The black hole at the birth of the Universe

Aug 08, 2014 by Colin Hunter
The Birth of Universe. Credit: Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics

Our universe may have emerged from a black hole in a higher-dimensional universe, propose a trio of Perimeter Institute researchers.

The poses a big question: if it was indeed the cataclysm that blasted our into existence 13.7 billion years ago, what sparked it?

Three Perimeter Institute researchers have a new idea about what might have come before the big bang. It's a bit perplexing, but it is grounded in sound mathematics, testable, and enticing enough to earn the cover story in Scientific American, called "The Black Hole at the Beginning of Time."

What we perceive as the big bang, they argue, could be the three-dimensional "mirage" of a collapsing star in a universe profoundly different than our own.

"Cosmology's greatest challenge is understanding the big bang itself," write Perimeter Institute Associate Faculty member Niayesh Afshordi, Affiliate Faculty member and University of Waterloo professor Robert Mann, and PhD student Razieh Pourhasan.

Conventional understanding holds that the big bang began with a singularity – an unfathomably hot and dense phenomenon of spacetime where the standard laws of physics break down. Singularities are bizarre, and our understanding of them is limited.

"For all physicists know, dragons could have come flying out of the singularity," Afshordi says in an interview with Nature.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

The problem, as the authors see it, is that the big bang hypothesis has our relatively comprehensible, uniform, and predictable universe arising from the physics-destroying insanity of a singularity. It seems unlikely.

So perhaps something else happened. Perhaps our universe was never singular in the first place.

Their suggestion: our known universe could be the three-dimensional "wrapping" around a four-dimensional black hole's event horizon. In this scenario, our universe burst into being when a star in a four-dimensional universe collapsed into a black hole.

In our three-dimensional universe, have two-dimensional event horizons – that is, they are surrounded by a two-dimensional boundary that marks the "point of no return." In the case of a four-dimensional universe, a black hole would have a three-dimensional event horizon.

In their proposed scenario, our universe was never inside the singularity; rather, it came into being outside an event horizon, protected from the . It originated as – and remains – just one feature in the imploded wreck of a four-dimensional star.

The researchers emphasize that this idea, though it may sound "absurd," is grounded firmly in the best modern mathematics describing space and time. Specifically, they've used the tools of holography to "turn the big bang into a cosmic mirage." Along the way, their model appears to address long-standing cosmological puzzles and – crucially – produce testable predictions.

Of course, our intuition tends to recoil at the idea that everything and everyone we know emerged from the of a single four-dimensional black hole. We have no concept of what a four-dimensional universe might look like. We don't know how a four-dimensional "parent" universe itself came to be.

But our fallible human intuitions, the researchers argue, evolved in a three-dimensional world that may only reveal shadows of reality.

They draw a parallel to Plato's allegory of the cave, in which prisoners spend their lives seeing only the flickering shadows cast by a fire on a cavern wall.

"Their shackles have prevented them from perceiving the true world, a realm with one additional dimension," they write. "Plato's prisoners didn't understand the powers behind the sun, just as we don't understand the four-dimensional bulk universe. But at least they knew where to look for answers."

Explore further: Astrophysicists duo propose Planck star as core of black holes

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

How fast do black holes spin?

Feb 14, 2014

There is nothing in the Universe more awe inspiring or mysterious than a black hole. Because of their massive gravity and ability to absorb even light, they defy our attempts to understand them. All their ...

New work gives credence to theory of universe as a hologram

Dec 13, 2013

(Phys.org) —In publishing a story regarding work reported by Japanese physicists last month, Nature News has set off a bit of a tabloid firestorm by describing an obscure bit of physics theory as "the clearest evide ...

How much of the universe is black holes?

Jun 17, 2014

We all fear black holes, but how many of them are there out there, really? Between the stellar mass black holes and the supermassive ones, just how much of our Universe is black holes?

Recommended for you

User comments : 154

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Expiorer
1 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2014
so we can trip around our universe flying in straight line?
Pexeso
1.2 / 5 (14) Aug 08, 2014
The ideas of multiverse and hypothetical four-dimensional universe is just a transition of contemporary limited Universe model to infinite ethernal Universe. The current red shift can be explained simply with scattering of light at the quantum fluctuations of vacuum, i.e. in similar way, like the contraction of ripples at the water surface with increasing distance from source. This contraction accelerated which leads into analogy of dark matter and occasionally singularity at the visibility scope.

water surface analogy of the red shift

This model is natural but it considers, our Universe is a part of wider hyperdimensional reality too, because the scattering of light is provided with extradimensions of space-time in the same way, like the scattering of ripple at the 2D water surface is provided with additional dimension of underwater.
Pexeso
1.2 / 5 (14) Aug 08, 2014
On the other hand, the light scattering model doesn't require any particular history of this hyperdimensional Universe. Every observer in it would observe the same past, no matter where his actual location in this hyperuniverse is. At the moment, when you consider the existence of some black/white/whatever hole at the very beginning, then you introduce a reference frame into it, center of expansion and violation of cosmological principle.

The physicists should finally decide, whether the boundary of universe is given only arbitrarily (i.e. with distance, at which the perceived speed of alleged universe expansion exceeds the speed of light), or the whether the Universe has some fixed age and as such size. The recent observations indicate, that the size of Universe is not limited with anything with exception of the said scattering of light.
Pexeso
1.2 / 5 (15) Aug 08, 2014
so we can trip around our universe flying in straight line?
Nope if the universe has no boundary. But at the water surface every big splash gets scattered into underwater and after then it's very subtle portion may return back again in form of echo composed of underwater sound waves, which are much faster, so that they would seemingly violate the causality for observer of surface ripples.

Analogously, if we would observe a huge splash in our Universe for example during black hole explosion, then it should lead into gradual increase of the CMBR noise intensity from all directions like sorta round-trip echo of that event. I presume, when the physicists will stop with their dull search of gravitational waves and when they will focus to monitoring of CMBR noise itself, such a predictions will become testable.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 08, 2014
Do we get 2D universes from collapsing 3D stars? That should be (eventually) testable.

The theory is intriguing. Unfortunately it then would move the 'origin' question into the 4D universe (and possibly up the dimensional ladder forever).
Birger
not rated yet Aug 08, 2014
Didn't Leo Smolin have a similar idea?
Pexeso
1.2 / 5 (14) Aug 08, 2014
it then would move the 'origin' question into the 4D universe (and possibly up the dimensional ladder forever)
But after then we can extrapolate the predictions of lower-dimensional models to higher-dimensional ones and we would converge to dense aether model (which is essentially a infinitely-dimensional model due to infinite number of freedom degree in motion between aether fluctuations). But with increasing number of dimensions the limits of dimensional model will become apparent. In general, I don't like the models based on some fixed geometry or even Cartesian coordinates, as such model introduce ad-hoced geometry into universe - and as Newton said already: the less postulates, the better for theory ("hypotheses non lingo").
Pexeso
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 08, 2014
Didn't Leo Smolin have a similar idea?
The idea, that the Universe originated from black hole is nearly as old, as the Big bang model itself. Smolin added the idea of some heritable hierarchy of universes (cosmologic selection) to it. But all these models are less or more strange, despite some rational core may exist in them. The cosmological selection still supports the notion of some primitive beginning, cosmological time arrow. In this sense it's still anthropocentric - we can just ask why? Why the universe should have some beginning? What will solve it?
Pexeso
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 08, 2014
The notion of Universe beginning follows the idea, that the empty void flat geometry is the natural origin of things. But for me this state is highly artificial and negentropic already: why just zero state everywhere? IMO the natural state of reality is the random state with no other ad-hoced assumptions. In addition, the notion of Universe origin doesn't answer anything - it just brings another recursive questions about origin of that origin.
jim_farrand-sciencex
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2014
I think coverage of this kind of theory ("the universe could be X") falls a bit wide of the mark. This article has gone to great pains to explain how a 3D space could be embedded in a 4D space. But that bit is relatively simple (to this lay-person anyway) - not at all absurd as the article suggests.

