A Universe from Nothing: Not that hard to understand.

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

So now you contest the mathematics of probability?

I tested it. After you test it, get back to me.

<>

 

[Seattle]

I tested it. After you test it, get back to me.

<>

You don't understand statistics do you? The chance of rolling "doubles" using 2 dice is 1/6. If you roll the dice 6 times on average you will roll doubles. You might roll it on the first roll and you might have to roll the dice 20 times.

If you do it many times the mean will be 6. If you look at the link that I posted with all of the details and say that it is incorrect, instead you will be incorrect.

In case it's not obvious, I am bringing up the case of the two dice since it's an easier case to discuss.

I think I can understand how your were susceptible to the "God Delusion".

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

You don't understand statistics do you? The chance of rolling "doubles" using 2 dice is 1/6. If you roll the dice 6 times on average you will roll doubles. You might roll it on the first roll and you might have to roll the dice 20 times.

If you do it many times the mean will be 6. If you look at the link that I posted with all of the details and say that it is incorrect, instead you will be incorrect.

In case it's not obvious, I am bringing up the case of the two dice since it's an easier case to discuss.

No. You do not understand.
You have no argument until you test it & get significantly different results from my test.

<>

 

[Seattle]

No. You do not understand.
You have no argument until you test it & get significantly different results from my test.

<>

OK, now I've tested it. I got 150 cards and wrote down the birthdays of the first 150 people in my Rolodex. I shuffled them and randomly picked 23 cards. I did this several times. About half the time I got a match and half the time I didn't get a match.

I shuffled them and picked 75 this time. I did this several times. I got a match (or more) each time.

The statistical odds at 23 is just over 50%
The statistical odds at 75 is 99.9%

It's just math. It works.

 

[Write4U]

I do not find arguments misusing words & misleading people to be worthwhile. I find them absurd.

WHY write a book titled A Universe From Nothing which is not about a universe from NOTHING??? It is inane if not insane. The only sense I can guess from it is he needed money & did not have a better book in him.

Something from nothing is worse than God did it. <>

Far be it from me to criticize Krauss, but I must admit that the title is confusing to an extent. I have not read the book, but saw the interview about it, and came away somewhat disappointed.

Using the word nothing (no-thing) could simply mean no physical thing, but IMO does leave room for the existence an abstract zero state condition, with no physical things.

Allow me to pose a crude thought experiment of the possibility of a pre-universe state or condition, without any physical properties or things, but still be causal to the creation of pure energy.

Perhaps something akin to an empty room with no furniture (no-thing) in it. Of course an empty room is filled with air and radiation, which is not nothing, it's just not directly observable.

Can a parallel be drawn to Krauss' use of the word nothing as implying that a state or condition existed, which had no physical properties itself, but could still posses a potential for the creation of a physical event (BB) which was causal to the formation of space and physical things.

Continuing the room analogy,
Now if we also emptied the room of all air and radiation, we create a vacuum, which would cause the empty room (condition) to collapse in on itself, creating a singular heap of rubble, collapsing smaller and smaller, but relatively increasing in potential energy in the process, until the created energy exceeds the the inward collapse and an inflationary epoch of pure energy results..

If we extend this concept to an abstract formless pre-condition collapsing in on itself, somehow creating a singularity of pure energy (heat?) which then expressed itself in the chaotic BB and inflation, creating an expanding geometric space and things (first particles)?

In theory, could such a parallel be drawn? Can we draw on our knowledge of the process that causes a nova, to extend this process, where a total abstract vacuum is used as a replacement of a physical gravitational force to create an energetic condition?

Oh my, what am I getting myself into now?

 

[Write4U]

You don't understand statistics do you? The chance of rolling "doubles" using 2 dice is 1/6. If you roll the dice 6 times on average you will roll doubles. You might roll it on the first roll and you might have to roll the dice 20 times.

If you do it many times the mean will be 6. If you look at the link that I posted with all of the details and say that it is incorrect, instead you will be incorrect.

In case it's not obvious, I am bringing up the case of the two dice since it's an easier case to discuss..

If we place this experiment in a timeless condition of nothingness, rolling doubles would be instantaneous. No need to roll the dice over and over again. An instantaneous infinity of abstract simultaneous rolls would create a 100% probability for a double, instantly.

