I’m reading “A Universe from Nothing” by Lawrence Krauss.

He insists on calling the space between particles of matter “nothing” even though this space is said to account for 70% of the mass of the Universe, and it is said that this space contains a quantum foam which has virtual particles continually appearing and disappearing.

To me “nothing” means a region that does not interact with something in any way. Is there a valid scientific reason for referring to the space between particles of matter as “nothing”, even though this space is said to have a profound effect on the rest of the Universe?

Because it is a catchy title.

dv said:

Because it is a catchy title.

OK, but it’s not just the title, he keeps banging on about it. He seems to think it’s really important that we refer to space without matter as “nothing”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Because it is a catchy title.

OK, but it’s not just the title, he keeps banging on about it. He seems to think it’s really important that we refer to space without matter as “nothing”.

Maybe he thinks that the foam is a product of the universes particles and not of the space that is formatted to?

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Because it is a catchy title.

OK, but it’s not just the title, he keeps banging on about it. He seems to think it’s really important that we refer to space without matter as “nothing”.

why are we still calling it space then?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Because it is a catchy title.

OK, but it’s not just the title, he keeps banging on about it. He seems to think it’s really important that we refer to space without matter as “nothing”.

Maybe he thinks that the foam is a product of the universes particles and not of the space that is formatted to?

I don’t know what you mean by “space that is formatted to”.

But regardless, if this region contains a foam, it doesn’t contain nothing.

Well I’m not a psychologist.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Because it is a catchy title.

OK, but it’s not just the title, he keeps banging on about it. He seems to think it’s really important that we refer to space without matter as “nothing”.

why are we still calling it space then?

Because space is what it is called. I don’t think we need to change the name just because a region that we thought contained nothing in fact contains something.

But maybe we should. Maybe “space” is just as misleading as “nothing”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, but it’s not just the title, he keeps banging on about it. He seems to think it’s really important that we refer to space without matter as “nothing”.

why are we still calling it space then?

Because space is what it is called. I don’t think we need to change the name just because a region that we thought contained nothing in fact contains something.

But maybe we should. Maybe “space” is just as misleading as “nothing”.

That was my point.

dv said:

Well I’m not a psychologist.

I’m not really asking for a psychologistic response though. I’m wanting to know if there are good scientific reasons for referring to regions without particulate matter as containing “nothing”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know what you mean by “space that is formatted to”.

But regardless, if this region contains a foam, it doesn’t contain nothing.

Used the term to suggest that the foam may be an interaction that occurs between particles(possibly in some sort of semi-entangled action) and that this would represent a field that is fundamentally separate from void space.

I’m not really asking for a psychologistic response though. I’m wanting to know if there are good scientific reasons for referring to regions without particulate matter as containing “nothing”.
—-

My view would be that this would be likely to mislead the reader.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

why are we still calling it space then?

Because space is what it is called. I don’t think we need to change the name just because a region that we thought contained nothing in fact contains something.

But maybe we should. Maybe “space” is just as misleading as “nothing”.

That was my point.

Yes, I initially thought that it wasn’t a very good point, but being a slow typist allowed sufficient time for the possibility that it might be a good point to raise its head.

Browsing the web, it seems that there are many who have asked this question, and see it as an opportunity for a real shit fight:

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/lawrence-krauss-and-nothing-60074.html

I’ve only scanned the comments, but what I saw seemed to be at the level of: Krauss says space is nothing, when obviously it is something, so there is a God after all.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’ve only scanned the comments, but what I saw seemed to be at the level of: Krauss says space is nothing, when obviously it is something, so there is a God after all.

That is compelling!

The Rev Dodgson said:

Browsing the web, it seems that there are many who have asked this question, and see it as an opportunity for a real shit fight:

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/lawrence-krauss-and-nothing-60074.html

I’ve only scanned the comments, but what I saw seemed to be at the level of: Krauss says space is nothing, when obviously it is something, so there is a God after all.

Ah. So that’s where the bastard has been hiding from the war crimes tribunal!

Any ideas for testing whether quantum foam is a residual product of BB entanglement?

