Something From Nothing? The Origin And Subsequent Inflation Of The Singularity.

Something from nothing? Really? In the middle ages the scientists of the day were avid proponents of "spontaneous generation", the idea that maggots sprung into existence in rotting flesh. And that was a long held assumption. And now in 2015 we have scientists who say the singularity arose out of nothing. And not only that, they also say that even with nothing to act on the singularity, it somehow was moved to change its state and begin to inflate(the big bang). So no need for a cause to lead to the effect, apparently. So did something arise from nothing and eventually lead to us? What say you, ATS?

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
Something from nothing? Really? In the middle ages the scientists of the day were avid proponents of "spontaneous generation", the idea that maggots sprung into existence in rotting flesh. And that was a long held assumption. And now in 2015 we have scientists who say the singularity arose out of nothing. And not only that, they also say that even with nothing to act on the singularity, it somehow was moved to change its state and begin to inflate(the big bang). So no need for a cause to lead to the effect, apparently. So did something arise from nothing and eventually lead to us? What say you, ATS?

Your not understanding the difference between quantum physics and normal physics. In normal physics you can't have something frome nothing. In quantum physics I'm not sure there is a nothing. If I'm right. In quantum physics there is no nothing. It's all a swirling mass of microscopic black holes, worm holes and such.

You will not find a credible particle physicist who claims that the singularity arose from nothing.

This claim is a strawman usually put forth by people who are trying to debunk science.

I advise reading lawrence Krauss's "a universe from nothing" (the title is sarcastic). Or you can watch his videos on youtube. He is a nobel winning particle physicist. His work has led to many new discoveries.

youtu.be...

a reply to: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: Woodcarver
You will not find a credible particle physicist who claims that the singularity arose from nothing.

This claim is a strawman usually put forth by people who are trying to debunk science.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

So the singularity just always.existed? And how far back does "always" go?

I edited my post with a link.

It takes a decade of study to really grasp the concepts involved in a discussion like this. It cannot be summed up in a few posts on any forum. It really takes dedicated study to understand.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: Woodcarver
You will not find a credible particle physicist who claims that the singularity arose from nothing.

This claim is a strawman usually put forth by people who are trying to debunk science.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

So the singularity just always.existed? And how far back does "always" go?

The idea is that it existed in a different form before the expansion of space. So the beginning of our universe would not really be the beginning of everything. Just everything that we could interact with.

The best answer, the only true answer, is that we don't know exactly.

Thats why we need more people to become interested in the actual science so that we can further our understanding.

Armchair scientists, pseudoscientist, and uneducated wild speculators, are the bane of all progress.

There are several competing theories for how the particles that make up the physical world interact. These theories are generally worked up by the professors and students at different universities or teams made up from combinations of the above.

None of these theories are complete. That is, they do not offer a complete explanation, and are full of unexplained processes. But they are all generally valid in the claims that they do make. In another decade these theories will be added upon and they will give a slightly better explanation of what we observe. Progress is slow because of the limited amount of properly trained scientists. Not to mention all of the garbage that unproperly trained scientists come up with. Progress is always a battle on many fronts.


a reply to: MissSmartypants

The idea is that it existed in a different form before the expansion of space. So the beginning of our universe would not really be the beginning of everything.

a reply to: Woodcarver I have heard it said that the scientist can only account for 4% of the universe and that the other 96% is made up of dark matter ,black holes ,and things we cant prove but know that are there . Imagine only having a small percentage of that 4% of matter in which to draw conclusions on the other 96+% of the universe . That is a very small sample of data .You say everything but we know so little about our own planet in which we find new species on land and have a fraction of knowledge of the deep oceans . Surly we humans cannot give ourselves a passing grade with such small amount of knowledge . Most of the scientific literature holds words like could be , maybe ,suppose and other such none empirical terms . Yes we do have a lot to learn but 10 years is too short a time frame to even consider scratching the surface of what may be . ETA ..something that science should really take serious and then work on one theory at a time instead of several at once .Surely they can use math to reduce it down to the most probable .

There is no such thing as nothing. Empty space without anything in it is not "nothing". The reason science has to postulate something from nothing (in violation of their own rules) is that as humans trapped in the 'third dimension' our "scope" of understanding is bound by our perspective. We can't imagine the rest of the Universe because we can't… 'see ' it. For example, 2D flatlanders can't see up, they might be able to imagine it, but they can't "see" it.

