A Uinverse From Nothing

[SerenelyBlue]

Has anyone read it. I read half of it, but it is over my head. Do you think it is plausable that the universe could indeed arise from nothing?

[RogueScholar]

Defining "nothing" is the first hurdle that must be negotiated and it is much more difficult and nuanced than one would think. The way in which Krauss defines nothing does allow for a "plausible" hypothesis to be derived from quantum mechanics. Of course, this leads to many questions and ultimately, the intellectually honest action is to admit we don't know on many levels. In a nut shell, the book aims to argue that taking quantum mechanics (specifically, quantum field theory [QFT]), it is possible to get a universe from starting at the principles of QFT. This does not answer every question and should not be considered a panacea. Unfortunately, I'm not versed in quantum field theory as it is not used in my area of study, so a detailed examination of the subject is going to be all but impossible.

 

I also fear there are other folks who may attempt to hijack this thread with their own ideas. At the end of the day; however, there are many unknowns and I'd be highly suspicious of anybody who doesn't come right out and admit this.

[sdelsolray]

Has anyone read it. I read half of it, but it is over my head. Do you think it is plausable that the universe could indeed arise from nothing?

 

 

 

I recently read Krauss' book a second time.  Yes, it is a bit confusing at times, as many lay books on physics can be.  And Krauss, although a decent writer, is not as good as many others.  Krauss lays out a plausible explanation of how the universe can start from nothing, with some evidentiary support.  That being said, I interpret his explanation to have significant speculation in it.  On balance, I would call it a scientific hypothesis and certainly not a well founded scientific theory.  Basically, he is saying that a state of nothing is unstable, hence something.  He uses current quantum mechanics theory as his base science.

 

His discussion of dark matter and dark energy is good.

[florduh]

I suggest you read or listen to some youtube lectures from Alan Watts. 

 

[Justus]

Has anyone read it. I read half of it, but it is over my head. Do you think it is plausable that the universe could indeed arise from nothing?

 

 

It's like Rogue Scholar said, Defining "nothing" is the first hurdle.

 

It you define 'nothing' as:

 

nothing;

[a] being absolute void; 

  void of any quantifiable substance; and

[c] void any distinguishable nature.

 

So it seems the falsifiable for the universe originating from an absolute void would be that if anything existed prior to the universe then the universe could not have originated from nothing.  Thus, if nothing existed before the universe thenthere would not have been nothing, but rather something which is called infinity. ∞

 

However, in reality, infinity is a theoretical possibility that is theoretically impossible except to those who give any substantive consideration that universe could have originated from this definition of nothing, see Hitchens 3;16..

 

Now if you define nothing as:

 

nothing;

(a) any physical thing which substance or nature is not known to exist in the universe; ;

 any physical thing which substance or nature is not observable in the universe.

 

Personally, I can buy into the Universe originating from this nothing since those things which are within the universe were by made by that thing formed from without.  

 

Anyway, Phasma is how I jump that rock.

[pantheory]

Has anyone read it. I read half of it, but it is over my head. Do you think it is plausable that the universe could indeed arise from nothing?

 

I never read it since I had read a review of the contents which I didn't like. I also don't like the title "a universe from nothing." According to the Big Bang model the universe arose from a very small point. Others like Hawking once proposed that the universe came from "nothing," AKA the Zero Point Energy/ Field, from what many have called quantum field fluctuations. Since then Hawking has proposed that the origin or our universe was a Multiverse of one kind or another which may also involve field fluctuations. 

 

All of this speculation, in my view, has little value excepting as joke material. None of these hypothesis including a Big Bang beginning , the Inflation hypothesis, the-universe-from-nothing, seemingly could ever be tested in the lab by real-world science.

 

"The Zero Point Field (ZPF) as nothing:"

 

The Zero Point Field / Zero Point Energy  has long been observed in the laboratory. It has been noted and commented on that the Zero Point Field is as far away from being nothing as one can get. Although rarely discussed, It has been proposed that its combined energy may be greater than all the matter and energy in the universe combined, including the proposed dark stuff. From this perspective it is hardly a something-from-nothing hypothesis.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Has anyone read it. I read half of it, but it is over my head. Do you think it is plausable that the universe could indeed arise from nothing?

 

I never read it since I had read a review of the contents which I didn't like. I also don't like the title "a universe from nothing." In the Big Bang model the universe arose from a very tiny point. Others like Hawking once proposed that the universe came from "nothing," AKA the Zero Point Energy/ Field. Since then Hawking has proposed that the origin or our universe was a Multiverse of one kind or another.

 

Since all of this speculation, in my view, has little value excepting as poor jokes. None of these hypothesis including the Big Bang model and Inflation could ever be tested in the lab by real-world science.

 

Pantheory,

 

Please list the many confirmed predictions made for Big Bang cosmology and Inflationary theory without qualifying the list in any way with your personal preferences, biases or agendas.