>>>He insists on calling the space between particles of matter “nothing” even though this space is said to account for 70% of the mass of the Universe,

maybe he doesn’t know what space really is?

did he discuss the frequency spectrum? because the frequency spectrum exists everywhere where space is

and look at how much energy the frequency spectrum has at any given point in space time

if you want to know what space is, you also have to know what the frequency spectrum is

CrazyNeutrino said:

>>>He insists on calling the space between particles of matter “nothing” even though this space is said to account for 70% of the mass of the Universe,

maybe he doesn’t know what space really is?

did he discuss the frequency spectrum? because the frequency spectrum exists everywhere where space is

and look at how much energy the frequency spectrum has at any given point in space time

if you want to know what space is, you also have to know what the frequency spectrum is

Does anyone know what space really is?

But surely a top cosmologist would know as well as anyone?

As for the frequency spectrum, wouldn’t the mass of all the photons within any bit of “space” be miniscule compared with all the “dark energy”?

I don’t wish to defend Krauss’ choice of words. Without investigating I suspect much as dv indicated, that they are at least as much rhetorical as ontological.

However I will make the point that it is a fundamental aspect of QM that the ground state of a system still has energy. The fact that it is a ground state is important – it is not just like any other state, and this “zero point” energy cannot be extracted but still influences the overall dynamics of the system.

So I would say that it is probably worth making the distinction between the zero-point energy of empty space and other higher-energetic-level systems ie those containing real mass/energy. But repeat first point.

I haven’t read this book because I suspect I’d find it annoying. I think Krauss is trying to enlist physics to answer the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” (to which the correct answer is “because if anything exists it’s going to be something, not nothing”), which entails the question seriously enough to have to redefine “nothing” as a kind of something. Which seems unwise.

which entails the question seriously enough = taking

Bubblecar said:

I haven’t read this book because I suspect I’d find it annoying. I think Krauss is trying to enlist physics to answer the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” (to which the correct answer is “because if anything exists it’s going to be something, not nothing”), which entails the question seriously enough to have to redefine “nothing” as a kind of something. Which seems unwise.

I think I agree on all counts.

(The book is annoying, but I think it is also worth reading)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

I haven’t read this book because I suspect I’d find it annoying. I think Krauss is trying to enlist physics to answer the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” (to which the correct answer is “because if anything exists it’s going to be something, not nothing”), which entails the question seriously enough to have to redefine “nothing” as a kind of something. Which seems unwise.

I think I agree on all counts.

(The book is annoying, but I think it is also worth reading)

the worth is always in the reading to find it.

>“Why is there something rather than nothing?”

It’s not actually helpful to mention “nothing”, which is irrelevant. The question can sensibly be reduced to “Why does anything exist?”, a question which physics may be able to answer, if it can be answered at all.

Bubblecar said:

>“Why is there something rather than nothing?”

It’s not actually helpful to mention “nothing”, which is irrelevant. The question can sensibly be reduced to “Why does anything exist?”, a question which physics may be able to answer, if it can be answered at all.

I suppose physics can (in principle) answer the question: “Why* did nothingy sort of stuff change into the sort of stuff, parts of which evolved into stuff that asks why does anything exist?”

• Where “why” = what is the mechanism by which this happened.

I don’t know that physics can answer the question “why does anything exist”. I don’t even know what might be considered an answer to that question.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>“Why is there something rather than nothing?”

It’s not actually helpful to mention “nothing”, which is irrelevant. The question can sensibly be reduced to “Why does anything exist?”, a question which physics may be able to answer, if it can be answered at all.

I suppose physics can (in principle) answer the question: “Why* did nothingy sort of stuff change into the sort of stuff, parts of which evolved into stuff that asks why does anything exist?”

• Where “why” = what is the mechanism by which this happened.

I don’t know that physics can answer the question “why does anything exist”. I don’t even know what might be considered an answer to that question.

the human part of the equation = WTF?

we call this explorative science.

