The Nothingness of Nothing

[786]

Supposedly the universe could come from nothing (naturally).... even Hawking states that perhaps the 'theory of everything' will yield to this conclusion.... He also made the assertion that with the 'no-boundary' proposal this could be the case.

My question- what is meant by nothing here? Is this 'nothing' really 'nothing'.

Peace be unto you

 

[quantum_wave]

Supposedly the universe could come from nothing (naturally).... even Hawking states that perhaps the 'theory of everything' will yield to this conclusion.... He also made the assertion that with the 'no-boundary' proposal this could be the case.

My question- what is meant by nothing here? And this is 'nothing' really 'nothing'.

Peace be unto you

It is really nothing, no space, no energy, no time. If at first there was nothing, nothing could ever be ... unless ... unless something can come from nothing or unless there was a creator.

Something from nothing has it proponents and in the past searches on the web I have found several good sites; just Google it. At least two people in the forum say the math stands up but if you know me (and we are friends) you know I say math can be made to say anything at all. But I was an accountant . To me nothing from nothing cannot occur but be careful how you define nothing. You can't start with a universe with nothing in it because a universe can be empty space and then it is not nothing, it is empty space. Where did the space come from?

The other option of something coming from nothing is a supernatural creation. That could be but it is specifically excluded by science as being outside of the scientific method. Supernatural or fanciful beings are not part of science.

So something from nothing has no good scientific answer for me. That leaves me with the option that never was there a time when there was nothing. Said differently, the universe has always existed, there was no beginning, time has always been passing, and there is no need for something to come from nothing or for a Creator.

Which option do you prefer?

 

[tablariddim]

The concept that something and indeed, something as infinitesimally huge as the universe, could come from absolute nothingness is so absurdly unfathomable that most people could probably never get their heads round it. Nevertheless, the more you think about 'where did everything come from?' Nothingness seems to be the most logical conclusion.

Even if you believe in the creationist concept, you are still left with the question, well where did the creator come from? The sheep will undoubtedly say, well god is infinite, always was and always will be; but seriously that is just as hard to fathom as the nothingness.

I'm not a physicist, scientist or any type of ist, but from casual observation I know that tiny cosmic 'things' can change from one state to another and it seems the smaller they get the more likely they are to do that (notice my science?). Therefore, by a stretch of the imagination you can conclude that at some point absolute nothing can change into absolute something, and vice versa.

 

[Nasor]

It seems to me that the whole "something can't come from absolute nothingness" argument is impossible to actually logically or empirically support. Since we have never observed this hypothetical "nothingness" that people like to imagine the universe springing from, we can't know one way or the other whether or not things spontaneously popping into existence is possible within it. And if there is any sort of actual deductive logical argument supporting the proposition that "something can't come from nothing," I've never seen it.

The bottom line is that if it is possible for this "nothing" to exist or have existed in the past, we don't really have any idea what would or would not be possible within it.

 

[mike47]

Nothing is zero thing . According to science there is no such thing that comes from zero thing .

 

[Nasor]

Nothing is zero thing . According to science there is no such thing that comes from zero thing .

What? When did "science" decide that? Can you give me a reference? And are you familiar with virtual particle pair creation?

Also, science has only ever observed what happens within the universe. When people talk about the "nothing" that existed before the universe existed, they don't just mean an empty universe devoid of matter and energy; they mean some sort of fundamentally different state of reality that (apparently) did not yet include the universe. Whether or not this state of "nothingness" is even physically meaningful or just a non-existent concept that philosophers dreamed up, I couldn't tell you. But who could know what would or would not be possible in this hypothetical alternate state? No one could ever know. If "nothingness" was ever the state of reality, then it might or might not be possible for something to spontaneously spring from it.

 

[786]

Actually 'when people talk about the 'nothing' that existed before the universe existed, they" DO "mean an empty universe devoid of matter and energy" (and space and time) otherwise it wouldn't be nothing... but if what you are saying is correct and that is what physicist mean by 'nothing' then they will have to explain where these components found in this 'nothing' came from as by the no-boundary hypothesis physic laws would still apply- in other words they should be able to come up with an explanation.

To me that seems like leading people astray on purpose- if nothing is not 0 then it is not nothing.

Peace be unto you

 

[Nasor]

Actually 'when people talk about the 'nothing' that existed before the universe existed, they" DO "mean an empty universe devoid of matter and energy" (and space and time) otherwise it wouldn't be nothing...