 

You've given your alternative p.o.v., so now it's time to give some balance to this thread by presenting the mainstream cosmological paradigm.

 

Which has many confirmed predictions to validate it.

 

Please list them, Pantheory.

 

Thanks

 

BAA.

 

"The Zero Point Field (ZPF) as nothing:"

 

The Zero Point Field / Zero Point Energy  has long been observed in the laboratory. It has been noted and commented on that the Zero Point Field is as far away from being nothing as one can get. Although rarely discussed, It has been proposed that its combined energy may be greater than all the matter and energy in the universe combined, including the proposed dark stuff, hardly something from nothing.

 

[pantheory]

Pantheory,

 

..............

"The Zero Point Field (ZPF) as nothing:"

 

The Zero Point Field / Zero Point Energy  has long been observed in the laboratory. It has been noted and commented on that the Zero Point Field is as far away from being nothing as one can get. Although rarely discussed, It has been proposed that its combined energy may be greater than all the matter and energy in the universe combined, including the proposed dark stuff, hardly something from nothing.

 

 

 

Please list the many confirmed predictions made for Big Bang cosmology and Inflationary theory without qualifying the list in any way with your personal preferences, biases or agendas.

 

You've given your alternative p.o.v., so now it's time to give some balance to this thread by presenting the mainstream cosmological paradigm.

 

Which has many confirmed predictions to validate it.

 

Please list them, Pantheory.

 

Thanks

 

BAA.

 

 

I have given what is considered to be a well-known opinion, if not the most prevalent opinion; few theorists would disagree with what was said.

 

The topic of this thread and subject book is  "A universe from Nothing." Since the Big Bang model does not involve the beginning of the universe beyond a hot dense beginning, this subject does not necessarily involve the Big Bang model itself, and if so it would be a separate hypothesis which might be considered by some, to be a possible beginning or supplement for the Inflation hypothesis.  The Big Bang model itself would have nothing to say in this regard.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Pantheory,

 

..............

"The Zero Point Field (ZPF) as nothing:"

 

The Zero Point Field / Zero Point Energy  has long been observed in the laboratory. It has been noted and commented on that the Zero Point Field is as far away from being nothing as one can get. Although rarely discussed, It has been proposed that its combined energy may be greater than all the matter and energy in the universe combined, including the proposed dark stuff, hardly something from nothing.

 

 

 

Please list the many confirmed predictions made for Big Bang cosmology and Inflationary theory without qualifying the list in any way with your personal preferences, biases or agendas.

 

You've given your alternative p.o.v., so now it's time to give some balance to this thread by presenting the mainstream cosmological paradigm.

 

Which has many confirmed predictions to validate it.

 

Please list them, Pantheory.

 

Thanks

 

BAA.

 

 

I have given what is considered to be a well-known opinion, if not the most prevalent opinion; few theorists would disagree with what was said.

 

The topic of this thread and subject book is  "A universe from Nothing." Since the Big Bang model does not involve the beginning of the universe beyond a hot dense beginning, this subject does not necessarily involve the Big Bang model itself, and if so it would be a separate hypothesis which might be considered by some, to be a possible beginning or supplement for the Inflation hypothesis.  The Big Bang model itself would have nothing to say in this regard.

 

 

Fair point.

 

But Serenely Blue goes on to ask if anyone here thinks that a universe could arise from nothing.  Which is a question not limited to the content of that book. To help answer his question, would you be prepared to list the confirmed predictions I asked about earlier, Pantheory?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[pantheory]

 

 

Pantheory,

 

..............

"The Zero Point Field (ZPF) as nothing:"

 

The Zero Point Field / Zero Point Energy  has long been observed in the laboratory. It has been noted and commented on that the Zero Point Field is as far away from being nothing as one can get. Although rarely discussed, It has been proposed that its combined energy may be greater than all the matter and energy in the universe combined, including the proposed dark stuff, hardly something from nothing.

 

 

 

Please list the many confirmed predictions made for Big Bang cosmology and Inflationary theory without qualifying the list in any way with your personal preferences, biases or agendas.

 

You've given your alternative p.o.v., so now it's time to give some balance to this thread by presenting the mainstream cosmological paradigm.

 

Which has many confirmed predictions to validate it.

 

Please list them, Pantheory.

 

Thanks

 

BAA.

 

 

I have given what is considered to be a well-known opinion, if not the most prevalent opinion; few theorists would disagree with what was said.

 

The topic of this thread and subject book is  "A universe from Nothing." Since the Big Bang model does not involve the beginning of the universe beyond a hot dense beginning, this subject does not necessarily involve the Big Bang model itself, and if so it would be a separate hypothesis which might be considered by some, to be a possible beginning or supplement for the Inflation hypothesis.  The Big Bang model itself would have nothing to say in this regard.