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

>>>He insists on calling the space between particles of matter “nothing” even though this space is said to account for 70% of the mass of the Universe,

maybe he doesn’t know what space really is?

did he discuss the frequency spectrum? because the frequency spectrum exists everywhere where space is

and look at how much energy the frequency spectrum has at any given point in space time

if you want to know what space is, you also have to know what the frequency spectrum is

Does anyone know what space really is?

But surely a top cosmologist would know as well as anyone?

As for the frequency spectrum, wouldn’t the mass of all the photons within any bit of “space” be miniscule compared with all the “dark energy”?

this bit from wicki

In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe. Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain observations since the 1990s that indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

this bit from Nasa

One explanation for dark energy is that it is a property of space. Albert Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothing. Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. The first property that Einstein discovered is that it is possible for more space to come into existence. Then one version of Einstein’s gravity theory, the version that contains a cosmological constant, makes a second prediction: “empty space” can possess its own energy. Because this energy is a property of space itself, it would not be diluted as space expands. As more space comes into existence, more of this energy-of-space would appear. As a result, this form of energy would cause the Universe to expand faster and faster. Unfortunately, no one understands why the cosmological constant should even be there, much less why it would have exactly the right value to cause the observed acceleration of the Universe.

Another explanation for how space acquires energy comes from the quantum theory of matter. In this theory, “empty space” is actually full of temporary (“virtual”) particles that continually form and then disappear. But when physicists tried to calculate how much energy this would give empty space, the answer came out wrong – wrong by a lot. The number came out 10120 times too big. That’s a 1 with 120 zeros after it. It’s hard to get an answer that bad. So the mystery continues.

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

=

Is the frequency spectrum a property of space?

What frequencies does dark energy have?

>I don’t know that physics can answer the question “why does anything exist”.

I don’t know either, which is why I said “may” :)

I’m just think it’s safe to assume that if the question is answerable at all, it will only be answerable by physics.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Is the frequency spectrum a property of space?

I’m not sure what that means

CrazyNeutrino said:

What frequencies does dark energy have?

As far as I know, no properties of dark energy have been measured, other than its effect on the expansion of space.

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Is the frequency spectrum a property of space?

I’m not sure what that means

CrazyNeutrino said:

What frequencies does dark energy have?

As far as I know, no properties of dark energy have been measured, other than its effect on the expansion of space.

Makes it sound a lot like an effect of another mechanism, rather than a definable energy of it’s own.

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Is the frequency spectrum a property of space?

I’m not sure what that means

CrazyNeutrino said:

What frequencies does dark energy have?

As far as I know, no properties of dark energy have been measured, other than its effect on the expansion of space.

Might spatial expansion be the result of global agitation? ie, vibration creates shapes and patterns, so could expansion be the effect of global vibration?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Might spatial expansion be the result of global agitation? ie, vibration creates shapes and patterns, so could expansion be the effect of global vibration?

Like elastic rebound against the ground state?

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Is the frequency spectrum a property of space?

I’m not sure what that means

CrazyNeutrino said:

What frequencies does dark energy have?

As far as I know, no properties of dark energy have been measured, other than its effect on the expansion of space.

that Nasa article states that dark energy is a property of space

what are all the other properties of space

space
time
matter
antimatter
dark matter
dark energy
gravity
weak force, strong force
electromagnetism………………….

all these properties of space are in some way interconnected

if you take one out of the equation, is it going to have an effect on the rest
I imagine that that would be impossible, but just for arguments sake
if I could eliminate the frequency spectrum from the rest of the universe am I removing a fundamental property of space?

Properties of space and time.
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node93.html

2. Physical Properties of Space
http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/75SummerStudy/Chapt.2.html

none of the articles I have looked at say that the frequency spectrum is a property of space

but If by magic I were to remove the frequency spectrum, its going to have a big effect

Im thinking that the frequency spectrum is a property of space

but Im happy for it to be proved otherwise

I wish I was a cosmologist

but Im a poor visual artist with no money

but I have a lot of imagination

lol

here is an interesting article

Wilczek explains properties of space
http://thedartmouth.com/2010/05/07/news/space

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Is the frequency spectrum a property of space?

