Why is there Something instead of Nothing?

[Elixir]

I have heard scientists like Sean Carroll say the same thing. Either condition - a universe from empty space, or from nonexistence of spacetime - is permitted under the known laws of physics. Krauss and Hawking both advocate(d) for the latter condition (creation from nonexistent spacetime), while Penrose and Carroll appear to favor the former.

Thank you Atrib.
I get irritated by pronouncements of impossibility in general, and especially when referring to events of which we know little or nothing (e.g. the creation of universes).

 

[bilby]

The key word is 'virtual'...

No, it really isn't.

The Casimir Effect demonstrates what QFT theorises about virtual particles - that they are 100% real. The distinction between 'virtual' and 'real' particles is an historical hangover with no validity; 'Virtual' now simply means 'short lived' in this context.

Isn't Casimir Effect a demonstration that there are waves everywhere all the time? If that is so what do you mean by virtual? What does one mean by short-lived if waves are everywhere all the time? What is the limit? Is it a maximum frequency or minimum energy? Or are we depending on there being some wave aspect there all the time that there is no minimum quantum.

You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that waves and particles aren't the same thing. In QFT they are just different perspectives on the same field phenomena. Local field amplitude gives the probability that a particle will be found at that spot. Persistent peaks of amplitude are a subset of the much larger set of all such peaks, and those that do not persist are given the label 'virtual particle'. But they're indistinguishable from any other particle of the same kind at any given point in time. Only their past and/or future history tells us whether to call them 'virtual' or not.

 

[Jarhyn]

The key word is 'virtual'...

No, it really isn't.

The Casimir Effect demonstrates what QFT theorises about virtual particles - that they are 100% real. The distinction between 'virtual' and 'real' particles is an historical hangover with no validity; 'Virtual' now simply means 'short lived' in this context.

Isn't Casimir Effect a demonstration that there are waves everywhere all the time? If that is so what do you mean by virtual? What does one mean by short-lived if waves are everywhere all the time? What is the limit? Is it a maximum frequency or minimum energy? Or are we depending on there being some wave aspect there all the time that there is no minimum quantum.

You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that waves and particles aren't the same thing. In QFT they are just different perspectives on the same field phenomena. Local field amplitude gives the probability that a particle will be found at that spot. Persistent peaks of amplitude are a subset of the much larger set of all such peaks, and those that do not persist are given the label 'virtual particle'. But they're indistinguishable from any other particle of the same kind at any given point in time. Only their past and/or future history tells us whether to call them 'virtual' or not.

To me, the only thing that seems to differentiate them is, in fact, whether the "virtual" particle has a higher stability than what was there, at which point the "virtual" particle remains and the other particle is the one that gets annihilated by the pair particle(s) of the "virtual" one.

Or am I missing something?

 

[steve_bank]

We call religion claiming the universe came from nothing by a god mythology and proofs pseudo science.

Somebody with a PHD in physics claims something can come from nothing or the universe came from nothing and some call that brilliant science.

Interesting example of human dynamics and selective bias.

 

[steve_bank]

The philosophizing of a prominent scientist is not necessarily science, unless you are a 'science believer' in the sense of a biblical literalist Christian.

That red herring seems designed to distract from your flat assertion that “something from nothing” is impossible.
Again, I am reminded:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.

Also, see the correction you were offered regarding the reality of “virtual” particles.

Something from nothing is impossible, they are mutuia;y exclusive.

You can construct a theory that dances around conservation and create terms. In the end there is no possible proof. If a particle appered in an experiment thhre is no way to tell where it came from.

If no existence means zero mass and xzero energy and no causation then it is mythology, religion, and philosophy.

 

[Elixir]

Something from nothing is impossible, they are mutuia;y exclusive.

