A Universe from Nothing?

[ChristineM]

Yes I understand, like saying that 10e-34 of a second AFTER the bb, you would only then see the rules of logic of the universe begin to coalesce. ...

And noted again

 

[ChristineM]

So what about all those cosmologists doing research indicating a multiverse, would you say that no matter what they say about the universe theorized or hypothesized prior to 10e-34 of a second AFTER the bb, it will not be logical such as that said about the universe after 10e-34 of a second AFTER the bb?

Read my post, o am saying that prior to 10e-34 of a second after the bb the laws of physics did not exist

Anything theorised before that is guesswork, it could be an educated guess but none the less, a guess.

However the multiverse theories do have recognisable signs in this universe* which has lead to the development of those theories.

* bruising on the cmb and corresponding areas in which objects move contrary to the general movement of the universe.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Read my post, o am saying that prior to 10e-34 of a second after the bb the laws of physics did not exist

Anything theorised before that is guesswork, it could be an educated guess but none the less, a guess.

However the multiverse theories do have recognisable signs in this universe* which has lead to the development of those theories.

* bruising on the cmb and corresponding areas in which objects move contrary to the general movement of the universe.

Yes true, I agree pre bb science is mostly guesswork, but all science begins with guesswork, whether it is research wrt pre or post bb cosmology. However I accept your point that much scientific theory post bb has matured and shown to be quite accurate, whereas pre bb science is not yet mature and remains mostly speculative.

 

[metis]

Yes true, I agree pre bb science is mostly guesswork, but all science begins with guesswork, whether it is research wrt pre or post bb cosmology. However I accept your point that much scientific theory post bb has matured and shown to be quite accurate, whereas pre bb science is not yet mature and remains mostly speculative.

There's a difference between "guesswork" and "hypothesis" because, with the latter, there must be at least some supportive evidence that X could be true.

Pre-BB hypotheses deal with patterns that came after the BB since one leads to the other. Unfortunately, there's insufficient evidence to narrow it all down.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes true, I agree pre bb science is mostly guesswork, but all science begins with guesswork, whether it is research wrt pre or post bb cosmology. However I accept your point that much scientific theory post bb has matured and shown to be quite accurate, whereas pre bb science is not yet mature and remains mostly speculative.

Your erred twice, both times with the same word, "mostly"

Mostly implies some small amount is not guesswork/speculative. Not so, pre bb is 100% guesswork,/speculative. All that can be assumed is extrapolated from post bb events. The most you can say is thst its educated guesswork.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There's a difference between "guesswork" and "hypothesis" because, with the latter, there must be at least some supportive evidence that X could be true.

Pre-BB hypotheses deal with patterns that came after the BB since one leads to the other. Unfortunately, there's insufficient evidence to narrow it all down.

I understand, you could interpret my meaning of 'mostly' in this context as allowing that some intuitive 'guesses' have shown some promising supportive evidence. My own intuition is unambiguously supportive of an eternal universe and I suspect the 'universe from nothing' people will continue to diminish in number.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Your erred twice, both times with the same word, "mostly"

Mostly implies some small amount is not guesswork/speculative. Not so, pre bb is 100% guesswork,/speculative. All that can be assumed is extrapolated from post bb events. The most you can say is thst its educated guesswork.

Depends on whether you equate a peer reviewed scientific hypothesis that has been published in a scientific journal as being 100% guesswork or something more. I agree with metis that there is a distinction between 100% guesswork and a scientific hypothesis.

 

[ChristineM]

Depends on whether you equate a peer reviewed scientific hypothesis that has been published in a scientific journal as being 100% guesswork or something more. I agree with metis that there is a distinction between 100% guesswork and a scientific hypothesis.

Hypothesis : a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

What pre bb limited evidence does anyone have?

Or is this like your eternal claim, nothing but hot air?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hypothesis : a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

What pre bb limited evidence does anyone have?

Or is this like your eternal claim, nothing but hot air?

Naturally there is no empirical evidence at this stage, just hypothetical. But future understanding and knowledge is not determined by the present day 'gate keepers' of orthodoxy, but by the intuitively curious.

 

[gnostic]

Hypothesis are based on preliminary observations and evidences. Hypothesis is a proposed explanation to a phenomena.

Only through more thorough investigation, experimentation and testing, that the hypothesis would be either "refuted" or "verified", depending on the evidences or test results.

If the hypothesis have been tested, then only after it have been tested some more by independent scientists, e.g. peer review, it is possible for the hypothesis to become a "scientific theory".

I wrote "possible", because there may be better alternative with more solid evidences to back it up.

For instance, both Newton and Leibniz both discovered calculus around the same time, but most people considered Newton to be the father of calculus.

In 1922, Alexander Friedmann was the first to propose the expanding universe model (later known as the Big Bang model), 5 years before Georges Lemaître in 1927, and yet Lemaître is the one whom most people say is the father of the Big Bang theory.

Sometimes there are alternative theories.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hypothesis are based on preliminary observations and evidences. Hypothesis is a proposed explanation to a phenomena.

Only through more thorough investigation, experimentation and testing, that the hypothesis would be either "refuted" or "verified", depending on the evidences or test results.