What isn't at all clear is this: Is this research simply saying that this is *plausible*, or that the team think that is *likely*. If it's the former, this research seems a lot less interesting - merely an intellectual curiousity at this stage. If it's the latter, that leaves a lot of obvious questions unanswerred. Why a black hole, as opposed to any other 4D object (which matches the right geometry - presumably any 4D sphere-analogue would do)? What are these theoretical predictions that this theory makes which the article hints at but doesn't explain? Do these predictions agree with any current observation or do we need new experiments, and if so what?
Anda
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2014
It's a new idea...
Common, this was published 15-20 years ago in books about string or M theory.
Branes? Sounds a bell?
Jeffhans1
not rated yet Aug 08, 2014
The whole premise for the movie Paycheck involved the universe looping back on itself. This allowed them to get images from the point in the future or past of their choosing.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2014
What isn't at all clear is this: Is this research simply saying that this is *plausible*, or that the team think that is *likely*.

The crucial thing here is that what they propose is *testable* (and is not at odds with already performed observations).

Whether something is 'plausible' or considered 'likely' (by gut feeling) is completely irrelevant in science (other than maybe being the first things to start working on barring any other useful pointers).

What are these theoretical predictions that this theory makes which the article hints at but doesn't explain?

Go to the bottom of the article. Follow the link to the other physorg article from last year. There you will find a link to their last year article freely available on arxiv. All your questions are answered therein.

Common, this was published 15-20 years ago

Not with testabel predictions.
Modernmystic
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2014
The main thing I heard in this article was "testable".

What I didn't hear was how.
frank_shore_9
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2014
The big bang is arose out of the big crunch. QM prevents singularities. It prevents the universe from collapsing to a singularity, just like it prevents electrons from spiraling into the nucleaus of atoms. Current observations claims inflation is accelerating. That is only because we don't understand dark energy, dark matter, and gravity. When these concepts are better understood, we will realize why inflation appears to be accelerating.

Black holes are compressors. Space-time pertains to the shape of the universe. When space-time expands/inflates/explodes it is like tubing that gets larger, like an expansion chamber. When volume increases, temperature-pressure goes down. When space-time contracts/deflates/implodes temperature-pressure of matter-energy increases.

As space-time expands quantum states increase, as space-time contracts quantum states decrease. This gives rise to the illusion of time. It is the reason for the 2LoT and entropy. Entropy decreases in an expanding universe
frank_shore_9
2.4 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2014
Entropy increases in an expanding universe or space-time, and decreases in an imploding universe or space-time. The big bang is an example of space-time increasing in volume the matter-energy becoming my spread-out. The black holes and the big crunch (which is nothing more than a big black hole) is an example of space-time decreasing in volume and matter-energy becoming more concentrated.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2014
Frank.
Not sure what all you were just trying to say.
But, I'd say - maybe you should ease up on guzzling of all those energy drinks...
either that or it must be the steroids...
arpotu
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2014
To me, this is very old news. There is no discernible difference between our cosmos and a black hole except time and the amount of matter which has transversed the event horizon.
arpotu
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2014
Do we get 2D universes from collapsing 3D stars?


More likely that we see (almost) combined primal forces at that moment. Remember, before a normal star can become a singularity, it first becomes a neutron star. This implies that (barring free neutron decay), protons and electrons have been squeezed outside of the core.
arpotu
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2014
Black holes already have maximum entropic (information) density. Rather than compressing, they grow in direct proportion to the information passing into their event horizon. This is how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not violated. In addition, you can never reduce the entropy of a system by adding information to it.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2014
Black holes already have maximum entropic (information) density.

How do you know this?

Why are you calling "entropic" processes "information"? I'm not disputing it, just trying to follow your reasoning.

Rather than compressing, they grow in direct proportion to the information passing into their event horizon.


Clarify what you mean by "information".

This is how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not violated. In addition, you can never reduce the entropy of a system by adding information to it.


Entropy simply put, is defined as "distribution of energy" in a closed system. It isn't clear to me what you are labeling as being "information". The electro-magnetic spectrum?
Shootist
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2014
The current red shift can be explained simply with scattering of light at the quantum fluctuations of vacuum



No, it cannot be explained simply, or otherwise, as a scattering of light at the (mythical) quantum fluctuations of vacuum.
Urgelt
5 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2014
Just a clarification. What they've done is to show mathematical 'plausibility.' They have not provided proof of their hypothesis. As for the hypothesis being 'testable,' the article here doesn't say much about how they would go about that. I'm a bit skeptical that they can think up convincing tests, myself.

This hypothesis is extraordinarily strange, and so we must demand extraordinary proof before we all shout 'eureka!' and celebrate a newly-learned truth in physics.
Grallen
5 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2014
If our universe is the event horizon of a 4d universes black hole. Where is the evidence of an influx of new matter?

Theoretically time should be moving slower in here...
yep
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 09, 2014
Hard to believe this scientific creationism is taken seriously.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2014
The article has a factoid in the sixth paragraph: "Conventional understanding holds that the big bang began with a singularity..." This is incorrect. Current inflationary ΛCDM theory holds that the universe began with a vacuum fluctuation, which had a high negative Λ and therefore underwent inflation. There was at that point nothing in it but Λ. It was not until the universe underwent vacuum decay, when it was already 40 billion light years across, that the Big Bang started, and it happened everywhere, not in a singularity.

This misunderstanding is due to the fairly ridiculous proposal that the universe shrinks to zero size while it's full of matter and energy if you run time backward.

This doesn't affect the theory from the Perimeter Institute paper which does not depend upon this incorrect statement by the writer of the article.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2014
Benni, have a look at this: http://en.wikiped..._entropy

The last paragraph of that section explains the relation between Shannon (i.e. information) entropy, and Gibbs (classical physical) entropy. In addition, it relates the Gibbs entropy to von Neumann (quantum physical) entropy. For more on that last, check out the Fluctuation Theorem.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2014
yep, what "scientific creationism?" If you're speaking of the above article, it's only a conjecture, based mostly upon relativity math. To become a hypothesis it would need to have a testing procedure.
swordsman
1 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2014
Very amusing. Made my day!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2014
If our universe is the event horizon of a 4d universes black hole. Where is the evidence of an influx of new matter?

Theoretically time should be moving slower in here...

It IS moving slower - than somewhere else...:-)
Since we are all existing at the same time, we just can't see it...
antigoracle
1 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2014
Not only are we in this black hole, but also 11 levels down and at the very top it's turtles all the way, of course.
HTK
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2014
So we're still in a hologram right?
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2014
So we're still in a hologram right?