 

[Yazata]

As you point out, he isn't trying to make a traditional philosophical argument.

That's not what I said. I think that he is trying to address a traditional metaphysical question without understanding it. He is saying quite explicitly that science is finally in the position to answer this deepest of the age-old questions and that in so doing, science once again shows how "the philosophers and the theologians" are full of shit. (He groups 'philosophers' and 'theologians' together, opposing 'scientists' to both of them.) That's what I believe his motivation is. (And it's why Paddoboy started this thread.)

Unfortunately, his proposed "solution" appears to me to be little more than an extended exercise in begging-the-question.

I don't find traditional philosophical arguments to be very worthwhile or interesting either. As they say, it's navel gazing.

Any "they" who says that doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

It really helps to have some training in the subject one is writing about. Krauss pretends to solve philosophical problems that he doesn't even understand, without having ever having studied philosophy. That puts him in the category of 'crank' in my opinion, not unlike those (we see them occasionally here) who claim to have solved all the problems of cosmology, and in so doing proved Einstein an idiot, without having ever studied astrophysics.

It's just a rabbit hole as far as trying to talk about the "beginning", and what came before that, and before that, etc.

Then why pretend that Science is finally in the process of solving a fundamental metaphysical problem when it hasn't been solved and isn't really any closer to solution than it was before?

I should add that the question isn't really a question about initial origins at all. Imagine an infinite endless chain of causes or explanations, without any first-cause or ultimate-explanation. Even in a scenario in which an initial origin has been ruled out ex hypothesi, we could still ask why such an infinite chain of causes or explanations exists, instead of nothing at all. That's the underlying issue.

And it's the question that Krauss falsely assures his lay readers that he's addressing. It's right there in the title of his book: "A Universe From Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing". He isn't telling them that he's trying to spin the observed universe from minimal physical assumptions that are most emphatically NOT the same thing as 'nothing'. If he admitted that, his book wouldn't sell nearly as well and he wouldn't be able to be nearly as dismissive towards "the philosophers and theologians" that he feels such contempt for.

https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468

 

[Yazata]

I do not find arguments misusing words & misleading people to be worthwhile. I find them absurd.

Disingenuous at least, if done knowingly.

WHY write a book titled A Universe From Nothing which is not about a universe from NOTHING??? It is inane if not insane. The only sense I can guess from it is he needed money & did not have a better book in him.

I don't really want to crucify Krauss. (He is annoying though.)

I just don't think that he's come anywhere close to solving what has to be the ultimate metaphysical question. Any suggestion that he has is simply foolishness. Nor has he landed any kind of death-blow to "philosophers and theologians", which I suspect was part of his motivation.

Having said that, attempts to derive the entire physical universe from a minimal set of initial physical assumptions (in distinction to 'nothing') might be a valuable exercise in its own right. It might even cast some light on the deeper metaphysical problem.

But however fascinating a 'Theory of Everything' might be to physicists, it shouldn't be over-sold to the lay public as if it does away with all initial assumptions whatsoever and somehow explains itself.

Something from nothing is worse than God did it.

I don't think that I want to say that. It remains a possibility that reality itself just kind of popped into existence, for no reason, out of (literally) nowhere. The Big Bang comes very close to being that kind of idea.

I just don't think that physics is in any position to satisfactorily provide a reason for the existence of absolutely everything (including logic, mathematics and the laws of physics). In order to produce an explanation, physics would have to already have some explanatory principles available, such as Krauss' quantum field theory. But that just pushes the question back a step. What explains the existence of quantum field theory? And what explains whatever explains that? And... (Exchemist's never-ending series of Russian dolls.)

 

[karenmansker]

IMO, Due to humans' inquisitive nature, we will always seek an a priori causality . . . . . even if there is none . . . .

 

[Write4U]

somewhere in this thread someone quoted from an article that cites; "an expanding vacuum bubble".
This sounds really weird to me. Unless I am missing something, a vacuum is the very opposite of a bubble.
So the implication is that from some anomaly a vacuum bubble was created in the othingness, etc.
This sound illogical to me. Can anyone explain what a "vacuum bubble" is?

 

[Seattle]

somewhere in this thread someone quoted from an article that cites; "an expanding vacuum bubble".
This sounds really weird to me. Unless I am missing something, a vacuum is the very opposite of a bubble.
So the implication is that from some anomaly a vacuum bubble was created in the othingness, etc.
This sound illogical to me. Can anyone explain what a "vacuum bubble" is?

