The WLC/SC "Something From Nothing" Cosmology Thread

[_Dantana]

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.

I get it that some laws of physics don't cross the border into the Q., but that doesn't mean terms can't. It doesn't take sophistication or science degrees to use a straightforward rendering of the term nothing, or non-existence.

As per Dr.W - "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.

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."

[Guest]

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?

Dean Robbers,

Let me guess - and please stop me if I'm wrong here: to keep abreast of things, you have made an effort to learn a bit about string theory, superstring theory, and M theory.

In doing so, you were first required to think in 10 (or more) dimensions. You were informed that strings are one dimensional constructs of size on the order of Planck length. They have mass and charge and can terminate on surfaces called branes (short for membranes), which branes can vibrate. The quanta of the vibrations could be, for example, quarks or anti-quarks. Since they have charge, electromagnetic fields must be carried within the branes, etc., etc.

You struggled to get your mind around the mathematical constructs involved. But there were just so many competing claims, variations and versions that at some point, you realized that there was really no point - because there would never be any way to validate string theory in the real world anyway. So you sort of set it aside - on the shelf so to speak.

When the Higgs boson was finally detected and confirmed at the LHC*, you might have rushed to see if the Higgs field would help clarify or support string theory. It was then you realized that these mathematical constructs were so esoteric and removed from everyday reality, that what was probably the most important scientific finding for nearly a century had no impact. String theory was pretty much agnostic regarding the Higgs field, which confers mass. Strings already have mass.

At that point, if not before, you may have even thrown up your hands and gone out for drink. If so, you would have had the company, in spirit at least, of more than a few physicists along the way.

I do not pretend to know what the hell D-branes really are. I doubt that many who work with them do, beyond the fact that they are mathematical constructs. (I have seen mathematicians working on string theory say as much on tape.)

However, since D-branes vibrate, and since quanta of these vibrations can manifest as particles, one might say that they are analogous to quantum fields. One caution here is that the strings do have mass and charge, which, in LQG, are manifestation of excitation in, or interactions among, quantum fields and not a attribute of the quantum field itself.

So, given that strings have mass and charge, my guess would be that the D-branes to which they attach are mathematical constructs that are intended to have a physical interpretation.

What's your guess?
___________________________________

ETA:

*Another reason that interest in string theory is waning, is that the upgraded LHC, after some two years of operation, has failed to detected any of the supersymmetric particles predicted by superstring theory.

In the meantime, loop quantum gravity LQG) was given a boost by detection of the Higgs boson and progress since then has remained steady.

[_Res Ipsa]

Damn, get out of my head, Dr. W.

[_DrW]

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.

I get it that some laws of physics don't cross the border into the Q., but that doesn't mean terms can't. It doesn't take sophistication or science degrees to use a straightforward rendering of the term nothing, or non-existence.

As per Dr.W - "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.

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."

tana,

I'm curious to know why you left out the following sentence in between the first and second paragraphs in the post quoted above.

It turns out that an eternal quantum field in the ground state would meet this definition of nothing.

Is it because (as you seemed to indicate upthread) you have a problem with the concept of anything eternal?

[_Ceeboo]

So, is there something inside the box?

Yes.



But the box really should be a little bigger.

(Thanks for all the thread contributions, Dr. W - Good stuff!)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[Guest]

I'm curious to know why you left out the following sentence in between the first and second paragraphs in the post quoted above.

It turns out that an eternal quantum field in the ground state would meet this definition of nothing.

Is it because (as you seemed to indicate upthread) you have a problem with the concept of anything eternal?

Because it seems to me it is simply an immeasurable mechanism that evades the 'nothing' criteria, that causes 'things'.

And it worked for my purposes in responding to Chap

Edit add, I will edit the posting in question if you would like me to.

[_Dantana]

Definitions:
Matter; Atoms, molecules, motorbikes.

Particles; Subatomic 'objects' and all processes, fields, forces, mechanisms that cause them to become physically observable/measurable.

Forces; Gravity, electromagnetic, nuclear and all currently immeasurable forces. E.g., dark energy.

Nothing; Axiomatic. I.e., non-existence of all measurable or non-measurable forces or particles.

So, using the scientific method, how can particles and forces come into existence from nothing?

[_Dantana]

Is it because (as you seemed to indicate upthread) you have a problem with the concept of anything eternal?

No. I was attempting to suggest that perhaps naturalism theory has a problem with eternal particles and forces.

I lean toward a pantheistic worldview

[Guest]

Definitions:
Matter; Atoms, molecules, motorbikes.

Particles; Subatomic 'objects' and all processes, fields, forces, mechanisms that cause them to become physically observable/measurable.

Forces; Gravity, electromagnetic, nuclear and all currently immeasurable forces. E.g., dark energy.

Nothing; Axiomatic. I.e., non-existence of all measurable or non-measurable forces or particles.

So, using the scientific method, how can particles and forces come into existence from nothing?

tana,

The best one can do in response here is to refer to Chap's post upthread regarding the fact that a real understanding of the physics (as opposed to metaphysics), and the ability to use physics theories and models, is achieved through mathematics.

This has been true from Isaac Newton, who invented new math (a form of calculus) to accurately describe his mechanics, to Faraday and Maxwell to describe electromagnetics, to Einstein for special and general relativity, to Shroedinger, Boltzman, Dirac, and others for quantum mechanics, to Feynmann and others for QFT.

Today the challenge to develop useful math needed in the quest for a theory of everything is being taken up by any number of workers.

Math has been used to lead the way from a view of the universe as comprised of Earth, Fire, Air and Water, to one comprised simply of the covariant quantum fields of the (not quite ready for prime time) LQG theory of everything.

If you lean toward a pantheistic worldview, then perhaps covariant quantum field theory is the theology you seek;-)

As to the metaphysical aspects of your question, my view is that the "nothing" from which "something" comes is comprised of ground state covariant quantum fields layered upon one another. I have no problem with these quantum fields being eternal.

This view is absolutely consistent with the standard model of particle physics, as well as what science knows regarding vacuum energy and the shape and future of the universe -
flat*, open, or closed. In a closed universe gravity would eventually win over vacuum energy and such a universe would eventually stop expanding and collapse back to a singularity. (Big Bang to Big Crunch.)

______________________________

ETA: Looks as though this universe is flat - the most stable, and therefore optimal, configuration as far as we are concerned.

[_DrW]

So, is there something inside the box?

Yes.



But the box really should be a little bigger.

(Thanks for all the thread contributions, Dr. W - Good stuff!)

Peace,
Ceeboo

Hey Ceeboo,

It's been a while.

Hope you and yours are doing well this Christmas season.

Oh, and Peace.