Although, some would call it a persistent illusion...:-)
Doug_Huffman
1 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2014
Didn't Leo[sic erat scriptum] Smolin have a similar idea?
Lee Smolin please.

He wrote four popularized science books on the subject, quite directly on the subject.

1999. The Life of the Cosmos
2001. Three Roads to Quantum Gravity
2006. The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next. Houghton Mifflin.
2013. Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe.

Two comments synthesized from my reading of his writing. Other universes, as in multiverses, are not of this Universe for being causally disconnected and, thus unfalsifiable. (Falsifiability being Popper's solution to the Problem of Demarcation.) Suppressing a dimension to make a 3-D space from 4-D space-time seems pretty obvious.

Most comments here embedded with the time concept are pretty naive. That's his, Smolin's, central thesis, that we misunderstand time. Why do we not remember the future? That stands at least as a fine Koan.
Arties
Aug 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Aug 09, 2014
Most comments here embedded with the time concept are pretty naive. That's his, Smolin's, central thesis, that we misunderstand time. Why do we not remember the future?

We do. Our consciousness refuses to accept that our sub conscience does this.
Quantum Magician
1 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2014
In our three-dimensional universe, black holes have two-dimensional event horizons

Oh nice, so they just thought:
"let's add 1 more dimension to that, and we will have a potential candidate for a 3D universe instead of the boring 2D event horizon..how cool is that?!" /picardfacepalm

Math is nice, you can do so many crazy things with it.. like waste a lifetime trying to figure out the last digit of Pi, etc.. and I have yet to find paper that complains about the things some people write on it, but pleeeease..

The event horizon is NOT a physical entity per-se. It is the abstract surface of a sphere defining a boundary. Nothing more, nothing less. And therefor the whole notion about "just adding 1 more dimension" to make it become "proper 3D spacetime" is about as plausible as saying that the universe was created from pure unicorn farts..

What's wrong with the TPI proposal:
• the event horizon is not a physical entity
• black holes are not really singularities (only on paper)
Doug_Huffman
1 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2014
Most comments here embedded with the time concept are pretty naive. That's his, Smolin's, central thesis, that we misunderstand time. Why do we not remember the future?

We do. Our consciousness refuses to accept that our sub conscience does this.
there is no future to remember, for our free will. Remember the future - - then commit suicide to prove the lie.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Aug 09, 2014
Most comments here embedded with the time concept are pretty naive. That's his, Smolin's, central thesis, that we misunderstand time. Why do we not remember the future?

We do. Our consciousness refuses to accept that our sub conscience does this.
there is no future to remember, for our free will. Remember the future...

You have free will to remember it or not...
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
Black holes already have maximum entropic (information) density.
The highly compressed matter condensed at the single point
That is only a conjecture. A black hole has no hair.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
• the event horizon is not a physical entity
• black holes are not really singularities (only on paper)
I can't really argue with either of these, but I don't quite follow your reasoning for why they show this conjecture is impossible. Could you expand on this please?
jimb
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2014
This seems bizarre yet completely reasonable, perhaps we could find a way to interact with this higher dimension?
Arties
Aug 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
CarolynKay
4 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
Are universes nested, like Russian dolls?
jackjump
3 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
So then that collapsing fourth dimensional star exists in a fourth dimensional universe that is itself just the event horizon of a collapsing fifth dimensional star and so on ad infinitum. Yep that explains it for me . . . it's collapsing n-dimensional stars all the way down.
OceanDeep
3 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2014
The promise of testability is intriguing. But it just kicks the can down the road in terms of explaining where the four-dimensional universe (or is it five-dimensional - four of space, one of time?) came from, and so on up the line.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
So what happens when you go down the line.
Do we have negative dimensions?
CarolynKay
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2014
Wrong, jackjump, it's TURTLES. All the way down.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2014
So what happens when you go down the line.
Do we have negative dimensions?

One must assume there is in order to maintain balance/symmetry.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
Wrong, jackjump, it's TURTLES. All the way down.

Wrong, Carolyn.

It's elephants...
CarolynKay
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
>>It's elephants..

Oh. You mean the ones we never talk about?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
>>It's elephants..

Oh. You mean the ones we never talk about?

The very ones...:-)
jackjump
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2014
Elephants, turtles, collapsing n-dimensional stars . . . a rose by any other name . . .
Accounts
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2014
I've always found the following more satisfying.

The universe emerges as a line segment from which the end points have been removed.
There IS no first moment, no singularity, no boundry ... just emergence.

I've liked this for 30 years or so.

I wonder if there is an analogous concept for the collapse of black holes never quite reaching the singularity. Instead never quite reaching a mathematical "point".
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2014
So what happens when you go down the line.
Do we have negative dimensions?

One must assume there is in order to maintain balance/symmetry.
If there's two, it's likely there's more.
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2014
I've always found the following more satisfying.

The universe emerges as a line segment from which the end points have been removed.
There IS no first moment, no singularity, no boundry ... just emergence.
You're very, very close to the theory of inflation. In current inflation theory, the universe emerges from a vacuum fluctuation, which is similar to your line with no end points, but has two more dimensions. You might want to look into inflation. You may find it easier to comprehend than you might think.

I wonder if there is an analogous concept for the collapse of black holes never quite reaching the singularity. Instead never quite reaching a mathematical "point".
Nobody knows for sure. The best we can do is extrapolate from General Relativity Theory. Doing so gives guesses that sound a lot like yours here. Unfortunately, relativity breaks down at the smallest distance scales or the highest field strengths, and we have no quantum gravity theory.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2014
I've always found the following more satisfying.

The universe emerges as a line segment from which the end points have been removed.
There IS no first moment, no singularity, no boundry ... just emergence.

I've liked this for 30 years or so.

I wonder if there is an analogous concept for the collapse of black holes never quite reaching the singularity. Instead never quite reaching a mathematical "point".

An interesting parallel to the "Pi" situation...
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
Whyde, you're speaking of the general phenomenon of "limits," in the calculus sense. This is a pervasive concept in all mathematical descriptions of reality, such as physics. Nature seems to use this a lot.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
Accounts, you should read The Cosmic Landscape by Leonard Susskind, which will teach you way more than you want to know about inflation. :D Leonard was the inventor of the Bosonic String Theory, the precursor to current string physics, and still used today by physicists to describe the color force (AKA the "strong nuclear force, one of the four fundamental forces of nature along with gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak nuclear force),

You should also read Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy by Kip Thorne. Kip is one of the two physicists who won a bet with Hawking about the entropy of black holes. IIRC the wager was for a steak dinner at the restaurant of the winner's choice. Obviously, this contains the speculations about the inside of black holes I mentioned above.
Accounts
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2014
I'm quite familiar with inflation. My comments are not at all related to that.
I'm offering an alternative to inflation and even more so to "quantum fluctuations" which, of course, requires an already existing universe with time, space, and natural laws for them to be real. I've never given the QF theory more than a passing glance.
Accounts
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2014
I'm sorry. I misspoke. I didn't mean "an alternative to inflation" I meant "the first moment of time". Most, if not all, descriptions of inflation that I have read clearly say "a very small moment after creation inflation kicks in". "After" clearly implies "not first". I'm talking about "first".