Okay, it depends on who is doing the talking. Usually when philosophers or theologians talk about "nothing" they are referring to some pre-universe state in which the universe itself did not yet exist and even the laws of physics etc. as we understand them did not yet exist.

When physicists talk about the origin of the universe from "nothing," they are usually talking about an empty quantum field - a state in which the universe, its laws, and reality as we know it already existed (but were empty).

As I was trying to explain in my first post, it would be pointless for physicists (or anyone else, really) to try to speculate about what would or wouldn't be possible in the hypothetical state of "nothingness" that philosophers and theologians seem to like to talk about, because the properties of that "nothingess" would be unknowable to us - if it ever even actually existed.

To me that seems like leading people astray on purpose- if nothing is not 0 then it is not nothing.

See, that's exactly the sort of seemingly-true-but-actually-meaningless statement that people like to throw around in discussions like this. What exactly do you mean by "if nothing is not 0"? What is your specific definition of "zero" here? Is an empty quantum field zero? Or does the quantum field count as "something," in which case you have to get rid of the field too before you can consider it to be "zero"? Can we keep the fundamental laws of mathematics, or do they also count as "something"?

 

[786]

Okay, it depends on who is doing the talking. Usually when philosophers or theologians talk about "nothing" they are referring to some pre-universe state in which the universe itself did not yet exist and even the laws of physics etc. as we understand them did not yet exist.

When physicists talk about the origin of the universe from "nothing," they are usually talking about an empty quantum field - a state in which the universe, its laws, and reality as we know it already existed (but were empty).

Can a quantum field exist without space-time?

As I was trying to explain in my first post, it would be pointless for physicists (or anyone else, really) to try to speculate about what would or wouldn't be possible in the hypothetical state of "nothingness" that philosophers and theologians seem to like to talk about, because the properties of that "nothingess" would be unknowable to us - if it ever even actually existed.

I agree... but that is precisely why I believe to make claims 'from nothing' by physicists is misleading to the masses- one has to understand that the masses are not physicists- instead of using the word 'nothing' they should change it to something which reflects the situation in our case it would be 'emptiness'.

See, that's exactly the sort of seemingly-true-but-actually-meaningless statement that people like to throw around in discussions like this. What exactly do you mean by "if nothing is not 0"? What is your specific definition of "zero" here? Is an empty quantum field zero? Or does the quantum field count as "something," in which case you have to get rid of the field too before you can consider it to be "zero"? Can we keep the fundamental laws of mathematics, or do they also count as "something"?

Good question... to me laws are meaningless unless they have 'something' to act upon. the field itself would be worthless without something for example gravity is meaningless with no mass or gravitons- gravitons are not 'laws' but actual particles..... So essentially with nothing laws cease to matter and effectively 'nothing' would yield all physical laws meaningless as the 'physical' thing from which everything arises is not there... without gravitons you can't have gravity- so what happens to the law of gravity? Even if there, it is meaningless.... so nothingness would be complete emptiness- that is absolutely no 'particle' 'quark' 'boson' exists- yielding all laws to be meaningless - one could say even laws don't exist in such a state because of them being so meaningless. That would yield the whole 'field' practically meaningless for the matter of discussion.

Peace be unto you

 

[Nasor]

Can a quantum field exist without space-time?

I'm probably not the best person to ask, since I don't really know much about relativity. But a "quantum field" is basically a description of how matter and energy is interacting. I guess you could say that it's like the law of gravity, and that it's around even if there isn't anything for it to act on, or you could say that it's a meaningless concept if there is nothing around for it to describe.

Good question... to me laws are meaningless unless they have 'something' to act upon. the field itself would be worthless without something for example gravity is meaningless with no mass or gravitons- gravitons are not 'laws' but actual particles..... So essentially with nothing laws cease to matter and effectively 'nothing' would yield all physical laws meaningless as the 'physical' thing from which everything arises is not there... without gravitons you can't have gravity- so what happens to the law of gravity? Even if there, it is meaningless.... so nothingness would be complete emptiness- that is absolutely no 'particle' 'quark' 'boson' exists- yielding all laws to be meaningless - one could say even laws don't exist in such a state because of them being so meaningless. That would yield the whole 'field' practically meaningless for the matter of discussion.

