Something from nothing

PMBC

Read in Hawking's book and recently in another that the universe via the Big Bang (most likely) came from nothing - nothing being virtual particles that pop in and out of existence and that have zero nett energy and are therefore nothing. I can get my head around it, even though I'm a simple guy but I cant quite accept the argument.
Perhaps, if that is so, nothing can (and did) come from something.
Any thoughts.

Peregrinus

Well, it all depends on what you think "nothing" is.

This kind of stuff makes my head hurt, the Big Bang theory postulates that nothing existing before the Big Bang, which then raises the obvious question, why did the Big Bang occur? And people have proposed various models to answer this question; models that attempt to describe what "ignited" or "seeded" the big bang. They're necessarily speculative, of course; they can't be supported by empirical evidence because, well, the whole point of the Big Bang is that we can't look past it.

But, if we speculate or postulate that antecedent to the Big Bang there were phenomena or conditions that can meaningfully be modelled, then that's not "nothing". There may have been no mass and no energy, but there was nevertheless something modellable.

PMBC

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, it all depends on what you think "nothing" is.

This kind of stuff makes my head hurt, the Big Bang theory postulates that nothing existing before the Big Bang, which then raises the obvious question, why did the Big Bang occur? And people have proposed various models to answer this question; models that attempt to describe what "ignited" or "seeded" the big bang. They're necessarily speculative, of course; they can't be supported by empirical evidence because, well, the whole point of the Big Bang is that we can't look past it.

But, if we speculate or postulate that antecedent to the Big Bang there were phenomena or conditions that can meaningfully be modelled, then that's not "nothing". There may have been no mass and no energy, but there was nevertheless something modellable.

You have my full agreement on that

learn_more

PMBC wrote: »

Read in Hawking's book and recently in another that the universe via the Big Bang (most likely) came from nothing - nothing being virtual particles that pop in and out of existence and that have zero nett energy and are therefore nothing. I can get my head around it, even though I'm a simple guy but I cant quite accept the argument.
Perhaps, if that is so, nothing can (and did) come from something.
Any thoughts.

So, where do the virtual particles come from? Why do they exist at all.

I know that seems like a cheap point but Hawkins is talking rubbish here imo. Ditto Krauss.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, it all depends on what you think "nothing" is.

It means nothing. Even if one argues there there can't be nothing physically, nothing still means nothing. That's what nothing means.

IamtheWalrus

Krauss has a chapter defending against the attack on his theory that 'nothing' is a sea of potential particles coming into existence but even after reading it, I still had the same question.

Black Swan

The first law of thermodynamics advances that the "total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed; though it can be changed from one form to another." This raises the question if the universe can be defined as a "closed system?" If we establish parameters for discussion purposes, and draw a circle about the universe, in doing so is it now a "closed system," or if we are told that it's now expanding, to what extent does it exhibit the characteristics of an open system contrary to one that's closed?

Then again, if all matter existed, or came into existence, with the triggering of the theoretical Big Bang, by drawing a circle about the Big Bang, do we now have it within the parameters of a "closed system" as defined in first law of thermodynamics, or with expansion, something entirely different and approximating now an open system? And if now an open system, the first law no longer applies, and we might venture to guess that something came from nothing?

This raises other questions often occurring in philosophy as to purpose. What are the purposes of the universe, be it closed or open, or something that is beyond our understanding of a nominal, mutually exclusive open or closed categorization? Jacques Derrida has cautioned that dichotomies may be misleading when closely examining natural phenomena (i.e., that they may be much more than either/or).

This draws our attention to the teleological world view of Aristotle, whereupon he suggested that the explanation of anything should be viewed in its final effect (i.e., Greek telos, "end," and logos, "reason"), in contrast to that of Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, wherein both cause and effect should be treated as heuristic guidelines towards the discovery of knowledge and reason (i.e., the scientific method only suggests, does not prove). Where Aristotle may have stated a purpose for something based upon what he thought were the observed outcomes during ancient times, Kant thinks that it's too soon to do so, but may treat Aristotle's purpose as a theory to guide research that can be empirically tested today.

Methinks that Aristotle would have rejected The Big Bang as coming from nothing, whereupon such a theory might be treated by Kant (if still alive) as suggesting that it serve as a heuristic guideline for empirical research, especially when we arrive by better methods of measurement of such theoretical phenomena in the future.

Well, there's my something from nothing in this discussion. :pac:

Fourier

It might be interesting to note a few things.

First in the standard model of cosmology the universe does not originate in the Big Bang. Rather if you input the current average distribution of matter across the universe into the field equations of General Relativity, they state that the universe was once "hot and small" about 13.8 billion years ago. Not infinitely hot and small, just very hot and small.
However the standard model states nothing about what proceeded this state and does not state it is the origin of the universe.

Secondly virtual particles do not exist within our current theories, they are a useful way of breaking up certain calculations mentally, but no theory actually predicts that they exist.

nozzferrahhtoo

PMBC wrote: »

Read in Hawking's book and recently in another that the universe via the Big Bang (most likely) came from nothing - nothing being virtual particles that pop in and out of existence and that have zero nett energy and are therefore nothing. I can get my head around it, even though I'm a simple guy but I cant quite accept the argument.
Perhaps, if that is so, nothing can (and did) come from something.
Any thoughts.