I'm fairly (but not completely) satisfied with inflation. Though it still feels like something of a kludge to me.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
Current inflation theory begins with a vacuum fluctuation in a flat spacetime with nothing in it. That's as close to "nothing" as we can come.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
Oh, how cute, a stalker.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
Also worth mentioning that the total energy of the universe is zero in inflation theory. When Guth ran the math and figured that out, he knew he was onto something.
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2014
Oops, wrong thread.
JIMBO
5 / 5 (1) Aug 10, 2014
As usual, physorg hypes history: This research was published on the arixv Over a year ago (http://arxiv.org/...9.1487), & since getting accepted into SciAm, it now rates more hype. Of course one cannot view SciAm online w/out a Sx, so one must research the arxiv cite. When one does, one finds that Mann et al base their conclusions upon the mythology of Randall-Sundrum brane worlds, for which the LHC found Zero evidence....
Don't know bout you, but my BS detector has max'd out again....
Accounts
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2014
Current inflation theory begins with a vacuum fluctuation in a flat spacetime with nothing in it. That's as close to "nothing" as we can come.


Close? This ain't horseshoes.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
Current inflation theory begins with a vacuum fluctuation in a flat spacetime with nothing in it. That's as close to "nothing" as we can come.
Close? This ain't horseshoes.
OK, define physical "nothing" another way.

Good luck.

Remember, it must be physical; by that I mean in accord with all the known laws of physics and well-supported theories. And if it's weird, I'm gonna want to see supporting evidence.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
[q1]Oh, how cute, a stalker.
Don't worry. Zeph gets tired eventually (...and banned eventually). He's been banned so many times - without getting the hint - that most of us have lost count.
He still thinks metaphorical shouting (i.e. rage-voting) is a form of argument.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
Yeah, I came across some of his stuff on some other sites. Thanks for the heads up. :D
richardwenzel987
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2014
Maybe it is not necessary to invoke a collapsing star in 4 dimensions. A higher dimensional space ought to be full of "event horizons" because, if I recall correctly, the topology of spaces with greater than 3 dimensions would allow matter to collapse to a singularity under the influence of any gravity-like attraction. It is not possible to tie a knot in a space with greater than 3 dimensions, for instance, and that property would also make it impossible for matter to resist collapse into a singularity. In this view, a mere sugar cube would suffer gravitational collapse.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
If we're at the event horizon then shouldn't it be possible to escape?

Most black holes rotate, do we see frame dragging of the universe?

Where is the 4th dimensional singularity exactly? Indeed can there be such a thing with an extra dimension for matter to move around and past itself in?

I'm sure the math has all been done, but some of this makes sense in that it answers how the universe came to be, but kind of falls apart after that.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2014
If we're at the event horizon then shouldn't it be possible to escape?

Only in one direction. And that is a direction you probably don't want to go in.
adam_russell_9615
1 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2014
Maybe we are still in the black hole.
Watebba
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2014
Maybe we are still in the black hole.
This is just what the above article implies (and many others).
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
More like 'The Black Hole at the Heart of Astronomy'...

http://www.holosc...tronomy/
swordsman
1 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
Speculation upon speculation upon speculation. There is no evidence of a singularity. Only speculation.
jimb
4 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2014
is it then possible that this 4 dimensional universe with the 4 dimensional black hole that our 3 dimensional universe exists on is actually part of a 5 dimensional black hole in a 5 dimensional universe?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
If we're at the event horizon then shouldn't it be possible to escape?

Only in one direction. And that is a direction you probably don't want to go in.


Well that's the rub though isn't it. If we ARE the horizon we're moving in that direction we don't want to go in. If we're not then maybe we can escape. I don't think there's equilibrium in this scenario. Neh?
pandora4real
3 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2014
I have a problem with discussing a theory that appears on a page with Adblade adverts. How can you be serious when the info source is pimping the page out to all manner of con artists? When are content providers going to learn that it's wrong to expect people to "just ignore the adverts" when that's your prime motive, and every.last.one of those Adblade ads are out and out cons?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
Also, it occurs to me, since we have a very good idea that the geometry of the universe is flat, wouldn't this fly in the face of us being a hypersphere?

http://map.gsfc.n...ape.html
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2014
I have a problem with discussing a theory that appears on a page with Adblade adverts. How can you be serious when the info source is pimping the page out to all manner of con artists? When are content providers going to learn that it's wrong to expect people to "just ignore the adverts" when that's your prime motive, and every.last.one of those Adblade ads are out and out cons?

Personally? I liked the one about body painting...
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2014
Another tid bit I came across.

If inflation theory is correct (and all things are apparently pointing this way), and the net energy of the universe is zero, then that tends to rule out a hypersphere as well as I believe such a universe is incompatible with zero net energy.

http://en.wikiped...universe
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2014
Another tid bit I came across.

If inflation theory is correct (and all things are apparently pointing this way), and the net energy of the universe is zero, then that tends to rule out a hypersphere as well as I believe such a universe is incompatible with zero net energy.

http://en.wikiped...universe

Net zero rules out any universe at all. It takes just a "tidbit" of energy on the plus side to get the ball rolling...
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2014
Another tid bit I came across.

If inflation theory is correct (and all things are apparently pointing this way), and the net energy of the universe is zero, then that tends to rule out a hypersphere as well as I believe such a universe is incompatible with zero net energy.

http://en.wikiped...universe

Net zero rules out any universe at all. It takes just a "tidbit" of energy on the plus side to get the ball rolling...


Different takes on that one I guess...

http://en.wikiped...universe

I tend to agree that philosophically it makes "zero sense"...but there you have it from the physicists and cosmologists....
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2014
I tend to agree that philosophically it makes "zero sense"...but there you have it from the physicists and cosmologists....

Here's kinda the way I logic it out:
Space - nothing, empty (including energy) + tiny fluctuation (energy of whatever kind).
Starts a "balancing" act that cannot be stopped. Mass can only be gained by tiny amounts (at first...:-) space has to add much more of itself to equal out the "energy" contained in the mass, which explains why there is so much more of it.
Our visible "Universe" is the result of that endless balancing act.
Of course that is supremely simplistic and probably even wrong. But it's how I am able to wrap my head around all the "discoveries" being made and incorporate them into my "world view".
As an artist, I also try to see the ratio involved. Seems the Golden one is the only one available at the moment, so...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2014
BTW, I hear there's a fantastic restaurant way out on the OTHER end...
sirchick
not rated yet Aug 11, 2014
I strangely had this thought when I was a teenager before I had much knowledge on this level of science.

My thoughts were not at all scientific, just imagination. Its nice all the same, that some scientists theorise it as a possibility.

How ever the only way this would be feasible is if the laws of physics change for the birth of the universe from the black hole or the dimensions remain the same.. otherwise if the laws stayed true through out, then our black holes would from two dimensional universes, and those black holes would I guess form one dimensional universes =/

Then I wonder - can gravity or even a universe at all work/form in a one dimensional space time environment. Because what happens to a black hole in a one dimensional universe what would that be feeding into =/
Accounts
1 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2014
OK, define physical "nothing" another way.

Remember, it must be physical; by that I mean in accord with all the known laws of physics and well-supported theories. And if it's weird, I'm gonna want to see supporting evidence.

"Must be physical" and must not "be weird"??? You've completely misunderstood. OF COURSE it's not physical. The very concept of physical doesn't exist until the "creation" moment. Remember, before the big bang their is NOTHING, no space, no dimensionality, no time, AND NO NATURAL LAWS.

That's nothing. And it is necessarily a philosophical statement as a physical statement about something that is not physical is not meaningful.

