from nothing to something

[Paraprakrti]

Paraprakrti:

I believe I am beginning to see the heart of your argument (which escaped me before). You're trying to grasp what 'nothing' means; the very fact that we can refer to it implies that it is, in fact, 'something'; that true, absolute nothing can't possibly exist, because if it wasn't there, how could we refer to it, ignore it, claim its presence, etc? Refering to nothing seems to imply that it is, in fact, something.

Am I getting close?

Yes. I am saying that we call something "nothing" because our perception is limited. So in a technical sense "nothing" is a relative term. I am a firm believer in, 'nothing is evolved as a consequent that is not involved as an antecedent'. Otherwise I would be a firm believer in the idea that there is nothing. If I accept the first premise and then at some point decide to say that nothingness is actually the fact, then I am a hypocrite. Either something exists or nothing exists. I simply accept the greatest concept of somethingness, God. Now, if my understanding of this concept is flawed in some way or does not (conceptually) exemplify the full truth, I am always open to further my understanding. Beyond this I also understand that ultimately the God-concept is inconceivable. I can only understand to a degree. Every intelligent person bases all thought and study upon the premise that something comes from something. So in essence everyone accepts that the highest concept of 'something' exists, either concsiously or subconsciously. The problem we get into is with a personal idea of this concept. I have my reasons as to why I accept that God is ultimately a person, but regarding who that person is, I accept on faith. But a personal God has never been the debate here. I am simply trying to address the basic concept.

Stephen Hawking best explained the nothingness 'before' the Big Bang by relating time to cardinal directions on Earth.

What exists directly north of the North Pole? Nothing. Absolute nothing. 'North' of the North Pole doesn't even exist. The only way absolute nothing can be true is if the environment "containing" this nothingness also does not exist.

Yes, this last sentence explains that nothingness comes from nothingness. I agree.

The exact same parallel is drawn with time before the Big Bang (in fact, time lines drawn back to the Big Bang, called 'light cones', actually resemble a planetary hemisphere approaching a north (or, usually, south) pole). Saying that nothing exists before the Big Bang is theoretically identical to saying that nothing exists north of the North Pole (or south of the South Pole). The environment itself is nonexistant.

Well, I understand that nothing exists before the big bang in relation to the modern universe. I am glad to see that we can agree that something, in some context, did exist before that.

It is extremely difficult to intuitively grasp the birth of time, since absolutely everything we have experienced takes place in time. We are prisoners of the timestream; our very perception is irrevocably bound to it. Attempting to intuit the birth of time is equivalent to attempting to imagine the fourth (or fifth, sixth, seventh, all the way up to twenty-first) spacial dimension espoused by string theory.

The only thing you can do is trust the math, if the math has proven itself to be reliable in other areas that we are better equipped to intuit.

Yes, but in general we can understand that something is always there. That was my only concern.

The fact of the matter is that we as humans are moving forward into areas of science that defy our abilities to comprehend them. This should be expected; obviously, the building blocks of reality and the very nature of our existence are not going to be things easily understood. Rejecting these well-supported theories because they seem intuitively incorrect is irresponsible, narrow-minded and short-sighted.

Yes, we have to step back eventually and admit that we can only go so far into understanding the origin of the universe. The scientific method can only be inductive for seeking such knowledge. I reject a lot of these "well-supported" theories because they are often finding new support for new theories down the road. A lot of revising is going on. I have to step back and realize that people generally don't know what they are talking about when inductively trying to seek absolute truth. I also consider that people work with an intrinsically flawed method of attaining knowledge in such a way. The most difficult question I have put toward me is how I know what I accept to be authoritive actually is. I accept it on faith. But that is not so uncommon amongst all people, atheist or theist. I accept things generally based on certain philosophical premises. Further from this I base things on scripture. For example, anyone can reason how both evolution and God can coexist, but, I don't accept evolution (at least not macro evolution) because I follow something which explains that all the variegated species were created in the first stages of cosmic manifestation. The souls all have different desires and so they take shelter in various types of bodies in order to fulfill those desires. There is then no question of one species evolving into another. If a soul desires to act like a fish it will take shelter in the body of a fish. If it later decides to act like a dog it will take shelter there. This is simply what I follow.

 

[blakley52]

My understanding of particle physics, atrophysics etc.. is very limited however there a few things I understand and these things have helped to form my opinion in this area.

