A Universe from Nothing: Not that hard to understand.

The following is a lengthy article on the question/s raised in Professor Krauss'book with also a "not so complementary" critical appraisal from a philosopher....It appeared in DISCOVER magazine.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/04/28/a-universe-from-nothing/#.WhIOrraWY2w

Executive summary

This is going to be kind of long, so here’s the upshot. Very roughly, there are two different kinds of questions lurking around the issue of “Why is there something rather than nothing?” One question is, within some framework of physical laws that is flexible enough to allow for the possible existence of either “stuff” or “no stuff” (where “stuff” might include space and time itself), why does the actual manifestation of reality seem to feature all this stuff? The other is, why do we have this particular framework of physical law, or even something called “physical law” at all? Lawrence (again, roughly) addresses the first question, and David cares about the second, and both sides expend a lot of energy insisting that their question is the “right” one rather than just admitting they are different questions. Nothing about modern physics explains why we have these laws rather than some totally different laws, although physicists sometimes talk that way — a mistake they might be able to avoid if they took philosophers more seriously. Then the discussion quickly degrades into name-calling and point-missing, which is unfortunate because these are smart people who agree about 95% of the interesting issues, and the chance for productive engagement diminishes considerably with each installment.
 
paddoboy said:
CYCSye_W8AIzUoz.jpg


*sniff* Now we have that tantrum out of the way, back to some science.....
from my previous link....
https://futurism.com/proof-that-the-universe-could-have-come-from-nothing/
"This new equation allows for some extremely interesting insights into the universe. The hypothesis explains dark energy, the energy that is causing the expansion of spacetime, as a quantity called quantum potential. Quantum potential comes out of the pilot-wave theory, which is a lesser-known interpretation of quantum mechanics (basically, a replacement or completion for quantum theory as we understand it today). Pilot-wave theory is able to reproduce all of the predictions made by current quantum theory, explains things like the Schrodinger’s cat paradox, and adds the quantity of quantum potential".

the pilot wave theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave

In theoretical physics, the pilot wave theory, also known as Bohmian mechanics, was the first known example of a hidden variable theory, presented by Louis de Broglie in 1927. Its more modern version, the de Broglie–Bohm theory, remains a non-mainstream attempt to interpret quantum mechanics as a deterministic theory, avoiding troublesome notions such as wave–particle duality, instantaneous wave function collapse and the paradox of Schrödinger's cat but introducing nonlocality.

The de Broglie–Bohm pilot wave theory is one of several equally valid interpretations of (non-relativistic) quantum mechanics. An extension to the relativistic case has been developed since the 1990s
Click to expand...

And if I may add a speculation.
If the universe is expanding (unfolding) it seems to do so in a wave-like manner.
Waves are fractal in nature and I believe this is the basis for the development of Loll's "Causal Dyamical Triangulation" hypothesis.
 
This kind of scenario is exactly what quantum cosmologists like James Hartle, Stephen Hawking, Alex Vilenkin, Andrei Linde and others have in mind when they are talking about the “creation of the universe from nothing.” In this kind of picture, there is literally a moment in the history of the universe prior to which there weren’t any other moments. There is a boundary of time (presumably at the Big Bang), prior to which there was … nothing. No stuff, not even a quantum wave function; there was no prior thing, because there is no sensible notion of “prior.” This is also interesting, and important, and worth writing a book about, and it’s another one of the possibilities Lawrence discusses.
Click to expand...

The problem is , is that , BB is the foundation on which we try to understand the Universe . Hence the search and understanding of " prior " . Prior , is only a problem for BB thinking theorist .

Something has always been .
 
Write4U said:
And if I may add a speculation.
If the universe is expanding (unfolding) it seems to do so in a wave-like manner.
Waves are fractal in nature and I believe this is the basis for the development of Loll's "Causal Dyamical Triangulation" hypothesis.
Click to expand...
The expansion is nothing like an "unfolding" or anything like a "wave like manner" I suggest. It is simply expanding much as one expands an elastic band, remembering analogies are limited.
 
paddoboy said:
The expansion is nothing like an "unfolding" or anything like a "wave like manner" I suggest. It is simply expanding much as one expands an elastic band, remembering analogies are limited.
Click to expand...
If the Pilot Wave proves to be correct, then we are dealing with a wave function, no?
 
river said:
The problem is , is that , BB is the foundation on which we try to understand the Universe . Hence the search and understanding of " prior " . Prior , is only a problem for BB thinking theorist .

Something has always been .
Click to expand...
The BB and GR. The BB says the universe/space/time as we know them, had a beginning.
Prior to that sure is speculation at this time, but no theory yet gives any empirical evidence of any happening/scenario prior to 10-43 seconds.
If any infinity is involved to any extent, it would be at its most basic and fundamental level of nothingness that we know of...the quantum foam.
 
paddoboy said:
The BB and GR. The BB says the universe/space/time as we know them, had a beginning.
Prior to that sure is speculation at this time, but no theory yet gives any empirical evidence of any happening/scenario prior to 10-43 seconds.
If any infinity is involved to any extent, it would be at its most basic and fundamental level of nothingness that we know of...the quantum foam.
Click to expand...

Quantum foam is not an example of nothing .
 
river said:
Which is nonsense .

They do so in order to explain BB , which is the essence of Quantum existence in any form .
Click to expand...
Do I need to remind you of your own unsupported unevidenced nonsense that you post on this forum? Ghosts? Aliens? living rocks? atomic war by Aliens on Mars?
No its not nonsense..that is simply your own lay person's opinion. I have given many educated speculative accounts of a universe from nothing, If you chose to ignore that in favour of your own agenda, then that's no skin of my nose and makes absolutely no difference to the greater scheme of things, and the scientists at the coal face, with access to many state of the art equipment, who also do proper research into these things.
 
paddoboy said:
Do I need to remind you of your own unsupported unevidenced nonsense that you post on this forum? Ghosts? Aliens? living rocks? atomic war by Aliens on Mars?
No its not nonsense..that is simply your own lay person's opinion. I have given many educated speculative accounts of a universe from nothing, If you chose to ignore that in favour of your own agenda, then that's no skin of my nose and makes absolutely no difference to the greater scheme of things, and the scientists at the coal face, with access to many state of the art equipment, who also do proper research into these things.
Click to expand...

Quantum is by its essence is based on " something " .

Quantum has length , breadth and depth . Hence why it exists to even have a discussion about .
 
river said:
Quantum is by its essence is based on " something " .

Quantum has length , breadth and depth . Hence why it exists to even have a discussion about .
Click to expand...
You have avoided your hypocritical remark...that's OK.
And we are also discussing nothing, so by your own reckoning and reasoning, nothing exists...but as I told you, its how one defines nothing that counts. And again, the quantum foam is the closest we can get there, and is defined by some of those that do count as nothing.
And actually no, the quantum foam does not have any length breadth or width to speak of
 
paddoboy said:
You have avoided your hypocritical remark...that's OK.
And we are also discussing nothing, so by your own reckoning and reasoning, nothing exists...but as I told you, its how one defines nothing that counts. And again, the quantum foam is the closest we can get there, and is defined by some of those that do count as nothing.
And actually no, the quantum foam does not have any length breadth or width to speak of
Click to expand...

No , nothing can never exist , ever . Where did you get this so called " your own reckoning and resoning nothing exists " ? Never happened .

Quantum foam the is a concept , an idea , hence why it has none of the fundamental dimensions in order to manifest .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top