The Big Bang and Vacuum / Nothing.

Why is there something instead of nothing?
In one of his books with logic puzzles, Raymond Smullyan has an amusing chapter where puzzles have to be solved to ask to a monk the question: Why is there something instead of nothing? The interesting conclusion of these puzzles is that, in the story, `there is nothing instead of something'. However, one of the things we can be sure of, it that at least something exists. There is a Universe, and we see people, and things, and light, and while we may debate what it means, how it came into being, and how it works, we can be sure that there is at least `something'.
Many physists search for the most elementary laws of physics, and believe that a law is more likely to be true, when it is simpler, more elementary. Some think that at some moment, humans will understand how the Universe works, and, even more, that we find out that the Universe is necesarily as it is. I cannot believe that, indeed, because I believe humans cannot give a final answer to the question: Why is there something instead of nothing?

With nothing I mean the un-existence of everything. No people, no earth, no milky way, no universe, no laws of nature, no space, no time. Making a mathematical model of nothing is actually easy. (Take an empty set, with no operations on it, and nothing else.) But, one thing we can be sure of: this nothing is not correct: we do not have nothing, but something. This shows that the most simple model is not always the correct one.

Some people may argue that the universe was created in the Big Bang, and that positive matter and positive energy are actually negated by the simultaneous creation of negative matter and negative energy. However, this doesn't answer the question: where do these laws of physics then come from?

Does this question have an answer? If something exists because it was either a modification of something else, or was created by something or Somebody else, then what caused that to exist? It seems that our logic is unable to deal with the question; indeed, I think the question shows there is a limit to our understanding of things.

Why do we have a Universe? My answer is that God created the Universe. But, then, one can ask: who/what created God? I believe God was not created, but was (and is, and will be) always there. Indeed, God is so mighty, that he goes above our reasoning and above our logic.

Hans Bodlaender, January 2003, hansb@cs.uu.nl


I feel as if I am a small boy holding but a teaspoon of knowledge standing before the Infinity Ocean of all knowledge

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Alan McDougall</i>
<br />Greetings Forum,

Nothingness is impossibly to describe, by stating nothing "IS" denotes it is a something,

There is only "Existence" no "absence of existence"

Like this; take out all energy all matter, all time out of "Existence"


Dale Try wote:
Hi Alan
If you have been reading my other postings here you will remember I promote a different theory.If we are inside a black hole within another space ask yourself what would happen if you started making mass disappear from such a universe.It would get to the point where you do not have enough mass to retain its properties as a black hole for its outside observers and it would of course explode into its original universe.You cannot have space without mass and if you have too much mass it also cannot exist without becoming unstable and collapsing into numerous other black holes each creating their own versions of space.


condense all space or void into a infinitesimal point condense it further into a dimensionless singularity compress it out of existence we and everything vanish forever.

Dale wrote&gt;
In this alternative theory you can not create singularities at all.Attempting to do only creates a black hole and the resulting time dilating effects of its gravity will again create more space.
Remember in this alternate theory that a slowing of time aka time dilation, for time to be dilated by 10 times will mean that you ruler is 1/10 as long but your increase of volume as in inside a cube is 1000 times.
I did some postings looking at the idea of using Casimer plates that measure the ZPE in and of space and by asking how such a device might be used as a preferred frame of reference.Then came to the conclusion the two are probably related.In other words I hypothesize that it you could remove all of the ZPE in and around an object that not only would it display an infinitely fast time but even the volume of a single quantum particle would fill up the entire universe.You cannot have nothing in or of space and still have the space.However you can have the lesser or greater amounts of space is a possibility.

When Existence Vanishes it denotes "absence of existence"

Dale wrote:
We don't know how many alternate worlds exists since we were born in this one we cannot know about the others. If this world did not exists its very possible that you or me would be viewing our reality from a set of alien eyes with the same biases.

There is "Only Existence, I Exist therefore I am

Dale Wrote:
Isn't that the Copenhagen interpretation if I remember right.One can argue that before we are born there is total unawareness and pure chance.Its only reasonable that we are only aware of the worlds that we can be born into and so may have a biased view.

A singular expression of all Existence is the state of

"AM"

Regards

Alan




I feel as if I am a small boy holding but a teaspoon of knowledge standing before the Infinity Ocean of all knowledge
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> <ul><li> </li><li> </li><li> </li></ul>

Knowledge of a question is Knowledge.Knowledge of an original question is original Knowledge.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Alan McDougall</i>
<br />Why is there something instead of nothing?
In one of his books with logic puzzles, Raymond Smullyan has an amusing chapter where puzzles have to be solved to ask to a monk the question: Why is there something instead of nothing? The interesting conclusion of these puzzles is that, in the story, `there is nothing instead of something'. However, one of the things we can be sure of, it that at least something exists. There is a Universe, and we see people, and things, and light, and while we may debate what it means, how it came into being, and how it works, we can be sure that there is at least `something'.
Many physists search for the most elementary laws of physics, and believe that a law is more likely to be true, when it is simpler, more elementary. Some think that at some moment, humans will understand how the Universe works, and, even more, that we find out that the Universe is necesarily as it is. I cannot believe that, indeed, because I believe humans cannot give a final answer to the question: Why is there something instead of nothing?

With nothing I mean the un-existence of everything. No people, no earth, no milky way, no universe, no laws of nature, no space, no time. Making a mathematical model of nothing is actually easy. (Take an empty set, with no operations on it, and nothing else.) But, one thing we can be sure of: this nothing is not correct: we do not have nothing, but something. This shows that the most simple model is not always the correct one.