If the hypothesis have been tested, then only after it have been tested some more by independent scientists, e.g. peer review, it is possible for the hypothesis to become a "scientific theory".

I wrote "possible", because there may be better alternative with more solid evidences to back it up.

For instance, both Newton and Leibniz both discovered calculus around the same time, but most people considered Newton to be the father of calculus.

In 1922, Alexander Friedmann was the first to propose the expanding universe model (later known as the Big Bang model), 5 years before Georges Lemaître in 1927, and yet Lemaître is the one whom most people say is the father of the Big Bang theory.

Sometimes there are alternative theories.

But there is logical truth that can not logically be refuted. The evidence that matter and energy can not be created from nothing is noted in the Law of Conservation which states matter and energy can not be created or destroyed. Please note that transformation of matter and energy does not add or subtract from the sum total of mass and energy of the universe. Hence we are left with the logical conclusion that matter and energy are eternal.

If you can come up with some hypothesis to show how existing matter and/or energy can be made to become absolute nothing, I would love to see it?

 

[gnostic]

But there is logical truth that can not logically be refuted.

This is a "science and religion" forum, not a "philosophy and religion" forum, ben d.

I don't give a rat's a## about philosophy, IF no one can test logic with empirical evidences.

Science don't deal with absolute, and real scientists (as opposed to theoretical physicists) don't concern themselves with absolute proof.

Absolute proof are for mathematicians, theoretical physicists and philosophers.

If you cannot test a theory or hypothesis, then it isn't falsifiable, therefore it isn't science.

But there is logical truth that can not logically be refuted. The evidence that matter and energy can not be created from nothing is noted in the Law of Conservation which states matter and energy can not be created or destroyed. Please note that transformation of matter and energy does not add or subtract from the sum total of mass and energy of the universe. Hence we are left with the logical conclusion that matter and energy are eternal.

And you are slipping, ben d.

There is no such thing as the "conservation of matter".

It is "conservation of MASS"!

It is "mass", not "matter". They are not the same things.

And second. "Matter" can be created and destroyed, "mass" cannot.

When matter come into contact anti-matter they are both annihilated, turning mass into high energy photons: matter destroyed.

 

[Corvus]

But there is logical truth that can not logically be refuted. The evidence that matter and energy can not be created from nothing is noted in the Law of Conservation which states matter and energy can not be created or destroyed. Please note that transformation of matter and energy does not add or subtract from the sum total of mass and energy of the universe. Hence we are left with the logical conclusion that matter and energy are eternal.

If you can come up with some hypothesis to show how existing matter and/or energy can be made to become absolute nothing, I would love to see it?

The net energy cost of the universe is (theoretically) zero, since the positive mass energy of the universe equals that of the negative gravitational energy of the universe. The universe is the ultimate free lunch. The law of conservation of energy is not violated. Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia

 

[metis]

I understand, you could interpret my meaning of 'mostly' in this context as allowing that some intuitive 'guesses' have shown some promising supportive evidence. My own intuition is unambiguously supportive of an eternal universe and I suspect the 'universe from nothing' people will continue to diminish in number.

Thanks for the clarification.

Also, if I understand you correctly, then we may be on the same page as I tend to drift in the direction of there being a multiverse that we're part of, and that energy/matter may well go back into infinity, which is slightly older than I am.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This is a "science and religion" forum, not a "philosophy and religion" forum, ben d.

I don't give a rat's a## about philosophy, IF no one can test logic with empirical evidences.

Science don't deal with absolute, and real scientists (as opposed to theoretical physicists) don't concern themselves with absolute proof.

Absolute proof are for mathematicians, theoretical physicists and philosophers.

If you cannot test a theory or hypothesis, then it isn't falsifiable, therefore it isn't science.

Hmmm, logic is important in mathematics, and since mathematics is important in science, it follows that logic is essential to science. But I guess you may not see this being a devotee of scientific theory that dispenses with logic?

And you are slipping, ben d.

There is no such thing as the "conservation of matter".

It is "conservation of MASS"!

It is "mass", not "matter". They are not the same things.

And second. "Matter" can be created and destroyed, "mass" cannot.

When matter come into contact anti-matter they are both annihilated, turning mass into high energy photons: matter destroyed.

You don't properly read my posts or your memory is shot, you have forgotten that in my post #3957 to you, I provided a link providing you with an explanation of the Law of Conservation of Matter

In addition, your physics schooling is faulty if you say matter can be created and destroyed, it most definitely can not, matter can not be created or destroyed. You are talking about transformation of matter in antimatter annihilation, the resultant photons are still particles, and in the case of gamma rays formed from electron positron annihilation, the electron positron pair will be reformed when the gamma ray photons interact with matter. Of course we know there is a difference between matter and mass, but it is not relevant in this matter.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The net energy cost of the universe is (theoretically) zero, since the positive mass energy of the universe equals that of the negative gravitational energy of the universe. The universe is the ultimate free lunch. The law of conservation of energy is not violated. Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia

Interesting hypothesis but I have some questions. Both matter and energy have mass, so in the beginning before the physical universe emerged from the quantum vacuum, the zero point energy of the quantum vacuum would have mass, so the sum total mass of the universe would be matter and dark matter plus zpe/quantum vacuum/(dark energy?). So it seems to me the quantum vacuum is presumed to be always existing and its mass did not emerge from nothing, nor is it balanced by some other negative mass or some such?

