Something from Nothing

[Nik]

Back on topic, sort-of, there was an interesting news item recently that, if I understood it, suggested that anti-matter and normal matter might be gravitationally repellent...

Given the low masses involved, this would not affect individual collisions and annihilation reactions, but would tend to push supra-galactic-scale matter and anti-matter apart...

What this does to Higgs Fields etc boggles the imagination...

[Interference]

Presumably the improved theory pushes the place-holder theory out of the way completely.

[Ursa major]

If the separation was already underway as Inflation** took over, could this explain why our universe, i.e. the observable (part of the) universe, is mostly matter? (And that its antimatter counterpart is somewhere in the unobservable (part of the) universe.)







** - This is not to be taken as meaning I accept that Inflation did occur. Inflation (with its Inflaton Field) sounds like another shoehorned explanation for something that we cannot currently explain by more plausible means.)

[Luc Valentine]

The question is more properly within the realm of metaphysics than physics, methinks. Generally, we think of "something" as existence and of "nothing" as nonexistence. This nonexistant state is far more than a simple vacuum, it is the preclusion of even the possibility of existence within or apart from a given existant state.

Consider the binary pair 0 and 1. Information theorists conjecture that from these two "states" alone, a virtual (or real for that matter) infinity of existant states can be constructed. Rephrased, the question is, Where did 1 come from? But one may as well ask where did 0 come from? Each is dependent upon the other for its definition.

Now consider this:

monality: the "existence" of an extant state or states. A uniform universe in which the only existent state is 1.

duality: the simultaneous (or extant) existence of 2 states of being.

plurality: the simultaneous (or extant) existence of more than 2 states of being.

In a strictly dualistic system, the universe (or existence) is like the binary system, with two states of being and "everything" is some combination of the two states. In a pluralistic system, higher levels of existence (or at least different levels) come into being without the dual foundation. For example, 0 and 1 is one state, 0 and 1prime is another state, 0 and 2 is yet another (leaving aside the question, where did 2 come from).

Now as to perception of existence. This requires either a dualistic reality or a monistic reality capable of subjecting itself to observation. Or a pluralistic existence.

The key to "existence" within the confines of this thinking is some differentiation, even if it is the monad as differentiated considering itself as the differential. The subject considering itself as the object. Regardless, there are (at least) two separate and identifiable states.

Now say, for the sake of argument, the "nothing" does not exist, that all is "something". It need not even be homogenous. Then the creation of nothingness causes the being/nonbeing duality to come about. I submit that to ask, "Can something come from nothing?" is the same, metaphysically speaking, as to ask, "Can nothing come from something?"

So if we can define "existence" or equate zero with infinity, we'll have our answer. But here, I veer off topic.

[Interference]

If nothing is the point from which this thread originated, then any post is something and thus on-topic. Q.E.D.

[Metryq]

If one has three and two has three, three has five and four has four, then thirteen will have eight!

[Interference]

I think four has twelve, but otherwise I concur.

[Luc Valentine]

There are at least two states or we wouldn't be having this pleasant conversation. Unless we're all part of a monad, which theory I don't dismiss.

[Metryq]

Int, that's a BS piece I keep tucked away when I want to confuse people. It's the number of letters in each word. Read it again. (One has three...) By adding "if/then" and "therefore" they go crazy trying to figure it out.

[Interference]

Ah, I got my BS mixed up with my Codology.

[RJM Corbet]

It's back to the same thing? What exists, in terms of space/time, is all that we recognize as 'existence'. But thought exists? Yes, I know thought can be 'measured' in a very primitive way, by identifying electrical/neurological impulses in the brain. But ...

[Luc Valentine]

The universe was created out of nothing. Or there is no nothing. 0 and 1 are not the only binary states. Infinity and finitude are another binary state. Any binary state can construct a universe.

This short, informative video illustrates how the universe was created from nothing:

YouTube - The Universe - Created Out Of Nothing?

[Metryq]

Originally Posted by Luc Valentine

The universe was created out of nothing. Or there is no nothing.

Still sounds like word games to me. The "zero point energy" or "quantum foam" is what an electrical engineer would call a "floating ground." Our science is nowhere near ready to answer the question of where the universe came from. But some people feel the need for a beginning and an end. Infinity is too frightening, and beginnings and endings give a sense of closure. But "turtles all the way down" is not science, or even satisfying philosophy.

[Luc Valentine]

More than mere word games, methinks. Consider: The "quantum foam", whatever it is, is infinite, and the universe came into being not from nothingness, but quite the opposite. It came from a differentiation of something finite within the infinity.

[RJM Corbet]

Originally Posted by Luc Valentine

More than mere word games, methinks. Consider: The "quantum foam", whatever it is, is infinite, and the universe came into being not from nothingness, but quite the opposite. It came from a differentiation of something finite within the infinity.

Which brings it back to the Brane theory? The 1/0 +/- yin/yang interraction? But darkness is not the opposite of light. It is the lack of light. Darkness is finite, light gets infinitely brighter: a candle, a sun, ten million suns -- there is no top end. Cold is not the opposite, but the lack of heat: absolute zero is when everything stops moving, and hence, ceases to exist, but heat, like light, has no top end. So it becomes a case of whether nothingness is the opposite, or the lack, of somethingness? Cool video. Thank you