You're just trying to force things into your preconception of "nothing" in a way that allows you to apply natural laws because you're uncomfortable without them.
Mimath224
1 / 5 (1) Aug 12, 2014
Nothing...mmm, the way I would define it is that 'it' would be devoid of any property that would describe it. So if one had a total 'emptiness' wouldn't that be a description? I therefore conclude that this 'nothing' does not and cannot exist...and since WE are here as 'something' there doesn't seem much point in discussing nothing?
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
Net zero rules out any universe at all. It takes just a "tidbit" of energy on the plus side to get the ball rolling...
This is incorrect. In fact if inflation is correct the universe has zero net energy. This was when Guth realized he was onto something. You can create a universe with zero net energy from nothing.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
"Must be physical" and must not "be weird"?
So you can't.

You've completely misunderstood. OF COURSE it's not physical. The very concept of physical doesn't exist until the "creation" moment. Remember, before the big bang their is NOTHING, no space, no dimensionality, no time, AND NO NATURAL LAWS.
Please provide a link to a reputable source, a paper that has passed peer review and been published in the literature, and a quote where it supports your claim.

That's nothing. And it is necessarily a philosophical statement as a physical statement about something that is not physical is not meaningful.
This is incorrect. Guth's paper passed peer review. That means his idea is physical. And he starts with nothing.

You're just trying to force things into your preconception of "nothing" in a way that allows you to apply natural laws because you're uncomfortable without them.
This is incorrect. Guth started with nothing.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
Nothing...mmm, the way I would define it is that 'it' would be devoid of any property that would describe it. So if one had a total 'emptiness' wouldn't that be a description? I therefore conclude that this 'nothing' does not and cannot exist...and since WE are here as 'something' there doesn't seem much point in discussing nothing?
Guth didn't have any trouble defining nothing mathematically and physically. What's your problem?
vlaaing peerd
4.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
black holes are not really singularities (only on paper)
Yes quite agree, I believe black holes are an actual thing too.

If our universe is the event horizon of a 4d universes black hole. Where is the evidence of an influx of new matter?


Well, there is a massive influx of space-time, not sure if that counts. Do note that our known universe's black holes don't consume matter all the time either.

let's say we could make some analogies with "our" black holes, wouldn't those 4D black holes eventually evaporate?

It's a nice theory, makes sense to the logical mind although it has been coined before. It's more the "testability" that bothers me, I don't see a way this can be proven.

But perhaps there's a way we could test if our universe is a closed system or not, being the asshole part of a 4D black hole, it should (as my layman minds thinks of it) violate laws of thermodynamics.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2014
Where is the evidence of an influx of new matter?

Talking of "4D-stuff" as matter is tricky. If the 4D-imploding-star thingy is true then we are simply the information of that implosion smeared accross the event horizon. And what we call "matter" doesn't really have that type of existence 'outside'.

It's more the "testability" that bothers me, I don't see a way this can be proven.

Go to their arxiv paper. In section 5 they propose two ways which this can be tested (though the lingo is a bit beyond me).
jimb
5 / 5 (1) Aug 12, 2014
Where is the evidence of an influx of new matter?

Talking of "4D-stuff" as matter is tricky. If the 4D-imploding-star thingy is true then we are simply the information of that implosion smeared accross the event horizon. And what we call "matter" doesn't really have that type of existence 'outside'.

It's more the "testability" that bothers me, I don't see a way this can be proven.

Go to their arxiv paper. In section 5 they propose two ways which this can be tested (though the lingo is a bit beyond me).


link to the arxiv paper please?
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Aug 12, 2014
This is a relevant (for me) way of looking at nothing;
Was in a pet store one time. Checked out a cute Pyrenese puppy. Didn't buy her.
Wife and I got in the car and she said - "What would you have named her?"
I said "Annabelle".
Back in I went and got the best dog I ever had.
Point is - you name it, you're takin' it home...
Accounts
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
Provide a cite ...

I don't quite understand your problem but you are still not getting this. There is no cite. I'm not claiming that my OPINION (it was clearly stated as such) is PROVEN. I'm just stating how I think about it. And you could go back to Thomas Aquinas if you want to see that this is an extremely old idea. Aquinas said, for example, that god did not create the universe IN time but rather WITH time. That is the kind of nothingness to which I refer, and it is well understood by physicists who do not even try to deal with it. It is the answer to the question "why is there SOMETHING rather than NOTHING". Remember we are talking about a concept in which there are NO NATURAL LAWS. You are assuming those laws without any explanation whatsoever of how they claim to be. Guth doesn't even try to address this.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2014
Yes, yes, yes....

What about the fact that the geometry of the universe is almost certainly flat?

Doesn't that exclude the possibility of a hypersphere?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2014
Provide a cite ...
Wikipedia. And Guth's blog/website.
jimb
5 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
Yes, yes, yes....

What about the fact that the geometry of the universe is almost certainly flat?

Doesn't that exclude the possibility of a hypersphere?


The flatness problem you speak of is addressed in the paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.1487 in section 5.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
Here, you can read about it, Accounts: http://www.amazon...1624468/

Title of the book: "A Universe from Nothing." It's by Lawrence Krauss, He's a Foundation Professor at Arizona State, an astrophysicist and cosmologist.

His research interests include the interface between elementary particle physics and cosmology, the nature of dark matter, general relativity and neutrino astrophysics,
according to his web page on the ASU physics department staff list at https://physics.a...e-krauss
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2014
Yes, yes, yes....

What about the fact that the geometry of the universe is almost certainly flat?

Doesn't that exclude the possibility of a hypersphere?


The flatness problem you speak of is addressed in the paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.1487 in section 5.
And if you don't, here you go:
We may go further and argue that other problems in standard cosmology, traditionally solved by inflation, can also be addressed in our scenario:
...
2. The Flatness Problem, which refers to the surprisingly small spatial curvature of our universe, is addressed by assuming a large mass/energy for the 5D "star", M*. The radius of the black hole horizon, rh, sets the maximum spatial Ricci curvature (or minimum radius of curvature) for our universe, and thus can only dominate at late times.
In the doc, the asterisk in the name of the "star,", M, is a subscript; it's not part of Unicode so it can't be displayed except in Acrobat.

Enjoy.
Quantum Magician
5 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
The whole point is, that the folks at TPI chose the event horizon approach because it simply is the limit at which the currently accepted Standard model backed relativity math is working, otherwise they would not be able to provide a valid math model without also proposing changes/additions to other "well accepted theories/models" (eg. the Standard model). So another dimension was just added to "solve" this problem, how simple..

Makes peers happy, paper gets published, and everyone is satisfied.. (kidding)

But is it really a solution? and not just another instance of getting "around" the problem by conjuring a mathematical "walking stick" in the form of an additional degree of freedom (extra-dimension)?

I'm not sure, and neither is Occam..
jimb
5 / 5 (1) Aug 13, 2014
The whole point is, that the folks at TPI chose the event horizon approach because it simply is the limit at which the currently accepted Standard model backed relativity math is working, otherwise they would not be able to provide a valid math model without also proposing changes/additions to other "well accepted theories/models" (eg. the Standard model). So another dimension was just added to "solve" this problem, how simple..

But is it really a solution? and not just another instance of getting "around" the problem by conjuring a mathematical "walking stick" in the form of an additional degree of freedom (extra-dimension)?