1. Science does not theorize that something came from nothing. The singularity that existed and which the universe theoretically expanded from was not "nothing". It may seem to be nothing by human perception but from what I understand, it was an EXTREMELY dense body of mass.

2. Energy and matter under the right circumstances is interchangable as proved by Einstein's famous equation, E=MC^2 where E is Energy, M is Mass and C is the Speed of Light and this component is squared. The amount of energy in a penny if it could be completely and efficiently changed from it's Mass into pure Energy would probably take a few city blocks or more. Luckily the combination of elements in the penny are way too stable for that.

My point (I know, I know it's getting lengthy) is that energy theoretically can be converted to mass only giving the impression of something being created from nothing when that is not the case. Energy IS something. Also the amount of energy and mass together contained in the universe is constant. Based on this theory it is impossible to create something from nothing.

Just food for thought. I am not religous in any way, however I do have a spiritual program and I do have a higher power. I have no problem with any religion unless it would be used as an excuse to subjugate, harm or take advantage of fellow humans.

Hope this all makes sense
Jim Blakley

 

[(Q)]

The singularity that existed and which the universe theoretically expanded from was not "nothing".

Whoever said a singularity existed? What does a singularity have to do with the Big Bang?

E=MC^2 where E is Energy, M is Mass and C is the Speed of Light and this component is squared.

You appear to be an expert. Tell me, why is the speed of light squared in that equation? Why not just c?

Energy IS something. Also the amount of energy and mass together contained in the universe is constant. Based on this theory it is impossible to create something from nothing.

Then, how do YOU explain virtual particles? From where exactly do they come?

 

[Zero Faith]

Paraprakrti

Well, I understand that nothing exists before the big bang in relation to the modern universe. I am glad to see that we can agree that something, in some context, did exist before that.

Nope, you're wrong. Why? Because TIME ITSELF was created at the moment of the Big Bang. How can you have 'before' the Big Bang when time itself didn't exist? Before the Big Bang = north of the North Pole.

blackley52

1. Science does not theorize that something came from nothing.

Yes it does. Creation Ex Nihilo is one accepted name for this collection of theories (look it up on Google -- it's fascinating stuff). The problem is that people do not comprehend the meaning of cause and effect at the Big Bang. 'Something from nothing' is just another term for 'effect without cause'. Obviously, any event that occurs at time zero (t = 0) can have no cause -- any cause would have to exist in negative time, which is a theoretical impossibility. The Big Bang occured at time zero, thus is causeless.

There do exist theories of a Big Bang that was caused, but they generally refer to time existing in another capacity elsewhere (in the 'metauniverse' from which our 'bubble universe' sprang from, or something similar).

The singularity that existed and which the universe theoretically expanded from was not "nothing". It may seem to be nothing by human perception but from what I understand, it was an EXTREMELY dense body of mass.

There was no singularity. Well, I suppose, within the Plank interval immediately following the Big Bang (the Plank interval is the shortest possible period of time that can theoretically be measured; shorter than that violates Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which is assumed to be inviolate), there may have been a brief instant where the early universe shared the characteristics of a singularity (infinitessimal volume, near-infinite density, etc). But singularities have definite mass; the first instant of the Big Bang did not.

My point (I know, I know it's getting lengthy) is that energy theoretically can be converted to mass only giving the impression of something being created from nothing when that is not the case. Energy IS something. Also the amount of energy and mass together contained in the universe is constant. Based on this theory it is impossible to create something from nothing.

You're right, from a macroscopic view. But quantum physics (always the harbingers of the weird and wacky) has mathematically proven the existence of virtual particles. These are particle-antiparticle twins that spontaneously occur without cause from nothing, then find each other and annihilate within a brief enough period of time to satisfy the Uncertainty Principle.

These particles have no macroscopic effect on our Universe because we are bound to the timestream, and time limits the existence of these particles. But the Big Bang occured at zero time and expanded at nearly the speed of light. These two characteristics would, theoretically, have allowed a phenomenon similar to virtual particles to create the early universe.

 

[Yerda]

I'm interested, I have a very limited knowledge of physics. Some of you appear to know considerably more, I'm suspicious some of you are educated and employed in that particular discipline. Anyway, can anyone explain in dummy terms how something appears from nothing? Bearing in mind I do not have an advanced understanding of the concepts of space and time.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Paraprakrti

Well, I understand that nothing exists before the big bang in relation to the modern universe. I am glad to see that we can agree that something, in some context, did exist before that.