Fair enough, but many philosophers and theologians seem to want to talk about a state of "nothingness" that existed pre-universe in which, for example, if you were to somehow add two masses there would be no gravity between them because the law of gravity did not yet exist. Physicists, on the other hand, imagine a "nothingness" in which the law of gravity is present and just lurking around waiting for some mass to appear for it to act on. Many philosophers would say that the physicist's "nothingness" isn't really nothingness, because the law of gravity is present (even if it isn't having any perceivable effect at the moment).

The distinction is important, because if physicists can come up with a coherent, plausible explanation for how the laws of the universe could allow mass, energy, space, etc. to appear spontaneously in accordance with the apparent laws of the universe, then as far as they're concerned the problem is solved. The philosophers, on the other hand, would insist that the physicists were cheating by imagining all these laws etc., insist that if those laws were around than there wasn't really "nothing," and demand to know where the laws came from.

 

[786]

I'm probably not the best person to ask, since I don't really know much about relativity. But a "quantum field" is basically a description of how matter and energy is interacting. I guess you could say that it's like the law of gravity, and that it's around even if there isn't anything for it to act on, or you could say that it's a meaningless concept if there is nothing around for it to describe.

Well the question of where the laws come from is legitimate one... but for the sake of argument lets agree with the physicist that the laws just existed even in this nothingness... But as you said they may be there but still meaningless- The question would have to be then how can anything arise from interactions that can not happen in nothingness... as for these laws to be able to 'do' anything they would need something to act on in the first place.

Also current physics is concentrated on finding things like graviton, higgs bison, quarks and other theoretical particles- so the answer supposedly lies in these particles- particles are something- so if the Higg bison did give everything mass because of some law- I am ready to accept that is what gave everything mass... But Higg Bison is something, where did this something come from absolute nothing? The laws may exist but where did this particle or any particle come from from nothingness... The the issue of did the 'laws exist or not' isn't even the issue in my eyes because nothingness leaves all laws meaningless.... Law of gravity may be 'there' just waiting to interact with some 'mass' that comes about- but for that mass to come about you need the Higg Bison- which IS something- so all we see in physics as far as we can see is that something comes from something and this interaction is facilitated by the laws.

Peace be unto you

 

[quantum_wave]

Well the question of where the laws come from is legitimate one... but for the sake of argument lets agree with the physicist that the laws just existed even in this nothingness... But as you said they may be there but still meaningless- The question would have to be then how can anything arise from interactions that can not happen in nothingness... as for these laws to be able to 'do' anything they would need something to act on in the first place.

Also current physics is concentrated on finding things like graviton, higgs bison, quarks and other theoretical particles- so the answer supposedly lies in these particles- particles are something- so if the Higg bison did give everything mass because of some law- I am ready to accept that is what gave everything mass... But Higg Bison is something, where did this something come from absolute nothing? The laws may exist but where did this particle or any particle come from from nothingness... The the issue of did the 'laws exist or not' isn't even the issue in my eyes because nothingness leaves all laws meaningless.... Law of gravity may be 'there' just waiting to interact with some 'mass' that comes about- but for that mass to come about you need the Higg Bison- which IS something- so all we see in physics as far as we can see is that something comes from something and this interaction is facilitated by the laws.

Peace be unto you

Peace be unto you too. You are exactly right as far as I can see too. Science gets to a point beyond which we cannot go, or not yet at least.

What do you think? Something from nothing, supernatural creation, or has it always existed?

 

[786]

Peace be unto you too. You are exactly right as far as I can see too. Science gets to a point beyond which we cannot go, or not yet at least.

What do you think? Something from nothing, supernatural creation, or has it always existed?

I find the idea of something from nothing as problematic, and scientifically impossible.

I do believe in God so I have a bias in that.. But the idea of 'always' existed is intriguing but does not address why exactly is it that these law seem fine tuned for life- an infinite universe does not explain why these laws are as they are. Secondly I don't know how well a infinite universe fits in with current physics to comment on that aspect of the issue.

But I do agree there are basically 2 answers: supernatural creation or an infinite universe.

Peace be unto you

 

[quantum_wave]

I find the idea of something from nothing as problematic, and scientifically impossible.

I do believe in God so I have a bias in that.. But the idea of 'always' existed is intriguing but does not address why exactly is it that these law seem fine tuned for life- an infinite universe does not explain why these laws are as they are. Secondly I don't know how well a infinite universe fits in with current physics to comment on that aspect of the issue.