Some people may argue that the universe was created in the Big Bang, and that positive matter and positive energy are actually negated by the simultaneous creation of negative matter and negative energy. However, this doesn't answer the question: where do these laws of physics then come from?

Does this question have an answer? If something exists because it was either a modification of something else, or was created by something or Somebody else, then what caused that to exist? It seems that our logic is unable to deal with the question; indeed, I think the question shows there is a limit to our understanding of things.

Why do we have a Universe? My answer is that God created the Universe. But, then, one can ask: who/what created God? I believe God was not created, but was (and is, and will be) always there. Indeed, God is so mighty, that he goes above our reasoning and above our logic.

Dale wrote:
Religion is a scam. But ironically this alternative theory actually leads to the best and most scientific argument for at least some sort of god ever.Do you know Drakes equation where it goes something like where you take the number of stars and remove all the ones with no planets then remove the ones with planets that are probably not suitable for life.We have so many that we still end up with some with a probability of advanced civilizations.Well we still have a problem our universe is only about 15 billion years old and its not enough for many super advanced civilizations to have much chance of coming into existence.
Now my alternative theory suggests an older previous universes and not one but many.So what are the odds of one of these civilizations coming to the conclusion that their was no god and had the means to not only create one but even create an afterlife world much like in the Matrix.You need to see it if you haven't.Why would they do so for the same reasons we would if we could.Then it all becomes a statistical probability not so different from the Drakes equation.Then you also need to ask is it scientifically possible at all. And could such a technology exists in the future and be able to reach into the past for souls at the moments of death.One things for sure the odds on this go up with not only more but with older universes as well.
Its just posted this same argument on Usenet just recently
Dale

Hans Bodlaender, January 2003, hansb@cs.uu.nl


I feel as if I am a small boy holding but a teaspoon of knowledge standing before the Infinity Ocean of all knowledge
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><div align="right"></div id="right">

Knowledge of a question is Knowledge.Knowledge of an original question is original Knowledge.

Dale and others interesting, I am new to the forum but what I read I find very interesting. I am going in you an eye op tommorrow and will come back later with a more comprehensive answer.


"Dale wrote"
"Now my alternative theory suggests an older previous universes and not one but many.So what are the odds of one of these civilizations coming to the conclusion that their was no god and had the means to not only create one but even create an afterlife world much like in the Matrix

This is a nice I idea and I really like interseting speculation, without speculation you get stagnation dont you?

With an older universe or superuniverse we still sit with the problem of "Infinite Regression" Where did the Superuniverse come from etc etc??

I feel as if I am a small boy holding but a teaspoon of knowledge standing before the Infinity Ocean of all knowledge

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Alan McDougall</i>
<br />Dale and others interesting, I am new to the forum but what I read I find very interesting. I am going in you an eye op tommorrow and will come back later with a more comprehensive answer.


"Dale wrote"
"Now my alternative theory suggests an older previous universes and not one but many.So what are the odds of one of these civilizations coming to the conclusion that their was no god and had the means to not only create one but even create an afterlife world much like in the Matrix

This is a nice I idea and I really like interseting speculation, without speculation you get stagnation dont you?

Dale wrote:
Lots of speculation here but the stuff on time dilation expanding space is really more of a theory.Its subject to falsification because it has quantitative predictions that if proven wrong will disprove the theory.Long as you can propose experiments something can be considered a theory.

With an older universe or superuniverse we still sit with the problem of "Infinite Regression" Where did the Superuniverse come from etc etc??

Dale wrote:Yes that part of this theory might be a bit of a problem.Since it only looks at how this and similar universes get started it really doesn't have to look at how the first universe started or at least not for now.Like on one episode of DrWho where I think he said something like, what dose it mean created before time.After all the creation of time might be for each new universe the creation of time to its prospective but its not literally the creation of time literally.
But this alternative theory dose say that the universes we are inside of has a much faster time than we have and is probably dead of heat death by now if it has not been consumed by our universe.Any inhabitants of that universe would have needed to have migrated to ours and similar other newer universes.
I have read that as black holes get larger it takes less and less mass to increase their sizes.Remember the stuff about how they were trying to estimate if our universe were open or closed and that some of this has to do with having enough mass to curve light enough to travel all the way around and arrive coming towards our backs.I am interested in if anyone has looked at the idea that if all the mass of our universe were be put into one large black hole would that black hole become large enough to include all of the space in our space.In other words would it become large enough that you could find no place to go where you would not be inside of the level where light is bent enough to complete this same circular path.I think I remember it being called the 3m level.
There is potentially a lot to this alternative theory and new ideas are not uncommon for me.Remember if a theory is wrong then everything developed after it will be wrong and will even get more bazaar. However if the basic theory is right then it gets really easy to develop newer related theory's or at least hypothesis that make sense.Starting with a good foundation makes later developments easier.Occam's razer favors this alternative theory.Dale


I feel as if I am a small boy holding but a teaspoon of knowledge standing before the Infinity Ocean of all knowledge
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Knowledge of a question is Knowledge.Knowledge of an original question is original Knowledge.

Dale,

Dale said;
""If you have been reading my other postings here you will remember I promote a different theory.If we are inside a black hole within another space ask yourself what would happen if you started making mass disappear from such a universe.It would get to the point where you do not have enough mass to retain its properties as a black hole for its outside observers and it would of course explode into its original universe.You cannot have space without mass and if you have too much mass it also cannot exist without becoming unstable and collapsing into numerous other black holes each creating their own versions of space.""

While might reside in a black hole it is also possible that the universe is the result of a white hole


I feel as if I am a small boy holding but a teaspoon of knowledge standing before the Infinity Ocean of all knowledge