I’m not sure what that means

I suspect that CN uses the phrase “frequency spectrum” to refer to the universe’s electromagnetic field, rather than to this

The electromagnetic field, like all quantum fields, is present throughout all of space. The question of whether space has an existence independent of the fields that permeate it is more of an issue for philosophy than for physics. IMHO.

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

What frequencies does dark energy have?

As far as I know, no properties of dark energy have been measured, other than its effect on the expansion of space.

Pretty much, although we’re fairly certain that dark energy is independent of electromagnetism and the weak and strong nuclear forces; it does appear to be sensitive to energy density since the rate of expansion isn’t constant, so it probably does interact with gravity.

There are two leading theories regarding the nature of dark energy: it could be due to a cosmological constant, or to a fifth fundamental force known as quintessence.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Cosmological_constant

The simplest explanation for dark energy is that it is simply the “cost of having space”: that is, a volume of space has some intrinsic, fundamental energy. This is the cosmological constant, sometimes called Lambda (hence Lambda-CDM model) after the Greek letter Λ, the symbol used to represent this quantity mathematically. Since energy and mass are related by E = mc², Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicts that this energy will have a gravitational effect. It is sometimes called a vacuum energy because it is the energy density of empty vacuum. In fact, most theories of particle physics predict vacuum fluctuations that would give the vacuum this sort of energy.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Quintessence

In quintessence models of dark energy, the observed acceleration of the scale factor is caused by the potential energy of a dynamical field, referred to as quintessence field. Quintessence differs from the cosmological constant in that it can vary in space and time. In order for it not to clump and form structure like matter, the field must be very light so that it has a large Compton wavelength.

No evidence of quintessence is yet available, but it has not been ruled out either. It generally predicts a slightly slower acceleration of the expansion of the universe than the cosmological constant. Some scientists think that the best evidence for quintessence would come from violations of Einstein’s equivalence principle and variation of the fundamental constants in space or time. Scalar fields are predicted by the standard model and string theory, but an analogous problem to the cosmological constant problem (or the problem of constructing models of cosmic inflation) occurs: renormalization theory predicts that scalar fields should acquire large masses.

In the cosmological constant scenario, dark energy is essentially an antigravity term in the Einstein field equations, so dark energy waves would simply be gravity waves, and the associated force carrier particle (gauge boson) is the graviton. Note that the graviton is currently a theoretical particle and it may not actually exist – we need a theory of quantum gravity to address that question.

In the quintessence scenario, it’s expected that energy in the quintessence field would be quantized as some sort of gauge boson, and that disturbances in the field would propagate as waves, similar to what happens with the more familiar fundamental forces.

PM 2Ring said:

In the cosmological constant scenario, dark energy is essentially an antigravity term in the Einstein field equations, so dark energy waves would simply be gravity waves, and the associated force carrier particle (gauge boson) is the graviton. Note that the graviton is currently a theoretical particle and it may not actually exist – we need a theory of quantum gravity to address that question.

In the quintessence scenario, it’s expected that energy in the quintessence field would be quantized as some sort of gauge boson, and that disturbances in the field would propagate as waves, similar to what happens with the more familiar fundamental forces.

Makes gravity sound like the opposite of spatial expansion to me, which kinda suggests the two are an elastic effect of particles effectively evicting there space-like qualities.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Makes gravity sound like the opposite of spatial expansion to me, which kinda suggests the two are an elastic effect of particles effectively evicting there space-like qualities.

and I guess space evicting it’s time-like qualities

another interesting bit

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18670/all-forces-as-manifestations-of-properties-of-space-time

what martin and dv have said.

the nothing refers to the thought that there was “nothing” before our universe came into existence. there was no time no space, nothing. the book attempts top show that this is wrong thought. that this “nothing” really is “something” and resulted, through some change in this “nothing”, in our universe.

the book is pretty good imho, and i didn’t find much that wasn’t comprehendable. but then i probably read more cosmology books than most here. pop-sci and layman’s editions of course.

funny that quintessence is being used for dark energy. Krauss brought out a book called The Fifth Essence” (quintessence in other words) but it was referring to dark matter.