One day while I was in college I had two bank accounts. The balance of both was zero. One had an over draft facility but I had no money. I transferred money from the one with an over draft facility to the other. Then went to the ATM and took money out and had beer.

I had nothing, yet in my hand there was money. And later beer.

A lot of the concepts about the universe coming from people like Laurence Krauss, though beyond my ken and pay grade, remind me of that. According to Krauss when they went about calculating the sum total of energy in the universe......... they had positive and negative values............ and it seems that when adding them all together the sum total is........ you guessed it........... zero.

So rather "something from nothing" it seems that the sum total of all the something.......... just like my day on the beer...... IS nothing. It is not something from nothing......... but nothing from nothing at the end of the day.

As I said, mostly beyond my ken, but I fear there are assumptions and narratives at the core of the human condition that make such things inherently between difficult and impossible for the human brain to really understand. And one of the assumptions I always find in the people who ask things like "Why is there something rather than nothing" is that "nothing" is the default and "something" is therefore the thing requiring explanation. I have never shared that assumption and am as ready to assume there being "something" is the default as I am to assume the opposite.

PMBC

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

One day while I was in college I had two bank accounts. The balance of both was zero. One had an over draft facility but I had no money. I transferred money from the one with an over draft facility to the other. Then went to the ATM and took money out and had beer.

I had nothing, yet in my hand there was money. And later beer.

A lot of the concepts about the universe coming from people like Laurence Krauss, though beyond my ken and pay grade, remind me of that. According to Krauss when they went about calculating the sum total of energy in the universe......... they had positive and negative values............ and it seems that when adding them all together the sum total is........ you guessed it........... zero.

So rather "something from nothing" it seems that the sum total of all the something.......... just like my day on the beer...... IS nothing. It is not something from nothing......... but nothing from nothing at the end of the day.

As I said, mostly beyond my ken, but I fear there are assumptions and narratives at the core of the human condition that make such things inherently between difficult and impossible for the human brain to really understand. And one of the assumptions I always find in the people who ask things like "Why is there something rather than nothing" is that "nothing" is the default and "something" is therefore the thing requiring explanation. I have never shared that assumption and am as ready to assume there being "something" is the default as I am to assume the opposite.

Ok. I understand, some of, that -I think.
While I'm not stupid, I did believe, when I read of 'virtual oarticles popping in and out of existence' that there must be a strong basis for them. Now, if I'm correct, they are a theoretical explanation for certain things (which are beyond my ken, also) or posited to resolve certain other issues.
Thanks both posters above.

nozzferrahhtoo

PMBC wrote: »

Ok. I understand, some of, that -I think.

Then you are already one step ahead of me :-)

Although I wrote that post, I can not fully claim to have understood it myself :-)

Fourier

PMBC wrote: »

Ok. I understand, some of, that -I think.
While I'm not stupid, I did believe, when I read of 'virtual oarticles popping in and out of existence' that there must be a strong basis for them. Now, if I'm correct, they are a theoretical explanation for certain things (which are beyond my ken, also) or posited to resolve certain other issues.
Thanks both posters above.

"Virtual particles popping in and out of existence" is just an explanation used by articles due to the complexity of what Hawking's theory actually says. The Hawking-Hartle theory to give it its full name does not involve virtual particles or something coming from nothing, those are just terms articles for the general public use and are actually very inaccurate regarding what the theory really says.

I'll try to describe the theory in another post.

Virtual particles themselves do not exist, no theory in physics predicts them. They are just a conceptual aid for visualising certain calculations. However it's possible to do the calculations completely without them.

Lavinia

it's the one (or just one of oh-many) that science just does not want to admit that they do not know nothing really about.
so any speculation is as good as the other. as long as we are clear that all of those are hypothesis only.

nozzferrahhtoo

The double negatives render your sentence a bit meaningless but I THINK I know what were trying to type. And yet the thread is punctuated by people, myself included, admitting we really know nothing about it. So it seems you have a record to play, a narrative about what science admits or does not admit, and you are happy to play it regardless of how little sense it makes.

But the narrative does not hold up in the real world either. The entire endeavor of science is built on a methodology that at it's core not only admits we know very little, but recognizes that individual human beings often claim to know more than they do, or can.

On top of that your narrative does not even make sense, let alone fail to hold up. Because "science" is a methodology. It does not have a consciousness or a brain. So it does not "want" or "admit" or any of the other verbs you have flung at it. Individual scientists might have egos they want to protect, but as I said the core methodology of science is built upon realizing that.

So really I am seeing nothing there except you having some personal beef with whatever you think "science" is, and you randomly chose to reanimate this thread in order to air it without adding anything to the thread itself.

As I said earlier though, not only can we admit that we know little about it..... we can ALSO admit we do not even know if there IS something to know. Because the idea there was "nothing" and then "something" is just an assumption, a narrative that makes sense to us so we run with it. But it is itself only one possibility that we can work with.

Yester

The more I look at it the less I can rule out the possibility of a God.

IamtheWalrus

Yester wrote: »

The more I look at it the less I can rule out the possibility of a God.

The universe may have always existed. Don't be silly, it must have had a creator, i.e. God. Who created God? God always existed.