They say there could be ways to prove it, and until it is proven or disproved it is anyone's guess to whether it is correct or a ' mathematical "walking stick" '. It is not THE solution yet, it is a possible solution. Wait for the experimental data to come through before making conclusions.
Accounts
1 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2014
Here, you can read about it, Accounts: http://www.amazon...1624468/


You have no concept of what the word "nothing" means.
Accounts
1 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2014
Here, you can read about it, Accounts: http://www.amazon...1624468/


Well, I followed your link to discover it went nowhere. I'm not going to buy a book just because of your inability to understand.

Quote from Amazon: Krauss describes the staggeringly beautiful experimental observations and mind-bending new theories that demonstrate not only can something arise from nothing, something will always arise from nothing.

I've heard that before and it doesn't begin to answer the question. To the statement above I answer simply "why"? I assume Krauss is going to follow the old argument that "the vacuum is inherently unstable" and that quantum fluctuation must arise. Again, I ask, why is that?

Here is the universe rich in content that Krauss starts from: he assumes all these things ALREADY exist: space, time, natural law. That is hardly nothing. Show someone who can provide a theory of creation without resorting to religion?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Aug 13, 2014
I think the point is that some kind of framework has always existed. It's not the steady state cosmos that was considered in the early part of the last century, but it has the same philosophical ramifications with respect to origin.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2014
Here, you can read about it, Accounts: http://www.amazon...1624468/
Well, I followed your link to discover it went nowhere. I'm not going to buy a book just because of your inability to understand.
I understand fine, according to a professor of cosmology at a major university. The link works fine, even in your post; I just checked it.

Quote from Amazon:
Krauss describes the... mind-bending new theories that demonstrate that... something will always arise from nothing.
I've heard that before and it doesn't begin to answer the question.

To the statement above I answer simply "why"? Go read the book. As a general rule, most people discount the opinions of a person who has not read a book as groundless or based upon the opinions of others than themselves.

contd
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2014
I assume Krauss is going to follow the old argument that "the vacuum is inherently unstable" and that quantum fluctuation must arise. Again, I ask, why is that?
Because if there were no fluctuations we could not exist, nor could any other material object larger than a single quantum; protons and neutrons are held in the nucleus by uncertainty in the position of the quarks within them, which we interpret as the strong force.

Here is the universe rich in content that Krauss starts from: he assumes all these things ALREADY exist: space, time, natural law. That is hardly nothing. Show someone who can provide a theory of creation without resorting to religion?
Actually it's not necessary for space or time to exist, and the "laws of nature" in such a place need not apply as we know them. It is enough that the "uber-universe," or whatever you want to call it, have an equivalent to the uncertainty principle, and have some sort of energy that can transform into Λ.

contd
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2014
Whether we can ever recover the characteristics of such an "uber-" or "ur-universe" other than these two remains to be seen. As far as determining its origin, first of all it may be eternal but have nothing in it but whatever makes the thing that is Λ in our universe, and uncertainty. But certainly if it has an origin, right now there's no way to recover it; we don't even know for sure if it *exists*, much less what its origin is. You gotta crawl before you walk.

Missed a misquote above. Should read:

To the statement above I answer simply "why"?
Go read the book. As a general rule, most people discount the opinions of a person who has not read a book on that book as groundless or based upon the opinions of others than themselves.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2014
Geez, I screwed up the other quote in that post too. Gah. Should read:

Quote from Amazon:

Krauss describes the... mind-bending new theories that demonstrate that... something will always arise from nothing.


I've heard that before and it doesn't begin to answer the question.

To the statement above I answer simply "why"?
Go read the book...
I'm out of practice and verklempt today, I guess. Sigh.
baseltai
1 / 5 (3) Sep 05, 2014
In one of my papers i have shown that the universe could be an inflating quantum black hole. See the link: http://arxiv.org/.../0105024

Reply
Accounts
1 / 5 (2) Sep 05, 2014
quote: It is enough that the "uber-universe," or whatever you want to call it, have an equivalent to the uncertainty principle, and have some sort of energy that can transform into Λ

But both of those "necessary" things you require are things. That is most definitely not nothing.

Look, it's a trick question. It has no answer. That's why it bugs me when some people claim they've discovered the answer. But, without fail, they require something, a condition, stuff, a law of nature, god, or whatever you want to call it.

There's a reason for this. People have an enormous problem trying to believe that there are uncaused events. Since absolute nothing, which perhaps is best described as "absolute absence", has no causal agents (or anything else). So the only answer to "why" is "there is no reason".
Jixo
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 05, 2014
In one of my papers i have shown that the universe could be an inflating quantum black hole.
The fact, that the particles look like tiny black holes and that the Universe looks like the interior of white hole doesn't imply, the universe is formed with such a hole. In AWT it's a geometric result of light scattering at the density fluctuations of vacuum and this geometry is stationary, i.e. nothing really moves there. At the water surface you can get the white hole geometry even without some inflation of water surface - it's just light, what expands there. Whereas at the case of black holes and elementary particles it's the real density gradient, which is responsible for the space-time gradient, which can move from place to place.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Sep 12, 2014
It is enough that the "uber-universe," or whatever you want to call it, have an equivalent to the uncertainty principle, and have some sort of energy that can transform into Λ
But both of those "necessary" things you require are things. That is most definitely not nothing.
Actually, it is. These are properties, not things. You can't touch an uncertainty principle, or count it, or eat it. Nor can you touch or count or eat zero-point energy. It's zero. Like as in nothing.
kochevnik
not rated yet Sep 12, 2014
These are properties, not things. You can't touch an uncertainty principle, or count it, or eat it. Nor can you touch or count or eat zero-point energy. It's zero. Like as in nothing.
Actually a recent experiment separated a particle from it's properties spatially. That would make the properties a thing, even if a different kind of thing that what we know. Perhaps the ghost in the machine
Accounts
1 / 5 (2) Sep 12, 2014
It is enough that the "uber-universe," or whatever you want to call it, have an equivalent to the uncertainty principle, and have some sort of energy that can transform into Λ
But both of those "necessary" things you require are things. That is most definitely not nothing.
Actually, it is. These are properties, not things. You can't touch an uncertainty principle, or count it, or eat it. Nor can you touch or count or eat zero-point energy. It's zero. Like as in nothing.


It doesn't matter what you call it. "Thing", "property", or whatever you like. You require it. It must pre-exist. It's not nothing. If nothing were actually something then EVERYTHING would exist. You can't pick and choose what "nothing" is. It's the absence of everything. It has no content, no properties, no nothing. You can't, by it's very definition, assign anything to it. It's not even there to be the target of an assignation.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Sep 13, 2014
It is enough that the "uber-universe," or whatever you want to call it, have an equivalent to the uncertainty principle, and have some sort of energy that can transform into Λ
But both of those "necessary" things you require are things. That is most definitely not nothing.
Actually, it is. These are properties, not things. You can't touch an uncertainty principle, or count it, or eat it. Nor can you touch or count or eat zero-point energy. It's zero. Like as in nothing.
It doesn't matter what you call it. "Thing", "property", or whatever you like.
Yes, actually, it does, though it's not a matter of "what I call it." It's what IS. You seem to be confusing properties with objects. That's neither good philosophy, nor good physics.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Sep 13, 2014
Actually a recent experiment separated a particle from it's properties spatially.
Got a reference for that?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Sep 13, 2014
Even nothing can have properties, and still be nothing.

