position.
I see quantum fluctuations as fundamental foundation for existence of universe. There would be no photons, no matter without quantum fluctuations.
If quantum fluctuations exist then they have a cause therefore there is some first cause.

Having said that I am fine to admit that the first cause is not 'detectable' to us physically, from within our space-time, so it appears to us as 'nothing'.

Are you saying that the quantum fluctuations had to precede the existence of the photons and fundamental particles that currently make up the universe?

If we were to follow that reasoning, within that perspective I could imagine some possibilities:


I would suggest that the quantum fluctuations could have always existed as an ongoing process of random fluctuation across all space, and would have always participated in the process of particle formation. A co-existence of quantum fluctuations which are ongoing, and of the particles that currently make up the universe.

Does that seem logical to you?

Now I am going to give you my testimony.
You have two options, accept it as true statement or rejected it.
If you rejected it, you would consider me as a liar, but I have no reason to lie about it.

The testimony - what you said is almost exactly what I had in mind. This is logical.
I said almost because this has a continuation though. The quantum fluctuations are something and therefore they must have the first cause. This is the starting point.

The next question is where the photons come from? What caused them to be created?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #86

Now I am going to give you my testimony.
You have two options, accept it as true statement or rejected it.
If you rejected it, you would consider me as a liar, but I have no reason to lie about it.

The testimony - what you said is almost exactly what I had in mind. This is logical.
I said almost because this has a continuation though. The quantum fluctuations are something and therefore they must have the first cause. This is the starting point.

The next question is where the photons come from? What caused them to be created?

I believe you

That brings us to the point where I have a suggestion. Start a thread in New Theories, and let's carry on with this session over there. The reason, this sub-forum is more for hard science, and we are getting into speculative ideas that I prefer not to get into in this thread. Any objections to that?

[Jaaanosik]

Now I am going to give you my testimony.
You have two options, accept it as true statement or rejected it.
If you rejected it, you would consider me as a liar, but I have no reason to lie about it.

The testimony - what you said is almost exactly what I had in mind. This is logical.
I said almost because this has a continuation though. The quantum fluctuations are something and therefore they must have the first cause. This is the starting point.

The next question is where the photons come from? What caused them to be created?

I believe you

That brings us to the point where I have a suggestion. Start a thread in New Theories, and let's carry on with this session over there. The reason, this sub-forum is more for hard science, and we are getting into speculative ideas that I prefer not to get into in this thread. Any objections to that?

Yes, I object.

I object, because I am presenting two 'tentative pillars':
1. Where the quantum fluctuations come from - already explained.
2. Where the photons come from - I did not say that but I am going to say it now. I see the same first cause giving energy to photons.
These are two building blocks that are 'tentative' the rest is physics.

Photon creating mass particle? It is physics and if we believe this testimony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron

Positrons may be generated by positron emission radioactive decay (through weak interactions), or by pair production from a sufficiently energetic photon which is interacting with an atom in a material.

... then it is already proven by experiment.
Nothing else is needed. We have our universe.

Now your turn to show any other cosmological 'theory' that is simpler. 'Theory' that has less starting building blocks that are less 'tentative'.
I am done.
I'll just comment if I find something interesting here.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #88

Jaaanosik Reply #87

Yes, I object.

I object, because I am presenting two 'tentative pillars':
1. Where the quantum fluctuations come from - already explained.
2. Where the photons come from - I did not say that but I am going to say it now. I see the same first cause giving energy to photons.
These are two building blocks that are 'tentative' the rest is physics.

Photon creating mass particle? It is physics and if we believe this testimony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron

Positrons may be generated by positron emission radioactive decay (through weak interactions), or by pair production from a sufficiently energetic photon which is interacting with an atom in a material.

... then it is already proven by experiment.
Nothing else is needed. We have our universe.

Now your turn to show any other cosmological 'theory' that is simpler. 'Theory' that has less starting building blocks that are less 'tentative'.
I am done.
I'll just comment if I find something interesting here.

Good job. For me to add anything of interest that isn’t already under consideration by the scientific community, and documented in Wiki, lol, would be speculation on my part.

Earlier in the thread there was discussion about how the first cause is often not addressed in various theories and models of the universe because we just don’t know yet. Additionally, there is the fact that the Supernatural is not considered scientific from the perspective of the scientific method, and so doesn’t qualify as a scientific first cause, and thus violates causality.

Your two tentative pillars and the Wiki on positrons lend support to your conclusion that, “Nothing else is needed. We have our universe”, but if your model is quantum mechanics, the consensus is that the theory is incomplete and not yet considered the consensus model of the universe. If your first cause is “always existed” then quantum mechanics doesn’t go there, and you have put words into the existing body of knowledge. Those words put your revision of QM into the speculative New Theories category, IMHO.

[Jaaanosik]

Reply #88

Jaaanosik Reply #87

Yes, I object.

