Bruce,
No one can logically doubt the following: "BEFORE THERE WAS ANYTHING THERE WAS
NOTHING"
Let's start with that and explain how we now live in a universe with 100 to 400
billion galaxies.
You propose a "background space-time". Where did this background space-time
come from? Who created that thing. Can "space-time" be created from nothing?
If it can, don't you end up with nothing and time? How does that get you a
universe?
According to my thinking, empty space is nothing.
Here is GOOGLES definition of time:
noun
1.the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the
past, present, and future regarded as a whole.
2.a point of time as measured in hours and minutes past midnight or
noon.
3.time as allotted, available, or used.
4.an instance of something happening or being done; an occasion.
5.(following a number) expressing multiplication.
6.the rhythmic pattern of a piece of music, as expressed by a time
signature.
I have shown how to build a universe from point particles, each with a charge
of plus e and minus e. You have admit if you add minus e to plus e, you get
zero. Is anyone aware of any other explanation for how our Universe could
evolve from nothing?
John R
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bruce Kellett
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 4:27 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential
Liz, I think you are generally correct in what you write below. Current writing
by cosmologists etc on "getting a universe from nothing" assume the prior
existence of at least a background space-time. More usually, this is assumed to
be the vacuum of quantum field theory. So there is a clear assumption that a
framework, and a set of laws, are logically prior to the coming into existence
of the universe.
This makes sense, because if you want to give an orderly account of the origin
of the universe, you must give an account in terms of laws -- so these are
logically prior. Basic quantum mechanics, or quantum field theory is usually
assumed to govern this creation. In addition, if you have some background
space-time then you need laws that describe the nature and behaviour of this
substrate. General relativity is usually assumed, at least a semi-classical
version of GR.
My position is that the idea that you can explain the origin of "a universe
from nothing" is absurd. People who don't want to assume that the universe just
"pops" out of nowhere, complete with laws, generally assume a previously
existing universe of some sort that spawns daughter universes in some manner.
This, of course, does not answer ultimate questions of origins, but if you want
to work within current understanding of the LOP, then you have little choice.
The "popping"
scenario essentially leaves origins unexplainable.
Bruce
LizR wrote:
> Now that we've sorted out the acronyms, I'd appreciate a response to the
> points I made - see below.
>
> Empty space _is _the same as nothing.
>
>
> I would say far from it. Why should empty space exist? The questions
> "why is there something rather than nothing?" "Why does the universe go
> to the bother of existing?" "What breathes fire into the equations?" etc
> are asking why /anything/ exists. That includes empty space.
>
> I don’t understand your comment, “It presupposes the laws of
> physics.” I don’t think empty space presupposes the laws of physics
> and I don’t think “nothing” presupposes the laws of physics. In my
> mind neither one presupposes anything.
>
>
> Maybe if the empty space does nothing, forever, that might be true. (At
> least we wouldn't exist to ask questions about whether it's true or
> not.) But if anything arises from the empty space, then the LOP must
> govern what appears. Why should tronnies appear rather than, say,
> quarks? The answer, by definition, is the laws of physics.
>
> Hence, if your description of the origin of the universe is correct, the
> question "why is there something rather than nothing?" can be amended to
> "why should empty space plus the laws of physics exist?"
>
> This leaves open the question of why the LOP are the way they are,
> rather than anything else they could logically have been.
>
> Generally, attempts to answer this have taken two forms. One is to show
> that the LOP are unique, and logically necessary - there is some
> underlying reason they could only be the way we observe them to be.
>
> The other is to admit that they could have been different, and perhaps
> are in other universes - in this view the required explanation is not an
> answer to "why do these particular laws of physics?" but "why do all
> these different laws of physics exist?" This assumes that some more
> general logical necessity needs to be invoked to explain all possible
> LOP, and then anthropic selection can be invoked to explain why we find
> them to be the way we do in our particular universe.
>
> PS
> TOE=Theory of Everything, IMO=In my opinion (be it ever so humble). I
> often type in a hurry, so having generally accepted acronyms available
> can come in handy.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