1st published in 1989, so a fair while ago, cosmologically speaking.

if you take one out of the equation, is it going to have an effect on the rest

Just Six Numbers by Martin Rees.

goes into what would result if the six fundamental properties of this universe were different.

Boris said:

what martin and dv have said.

the nothing refers to the thought that there was “nothing” before our universe came into existence. there was no time no space, nothing. the book attempts top show that this is wrong thought. that this “nothing” really is “something” and resulted, through some change in this “nothing”, in our universe.

the book is pretty good imho, and i didn’t find much that wasn’t comprehendable. but then i probably read more cosmology books than most here. pop-sci and layman’s editions of course.

I don’t read it that way at all. I’m only about half way through, but he has been quite insistent so far that matter-free space should be referred to as “nothing”’, and the universe came out of “nothing”. If the message is supposed to be that nothing is not really nothing, he’s going a funny way about it.

The other thing I don’t like is that he lists alternative hypotheses, but gives little or no detail about the evidence for rejecting the un-favoured ones, and also without recognising that the correct alternative may just not have been thought of yet.

i guess he is just giving his preferred version of possibilities. also you’d probably have to go elsewhere to find out about these other hypotheses to see what they were about. he wouldn’t go into detail about their pros and cons because that isn’t what the book is about. they are mentioned “in passing”.

also maybe “nothing” is easier to write than “quantum funny stuff”.

;-)

Perhaps what he means is “you can’t ever have proper nothing, because before you get to such a minimal state a fundamental instability kicks in”. I’ve been suggesting that for many years :)

he does mention that nothing is an unstable position. only need a little something to tip the balance.

Bubblecar said:

Perhaps what he means is “you can’t ever have proper nothing, because before you get to such a minimal state a fundamental instability kicks in”. I’ve been suggesting that for many years :)

Would that make zero point the minimum resistance to nothingness?

Boris said:

he does mention that nothing is an unstable position. only need a little something to tip the balance.

a cry for help.

ignore the last

Maybe it’s like buying one grape at the supermarket. It’s not enough to be measured but it’s still something.

>Would that make zero point the minimum resistance to nothingness?

Don’t ask me, I’m not a physicist and I’ve never played one in a film.

Bubblecar said:

>Would that make zero point the minimum resistance to nothingness?

Don’t ask me, I’m not a physicist and I’ve never played one in a film.

My vicarious enjoyment of the pleasure you take in your culinary experience ensures I always feel well fed! :)

I’m pretty sure I gain weight just reading about Car’s dinners :)

Divine Angel said:

I’m pretty sure I gain weight just reading about Car’s dinners :)

always a good pick me up ;)

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’ve only scanned the comments, but what I saw seemed to be at the level of: Krauss says space is nothing, when obviously it is something, so there is a God after all.

Bubblecar said:

I haven’t read this book because I suspect I’d find it annoying. I think Krauss is trying to enlist physics to answer the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” (to which the correct answer is “because if anything exists it’s going to be something, not nothing”), which entails the question seriously enough to have to redefine “nothing” as a kind of something. Which seems unwise.

Krauss, has somewhat attached himself to promoting atheism. I suspect his motivation to claim the universe can come from nothing is somewhat connected his desire to counter an argument that a god is needed as a creator of the universe, hence the mistake that a rebuttal of his argument is tantamount to an argument in favour of god. But yes, he’s trying to argue that we have in hand a reasonable understanding how something can or could come from nothing… for certain values of nothing.

Just discovered that Chapter 9 of the book is called “Nothing is Something”, so maybe he isn’t saying the Universe came from nothing after all.

I’ll report back when I’ve read it.

From the end of Chapter 9:

“While inflation demonstrates how empty space endowed with energy can effectively create everything we see, along with an unbelievably large and flat universe, it would be disingenuous to suggest that empty space endowed with energy, which drives inflation, is really nothing. In this picture one must assume that space exists and can store energy, and one uses the laws of physics like general relativity to calculate the consequences. So if we stopped here, one might be justified in claiming that modern science is a long way from really addressing how to get something from nothing. “

I would have been happy if he had stopped there, but he goes on:

“This is just the first step, however. As we expand our understanding, we will next see that inflation can represent simply the tip of a cosmic iceberg of nothingness.”