Nope, you're wrong. Why? Because TIME ITSELF was created at the moment of the Big Bang. How can you have 'before' the Big Bang when time itself didn't exist? Before the Big Bang = north of the North Pole.

"Time itself", as we know it relative to universal events. Still... eternity is eternally there. Your discrepancy is just with how I worded it.

 

[Ceridwen018]

eternity is eternally there.

Ah yes, but is eternity the same thing as time?

 

[Paraprakrti]

Time is eternal. I think when people speak of no time existing before the big bang they are speaking in relation to material events. Even 'before' the big bang there was time eternal. The discrepancy is just how I have used the word "before". Those who don't wish to pointlessly argue should understand what I am saying.

 

[Ceridwen018]

But before the big bang, if there was nothing, then nothing was happening and nothing was moving. How can you be sure that time was passing? Time is an invention of man.

 

[Rex]

Proof of Nothing?

… if it should be added to something else that exists, it would not make it any bigger. For if it were of no size and was added, it cannot increase in size. And so it follows immediately that what is added is nothing. But if when it is subtracted, the other thing is no smaller, nor is it increased when it is added, clearly the thing being added or subtracted is nothing. (Simplicius(a) On Aristotle's Physics,139.

 

[flamethrower]

Time

Time exists as a mathematical quantity (same as space). Time is not a physical quantity in terms that anything depends on it. Nothing in our physical universe depends on time as well as on space (location), as well as on velocity, and on some other "purely mathematical" so to speak quantities.

This "physical non-existence" of such mathematical quantities is called "shift symmetry (of time, of space, of velocity, of phase, etc)" and is expressed by a simple equation:

F (t)=F (t+t1).

It means, that nothing changes if you shift in time (or in space, or in velocity) any physical process - no observable difference whatsoever.

We call this symmetry term the "energy conservation law,” and "momentum conservation law" for space non-existence (shift symmetry), and "special relativity" for velocity non-existence (shift symmetry), “charge conservation” for phase non-existence, etc.)

Because nothing depends on time, there is no absolute time. No time stones, no other marks indicating time. The only way of "measuring" this mathematical quantity is to take any periodic process say, a pendulum, or a string, or a light bouncing between mirrors, or an electron oscillating in an atom, etc - then call the device a "clock device" or simply "clock”, then take TWO measurements of numbers of oscillations say, at two different locations, or at 2 different gravity environments, or at 2 different states of motion, etc., then take a RATIO of these two numbers (can't be one number because time is not absolute) and then label this ratio as "relative rate of one time versus another" or "rate of time versus reference clock rate", or "time in conventional units of time" or "accurate time" or simply "time".

Time used to be defined via pendulum, then via quarts crystal oscillations, then via Cs electron oscillation, and soon via H electron oscillation.

This is how time is measured, and in that essence, how time is therefore defined and understood.

 

[Hope]

Wow, this is some debate here....starting to feel a little dizzy.....

I think there should simply come a point where we simply agree to disagree, because the argument seems to be going in circles. However, that said, I do have to side with Paraprakrti, whose arguments make the most sense to me, and who has so eloquently put into words what I could not. I am at a loss when it comes to physics, but here's how I see things. Many have asked, well, if 'God' is that something that created something else (the universe), then what created God? This is a good question. As someone who believes in God, I still cannot let my bias make me ignore the validity of such a question. But, let's look at our two choices here. At least, I see it as two choices. Whether you believe in a God or not, it seems to me that one has to face the fact that 'something'--whether you define it as nothingness or not, that is another whole topic--has to have existed eternally. I personally do not see a way around that. 'Something' stretches in infinity. We could say, ok, let's suppose there is a God; now let's suppose something or someone created God; ok, then let's suppose something else created that something---if we follow that thinking then we will indeed be going on forever. So either we think, ok, the universe created itself from 'nothing', and this 'nothing' has existed eternally, or we think, maybe 'someone' created the universe, and this 'someone' has existed eternally. To me it's that simple. And I choose to believe that a 'Someone' created the universe and exists eternally. I choose to believe in this 'Someone', rather than 'nothing', because when I look at the universe, our world, and myself, I see evidence of an amazing intelligence, not just a random accident coming from a 'nothing' that has existed eternally.

Anyway, that's all I want to say. That is my opinion on the matter, for whatever it's worth.