PDA

View Full Version : Why is there something rather then nothing?



shunyadragon
11-12-2014, 04:34 PM
People have wrestled with the mystery of why the universe exists for thousands of years. Pretty much every ancient culture came up with its own creation story - most of them leaving the matter in the hands of the gods - and philosophers have written reams on the subject. But science has had little to say about this ultimate question.
However, in recent years a few physicists and cosmologists have started to tackle it. They point out that we now have an understanding of the history of the universe, and of the physical laws that describe how it works. That information, they say, should give us a clue about how and why the cosmos exists.
Their admittedly controversial answer is that the entire universe, from the fireball of the Big Bang to the star-studded cosmos we now inhabit, popped into existence from nothing at all. It had to happen, they say, because "nothing" is inherently unstable.
This idea may sound bizarre, or just another fanciful creation story. But the physicists argue that it follows naturally from science's two most powerful and successful theories: quantum mechanics and general relativity.

Here, then, is how everything could have come from nothing.

CMD
11-12-2014, 05:14 PM
A "roiling cloud of particles and antiparticles" is not absolutely nothing at all. The question is asking why there exists anything instead of absolutely nothing. This and the many similar articles on the subject don't actually answer that question.

Kelp(p)
11-12-2014, 05:21 PM
A "roiling cloud of particles and antiparticles" is not absolutely nothing at all. The question is asking why there exists anything instead of absolutely nothing. This and the many similar articles on the subject don't actually answer that question.True, but if you head over to the philosophy board, you'll see that we've been struggling with the question for a couple of days and it seems like true nothingness in the philosophical sense is an oxymoron.

Kelp(p)
11-12-2014, 05:29 PM
It reminds me of Greek mythology in a way. First there was chaos. And then of course Genesis 1:2 which Robert Alter translates as, "And the world then was welter and waste."

Jedidiah
11-12-2014, 06:03 PM
True, but if you head over to the philosophy board, you'll see that we've been struggling with the question for a couple of days and it seems like true nothingness in the philosophical sense is an oxymoron.

It is not really a philosophical question. If the universe did not exist - no space/time, and no sea of particles and antiparticles - would exist. You can play with words all day (or several days) but you can not nail down nothing.

Kelp(p)
11-12-2014, 07:20 PM
It is not really a philosophical question. If the universe did not exist - no space/time, and no sea of particles and antiparticles - would exist. You can play with words all day (or several days) but you can not nail down nothing.That's what I meant. Wovon Mann nicht sprechen kann, darueber muss Mann schweigen.

shunyadragon
11-12-2014, 07:24 PM
A "roiling cloud of particles and antiparticles" is not absolutely nothing at all. The question is asking why there exists anything instead of absolutely nothing. This and the many similar articles on the subject don't actually answer that question.

Its a play on words to illustrate some new aspects of modeling the beginnings of universes.

Jedidiah
11-12-2014, 09:09 PM
Its a play on words to illustrate some new aspects of modeling the beginnings of universes.

But it has nothing whatsoever to do with nothing.

Kelp(p)
11-12-2014, 09:12 PM
But it has nothing whatsoever to do with nothing.Yeah, I wish Lawrence Krauss, et al. would have picked a different term. I've seen at least one atheist use this to claim that science has disproved the existence of God.

shunyadragon
11-13-2014, 04:27 AM
Yeah, I wish Lawrence Krauss, et al. would have picked a different term. I've seen at least one atheist use this to claim that science has disproved the existence of God.

lol on disproving nor proving the existence of a 'Source' some call god(s). 'One atheist?'

shunyadragon
11-13-2014, 04:41 AM
I do not care for the word 'nothing' in the scientific context of the nature of the 'Quantum World' without the time and space of universes, but nonetheless this article does explain the contemporary application of Quantum Mechanics to the formation of possible universes. In reality it is nothing new, but it does give a good explanation.



