Why Isn�t Edward P. Tryon A World-famous Physicist?

[shunyadragon]

The whole article is well worth the read.

[psstein]

Two reasons:
1. Tryon's model predicted a closed universe, which it appears the universe is not.

2. He still hasn't answered the question "why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Jedidiah]

And he has not explained how something could come from nothing.

[shunyadragon]

Two reasons:
1. Tryon's model predicted a closed universe, which it appears the universe is not.

This statement needs clarification, because his description of our universe as a closed system is only in the relative sense of the total energy equaling zero, because our universe still originates and is dependent on the existence of the greater Quantum Cosmos dependent on the formation of a singularity.

2. He still hasn't answered the question "why is there something rather than nothing?"[/QUOTE]

This is a philosophical/theological question that is largely irrelevant to the science involved here. The 'nothing' is described by science as the nature of the Quantum Zero-Point Energy (QZPE) nature of the greater cosmos is not the Philosophical/Theological "nothing," which has no relative relationship to science. Quantum fluctuation in the QZPE is in reality not nothing.

The reality is simply 'something does not come from absolutely nothing.'

[JimL]

The whole article is well worth the read.

A closed universe of zero point energy and gravity is descriptive of an existing something, not of nothing.

[eider]

Interesting thread!:)

At this time the physicists, mathematicians and astronomers are in polite contention about the initiation of our Universe.
Whilst some support a big-bounce, others a single expansion, yet others a multiverse we still do not have the information about how or why the Universe expanded.
We need to wait a little longer, it seems?

[shunyadragon]

A closed universe of zero point energy and gravity is descriptive of an existing something, not of nothing.

Tryon was one of the first to us the term "nothing" to describe the QZPE existence as "nothing." It is not as popular today among scientist, because of the confusion with layman's use and the philosophical 'absolute nothing.'

[JimL]

Tryon was one of the first to us the term "nothing" to describe the QZPE existence as "nothing." It is not as popular today among scientist, because of the confusion with layman's use and the philosophical 'absolute nothing.'

True, but QZPE does not really equate to nothingness, the zero point nature of energy is the result of the opposing force of gravity. Without the gravitational force acting upon it energy would be positive. So I think it a mistake and a confusion to define the universe as a something being born of nothing. I understand what Tyron means by "nothing," but if energy and gravity weren't pre-existing things, there would be no universe.

[psstein]

This statement needs clarification, because his description of our universe as a closed system is only in the relative sense of the total energy equaling zero, because our universe still originates and is dependent on the existence of the greater Quantum Cosmos dependent on the formation of a singularity.

No, his model assumes a spatially closed universe, one that curves in on itself. It appears as though our universe is spatially open and flat.

[shunyadragon]

No, his model assumes a spatially closed universe, one that curves in on itself. It appears as though our universe is spatially open and flat.

That is a possibility that has not been proved nor disproved. This is only relatively closed, because the universe is not entirely closed with its origin as a singularity in the greater cosmos. What Tryon proposed is model from the theoretical perspective, and in this model is what the universe appears to curve in on itself as far as his model describes it. As with all models this is not proposed as to what the universe actually is.

[Jedidiah]

That is a possibility that has not been proved nor disproved. This is only relatively closed, because the universe is not entirely closed with its origin as a singularity in the greater cosmos. What Tryon proposed is model from the theoretical perspective, and in this model is what the universe appears to curve in on itself as far as his model describes it. As with all models this is not proposed as to what the universe actually is.

In other words we have here a fancy model that has little, if anything, to do with reality.

[shunyadragon]

In other words we have here a fancy model that has little, if anything, to do with reality.

False, early models are the building blocks of later models. Tryon's model was revolutionary, has not been specifically found false, and it was a pioneer of later models. It is not clear that you understand the nature, methods, assumptions and how modeling the universe and greater cosmos works. You also apparently did not understand what "nothing" means when it refers to the QZPE cosmos.

[Jedidiah]

False, early models are the building blocks of later models. Tryon's model was revolutionary, has not been specifically found false, and it was a pioneer of later models. It is not clear that you understand the nature, methods, assumptions and how modeling the universe and greater cosmos works. You also apparently did not understand what "nothing" means when it refers to the QZPE cosmos.

I do understand what "nothing" means in reference to the QZPE cosmos. But that is not nothing thus the whole thing fails to demonstrate that the universe (or multiverse) could appear from nothing. The QZPE cosmos is not nothing.

[psstein]

That is a possibility that has not been proved nor disproved. This is only relatively closed, because the universe is not entirely closed with its origin as a singularity in the greater cosmos. What Tryon proposed is model from the theoretical perspective, and in this model is what the universe appears to curve in on itself as far as his model describes it. As with all models this is not proposed as to what the universe actually is.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests that the universe is a) spatially open and b) flat. A significant number of observations strongly indicate both a) and b).

[shunyadragon]

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests that the universe is a) spatially open and b) flat. A significant number of observations strongly indicate both a) and b).

So?!?!?!