[Bill S]

The maths goes (largely) over my head, but the zero-energy universe has attractive features.  One thing I cannot do is equate it with the idea of a universe from nothing.  Such a universe might appear from a situation in which the net mass/energy is zero, but I suspect that the OP was looking for an example of something from “absolutely” nothing.

Let us imagine the spontaneous appearance of a massive particle (with mass m) in the presence of (a distance r away from) an already-existing massive body (with mass M).

As usual, there is something there already.

I empathise with Paul (OP), I have, for some time, been asking the “something from nothing advocates” for a physical example.   

[PmbPhy]

m×c² – 2×G×m×M/r = 0  (we have to count the gravitational term twice because each body exerts on the other, I think...)

I disagree. The potential energy is for the system of two particles in this case so you don't need the two.

[PmbPhy]

The maths goes (largely) over my head, but the zero-energy universe has attractive features.  One thing I cannot do is equate it with the idea of a universe from nothing.  Such a universe might appear from a situation in which the net mass/energy is zero, but I suspect that the OP was looking for an example of something from “absolutely” nothing.

And that's what we gave him.

[chiralSPO]

m×c² – 2×G×m×M/r = 0  (we have to count the gravitational term twice because each body exerts on the other, I think...)

I disagree. The potential energy is for the system of two particles in this case so you don't need the two.

Ok, thanks! I went back and forth on that bit, and I guess I convinced myself of the wrong one. However, I think this still leads to the conclusion that this can only happen in a black hole (now within half the Schwarzschild radius of the center).

As usual, there is something there already.

I empathise with Paul (OP), I have, for some time, been asking the “something from nothing advocates” for a physical example.   

Ok, well we can say that two particles of mass m appear at a distance r of each other, in which case:

2×m×c² – G×m²/r = 0

on dividing each side by m, we get:

2×c² – G×m/r = 0

now rearranged to:

m/r = 2×c²/G = 2.69327062 × 10²⁷ kg / m

Again, meaning that we would have to simultaneously create two black holes, both within the Schwarzschild radius of the other.

This begs the question then (and maybe this is the starting point of the thread, and I'm just a bit slow...) Do black holes just appear out of nowhere, or was there something special about the big bang?

[Bogie_smiles]

We've had this question from Paul:

"At the beginning of time, how did nothing become the universe? If nothing is like an empty glass, how did it get full? Nothing is nothing so how can nothing become something. I know that the entire universe is 10 of zillions of years old but it started sometime but nothing is still nothing. Carbon is the core of all beings but protons, neutrons and matter, where did it come from?"

Can you help?

I think Paul’s question starts out with a major assumption that then shapes the rest of his opening post, and the discussion of it. That assumption is that there was a beginning of time.

How would the question change if Paul didn’t assume that at first there was nothing; no space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time, or energy? The question would then be, where did anything at all come from, not how did nothing become the universe?

The answer to that question could logically be that there was no beginning of time, or of space or energy either; they have always existed … there never was nothing. No beginning of time is necessary in that case.

[Bill S]

And that's what we gave him.

Absolutely not!  Of course, Paul might disagree with that.    Perhaps he would tell us.

[jeffreyH]

[jeffreyH]

m×c² – 2×G×m×M/r = 0  (we have to count the gravitational term twice because each body exerts on the other, I think...)

I disagree. The potential energy is for the system of two particles in this case so you don't need the two.

Ok, thanks! I went back and forth on that bit, and I guess I convinced myself of the wrong one. However, I think this still leads to the conclusion that this can only happen in a black hole (now within half the Schwarzschild radius of the center).

As usual, there is something there already.

I empathise with Paul (OP), I have, for some time, been asking the “something from nothing advocates” for a physical example.   

Ok, well we can say that two particles of mass m appear at a distance r of each other, in which case:

2×m×c² – G×m²/r = 0

on dividing each side by m, we get:

2×c² – G×m/r = 0

now rearranged to:

m/r = 2×c²/G = 2.69327062 × 10²⁷ kg / m

Again, meaning that we would have to simultaneously create two black holes, both within the Schwarzschild radius of the other.

This begs the question then (and maybe this is the starting point of the thread, and I'm just a bit slow...) Do black holes just appear out of nowhere, or was there something special about the big bang?

Wouldn't it be one quarter of the Schwarzschild radius?

r = G×m/(2×c²)

[jeffreyH]

Would this relate to the distance between the creation of particle antiparticle pairs?

[Bogie_smiles]

The Space Time series of videos is a good source for understanding the main theories, including Big Bang Theory and Quantum Field Theory. None of those videos that I have watched claims that there ever was "nothing", or that anything ever came from nothing. This particular video doesn't claim that even the tiniest space containing "nothing" can be produced, or has ever existed. In fact, they maintain that virtual particles need the vacuum to "pop" into existence, and the vacuum state must have energy in order for that to happen, so even vacuum space is not empty, and is therefore "something", not "nothing".