Easy to say. It's also easy to say that the ink (electrons) in "something" can be rearranged to form "nothing" and vice versa.
Your impossibility proclamation lacks any foundation beyond rhetorical/semantic. The physics involved in the hypotheses advanced by Krauss and others are beyond my knowledge and perhaps my very ability to understand. But I'll go with their conclusion that something and nothing are not , mutuia;y exclusive [sic] over the baldfaced assertion of impossibility from an engineer guy who won't even proofread his own posts*.

*Very inconsiderate, as it takes undue time to read.

 

[Gospel]

Something from nothing is impossible, they are mutuia;y exclusive.

Easy to say. It's also easy to say that the ink (electrons) in "something" can be rearranged to form "nothing" and vice versa.
Your impossibility proclamation lacks any foundation beyond rhetorical/semantic. The physics involved in the hypotheses advanced by Krauss and others are beyond my knowledge and perhaps my very ability to understand. But I'll go with their conclusion that something and nothing are not , mutuia;y exclusive [sic] over the baldfaced assertion of impossibility from an engineer guy who won't even proofread his own posts*.

*Very inconsiderate, as it takes undue time to read.

It just sounds to me like you struggle with understanding the concept of nothing and what perfect nothingness is. It doesn't help that you seem to innately reject it from the jump. Perfect nothingness means there is no something that can be rearranged. In your statement, you are adding something to perfect nothingness which is itself illogical.

Edit: And I do believe that nothing and something are mutually exclusive because both exist as a result of the other. Perfect nothingness does not exist (as it should because of its very nature it begs that it itself doesn't exist) because there is something and there never was perfect nothingness and never will be.

 

[Elixir]

Something from nothing is impossible, they are mutuia;y exclusive.

Easy to say. It's also easy to say that the ink (electrons) in "something" can be rearranged to form "nothing" and vice versa.
Your impossibility proclamation lacks any foundation beyond rhetorical/semantic. The physics involved in the hypotheses advanced by Krauss and others are beyond my knowledge and perhaps my very ability to understand. But I'll go with their conclusion that something and nothing are not , mutuia;y exclusive [sic] over the baldfaced assertion of impossibility from an engineer guy who won't even proofread his own posts*.

*Very inconsiderate, as it takes undue time to read.

It just sounds to me like you struggle with understanding the concept of nothing and what perfect nothingness is. It doesn't help that you seem to innately reject it from the jump. Perfect nothingness means there is no something that can be rearranged. In your statement, you are adding something to perfect nothingness which is itself illogical.

Edit: And I do believe that nothing and something are mutually exclusive because both exist as a result of the other. Perfect nothingness does not exist (as it should because of its very nature it begs that it itself doesn't exist) because there is something and there never was perfect nothingness and never will be.

Obviously the divide here is that Steve thinks spacetime is nothing, which is wrong.

 

[Gospel]

Very true, empty space is not empty. Science has already proven that.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Very true, empty space is not empty. Science has already proven that.

Therefore the question should shift from "Why is there something instead of nothing?" to "What are we made of?" And it seems that the answer to that question presently is quantum fields. Even simulations would be made of quantum fields but you'll never discover anything about quantum fields if you're actually in a simulation.

 

[Gospel]

I think what are we made of is another question that will go unanswered. To me, quantum Fields (specifically quantum mechanics) only appear mysterious because we lack the tools to crack the mystery. I think at some point scientists will break ground with quantum mechanics but I also think shortly after science will reach a time where the very tools we use for detection (or in better words, using things that exist within the thing we're trying to examine) will become an impassable barrier to further discoveries.

 

[Jarhyn]

The empty set is still a thing, even if that thing is empty. Sets are things. Spacetime would still be the set, even were it empty.

I think a better question is "how can an empty set come to have stuff in it?"

We can start out with 0=0. Nothing is itself.

But we can subtract one from both sides, the equation balanced 1=1. Nothing has changed. There is no contradiction.

As long as the system is balanced.

That's the whole idea of "supersymmetry" I think. The idea that maybe our universe exists as a form of particle within another larger structure, and is itself "virtual", existing to collapse symmetrically against it's antiparticle.