I object, because I am presenting two 'tentative pillars':
1. Where the quantum fluctuations come from - already explained.
2. Where the photons come from - I did not say that but I am going to say it now. I see the same first cause giving energy to photons.
These are two building blocks that are 'tentative' the rest is physics.

Photon creating mass particle? It is physics and if we believe this testimony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron

Positrons may be generated by positron emission radioactive decay (through weak interactions), or by pair production from a sufficiently energetic photon which is interacting with an atom in a material.

... then it is already proven by experiment.
Nothing else is needed. We have our universe.

Now your turn to show any other cosmological 'theory' that is simpler. 'Theory' that has less starting building blocks that are less 'tentative'.
I am done.
I'll just comment if I find something interesting here.

Good job. For me to add anything of interest that isn’t already under consideration by the scientific community, and documented in Wiki, lol, would be speculation on my part.

It's OK to speculate. What's the big deal?
Cosmology is philosophy and logic.

Earlier in the thread there was discussion about how the first cause is often not addressed in various theories and models of the universe because we just don’t know yet. Additionally, there is the fact that the Supernatural is not considered scientific from the perspective of the scientific method, and so doesn’t qualify as a scientific first cause, and thus violates causality.

I disagree that it violates the causality. The first cause is a part and it has been a part of the philosophy for centuries.
It is part of the logic.

Your two tentative pillars and the Wiki on positrons lend support to your conclusion that, “Nothing else is needed. We have our universe”, but if your model is quantum mechanics, the consensus is that the theory is incomplete and not yet considered the consensus model of the universe. If your first cause is “always existed” then quantum mechanics doesn’t go there, and you have put words into the existing body of knowledge. Those words put your revision of QM into the speculative New Theories category, IMHO.

The QM comes after the first two building blocks. It appears to me it is complete in this sense.

The other hypothetical models have issues.
QM alone has an issue of - 'Quantum fluctuations of a field' - what field? Where does it come from?
Big Bang - where the singularity comes from? What's the cause?
The universe existed all the time - how? It breaks causality.

Yes, we can call what I presented as 'the new speculative hypothetical model' - no problem. This is not theory. A theory can come from a proven hypothetical model. Cosmological hypothetical models cannot be proven therefore they stay hypothetical models. There is no theory here.

This 'new speculative hypothetical model' appears to be better than anything out there based on the Occam's razor.

[Bill S]

I don’t have time to read all the contributions since my last post.  I had a quick look to see if there was a straightforward response to my question in #72.  Perhaps I missed it.

From the quantity of, undoubtedly interesting posts, it would seem that the “identity” of “nothing” is far more complex than I ever suspected.  Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that there are experts who seem bent on convincing us that the Universe emerged from nothing.

I have yet to find anyone who can give an example of something from nothing.  The nearest anyone has come was JP, for whom I have great respect, and to whom I owe what understanding I have of a number of things; but even he “fell at the last hurdle” on this one.   

Possibly there is no answer that makes any sense in our 3+1D Universe, but if that’s the case, there is certainly a reluctance to admit it.  It’s a bit like asking for a physical example of “A point on a line [that] has no length”.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #91

It's OK to speculate. What's the big deal?
Cosmology is philosophy and logic.

Earlier in the thread there was discussion about how the first cause is often not addressed in various theories and models of the universe because we just don’t know yet. Additionally, there is the fact that the Supernatural is not considered scientific from the perspective of the scientific method, and so doesn’t qualify as a scientific first cause, and thus violates causality.

I disagree that it violates the causality. The first cause is a part and it has been a part of the philosophy for centuries.
It is part of the logic.

Your two tentative pillars and the Wiki on positrons lend support to your conclusion that, “Nothing else is needed. We have our universe”, but if your model is quantum mechanics, the consensus is that the theory is incomplete and not yet considered the consensus model of the universe. If your first cause is “always existed” then quantum mechanics doesn’t go there, and you have put words into the existing body of knowledge. Those words put your revision of QM into the speculative New Theories category, IMHO.

The QM comes after the first two building blocks. It appears to me it is complete in this sense.

The other hypothetical models have issues.
QM alone has an issue of - 'Quantum fluctuations of a field' - what field? Where does it come from?
Big Bang - where the singularity comes from? What's the cause?
The universe existed all the time - how? It breaks causality.

Yes, we can call what I presented as 'the new speculative hypothetical model' - no problem. This is not theory. A theory can come from a proven hypothetical model. Cosmological hypothetical models cannot be proven therefore they stay hypothetical models. There is no theory here.

This 'new speculative hypothetical model' appears to be better than anything out there based on the Occam's razor.

All right, let’s let that stand and see if it gets addressed with any supporting or opposing arguments from the membership.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #92

I don’t have time to read all the contributions since my last post.  I had a quick look to see if there was a straightforward response to my question in #72.  Perhaps I missed it.