In order for Paul, in the OP, to assume that there was a beginning of time, there would have had to be nothingness out of which the beginning emerged somehow, but even if that nothingness was the vacuum state as defined in the video, the Space Time Video series would only go as far as to say that the vacuum state contains a huge amount of energy, and it is because of that energy that virtual particles can emerge.

[guest45734]

For what its worth, the concept of what space is, how gravity works, wormholes and entanglement and where matter comes from are all interconnected. Energy can not be created or destroyed, a zero energy universe is highly probable and does not violate the laws of physics.

There are many theories pointing out we exist inside a blackhole connected to a whitehole via a wormhole, heres one, i think podolsky also worked on this. https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/our-universe-resides-in-the-center-of-a-black-hole-this-theory-claims
Does a Blackhole have to exist in the same spacetime dimension as us.

A Blackhole by default has little or no entanglement inside of it according to Verlinde. Before anything existed not even a quantum fluctuation, the default position must be a blackhole, perhaps of the none spinning Schwarzschild type. Could this also by default lead to a big bang because there was no other alternative except to have a big bang. If we exist inside a Blackhole and we are not being squashed could the blackhole exist in another dimension, without us knowing, furthermore could we live on the surface of a whitehole, and could the wormhole connecting the whitehole to the blackhole be manifesting as dark energy/gravity. 

[Bill S]

Could we agree that energy is, as far as we can tell, not a concrete “thing”; but we can observe its influence on the world around us, so it is “something” in the broadest sense?

This question was originally addressed to Pete, but I would be very interested to know if others agree, or not, and if not, why not.

[Bogie_smiles]

For what its worth, the concept of what space is, how gravity works, wormholes and entanglement and where matter comes from are all interconnected. Energy can not be created or destroyed, a zero energy universe is highly probable and does not violate the laws of physics.

You and I both like to show up on threads when we can mention science proposals that we favor; ideas that are being discussed out and about but that aren’t generally accepted, lol (no offense intended).

For me it is the concepts of an infinite an eternal universe, aggressive definitions of words like “nothingness” and “universe” and the idea that there was no beginning; the universe has always existed. For you, you like the thinking behind wormholes, massive blackholes and white holes, and the connections between them. For example the list you gave; you mentioned, gravity, wormholes, entanglement, and where matter comes from are all interconnected.

Taking that perspective, I’ll give you gravity, because it is obvious. But to put wormholes in that group might be taking liberties given it is considered quite speculative for a hard science sub-forum. And entanglement is a strange animal that plays on the impression promoted in some interpretations of QM that support the idea of spooky action at a distance. Not all interpretations of QM parlay the fact that particles can be entangled into a bet that there is some faster than light connection or spooky action between entangled particles. I don’t think we have a general consensus on that yet either.

To me it is a welcome concept that energy cannot be created or destroyed, so let’s agree on that. Zero energy, on the other hand, does not appear to be as highly probable to me as it does to you. The implications of it would have far reaching consequences as to the types of theoretical models of the universe that could be derived from it, but it isn’t a consensus yet.

I’m just pointing these cautions out, and playing the Devil’s advocate because not all the members and guests that read this sub-forum are equally informed about the broad range of theoretical physics, and probably some are still in the process of learning generally accepted science. In our defense, I do think it is good that there are discussions of some of the less mainstream existing theories mixed in along with the consensus ideas, but I also think there should be disclaimers like this. Hopefully this post is an acceptable way to present a cautionary statement, without causing concern that we are getting too far afield.

[Bogie_smiles]

Could we agree that energy is, as far as we can tell, not a concrete “thing”; but we can observe its influence on the world around us, so it is “something” in the broadest sense?

This question was originally addressed to Pete, but I would be very interested to know if others agree, or not, and if not, why not.

Maybe my taking you up on your inquiry is presumptuous, but I am just seeking some clarification before I disagree, lol. Are you taking the perspective that there is no evidence that the definition of energy includes anything more than the ability to do work. Or are you asking if anyone thinks it can be extended to include some form of energy as a concrete thing, like a commodity that fills the universe, or something that can have a physical presence in and of itself?

[Bill S]

The question is as it stands, there is no hidden agenda.

It could be broken down to ask if people agree that:

1. energy is, as far as we can tell, not a concrete “thing”.
2. ….we can observe its influence on the world around us, so it is “something” in the broadest sense.

Obfuscation is always an option, but it is not invited.

[Bogie_smiles]

The energy story, to me, has two levels. One is the macro level of particles and objects which are composed of sub-atomic particles. Everything we call matter is at the macro level and is composed of macro particles that contain energy. Macro level particles can also display different forms of energy like kinetic, thermal, and electromagnetic energy that has to do with their content, acceleration, and relative motion.

The energy that they “contain” is quantum level wave energy. Everything that we can see and touch at the macro level is composed wave energy in quantum increments. Thus macro level particles and objects are quantized, they contain wave energy in quantum increments, and they have a net vibration based on the frequencies of the various particles they contain.