 

 

Fair point.

 

But Serenely Blue goes on to ask if anyone here thinks that a universe could arise from nothing.  Which is a question not limited to the content of that book. To help answer his question, would you be prepared to list the confirmed predictions I asked about earlier, Pantheory?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

After giving the explanation that the ZPF represents vast quantities of known energy and matter in the form of virtual particles, it has also many theoretical particles and energy within it, like the Higgs field, dark matter, dark energy, gravitons, etc.

 

Could the universe have evolved from nothing? absolutely not! as the word "nothing" is commonly defined. If this nothing was instead the ZPF then there is/ was plenty of material and energy to start with. Since we know so very little of this field, our universe seemingly could have started there. Do I think it did? no. But with some big qualifications relating to my own theory, yes.

 

Did the Big Bang and the Inflation hypothesis originate from this field. Yes, both beginning hypothesis accordingly/ supposedly originated within this field.

 

Did these supposed events cause the creation of this field, or did the field (ZPF) predate our universe? A consensus BB answer is unknown.

 

Did the creation of our universe start within the Zero Point Field? or was the universe created by the Zero Point Field, starting in the form of quantum fluctuations as many believe? A consensus BB answer is unknown.

 

There are almost countless alternative possibilities, models, and speculations, each explaining a different beginning of our universe, and even more models, like the BB model, that do not address the beginning of the universe as part of the theory. Some proposals are more like the BB model proposing no specific beginning; other models go into details. Many of these models are contrary to the BB model. 

 

Since the question is not generally related to the Big Bang model, IMO nothing would be gained by highjacking this thread infusing the BB models characteristics and theory, into it. Such a quandary by the OP, questioning the Big Bang model itself, would be much more appropriate for such a discussion. Even then such questioning should be main-topic related.

[bornagainathiest]

Defining "nothing" is the first hurdle that must be negotiated and it is much more difficult and nuanced than one would think. The way in which Krauss defines nothing does allow for a "plausible" hypothesis to be derived from quantum mechanics. Of course, this leads to many questions and ultimately, the intellectually honest action is to admit we don't know on many levels. In a nut shell, the book aims to argue that taking quantum mechanics (specifically, quantum field theory [QFT]), it is possible to get a universe from starting at the principles of QFT. This does not answer every question and should not be considered a panacea. Unfortunately, I'm not versed in quantum field theory as it is not used in my area of study, so a detailed examination of the subject is going to be all but impossible.

 

I also fear there are other folks who may attempt to hijack this thread with their own ideas. At the end of the day; however, there are many unknowns and I'd be highly suspicious of anybody who doesn't come right out and admit this.

 

The Rogue Scholar's comment about the hijacking of this thread referred only to members introducing... their own ideas... into it.

 

Since neither Big Bang cosmology nor Inflationary theory are my own ideas I cannot be guilty of hijacking this thread.

 

However, Pantheoretical cosmology is the idea of just one member of this forum.

 

Therefore, that member is guilty of hijacking this thread.

 

Q.E.D.

[pantheory]

 

Defining "nothing" is the first hurdle that must be negotiated and it is much more difficult and nuanced than one would think. The way in which Krauss defines nothing does allow for a "plausible" hypothesis to be derived from quantum mechanics. Of course, this leads to many questions and ultimately, the intellectually honest action is to admit we don't know on many levels. In a nut shell, the book aims to argue that taking quantum mechanics (specifically, quantum field theory [QFT]), it is possible to get a universe from starting at the principles of QFT. This does not answer every question and should not be considered a panacea. Unfortunately, I'm not versed in quantum field theory as it is not used in my area of study, so a detailed examination of the subject is going to be all but impossible.

 

I also fear there are other folks who may attempt to hijack this thread with their own ideas. At the end of the day; however, there are many unknowns and I'd be highly suspicious of anybody who doesn't come right out and admit this.

 

The Rogue Scholar's comment about the hijacking of this thread referred only to members introducing... their own ideas... into it.

 

Since neither Big Bang cosmology nor Inflationary theory are my own ideas I cannot be guilty of hijacking this thread.

 

However, Pantheoretical cosmology is the idea of just one member of this forum.

 

Therefore, that member is guilty of hijacking this thread.

 

Q.E.D.

 

 

My idea of highjacking is making off topic comments that inadvertently, or intentionally, steer the conversations off topic in a direction other than the subject of the OP. I'm sure highjacking is never your intention nor mine, but trying to stay on topic can help prevent the topic from straying, the topic in this case being "A universe from nothing," and the OP question for posters, asking their opinions, was: "Do you think it is plausible that the universe could indeed arise from nothing?"