Particles from empty space

First we have to take a look at the realm of quantum mechanics. This is the branch of physics that deals with very small things: atoms and even tinier particles. It is an immensely successful theory, and it underpins most modern electronic gadgets. Quantum mechanics tells us that there is no such thing as empty space. Even the most perfect vacuum is actually filled by a roiling cloud of particles and antiparticles, which flare into existence and almost instantaneously fade back into nothingness.
These so-called virtual particles don't last long enough to be observed directly, but we know they exist by their effects.

Space-time, from no space and no time

From tiny things like atoms, to really big things like galaxies. Our best theory for describing such large-scale structures is general relativity, Albert Einstein's crowning achievement, which sets out how space, time and gravity work. Relativity is very different from quantum mechanics, and so far nobody has been able to combine the two seamlessly. However, some theorists have been able to bring the two theories to bear on particular problems by using carefully chosen approximations. For instance, this approach was used by Stephen Hawking at the University of Cambridge to describe black holes.

In quantum physics, if something is not forbidden, it necessarily happens

One thing they have found is that, when quantum theory is applied to space at the smallest possible scale, space itself becomes unstable. Rather than remaining perfectly smooth and continuous, space and time destabilize, churning and frothing into a foam of space-time bubbles. In other words, little bubbles of space and time can form spontaneously. "If space and time are quantized, they can fluctuate," says Lawrence Krauss at Arizona State University in Tempe. "So you can create virtual space-times just as you can create virtual particles." What's more, if it's possible for these bubbles to form, you can guarantee that they will. "In quantum physics, if something is not forbidden, it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability," says Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts.

firstfloor
11-13-2014, 04:46 AM
Here, then, is how everything could have come from nothing.Whew! I’m glad that’s settled. Do you realize that this could be Theologyweb’s last ever thread?

Kelp(p)
11-13-2014, 08:19 AM
lol on disproving nor proving the existence of a 'Source' some call god(s). 'One atheist?'Nobody prominent here. I don't even remember who it was specifically.

firstfloor
11-13-2014, 10:23 AM
Its a play on words to illustrate some new aspects of modeling the beginnings of universes.I think the problem with ‘nothing’ is that it has no properties at all. It even does not have the property of existence. Therefore the idea “from nothing” is meaningless. That would mean that somethingness would be the simplest possible concept. What physics seems to claim is that, since we exist, the laws governing this simplest condition allows the evolution of a universe like ours.

shunyadragon
11-13-2014, 10:33 AM
I think the problem with ‘nothing’ is that it has no properties at all. It even does not have the property of existence. Therefore the idea “from nothing” is meaningless. That would mean that somethingness would be the simplest possible concept. What physics seems to claim is that, since we exist, the laws governing this simplest condition allows the evolution of a universe like ours.
'
I agree that the term 'nothing' in science is misleading, but go along with it for convenience. The assumption is not based on 'since we exist,' but based on the current 'Quantum Theory,' especially 'Quantum Gravity,' and how things function without time and space in a Quantum World.

firstfloor
11-13-2014, 11:57 AM
'
I agree that the term 'nothing' in science is misleading, but go along with it for convenience. The assumption is not based on 'since we exist,' but based on the current 'Quantum Theory,' especially 'Quantum Gravity,' and how things function without time and space in a Quantum World.physicist hacker? http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/egghead/2004/05/the_big_lab_experiment.html

Leonhard
11-13-2014, 12:03 PM
It even does not have the property of existence.

Existence is not a property.

phank
11-13-2014, 01:56 PM
For what it's worth, the wonderful Martin Gardner spent some time writing about the nature of "nothing"

http://www.amazon.com/The-Colossal-Book-Mathematics-Paradoxes/dp/0393020231

"There is still a difference between something and nothing, but it is purely geometrical and there is nothing behind the geometry."

``Martin Gardner

firstfloor
11-13-2014, 02:35 PM
Existence is not a property.If it is not a property in itself it perhaps is a pre-requisite for the acquisition of any property. Or, if anything can be assigned a property, it exists.