It would be the same universe, so really there would only be the one identity of the thing, only one meaning to it and only one experience of it.

And then it would be gone forever.

The point is, if something comes from "nothing" in observable space, we have no basis to say universes don't do the same in "superspacetime"

Granted, the way watches come to exist in nature is through the evolution of a creative species. We also don't categorically know that this is not one of those such insanities, either. The universe contains a lot of insanities.

I can only hope that if this is the case, there is a legal, moral, and ethical structure to prevent the abuse of intelligent life within created universes.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

We've never experienced empty spacetime or superspacetime. Maybe if we crank things up at CERN or build bigger LHCs we can examine such speculations and Grand Unified Theory. But for now we have to accept our observations as factual which means there is no such thing as empty spacetime in our current reality.

Of course we don't understand dark matter or dark energy and CERN hasn't found any hints of supersymmetry, only the Higgs. So there's lots of room for more discovery.

 

[steve_bank]

The test for something is easy. I believe in something instead of nothing because if I run into a brick wall it hurts.

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

If there was nothing, we would not be here to argue about it.

Eldarion Lathria

 

[Ephesians]

It's been a while since we took up this subject. I happened upon the question again in a video linked by Thomas II. In fact, the question is nonsensical and should be dismissed when encountered. The better question is 'Why is there something instead of something else?' And should be further refined to 'How is there something instead of something else?'

It's a scientific question that can be answered scientifically when asked properly. I've come to the conclusion that creationist types must have "nothing" to get started on their claims without ever thinking about what they mean when they use the word. And then they go to a god or creator to account for the fact that there isn't any "nothing." It's a very shortsighted mindset that I guess comes from religious indoctrination, an unfamiliarity with scientific inquiry and the use of common parlance.

I'm actually looking forward to my next discussion of the topic when it occurs, be it here or in person.

The question doesn't become nonsensical just because atheism has trouble answering it.

If you're an atheist, then you answer the question with something along the lines of, "It inexplicably and arbitrarily exists. There is no purpose behind the universe. There is no 'why' behind the universe."

 

[Politesse]

It's been a while since we took up this subject. I happened upon the question again in a video linked by Thomas II. In fact, the question is nonsensical and should be dismissed when encountered. The better question is 'Why is there something instead of something else?' And should be further refined to 'How is there something instead of something else?'

It's a scientific question that can be answered scientifically when asked properly. I've come to the conclusion that creationist types must have "nothing" to get started on their claims without ever thinking about what they mean when they use the word. And then they go to a god or creator to account for the fact that there isn't any "nothing." It's a very shortsighted mindset that I guess comes from religious indoctrination, an unfamiliarity with scientific inquiry and the use of common parlance.

I'm actually looking forward to my next discussion of the topic when it occurs, be it here or in person.

The question doesn't become nonsensical just because atheism has trouble answering it.

If you're an atheist, then you answer the question with something along the lines of, "It inexplicably and arbitrarily exists. There is no purpose behind the universe. There is no 'why' behind the universe."

And then there's the part where you crudely insult anyone who dares to ask the question...

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The question doesn't become nonsensical just because atheism has trouble answering it.

If you're an atheist, then you answer the question with something along the lines of, "It inexplicably and arbitrarily exists. There is no purpose behind the universe. There is no 'why' behind the universe."

I certainly don't have any trouble addressing nonsensical questions. Did you read the entire thread? You should.

 

[Ephesians]

The question doesn't become nonsensical just because atheism has trouble answering it.

If you're an atheist, then you answer the question with something along the lines of, "It inexplicably and arbitrarily exists. There is no purpose behind the universe. There is no 'why' behind the universe."

I certainly don't have any trouble addressing nonsensical questions. Did you read the entire thread? You should.

As I said before, it's not a nonsensical question just because atheism has difficulty answering it.