I'm sure if you take out the word "bubble" it will mean what they meant.

 

[Write4U]

I should add that the question isn't really a question about initial origins at all. Imagine an infinite endless chain of causes or explanations, without any first-cause or ultimate-explanation. Even in a scenario in which an initial origin has been ruled out ex hypothesi, we could still ask why such an infinite chain of causes or explanations exists, instead of nothing at all. That's the underlying issue.

Yes, in a condition of nothingness, how can something "start" a dynamic process at all? For that matter, how can an infinite nothingness have any dynamical qualities?

Could CDT (causal dynamical triangulation) emerge as an abstract dynamical process from nothing?

Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) invented by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.
This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

Or ( if this function exists) would that begin after the BB?

 

[BdS]

How do you get nothing from something?

 

[Write4U]

'Something from nothing' is a metaphysical assertion. Do we really have any "scientific answer" that justifies the assertion and explains it?

I have no scientific answer, but I believe we do have a term for a non-physical condition that can precede something physical. It is a major part of Bohm's "wholeness and the implicate order"
That term is; Potential. In it's most fundamental sense, the term potential can be equated as;
Potential = That which may become expressed in reality.
IOW, a latency which may become causal to a physical event.

I see this as a declaration that while not all potential becomes expressed in reality, all reality (past, present, future) was, is, and will be preceded by potential.

Can we say that before the BB, the potential for that event must have existed prior to the event?
At least that gets us to a condition existing in latent form before the BB.

Perhaps an example of Potential can be found in the following definition of virtual particles, which was mentioned earlier.

Virtual particles do not necessarily carry the same mass as the corresponding real particle, although they always conserve energy and momentum. The longer the virtual particle exists, the closer its characteristics come to those of ordinary particles. (reality)
They are important in the physics of many processes, including particle scattering and Casimir forces.

and

In quantum field theory, even classical forces, such as the

electromagnetic repulsion or attraction between two charges, can be thought of as due to the exchange of many virtual photons between the charges

and I found this description of the potential of bosons.

An important characteristic of bosons is that their statistics do not restrict the number of them that occupy the same quantum state. This property is exemplified by helium-4 when it is cooled to become a superfluid.

That begins to sound familiar in regard to the formation of particles which are constituent our reality, bosons (virtual particles) carry a latent potential which may become expressed in reality..

 

[Write4U]

I think this may be what I was trying to say in post 185
Ran across this little piece of information.

In simple terms, Bojowald’s theory, published in August’s Nature Physics, can be described as a Big Crunch followed by a Big Bounce. He suggests there was a universe before ours that was collapsing and getting hotter (the crunch). Then, when it reached a maximum density and temperature, it was driven apart (the bounce), forming our current universe.

But again, this is the turtles all the way down, which does not answer anything.

However I looked up the Casimir effect and that presents some very interesting implications.
But it still assumes an existing vacuum wave (?) function. See Casimir forces.

Too bad we cannot create a pure vacuum, at least not on earth. If the Casimir effect could be demonstrated in a pure vacuum, we'd really have something (actually nothing) to work with.

 

[karenmansker]

I think this may be what I was trying to say in post 185
Ran across this little piece of information. But again, this is the turtles all the way down, which does not answer anything.

However I looked up the Casimir effect and that presents some very interesting implications.
But it still assumes an existing vacuum wave (?) function. See Casimir forces.

Too bad we cannot create a pure vacuum, at least not on earth. If the Casimir effect could be demonstrated in a pure vacuum, we'd have really something to work with.

Yes, the Casimir Effect (CE) has been demonstrated in less-than-pure vacuums (pure-vacuums remain elusive!), first by Casimir himself, and more recently (1990's, I think) at LANL (Los Alamos National Laboratory) by Lamoreaux (sp?), et. al. CE also interferes with some experimental nano-mechanical systems. Van der Waals forces may behave similarly. CE has also been demonstrated in some organic materials. There exist some preliminary hypotheses regarding CE wrt to life creation in clay layer interstitia, and organic evolution via modulation of weak hydrogen bonding in nucleotides. CE appears, at first glance, to work best at surface separations of a few to few tens of nanometers, but experimental designs might developed to be be 'tunable' - to utilize vacuum waves of various wavelength. Some are also toying with the idea of CE utilization in examining zero-point energy conditions.