From the quantity of, undoubtedly interesting posts, it would seem that the “identity” of “nothing” is far more complex than I ever suspected.  Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that there are experts who seem bent on convincing us that the Universe emerged from nothing.

I have yet to find anyone who can give an example of something from nothing.  The nearest anyone has come was JP, for whom I have great respect, and to whom I owe what understanding I have of a number of things; but even he “fell at the last hurdle” on this one.   

Possibly there is no answer that makes any sense in our 3+1D Universe, but if that’s the case, there is certainly a reluctance to admit it.  It’s a bit like asking for a physical example of “A point on a line [that] has no length”.

I don’t think there is a reluctance to admit that the current consensus view of cosmology, which I think can be referred to as Big Bang Theory with Inflation, and consists of General Relativity and Inflationary Theory, is presented as reality, or as the final chapter. It is the generally accepted “best yet” cosmological model, but I don’t see it being defended as if there wasn’t ongoing work to get a new consensus on a different model.  Certainly there is a concentrated effort to put together a unifying model that includes a quantum solution to gravity.

The name of the game for layman science enthusiasts is to wait as the scientific community makes their advances; I call it the Big Wait,

[yor_on]

'Nothingness' is the fourdimensional universe we live in, speaking mainstreamly :)
It could be called a vacuum with fluctuations, but  'vacuum' contain 'possibilities', some of which are pretty long-lived. Why that is seems to be about the 'time' it takes for a 'universe' to exist and 'cool down', from some extremely hot state at its beginning. The rest is about transformations and entropy as I get it :)

there's a lot of vacuum around.

[yor_on]

There are two very good questions you can ask
What makes a vacuum
Why is there atoms
=

you might find those two interesting
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth3.html

And then about pressure
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3688/why-does-pressure-act-as-a-source-for-the-gravitational-field

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #95

'Nothingness' is the fourdimensional universe we live in, speaking mainstreamly
It could be called a vacuum with fluctuations, but  'vacuum' contain 'possibilities', some of which are pretty long-lived. Why that is seems to be about the 'time' it takes for a 'universe' to exist and 'cool down', from some extremely hot state at its beginning. The rest is about transformations and entropy as I get it


there's a lot of vacuum around.

To be sure, the vacuum of space is almost everywhere


I would like to address your statement, “[It] seems to be about the 'time' it takes for a 'universe' to exist and 'cool down', from some extremely hot state at it's beginning”. The phrase “at it’s beginning” refers to the our implied big bang event …


Now, if the definitions of “nothingness” and of “universe” that I have offered which are as follows:


One definition of nothingness (from the OP):
No space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time or energy.


Definition of Universe from reply #44: 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.




… then the Big Bang was not the beginning of the universe. It would be an event that would have had preconditions within a greater universe, which has always existed. Can you go with that or do you have changes that you would make to my definitions of nothingness and universe?

[yor_on]

I don't know Bogie.
And as usual I kept adding to my last reply before seeing yours :)
But if you look at my reply before this you will see a link to Alan Guth in where he discuss the initial conditions of a inflation.

[yor_on]

If you think of it most of the current knowledge points to a very high energy density in the beginning. The way stars made us is a direct result from transformations needing heat aka 'kinetic motion'. It doesn't really discuss a geometry although we presume there to be needed some sort of confinement for it to exist, well, at least I do :)

But without 'particles' transferring this 'heat' those initial conditions becomes one of pressure, which then links to Einsteins stress energy tensor. It's interesting

And a very high energy density is also about heat.
=

And if we want to add to that we can consider the homogeneous isotropic universe we find around us. A 'Big Bang' whatever that means is not a centered source, situated at some 'middle of the universe'. In a way it never stopped as every 'point' of this universe still expands. No center to it, and the proof of that lies in astronomical observations of 'early light', being all around us. I can't see any other way to understand it myself.

[Bill S]

If you think of it most of the current knowledge points to a very high energy density in the beginning.

Presumably, you mean the beginning of our "observable" Universe; not the beginning of everything; before which there would have been "nothing".

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #99

There are two very good questions you can ask
What makes a vacuum
Why is there atoms
=

you might find those two interesting
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth3.html


And then about pressure
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3688/why-does-pressure-act-as-a-source-for-the-gravitational-field

Thank you for the appropriate links. Earlier we covered some of Guth’s work, and you see I included his Inflation theory, along with General Relativity in the make up of Big Bang Theory in my reply to Bill S. One key point in your link is about the physics of the false vacuum:

“THE FALSE VACUUM arises naturally in any theory that contains scalar fields … the energy density is minimal not when the field vanishes, but instead at some nonzero value of the field.”

I say this is a key point because the minimal energy density clearly is not “nothingness”, it is just a relative minimum density level of a positive energy density.