Something doesn't have to come from "nothing" if its always been there.

In my opinion our big bang is only one along a infinite number of them. Energy cannot be created or destroyed and all matter derives from energy. The universe is eternal, and we as it's expressions are eternal as well.

Big bang, big crunch, big bang, big crunch, ad infinitum. Everything works in cycles, why would the universe be any different? This is only one cycle among eternity.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

Why cant the singularity come from nothing?

If there only existed one state before the singularity appeard we would Call that state nothingness. That means nothingness would have to exist.

Since science only know a fraction about Our universe,,,"The singularity". Science would know nothing about the nothingness. since science is the study of finite.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
There are several competing theories for how the particles that make up the physical world interact. These theories are generally worked up by the professors and students at different universities or teams made up from combinations of the above.

None of these theories are complete. That is, they do not offer a complete explanation, and are full of unexplained processes. But they are all generally valid in the claims that they do make. In another decade these theories will be added upon and they will give a slightly better explanation of what we observe. Progress is slow because of the limited amount of properly trained scientists. Not to mention all of the garbage that unproperly trained scientists come up with. Progress is always a battle on many fronts.


a reply to: MissSmartypants

So in other words they and you don't know either. Even we nonscientists feel the need to ponder such things. I just wish I had more math. And again, if it always existed in some other form...when did always start and what caused it to start?

originally posted by: the2ofusr1

The idea is that it existed in a different form before the expansion of space. So the beginning of our universe would not really be the beginning of everything.

a reply to: Woodcarver I have heard it said that the scientist can only account for 4% of the universe and that the other 96% is made up of dark matter ,black holes ,and things we cant prove but know that are there . Imagine only having a small percentage of that 4% of matter in which to draw conclusions on the other 96+% of the universe . That is a very small sample of data .You say everything but we know so little about our own planet in which we find new species on land and have a fraction of knowledge of the deep oceans . Surly we humans cannot give ourselves a passing grade with such small amount of knowledge . Most of the scientific literature holds words like could be , maybe ,suppose and other such none empirical terms . Yes we do have a lot to learn but 10 years is too short a time frame to even consider scratching the surface of what may be . ETA ..something that science should really take serious and then work on one theory at a time instead of several at once .Surely they can use math to reduce it down to the most probable .

You make a good point about dark matter. Its like trying to figure out what an apple taste like when all you can do is look at the peel.

The universe is eternal, and we as it's expressions are eternal as well.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1 Then how was it possible for scientist to measure the back ground radiation from their big bang .Take a particle and keep dividing it until it what? ceases to exist ? no until it looses locality .So it has limitations as well as the universe . If you say it goes out and then comes back then you are saying it is not infinite but does have it's limitations .

Knowledge has it's limits and scopes . If science is dealing with empirical evidence then they have limits that should not project past the scope of that evidence . To do so becomes science fiction . a reply to: MissSmartypants Chuck messier looks at the myths of science ,past, present and one can only limit the myth to the imagination of man ability to imagine .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I don't understand your question. The scientists can detect the radiation because there was a big bang, I just don't believe it was the first to happen.

You cannot make something from nothing meaning this something has always existed in one form or another, this just so happens to be it's current form.

There was a signature associated with a back ground .The signal may be a reflection off of some sort of boundary but it would mean that space has it's limits .If not then the signal would not have been able to have been recovered .Similar to a sound bouncing back off a mountain. Without the background of the mountain the sound would not echo and come back . a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

originally posted by: Woodcarver
I edited my post with a link.

It takes a decade of study to really grasp the concepts involved in a discussion like this. It cannot be summed up in a few posts on any forum. It really takes dedicated study to understand.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

If your being honest, even with decades of study none of us really understand it yet. Not Krause not Tyson ( which they have no problem admitting). We can measure some stuff and kinda think we know the broad strokes , but it's still mainly a mystery.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

Personally, I'm a believer in a "duality". TWO things that hit eachother head on, really fast.

If a singularity seems hard to imagine as the "beginning" if something can't come from nothing, a duality solves the problem and tells us that everything has always existed and our "little" bang was just a traffic incident.

This assumption is based on the premise that the universe is the entirety of all existence. If we were to prove other existences outside of the universe, then we can postulate that another reality gave birth to this one.