 

[Write4U]

There exist some preliminary hypotheses regarding CE wrt to life creation in clay layer interstitia, and organic evolution via modulation of weak hydrogen bonding in nucleotides.

As layman, I found this lecture fascinating. I'd love to have your critique on this presentation.
The actual presentation starts @ 25:10

 

[danshawen]

There exist some preliminary hypotheses regarding CE wrt to life creation in clay layer interstitia, and organic evolution via modulation of weak hydrogen bonding in nucleotides.

This sounds like the sort of "quantum creationist" mumbo-jumbo that always seems to send Eugene's pseudoscience threads directly to the cesspool.

If the Casimer ('CE') were real, then

1. Reactionless thrust would be possible, breaking Newton's third law, which has never been confirmed to have been broken.
2. Perpetual motion machines based on item #1 would be possible, drawing its energy directly from the quantum vacuum.

Which is why Eugene is always onboard with anything suggesting that creation of matter/energy can occur spontaneously out of nothing at any time.

Besides which, a Casimer effect with pressures exceeding 1 atm (atmosphere) has never been confirmed. Why do you suppose that might be? The flat plate of a capacitor is not perfectly smooth. The electric fields produced by the flat plate of any practical device based on that design is not perfectly flat either, and if it really did what the Casimer Effect says it does, it would also promptly self-destruct or self-discharge from the internal forces involved. Haven't we already done a thread on separtion of charge from a glass of water somewhere recently?

It's a fact: the conservation of energy isn't going to go away at the behest of the ideas of quantum creationists ('QC', 'YEC', 'ID'), or multiverse proponents, now or ever, even and especially at the time of either Guth's inflation or the Big Bang. Energy does not spontaneously or otherwise apparate into this universe as if by magic, or by the influence of some imagined deity or deities, nor by the spontaneous concentration of Dark Energy, or some other mechanism science does not yet have the means to understand.

The Law of the Conservation of Energy is possibly the strongest conservation law science knows for certain to be true, and something that any reputable scientist of any variety cannot possibly ignore.

 

[karenmansker]

This sounds like the sort of "quantum creationist" mumbo-jumbo that always seems to send Eugene's pseudoscience threads directly to the cesspool.

If the Casimer ('CE') were real, then

1. Reactionless thrust would be possible, breaking Newton's third law, which has never been confirmed to have been broken.
2. Perpetual motion machines based on item #1 would be possible, drawing its energy directly from the quantum vacuum.

Which is why Eugene is always onboard with anything suggesting that creation of matter/energy can occur spontaneously out of nothing at any time.

Besides which, a Casimer effect with pressures exceeding 1 atm (atmosphere) has never been confirmed. Why do you suppose that might be? The flat plate of a capacitor is not perfectly smooth. The electric fields produced by the flat plate of any practical device based on that design is not perfectly flat either, and if it really did what the Casimer Effect says it does, it would also promptly self-destruct or self-discharge from the internal forces involved. Haven't we already done a thread on separtion of charge from a glass of water somewhere recently?

It's a fact: the conservation of energy isn't going to go away at the behest of the ideas of quantum creationists ('QC', 'YEC', 'ID'), or multiverse proponents, now or ever, even and especially at the time of either Guth's inflation or the Big Bang. Energy does not spontaneously or otherwise apparate into this universe as if by magic, or by the influence of some imagined deity or deities, nor by the spontaneous concentration of Dark Energy, or some other mechanism science does not yet have the means to understand.

The Law of the Conservation of Energy is possibly the strongest conservation law science knows for certain to be true, and something that any reputable scientist of any variety cannot possibly ignore.

Yes, you are somewhat correct in most of your comments (CE to Cesspool) - and that is unfortunate and somewhat restrictive for truly creative minds (IMO) . (BTW: Casimer is spelled: Casimir) Some folks' (so-called scientists!) failure at visualizing and suspecting that there is 'more to discover' often clouds their objective creativity. One good example of a more original, creative, and visionary scientist might be Albert Einstein. If you must model yourself after a great scientist, he (Einstein - and others besides yourself) might be the one (s)! (Humor intended!)

 

[Michael 345]

How do you get nothing from something?

Take it away?