The WLC/SC "Something From Nothing" Cosmology Thread

[_Philo Sofee]

Which brings up the question is there really such a thing as nothing? We have no actual examples of it, except as a concept in our minds, kinda like God....

[_DrW]

If one were to take a box and remove every particle, creating a perfect vacuum (i.e. 'nothing' inside the box), that box would still be filled with quantum fields. Because of the waves propagating along these fields, particles "pop" into and out of existence. These particles - the effects of vibrations or excitations in quantized fields - can be detected with experimental apparatus properly set up to demonstrate the Casmir effect. Something from nothing.

Well, what I wanted to write was - Isn't the 'quantum field' a 'thing'? So, therefore, not something from nothing. Something from something. But then I googled quantum field theory and realized I might be in over my head, or have case of Dunning-Kruger....so I didn't.

Hey tana,

In the first draft of this thread OP (which went into the recycle bin) I noted that you had posted a question about 'something from nothing' earlier this year - one to which I was unable to respond at the time.

Your question is one that anyone who thinks much about QFT is bound to ask at some point (me included). I'll post a direct response tomorrow. There will no doubt be responses from others as well.

Good to see you back on MDB, at least now and then. Trust you are doing well.

[_Dantana]

Hey tana,

In the first draft of this thread OP (which went into the recycle bin) I noted that you had posted a question about 'something from nothing' earlier this year - one to which I was unable to respond at the time.

Your question is one that anyone who thinks much about QFT is bound to ask at some point (me included). I'll post a direct response tomorrow. There will no doubt be responses from others as well.

Good to see you back on MormonDiscussions.com, at least now and then. Trust you are doing well.

Thanks Dr.W! All is still well out here in Oregon.

So, my intimation is that naturalism theory desires to present that the matter that constitutes existence, and therefore existence itself came into being spontaneously. Because the alternative - matter/existence just is and is eternal - is harder to/impossible to explain using the scientific method.

The problem I see with matter coming into existence from non-existence is it is just as woo-ful as a Deepak Ramtha novel.

[_Chap]

The problem I see with matter coming into existence from non-existence is it is just as woo-ful as a Deepak Ramtha novel.

I think you need to consider the possibility that the two categories you have just used in that sentence - 'existence' and 'non-existence' don't really work very well when you leave the macroscopic non-quantum world that our central nervous system has evolved to deal with.

So it's not surprising that your program crashes when you try to use it out of its proper range of application. It's not the fault of the physics, which does not really use concepts like that any more. The same applies to the common-sense notions of causality that Aristotle elaborated in his analysis of 'coming into being and passing away'. People take it for granted in everyday life that 'things can't happen without a cause', just like 'nothing can come out of nothing'. But if you look at the world at the quantum scale, the rules of the game don't seem to work like that any more.

If however you learn the right language to talk about this stuff, the language of mathematics, it all makes pretty good sense.

[_Maksutov]

Deepak Ramtha novel

That's pretty good.

[_DrW]

If one were to take a box and remove every particle, creating a perfect vacuum (i.e. 'nothing' inside the box), that box would still be filled with quantum fields. Because of the waves propagating along these fields, particles "pop" into and out of existence. These particles - the effects of vibrations or excitations in quantized fields - can be detected with experimental apparatus properly set up to demonstrate the Casmir effect. Something from nothing.

Well, what I wanted to write was - Isn't the 'quantum field' a 'thing'? So, therefore, not something from nothing. Something from something. But then I googled quantum field theory and realized I might be in over my head, or have case of Dunning-Kruger....so I didn't.

Keeping in mind Dean Robber's comments upthread regarding the difference between physics (herein, something vs. nothing) and metaphysics (herein, existence vs. non-existence), and doing our best too stick with physics, let's go back to the 'empty box' and take an inventory.

As I described it, Sir Isaac Newton would probably agree that once every last particle of air was removed from the box it would be empty. That is, there would be nothing inside the box.

Michael Faraday might point out that the box could still contain an electromagnetic field and suggest the box be made of a good conductor and grounded, just to be sure that there was really nothing inside the box.

After say 1920, Albert Einstein would say that such a box here on Earth would be in a gravitational field, and that there would be a slightly warped space-time within the box. However, since he was still not all that comfortable with quantum mechanics, he would probably agree that, for all intent and purposes, Faraday's box was as empty as one could make it in this universe.

Richard Feynman, who developed further some of the Paul Dirac's concepts and formalized QFT might point out that any box, inside which was a perfect vacuum, would still contain vacuum energy, and that this energy, weak as it is, is largely responsible for the expansion of the space in the universe (about 68 km/s per megaparsec.)

John Wheeler, Lee Smolin and Carlo Rovelli might argue that (as described upthread) spacetime itself is quantized and a manifestation of the gravitational field. Having developed loop quantum gravity (LQG) theory to reconcile QFT and general relativity, they would tell you that the empty box contained spin foam. They would point to the Casimir effect (described upthread) as a manifestation of this quantized spacetime and the resulting spin foam networks of LQG theory.

Considering the above, one who is interested in determining for themselves if there is something in the box might realize that these quantum fields, although they may sound like a type of aether, cannot be considered as a physical medium. Otherwise, there would be a conflict with special relativity. Special relativity has been on solid footing for more than a century, so quantum fields are not a physical medium.

So, is there something inside the box?

Thousands of books and papers related to the question of what might be in such a box have been written. And (I really hate to say this) the answer depends, to a great extent, on one's definition of nothing.

From my foxhole, I would point out that one strict definition of nothing might be no matter and no energy, which would, in turn, mean no gravity, which would mean no spacetime. It turns out that an eternal quantum field in the ground state would meet this definition of nothing.

By this strict definition of nothing, however, there would not even be a box, let alone anyone to worry about whether or not it was truly empty.

[_Philo Sofee]

DrW

Did I tell you just how enjoyable you are to read? This board is my favorite board in existence for all the stellar and outstanding posters and their ideas, and yours are certainly in the upper echelons of just pure joy to read. Now don't you go letting that go to yer head amigo, but thank you for posting your ideas and knowledge. Damn life is good when we can learn and see contexts that are entertaining, informative, useful, and thought provoking. You always score very high on those points in your posts.

[_Bret Ripley]

By this strict definition of nothing, however, there would not even be a box, let alone anyone to worry about whether or not it was truly empty.

I worry, therefore I am.

I'd like to add my voice to those who have expressed gratitude to DrW and others who have taken the time to offer explanations for things like QFT for the benefit of those of us who lack the background to readily grok this stuff. Cheers.

[_Gadianton]

I'm pretty sure most of us learned something from that last post. I've nearly responded to it and then deleted a couple of times this morning. Let me just throw this out: is a D-Brane physical?

[_Res Ipsa]

Thanks for that post, DrW. I’ve never learned so much from a post about nothing. Great explanation.