From the end of Chapter 10:

“The lesson is clear: quantum gravity not only appears to allow universes to be created from nothing – meaning, in this case, I emphasize, the absence of space and time – it may require them. “Nothing” in this case no space, no time, no anything! – is unstable”

So there is no question, he is finally quite explicit about it, when he talks about “nothing”, at least in Chapter 10, he is referring to “Nothing”, not a something that until recently most people (including scientists) thought was nothing.

So does he make his case, that the Universe as we experience it came from “Nothing”? I don’t think he does. The “Nothing” that he says is unstable is only unstable because of the action of something, albeit a something that was one thought to be nothing, and Is nothing in the sense that it contains no particulate matter. It seems to me that his arguments lead to the conclusion that either the basic underlying something that is space (or some still more basic something) has always existed (in some form), or that time is (in some sense) curved, so that it may be finite but without boundaries. The alternative is that it is vacuums all the way down, which is possible, but also implies there has always been something.

I think it is a shame he is so committed to the strong “Universe From Nothing” argument, because it gives theists a good excuse to dismiss the whole book as worthless, when in fact it is an excellent summary of developments in cosmology over the last 30 years or so, and the argument that the Universe (as we see it) came from something that has always existed disposes of the need to hypothesise a “God” just as effectively as the Universe from nothing argument.

As I suspected, he’s redefining “nothing” as a kind of something (the properties identified as “quantum gravity”), but he doesn’t seem to want to admit it.

This whole “nothingness is unstable” rhetoric would be better expressed as: the universe includes an underlying instability which ensures it can never be reduced to “nothing”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m reading “A Universe from Nothing” by Lawrence Krauss.

He insists on calling the space between particles of matter “nothing” even though this space is said to account for 70% of the mass of the Universe, and it is said that this space contains a quantum foam which has virtual particles continually appearing and disappearing.

To me “nothing” means a region that does not interact with something in any way. Is there a valid scientific reason for referring to the space between particles of matter as “nothing”, even though this space is said to have a profound effect on the rest of the Universe?

wait what? since when does the quantum foam equal 70% of the mass of the universe??

take a look at this cool video.. features a prof from the university of adelaide

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY

quantum foam=zpe=de=maybe.

Dropbear said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m reading “A Universe from Nothing” by Lawrence Krauss.

He insists on calling the space between particles of matter “nothing” even though this space is said to account for 70% of the mass of the Universe, and it is said that this space contains a quantum foam which has virtual particles continually appearing and disappearing.

To me “nothing” means a region that does not interact with something in any way. Is there a valid scientific reason for referring to the space between particles of matter as “nothing”, even though this space is said to have a profound effect on the rest of the Universe?

wait what? since when does the quantum foam equal 70% of the mass of the universe??

take a look at this cool video.. features a prof from the university of adelaide

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY

I’ll look at the video later, but the 70% includes “dark energy”, which as I understand it is an accepted part of the Big Bang + Inflation model.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Dropbear said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m reading “A Universe from Nothing” by Lawrence Krauss.

He insists on calling the space between particles of matter “nothing” even though this space is said to account for 70% of the mass of the Universe, and it is said that this space contains a quantum foam which has virtual particles continually appearing and disappearing.

To me “nothing” means a region that does not interact with something in any way. Is there a valid scientific reason for referring to the space between particles of matter as “nothing”, even though this space is said to have a profound effect on the rest of the Universe?

wait what? since when does the quantum foam equal 70% of the mass of the universe??

take a look at this cool video.. features a prof from the university of adelaide

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY

I’ll look at the video later, but the 70% includes “dark energy”, which as I understand it is an accepted part of the Big Bang + Inflation model.

is it ??? im not disagreeing but big bang and inflation were around a long time before Dark Energy.

Dropbear said:

is it ??? im not disagreeing but big bang and inflation were around a long time before Dark Energy.