Kelp(p)
11-13-2014, 04:43 PM
It's kind of a paradox. A fictitious character, Batman for example, does not exist in the real world and yet we are not talking gibberish when we talk of Batman. The word refers to something "real." I don't think that's enough to rescue the concept of nothingness, but it is something to think about.

Leonhard
11-13-2014, 05:01 PM
If it is not a property in itself it perhaps is a pre-requisite for the acquisition of any property. Or, if anything can be assigned a property, it exists.

It seems we can. Its quite possible to talk about about the properties of objects that don't exist, but are entirely hypothetical. You could talk about the abstract conception of these objects existing (at least in the realm of mental ideas).

We can conceive of a blue panther... such a panther doesn't really exist, however we could get Industrial Lights and Magic to do a realistic rendering of how such a blue panther would look like. So we can discuss the properties of an abstract panther, yet here we're clearly talking abstractly about the properties of an object that doesn't exist.

The reason existence can't be property is that it then becomes really hard to make sense of what it means to say that an object is... do have to image that all objects somehow have being, only with an uncountable infinity of them having their property '.existence.set = false'? Its simpler and in line with objective experience to start with the distinction of being and non-being and go from there. Then we only have to discuss objects that have being (they exist), and their properties and possible objects.

firstfloor
11-14-2014, 12:01 AM
It seems we can. Its quite possible to talk about about the properties of objects that don't exist, but are entirely hypothetical. You could talk about the abstract conception of these objects existing (at least in the realm of mental ideas).

We can conceive of a blue panther... such a panther doesn't really exist, however we could get Industrial Lights and Magic to do a realistic rendering of how such a blue panther would look like. So we can discuss the properties of an abstract panther, yet here we're clearly talking abstractly about the properties of an object that doesn't exist.

The reason existence can't be property is that it then becomes really hard to make sense of what it means to say that an object is... do have to image that all objects somehow have being, only with an uncountable infinity of them having their property '.existence.set = false'? Its simpler and in line with objective experience to start with the distinction of being and non-being and go from there. Then we only have to discuss objects that have being (they exist), and their properties and possible objects.Well, the blue panther is not independent of existence. It consists in a set of brain states that do exist. The blue panther is a description much like sweet or sour. You might think instead that the blue panther has a super-existence in the space of possible brain states rather than none. The very fact that you can name it is significant. The non-existent thing (nothing) has no name, it doesn’t even have a “the”.

I was unable to make sense of your last paragraph other than to note that being means the fact of existence so I am not sure why your formulation is any better than mine.

Jedidiah
11-14-2014, 11:30 AM
It reminds me of Greek mythology in a way. First there was chaos. And then of course Genesis 1:2 which Robert Alter translates as, "And the world then was welter and waste."

But remember that "welter and waste" came after creation. Hmmm?

klaus54
11-14-2014, 02:45 PM
To permute the thread title, "Why does YEC have nothing instead of something?"

Jorge, JordanRiver, and "Mr." Black might like to have a crack at this.

K54

Adrift
11-14-2014, 02:46 PM
To permute the thread title, "Why does YEC have nothing instead of something?"

Jorge, JordanRiver, and "Mr." Black might like to have a crack at this.

K54

What?

Kelp(p)
11-14-2014, 04:20 PM
But remember that "welter and waste" came after creation. Hmmm?Yep.

Kelp(p)
11-14-2014, 04:21 PM
To permute the thread title, "Why does YEC have nothing instead of something?"

Jorge, JordanRiver, and "Mr." Black might like to have a crack at this.

K54Wooooow. I don't think I've ever seen such an absurdly one track mind. Congrats, I guess...

klaus54
11-15-2014, 02:22 PM
Wooooow. I don't think I've ever seen such an absurdly one track mind. Congrats, I guess...

You're welcome!

And you're also welcome for missing an obvious point.

YEC explains everything and nothing at the same time.

No need for those damnable details. Pffffffwt...

K54