For example, flat empty space far from all matter has a zero gravity field and a zero energy field. These are nothing, but they are properties nevertheless.

You don't understand nothing, Accounts.
Accounts
1 / 5 (2) Sep 13, 2014
Even nothing can have properties, and still be nothing.

For example, flat empty space far from all matter has a zero gravity field and a zero energy field. These are nothing, but they are properties nevertheless.

You don't understand nothing, Accounts.


Nothing means nothing.
It's really quite simple.
Even though it's beyond your imagination.
It's the null set, except that even the CONCEPT of a set can't exist in nothing.
Nor can any of the other concepts, properties, things, or ANYTHING exist.
I don't understand how you can fail to grasp that.
Mimath224
1 / 5 (1) Sep 14, 2014
'Flat empty space for from all matter....' is nothing!?????? Since we and the unviverse (as we know it) would be stuck right in the middle of it so it has to be something because we exist...unless you deny that too.
Aligo
Sep 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Accounts
1 / 5 (2) Sep 14, 2014
It's actually well within my imagination. For example for these http://people.rit...565.jpg. When they're remote & distant enough, they cannot communicate anymore. For such a remote bubbles the other members are just - nothing. Their own ripples get scattered at distance into nothingness as well.

You just don't get it. You CANNOT use "words" to describe nothing, it's much much larger than you think (while at the same time being unimaginable small). It has NO characteristics. Describing things that can't communicate, even just mentioning them. is far FAR from nothing. Try and get this: you can't have THOUGHTS about nothing. Thus even my attempt to use words is WILDLY beyond the meaning of nothing. l It's not even a concept. Can you get that part? It's NOT a concept. You can't have "concepts", "thoughts" or anything about it. It's nothing.

At this point I give up. Trying reading some metaphysical attempts to define it.
Aligo
Sep 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Aligo
Sep 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Aligo
Sep 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Sep 16, 2014
Even nothing can have properties, and still be nothing.

For example, flat empty space far from all matter has a zero gravity field and a zero energy field. These are nothing, but they are properties nevertheless.

You don't understand nothing, Accounts.
Nothing means nothing.
It's really quite simple.
Yes, as in "no things," not "no properties."
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Sep 16, 2014
'Flat empty space for from all matter....' is nothing!?????? Since we and the unviverse (as we know it) would be stuck right in the middle of it so it has to be something because we exist...unless you deny that too.
But we're "some things," not "no things." Nothing means "no things."
Accounts
1 / 5 (2) Sep 16, 2014
Even nothing can have properties, and still be nothing.

For example, flat empty space far from all matter has a zero gravity field and a zero energy field. These are nothing, but they are properties nevertheless.

You don't understand nothing, Accounts.
Nothing means nothing.
It's really quite simple.
Yes, as in "no things," not "no properties."


Properties are things. Please go read some metaphysics as you are totally not grasping the word. The question is often put as "why is there something instead of nothings".

It is interesting that you think you can have properties even though their is no "thing" to which you can attach them. That's magical thinking.

Again, try it mathematically. We are talking about the null set which does not have any properties. You may assign "nothingness" to it as an attempted property but it is you
who is creating the property. In the world of the null set there is literally nothing. You're being sophomoric.
Mimath224
not rated yet Sep 17, 2014
@Da Schneib I understand what you're saying there but, and with respect, I cannot agree. If able to see 'no-thing' from afar that 'no-thing place' could be indentified by the observation that we were in the middle of the 'no-thing place' and that makes it a 'some-thing place'. It has the property of containing us.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Sep 17, 2014
Even nothing can have properties, and still be nothing.

For example, flat empty space far from all matter has a zero gravity field and a zero energy field. These are nothing, but they are properties nevertheless.

You don't understand nothing, Accounts.
Nothing means nothing.
It's really quite simple.
Yes, as in "no things," not "no properties."


Properties are things.
No, they aren't. They''re attributes of things, not things themselves. How can no gravity, no charge, and no radiation be "something?" Yet the attributes of having no gravity, no charge, and no radiation are properties of open intergalactic space. The only things in it are the occasional passing photon, and the occasional hydrogen or helium atom.

You're really going to need to learn to differentiate between things and properties to understand physics.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Sep 17, 2014
@Da Schneib I understand what you're saying there but, and with respect, I cannot agree. If able to see 'no-thing' from afar that 'no-thing place' could be indentified by the observation that we were in the middle of the 'no-thing place' and that makes it a 'some-thing place'. It has the property of containing us.
You've just claimed that nothing is something. You can't argue about nothing after that; you're using circular reasoning, AKA "begging the question:" http://www.nizkor...ion.html It's a logical fallacy.
Mimath224
1 / 5 (1) Sep 17, 2014
Wrong again, you've completely missed the point. There is no such thing as 'nothing' period!
Da Schneib
not rated yet Sep 17, 2014
Sure there is, like I said in the middle of intergalactic space. There's nothing in it. It's nothing. Point to a thing that's in it (I can choose a given cubic centimeter with no hydrogen atoms; there is only a hydrogen atom in one out of a million CCs out there, that is, one per cubic meter). Or admit you're wrong.
Mimath224
not rated yet Sep 17, 2014
@Da Schneib of course I admit 'voids', 'vacuum', but intergalactic space is part of/in our universe which is something. I'm considering the whole, not part of. I say there is no such thing as absolute nothing. Just an opinion so don't get too upset.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Sep 18, 2014
@Da Schneib of course I admit 'voids', 'vacuum', but intergalactic space is part of/in our universe which is something. I'm considering the whole, not part of.
Actually, since it comes from nothing, our universe could be said to be nothing. It only appears to be something because we're inside it.

I say there is no such thing as absolute nothing. Just an opinion so don't get too upset.
Opinions are fine until they're contrary to the facts. Then they need to be reconsidered. And the facts are that there is a fully developed theory that has made correct predictions and passed tests of its correctness that explains how the universe can appear from nothing- meaning an uber-universe with nothing in it, but with properties that cause vacuum fluctuations, within which there is cosmological constant. That uber-universe is, in fact, nothing, as in no things, until vacuum fluctuations with the right random values of the cosmological constant appear in it. This is "inflation."
Accounts
1.8 / 5 (4) Sep 18, 2014
@Da Schneib of course I admit 'voids', 'vacuum', but intergalactic space is part of/in our universe which is something. I'm considering the whole, not part of.
Actually, since it comes from nothing, our universe could be said to be nothing. It only appears to be something because we're inside it.

DaSniebe ... I figure you for under 25 who has taken at most two years of physics, one year of math, and none of philosophy, metaphysics, or logic.

Your mind just seems completely unable to grasp the central thesis of this discussion.

You claim that there are things that exist but are not things. Ok, then what word WOULD you you to group them? And how can you claim they "exist". Please define "thing" and "exist" and "property" and "quality". You'll soon find those words CAN NOT BE defined without a thing to which they can be attached.

In nothingness there are no concepts. Qualities and properties are concepts. Further, they are the creation of human minds, no absolute.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Sep 18, 2014
DaSniebe ... I figure you for under 25 who has taken at most two years of physics, one year of math, and none of philosophy, metaphysics, or logic.
You figure wrong, can't spell, screw up the quotes, and are insulting in a single sentence. What do you do for an encore, gargle peanut butter? Balance five burning torches on your taint?