The Big Bang has, inflation and the accelerating rate of expansion are more recent.

i don’t think de is part of the bbt. yet. it may come about that it was the cause of inflation. de is only a recent discovery and its place in the bbt isn’t certain.

The answer to everything says that Inflation was first hypothesised in 1980, and:
“ Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain observations since the 1990s that indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate”

Boris said:

i don’t think de is part of the bbt. yet. it may come about that it was the cause of inflation. de is only a recent discovery and its place in the bbt isn’t certain.

Well the BBT isn’t certain either :)

Bubblecar said:

As I suspected, he’s redefining “nothing” as a kind of something (the properties identified as “quantum gravity”), but he doesn’t seem to want to admit it.

Not quite. At the end of Chapter 9 he explicitly says that “space” is not nothing, but he then goes on to hypothesise a Nothing that is something really (even though he insists that it is really nothing).

But we shouldn’t let this detract from the importance of the underlying hypotheses.

the video covers some of the stuff that krauss is on about.

Well the BBT isn’t certain either

name one science theory that is?

Boris said:

Well the BBT isn’t certain either

name one science theory that is?

I have appended a complete list below:

i’m not quite sure if that nothing list is really something.

Boris said:

i’m not quite sure if that nothing list is really something.

It might not be worth anything, but it was free.

Murphy’s Law!

The Rev Dodgson said:

The answer to everything says that Inflation was first hypothesised in 1980, and:
“ Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain observations since the 1990s that indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate”

which infers that inflation was hypothesised before the need for DE was known.. ie they had a working theory of inflation before it was discovered that the rate of expansion of the universe was increasing, and not decreasing.

there is about 20 years between guth’s inflation and the DE hypothesis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY

Now viewed.

Very similar stuff to Krauss’s book, in fact there is a still from the Adelaide guy’s video in the book.

If I now understand what the book is saying, he does not contend that the quantum vacuum is nothing (although he spends the first 8 9/10 chapters talking as though it was), but he does contend that the “true vacuum” is nothing, and that this nothing is unstable, and will inevitably form a quantum vacuum.

To my mind this means that either the “true vacuum” isn’t empty either, or it is only unstable because of the presence of a quantum vacuum.

But also I don’t see it as being an important question. The point that this quantum vacuum is enough to start a universe full of matter is surely enough, whether you call it empty or not.

I have now moved on to Brian Greene’s “The Hidden Reality” which seems to cover the same ground as Krauss’s book, plus a whole lot more.

From reading the first few pages it looks like I will prefer his style, as being more willing to address the “difficult” bits (although still without really getting into the maths, we can’t have equations in a popular science book, can we?), and also more willing to accept the “we just don’t know” (and quite possibly never will (but that shouldn’t stop us looking)) approach.

Anyway, I’ll probably start a thread on it in due course.

>“we just don’t know” (and quite possibly never will

Which is why I tend not to bother following cosmology these days :)

Bubblecar said:

>“we just don’t know” (and quite possibly never will

Which is why I tend not to bother following cosmology these days :)

Perhaps an over-reaction, in that the things we can “know” are no doubt very much greater than the things we “know” now.

But that reminds me of one of the themes of the book where I disagree with his conclusions (and also those of Dawkins in the afterword).

This is the conclusion drawn from the fact that in the far future, due to the continuing expansion of space, other galaxies will become invisible, and any intelligent beings that might be around will have no data to suggest that a big bang occurred in the past, or that space is expanding. His conclusion is that we are at a “special” time in the history of the Universe, old enough for intelligent life to have evolved, but young enough to observe the true nature of the space we live in.

My conclusion on the other hand is that it is unlikely that we are special at all, and that our conclusions as to the nature and history of the Universe are probably just as faulty as those of the future cosmologists, because we have no way of knowing what lies outside our boundaries of observation, and if we could see them we would likely find that the early history of the Universe is totally different to that proposed in current models.

>and if we could see them we would likely find that the early history of the Universe is totally different to that proposed in current models.

Likely? How can you tell, not having seen them?

what era of the early universe?

i read these kinds of books and think “interesting”. i don’t place any more faith in them than that. i think if you take them too seriously then you are a bit of a fool. it’s a bit like when you read of some breakthrough that is going to change the world/rewrite our theories etc. interesting but i’ll wait for that to actually happen before i lend it any more credence.