But I do agree there are basically 2 answers: supernatural creation or an infinite universe.

Peace be unto you

I'm with you on the nothing from nothing and that does leave two; Creation or No Beginning.

You say that you believe in God and yet you seem to be searching. What is it about God that leaves open the other possibility to you?

 

[786]

I'm with you on the nothing from nothing and that does leave two; Creation or No Beginning.

You say that you believe in God and yet you seem to be searching. What is it about God that leaves open the other possibility to you?

Well the other possibility remains totally on a logical base, not that I'm searching for another option... I accept all logical options but accepting that there are many logical ways does not necessitate that I keep myself from choosing one, which the agnostics seem to have done. God answers not only how but why....Why does the universe exist? Why do these law exist? Why are these laws defined? Why is the universe defined? Why are we here? Some can argue that 'why' is not a correct question- because science can not really address it- but I feel that why is an important question- it all comes down to if 'why' is a legitimate question or not, and I believe it is- for this God is the only answer.

I find that although the idea 'God did it' seems very easy way to 'skip' the question but actually answers all the questions of the natural world- I believe the system is set up by God and because it IS a system that is why everything follows from another and links things together and which is why science can make 'predictions'- it is because these laws are not random- they are all interacting according to a defined system- to me it seems the fact that precise laws exist that can define our universe is a proof of God - there is a language to the universe- its not gibberish. That is why it makes sense when we look at science.

To me the universe is a magnificent book of God- the language of which we can understand through math/physics. Science is the study of this book. Or one could say science tells us the tale of the book by God called 'The Universe'.

Peace be unto you

 

[quantum_wave]

Well the other possibility remains totally on a logical base, not that I'm searching for another option... I accept all logical options but accepting that there are many logical ways does not necessitate that I keep myself from choosing one, which the agnostics seem to have done. God answers not only how but why....Why does the universe exist? Why do these law exist? Why are these laws defined? Why is the universe defined? Why are we here? Some can argue that 'why' is not a correct question- because science can not really address it- but I feel that why is an important question- it all comes down to if 'why' is a legitimate question or not, and I believe it is- for this God is the only answer.

I find that although the idea 'God did it' seems very easy way to 'skip' the question but actually answers all the questions of the natural world- I believe the system is set up by God and because it IS a system that is why everything follows from another and links things together and which is why science can make 'predictions'- it is because these laws are not random- they are all interacting according to a defined system- to me it seems the fact that precise laws exist that can define our universe is a proof of God - there is a language to the universe- its not gibberish. That is why it makes sense when we look at science.

To me the universe is a magnificent book of God- the language of which we can understand through math/physics. Science is the study of this book. Or one could say science tells us the tale of the book by God called 'The Universe'.

Peace be unto you

You are exactly right again. For you and for atheists, a choice has been made.

I don’t think a person who chooses between our two options makes your selection though. You were taught. You have chosen not to ask where God came from.

A person is taught a religion. You discover the truth for yourself. You were taught about God and you didn’t ask about where God came from yet. Or are you in process of answering that question. There will be problems for you along the way but I think you might continue on the path. Be safe but be honest with yourself.

 

[786]

I feel the problem is of infinite regression if one continues... If God is outside of time and space and created space-time then he is eternal by definition and uncreated as it requires time to come from somewhere-or the time is a singularity of not-existing where coming from somewhere is the same as being there- as such there is no claim of coming from 'nothing', so the same problem is not presented- Secondly nothing natural can answer the question 'why' so even then God is the only choice. Lastly although you are right that I have been taught religion and God- one has to wonder that people came to natural conclusion of God from all along.... even if it were to explain the unexplained it was their natural conclusion- the only reason the idea seems to be losing credibility is that science seems to explain those 'unexplainable' factors and has predictive power- but as I pointed out there is a reason why science has predictive power and that is actually further proof of God if anything, although people don't tend to think like that but take our success in science to their heads....

Peace be unto you

 

[Doreen]

It seems like a nothing with a lot of potential.

As opposed to a nothing with no potential.

Unless all (possible?) nothings have this potential to suddenly be everything.

Which is very odd.

But whatever the truth is is very odd.

 

[786]

Where would that potential come from?

Peace be unto you

 

[Doreen]

Where would that potential come from?

Peace be unto you

Damned if I know.