You claim that there are things that exist but are not things.
Where? Quote please. And I will check.
Mimath224
3 / 5 (1) Sep 18, 2014
@Da Schneib Actually bascically I follow Prof.Quine (philospher) in that we have to distinguish between 'sethood' and existence where the former is applied by us while the latter is related to reality.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Sep 18, 2014
I never mix philosophy with physics, astronomy, or cosmology, nor with any other science. I stopped paying attention to philosophers after Derrida's deconstructionism was used to "invalidate" physics. When the philosophers wake up and stop telling us there's no physics in their navels I'll think about listening to them again.

Deconstruct deconstructionism.

Quine's not too bad but still gets a little wild sometimes.
Accounts
1 / 5 (2) Sep 18, 2014
DaSniebe ... I figure you for under 25 who has taken at most two years of physics, one year of math, and none of philosophy, metaphysics, or logic.
You figure wrong, can't spell, screw up the quotes, and are insulting in a single sentence. What do you do for an encore, gargle peanut butter? Balance five burning torches on your taint?

You claim that there are things that exist but are not things.
Where? Quote please. And I will check.


Try this: Google physics define thing
Google physics define nothing

It's not really hard, and then you'll actually be reading a qualified person's explanation.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (1) Sep 18, 2014
Sure there is, like I said in the middle of intergalactic space. There's nothing in it. It's nothing. Point to a thing that's in it (I can choose a given cubic centimeter with no hydrogen atoms; there is only a hydrogen atom in one out of a million CCs out there, that is, one per cubic meter). Or admit you're wrong.

Ahhh...
But, the Da - there is the physical, measurable SPACE that you could tangibly measure and move about in....
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Sep 18, 2014
You figure wrong, can't spell, screw up the quotes, and are insulting in a single sentence. What do you do for an encore, gargle peanut butter? Balance five burning torches on your taint?

If only he could do both... THAT would be worthy of the "America's got Talent" show...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Sep 18, 2014
You claim that there are things that exist but are not things.
Where? Quote please. And I will check.
Try this: Google physics define thing
Google physics define nothing

It's not really hard, and then you'll actually be reading a qualified person's explanation.
So I didn't ever say it.

Try this: Google "lying."
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Sep 18, 2014
DaSniebe ... I figure you for under 25 who has taken at most two years of physics, one year of math, and none of philosophy, metaphysics, or logic.

Dang, Schneib.
And here I had you figured as a retired, cantankerous, know it all, bastard who really does know - well, a bunch of stuff, at least...:-)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Sep 18, 2014
Sure there is, like I said in the middle of intergalactic space. There's nothing in it. It's nothing. Point to a thing that's in it (I can choose a given cubic centimeter with no hydrogen atoms; there is only a hydrogen atom in one out of a million CCs out there, that is, one per cubic meter). Or admit you're wrong.

Ahhh...
But, the Da - there is the physical, measurable SPACE that you could tangibly measure and move about in....
But there's nothing in it. Next you'll be telling me nothing is a thing like Accounts tried to.

Space isn't a thing. Space is empty, by definition. That's why we call it "empty space."

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Sep 18, 2014
DaSniebe ... I figure you for under 25 who has taken at most two years of physics, one year of math, and none of philosophy, metaphysics, or logic.
Dang, Schneib.
And here I had you figured as a retired, cantankerous, know it all, bastard who really does know - well, a bunch of stuff, at least...:-)
Well, not retired, Whyde. Just not working for now, while I heal from my heart attacks and fix up my house the way I want it.

I don't know anything about underwater basket weaving.

I also don't know anything about balancing torches on my taint.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (2) Sep 18, 2014
But there's nothing in it. Next you'll be telling me nothing is a thing like Accounts tried to.

Space isn't a thing. Space is empty, by definition. That's why we call it "empty space."

But it is still a volumetric entity that we COULD put something in...:-)
And sooner or later - the Universe will.
That said, I don't believe in "nothing.."
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Sep 19, 2014
Well, not retired, Whyde. Just not working for now, while I heal from my heart attacks and fix up my house the way I want it.

Seems like you're on the road to recovery, judging by the feisty posts on here...;-)

I don't know anything about underwater basket weaving.

Think I saw a blurb in the paper about a local community college offering that class...

I also don't know anything about balancing torches on my taint.

Oh great... Now that you've stated a possibility, SOMEbody's gonna try it. And it won't be pretty...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Sep 19, 2014
But there's nothing in it. Next you'll be telling me nothing is a thing like Accounts tried to.

Space isn't a thing. Space is empty, by definition. That's why we call it "empty space."

But it is still a volumetric entity that we COULD put something in...:-)
And sooner or later - the Universe will.
That said, I don't believe in "nothing.."
"Nothing" is a physical reality in deep intergalactic space. There is no "believe." We *know*.

I also don't know anything about balancing torches on my taint.

Oh great... Now that you've stated a possibility, SOMEbody's gonna try it. And it won't be pretty...
We won't see the failures.
;)
Accounts
1 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2014
Space isn't a thing. Space is empty, by definition. That's why we call it "empty space."


I told you to look up your self-pronounced definitions. Obviously you haven't.
And I know why.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Sep 19, 2014
You claimed I said something, Accounts, and when tasked to prove it you failed.

And we all know why.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Sep 20, 2014
Well, not retired, Whyde. Just not working for now, while I heal from my heart attacks and fix up my house the way I want it.
I don't know anything about underwater basket weaving.
I also don't know anything about balancing torches on my taint.
@D Schneib and W Gyre
I know a little about that underwater basket weaving... the water leaves it supple and easily mold-able while very flexible, and when you take it out, it dries and hardens back to harder wood. We use similar methods for shaping wood with steam.

This is good to know during survival and weaving rescue rope/ tying shelter beams together

About that taint balancing act... well... I only know that you should never try it while under the influence of Montezuma's revenge (and if you DO... breathe through a hose and keep the mouth tightly closed!)

bad trip to mexico followed by a drunken stupor... long story

P.S. Satirical hyperbole with a whole lot of farce sprinkled in
do NOT take the balancing act literally!
Accounts
1 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2014
You claimed I said something, Accounts, and when tasked to prove it you failed.

And we all know why.


"We"? There you go again, speaking for the universe.

Anyway, remind me what you asked, as I don't remember at all.
Accounts
1 / 5 (3) Sep 20, 2014
You claimed I said something, Accounts, and when tasked to prove it you failed.

I got tired of waiting for you. Look, about 5 replies ago I remembered "never argue with a fool, they will only drag you down to their level", and that's where we stand.

You don't understand, physics, metaphysics, or logic. There's nothing I can do about that.
You don't understand "prerequisite", nor "a priori". You don't understand "thing". And you can't come close to grasping "nothing".l

I will attempt no more.

Good luck with your nonsense.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Sep 20, 2014
Sorry, Accounts, I only talk to people who don't lie.
Goika
Sep 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Goika
Sep 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Goika
Sep 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Goika
Sep 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Sep 20, 2014
Water surface is also empty for its waves.
So? What's that got to do with empty space? Nothing I can see. The surface of water is an interface; space is not.
Goika
Sep 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Sep 20, 2014
Err, space is a vacuum and water and air are not.

Just sayin'.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.