 

[Corvus]

Interesting hypothesis but I have some questions. Both matter and energy have mass, so in the beginning before the physical universe emerged from the quantum vacuum, the zero point energy of the quantum vacuum would have mass, so the sum total mass of the universe would be matter and dark matter plus zpe/quantum vacuum/(dark energy?). So it seems to me the quantum vacuum is presumed to be always existing and its mass did not emerge from nothing, nor is it balanced by some other negative mass or some such?

The quantum vacuum exists in space, everywhere, a quantum foam of pairs of particles and anti particles popping in and out of existence, from zero point energy, at all points. However they always annihilate, so they do not add a net amount of mass. The only time they do not annihilate is when they escape from the event horizon of a black hole, this form of zero point energy that can radiate into our universe, altering it's mass/energy, is known as Hawking Radiation. However as virtual particles escape annihilation on the cusp of an event horizon into the universe, the other particle falls into the black hole. If the matter particle escaped into the universe, the universe gains mass. The anti matter particle is sucked into the black hole, and the black hole loses mass. So energy/mass is conserved.

Secondly spacetime itself and thus the quantum foam, along with the Higgs Boson field that confers the character of mass, all originated along with matter and energy and all fields and forces, from the singularity, that preceded our universe. We are not all sure what preceded the singularity or what frame of reference it existed in.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The quantum vacuum exists in space, everywhere, a quantum foam of pairs of particles and anti particles popping in and out of existence, from zero point energy, at all points. However they always annihilate, so they do not add a net amount of mass. The only time they do not annihilate is when they escape from the event horizon of a black hole, this form of zero point energy that can radiate into our universe, altering it's mass/energy, is known as Hawking Radiation. However as virtual particles escape annihilation on the cusp of an event horizon into the universe, the other particle falls into the black hole. If the matter particle escaped into the universe, the universe gains mass. The anti matter particle is sucked into the black hole, and the black hole loses mass. So energy/mass is conserved.

Secondly spacetime itself and thus the quantum foam, along with the Higgs Boson field that confers the character of mass, all originated along with matter and energy and all fields and forces, from the singularity, that preceded our universe. We are not all sure what preceded the singularity or what frame of reference it existed in.

Ok, a bit heavy for me so i will continue to reflect of it.

Btw, it is my understanding that the virtual particles popping in out of existence are temporary bubbling spherical standing waves of the underlying em zpe energy of the quantum vacuum. Also fwiw, the vacuum em energy is omnipresent and according to some researchers contains infinite energy density for the complete spectrum. There have been patents awarded to extract and convert zpe to electrical energy for practical use. As one might expect, the patent holders have worked on some leading edge military research projects using zpe,

 

[gnostic]

In addition, your physics schooling is faulty if you say matter can be created and destroyed, it most definitely can not, matter can not be created or destroyed. You are talking about transformation of matter in antimatter annihilation, the resultant photons are still particles, and in the case of gamma rays formed from electron positron annihilation, the electron positron pair will be reformed when the gamma ray photons interact with matter.

Again, it is conservation of mass, not the conservation of matter.

It is "mass" that cannot be created or destroyed, not "matter".

To give you an example, with the thermonuclear fusion of the Sun, where the temperature is hot enough for the hydrogen atoms fused into a heavy element - helium atom.

Hydrogen atom is matter, and helium atom is matter, but the fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium atom, make the hydrogen atoms to be destroyed, and new and heavier atom to be created.

You could call it transformation of matter, but in this process - Stellar Nucleosynthesis - atoms or matters are created and destroyed, but the mass and energy still exist.

Matters cannot be created from nothing.

Meaning, the creation of helium in the stars can only occurred if you have lighter matters to fuse together, which mean hydrogen atoms (= matter) will cease to exist as hydrogen.

The mass and energy still exist, but matters have been created and destroyed in this nucleosynthesis process.

You are confusing matter with mass.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Again, it is conservation of mass, not the conservation of matter.

It is "mass" that cannot be created or destroyed, not "matter".

To give you an example, with the thermonuclear fusion of the Sun, where the temperature is hot enough for the hydrogen atoms fused into a heavy element - helium atom.

Hydrogen atom is matter, and helium atom is matter, but the fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium atom, make the hydrogen atoms to be destroyed, and new and heavier atom to be created.

You could call it transformation of matter, but in this process - Stellar Nucleosynthesis - atoms or matters are created and destroyed, but the mass and energy still exist.

Matters cannot be created from nothing.

Meaning, the creation of helium in the stars can only occurred if you have lighter matters to fuse together, which mean hydrogen atoms (= matter) will cease to exist as hydrogen.

The mass and energy still exist, but matters have been created and destroyed in this nucleosynthesis process.

You are confusing matter with mass.

Why do you not just read the link I provided?