When we take both levels together, we have quantized particles and objects that occupy space. Space therefore obviously contains those macro level particles and objects, and the space surrounding those macro level objects is filled with wave energy that traverses space until it is absorbed by macro level objects.

Macro level objects not only absorb wave energy in quantum increments based on their quantized content which governs the frequency of inflowing wave energy that they can absorb, but macro level objects also emit gravitational wave energy in quantum increments.


Particles and objects vibrate based on the frequencies of the sub-atomic particles they contain, and the wave energy in space oscillates based on the frequencies of the particles in the macro objects that emitted the waves into space. Space therefore contains a huge amount of energy that oscillates (displays peaks and valleys of local energy density) as the traversing waves intersect in open space.

[guest45734]

1. energy is, as far as we can tell, not a concrete “thing”.

+ve energy is a measurable thing, defining what -ve energy is debateable. Dark energy and gravity may fit the Bill

2. ….we can observe its influence on the world around us, so it is “something” in the broadest sense.

Yes both +ve energy and -ve energy(if gravity and dark energy are regarded as -ve energy) are all observable.

Obfuscation is always an option, but it is not invited.

Before ? the Big Bang, there was what was called the singularity, an infinitely hot?, immeasurably dense point containing all the matter in the universe???. This exploded and spread out in all directions, creating the expanding cosmos we see today.

Superposing:- If we exist inside a form of blackhole(existing in another dimension) where space time is undefined or does not exist, connected to a whitehole(spacetime) via a wormhole which is expanding inside the said blackhole(other dimension). We might naturally big bang into existence in a zero energy universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_cosmology

[guest45734]

Macro level objects not only absorb wave energy in quantum increments based on their quantized content which governs the frequency of inflowing wave energy that they can absorb, but macro level objects also emit gravitational wave energy in quantum increments.

I would disagree with you here on various levels, but keeping it simple for a particle to radiate gravitational energy it would be losing energy and eventually disappear. Particles can not radiate or absorb gravitational energy, without gaining or losing mass/energy. It goes against the laws of physics and the conservation of energy. Verlindes theories suggest the entanglement of space is absorbed around mass/energy, reducing the entropy of space, which again is a bit of a violation to reduce entropy, but no one seems to have jumped on his ideas and said he cant reduce the entropy around mass/energy and his ideas seem close to gaining acceptance, and they do support the MOND curvefit with actual theoretical physics.

How would anyone define negative and positive energies for a zero energy universe. Matter and antimatter do not cancel out, they produce radiation when they come into contact. When space meets mass it appears to curve, possibly as a result of the reduction of entanglement entropy, similar to a black hole, which might be connected to the rest of space via a wormhole ??

[Bogie_smiles]

I would disagree with you here on various levels, but keeping it simple for a particle to radiate gravitational energy it would be losing energy and eventually disappear.

Particles can not radiate or absorb gravitational energy, without gaining or losing mass/energy. It goes against the laws of physics and the conservation of energy. Verlindes theories suggest the entanglement of space is absorbed around mass/energy, reducing the entropy of space, which again is a bit of a violation to reduce entropy, but no one seems to have jumped on his ideas and said he cant reduce the entropy around mass/energy and his ideas seem close to gaining acceptance, and they do support the MOND curvefit with actual theoretical physics.

It is true that a radiating particle would eventually disappear, if it was only radiating, but the mechanics of the maintenance of the presence of a sub-atomic particle includes both gravitational radiation and absorption. A particle at rest, for example, has a certain amount of contained energy, and that amount is maintained by the wave energy of the particle being exchanged in equal amounts to and from surrounding space. Equal amounts of outflowing and inflowing gravitational wave energy are required to maintain the presence of the particle at rest.

This discussion is quite alternative to consensus views, so if the moderators feel inclined, they can delete any offending posts, in the interest if letting the permissible portion of the discussion remain here in this sub-forum.

[guest45734]

Equal amounts of outflowing and inflowing gravitational wave energy are required to maintain the presence of the particle at rest.

Are you redefining the graviton, a spin 2 boson, never detected before or a virtual particle undetectable, to have additional characteristics never theorized before, that I am aware of. Or maybe are you thinking entangled virtual particles are in some way decohered by matter. A decreasing entropy around a particle will cause an attractive force, as outlined by verlinde.

My opinion which is not mainstream, but has support is the graviton and dark matter do not exist. Gravity is an emergent force and has nothing to do with gravitons or dark matter.

Entanglement, wormholes in space time, ER = EPR, all point to more than 4 dimensions of space time, allowing instantaneous information transfer across universes(theoretically ). https://www.space.com/20881-wormholes.html

I wonder what would be the expansion rate of space time if it was initiated by a whitehole originating from a blackhole via a wormhole. Would it be limited by the hubble constant.

(A question keeps coming into my head, could space time exist inside a wormhole, ive googled this and found nothing )