[sdelsolray]

My idea of highjacking is making off topic comments that inadvertently, or intentionally, steer the conversations off topic in a direction other than the subject of the OP. I'm sure highjacking is never your intention nor mine, but trying to stay on topic can help prevent the topic from straying, the topic in this case being "A universe from nothing," and the OP question for posters, asking their opinions, was: "Do you think it is plausible that the universe could indeed arise from nothing?"

 

 

 

Please define "nothing".

[pantheory]

 

 

My idea of highjacking is making off topic comments that inadvertently, or intentionally, steer the conversations off topic in a direction other than the subject of the OP. I'm sure highjacking is never your intention nor mine, but trying to stay on topic can help prevent the topic from straying, the topic in this case being "A universe from nothing," and the OP question for posters, asking their opinions, was: "Do you think it is plausible that the universe could indeed arise from nothing?"

 

sdelsolray,

 

 

Please define "nothing".

 

 

"Nothing" has a common meaning along with having multiple definitions with similar meanings. In science there is no consensus meaning for the word "nothing."

 

http://www.livescience.com/28132-what-is-nothing-physicists-debate.html

 

Personally I think any debate of word definitions has no value and is il-conceived because they could agree upon different meanings of the word, such as "nothing ₁," "nothing ₂," "nothing ₃", etc. From this there could be little or no debate whether something could come from nothing.

 

It seems that you are asking my preferred science definition of the word "nothing?"  I would say that "nothing" would be a void having absolutely nothing within it, not the zero point field, matter, or energy of any kind. Generally there is no volume of any size within the universe, that would have these characteristics, or absence thereof,  IMO.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Defining "nothing" is the first hurdle that must be negotiated and it is much more difficult and nuanced than one would think. The way in which Krauss defines nothing does allow for a "plausible" hypothesis to be derived from quantum mechanics. Of course, this leads to many questions and ultimately, the intellectually honest action is to admit we don't know on many levels. In a nut shell, the book aims to argue that taking quantum mechanics (specifically, quantum field theory [QFT]), it is possible to get a universe from starting at the principles of QFT. This does not answer every question and should not be considered a panacea. Unfortunately, I'm not versed in quantum field theory as it is not used in my area of study, so a detailed examination of the subject is going to be all but impossible.

 

I also fear there are other folks who may attempt to hijack this thread with their own ideas. At the end of the day; however, there are many unknowns and I'd be highly suspicious of anybody who doesn't come right out and admit this.

 

The Rogue Scholar's comment about the hijacking of this thread referred only to members introducing... their own ideas... into it.

 

Since neither Big Bang cosmology nor Inflationary theory are my own ideas I cannot be guilty of hijacking this thread.

 

However, Pantheoretical cosmology is the idea of just one member of this forum.

 

Therefore, that member is guilty of hijacking this thread.

 

Q.E.D.

 

 

My idea of highjacking is making off topic comments that inadvertently, or intentionally, steer the conversations off topic in a direction other than the subject of the OP. I'm sure highjacking is never your intention nor mine, but trying to stay on topic can help prevent the topic from straying, the topic in this case being "A universe from nothing," and the OP question for posters, asking their opinions, was: "Do you think it is plausible that the universe could indeed arise from nothing?"

 

 

Then to stay exactly on topic Pantheory, it becomes necessary to define what is meant by 'plausible', what is meant by 'the universe', what is meant by 'arise' and what is meant by 'nothing'.

 

Defining any one of those without defining the others is not staying exactly on the topic of the question, because those four elements, taken together, properly constitute the topic.

[midniterider]

Has anyone read it. I read half of it, but it is over my head. Do you think it is plausable that the universe could indeed arise from nothing?

 

I dunno. Does mainstream science agree with Krauss? 

[SerenelyBlue]

 

Has anyone read it. I read half of it, but it is over my head. Do you think it is plausable that the universe could indeed arise from nothing?

I have to admit that I don't know if mainstream science agrees with his hypothesis.

 

I dunno. Does mainstream science agree with Krauss?

[SerenelyBlue]

I have to admit that I don't know if mainstream science agrees with him.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

...

sdelsolray,

 

 

Please define "nothing".

 

 

...

Personally I think any debate of word definitions has no value and is il-conceived because they could agree upon different meanings of the word, such as "nothing ₁," "nothing ₂," "nothing ₃", etc. From this there could be little or no debate whether something could come from nothing.

...

 

 

 

 

Certainly, a lack of initial agreement on the definition or words will usually doom any debate/discussion/discourse which includes those words.  Here, the word "nothing" is one of "those" words.

 

 

 

 

...

sdelsolray,

 

 

Please define "nothing".

 

 

...

I would say that "nothing" would be a void having absolutely nothing within it, not the zero point field, matter, or energy of any kind. Generally there is no volume of any size within the universe, that would have these characteristics, or absence thereof,  IMO.

 

 

Unfortunately, you used the word "nothing" in your definition of "nothing".  Please try again.