Bubblecar said:

>and if we could see them we would likely find that the early history of the Universe is totally different to that proposed in current models.

Likely? How can you tell, not having seen them?

You can’t be certain, but there are (as far as we know) a huge number of possibilities, so on the information we have available it Is likely that what is actually there is different to what is here.

Boris said:

what era of the early universe?

Before the formation of the earliest galaxy that we can detect.

before the first stars? or between the two eras? the dark age, before the first stars but after reionization?

Boris said:

before the first stars? or between the two eras? the dark age, before the first stars but after reionization?

This site:

http://heasarc.nasa.gov/docs/cosmic/farthest_info.html

suggests I’m talking about galaxies formed less than about 500 million years after the Big Bang.

It seems entirely plausible that a pure quantum vacuum or void should be unstable as it represents a state of infinite collapse or indivisible acceleration.

suggests I’m talking about galaxies formed less than about 500 million years after the Big Bang.

seeing as they seem to have evidence for this and we have the cmbr which gives a definite beginning to when these events can start to form. the galaxies then wont be like what we see now. i expect they were more like small globular clusters that later formed into spirals etc. bit like how solar systems started off as a random collection of dust. i haven’t read anything about this so don’t know how (in)accurate my thoughts are.

I think I’ll return to this after I have read Greene’s book, and also the latest New Scientist that has dark energy splattered all over the front cover.

It’s quite possible that I’m missing something in the evidence we do have that means my suggestion is way off mark, but the opposite is also true.

So without using a nerd to English dictionary, was I right with my grape-at-the-supermarket analogy? One grape isn’t enough to be measured but it’s still something.

i think scientists are still a little astounded at how fast stars and galaxies first formed and are running models as to how it seems to be so.

yes, except the grape may or may not be something.

Boris said:

yes, except the grape may or may not be something.

OK.

Boris said:

i think scientists are still a little astounded at how fast stars and galaxies first formed and are running models as to how it seems to be so.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it has something to do with the original slower expansion of space and the subsequent acceleration.

Boris said:

i think scientists are still a little astounded at how fast stars and galaxies first formed and are running models as to how it seems to be so.

Were particles in the early galaxy supposed to have been holding a higher charge? Wouldn’t a stronger universal EM field facilitate speedier massing?

http://books.simonandschuster.com/Universe-from-Nothing/Lawrence-M-Krauss/9781451624465/excerpt

the preface to the book. might give others who haven’t read it and idea as to what krauss means by this “nothing”.

“In fact, many laypeople as well as scientists revel in our ability to explain how snowflakes and rainbows can spontaneously appear, based on simple, elegant laws of physics.” © 2012 Lawrence M. Krauss

:) How is this any argument for “no god”? Atheism has to do better than that to win any points here.

lol@google maps

Deakin University

This place has closed or relocated.

poikilotherm said:

lol@google maps

Deakin University

This place has closed or relocated.

So is there nothing there now?

poikilotherm said:

lol@google maps

Deakin University

This place has closed or relocated.

I bet it says “not found” when you look for Hogwarts. :P

>How is this any argument for “no god”?

“no god” doesn’t need an argument, it just needs no god. It’s “some god” that needs an argument, given that as far as the evidence is concerned, there’s no god.

poikilotherm said:

lol@google maps

Deakin University

This place has closed or relocated.

As you were.

Bubblecar said:

>How is this any argument for “no god”?

“no god” doesn’t need an argument, it just needs no god. It’s “some god” that needs an argument, given that as far as the evidence is concerned, there’s no god.

(: “no god” needs proof as much as the alternative. If you look for proof of god you find that “the path to god” appears to demand that one comprehend oneself as both nothing and containing all the potential of the universe. As I am currently distracted by bills and raising a healthy child I’ve postponed any further consideration of the subject, except as intellectual argument. Atheism appears to prefer to maintain a general denial while demanding proof of a subject that, on it’s own, purports to require personal experience over mass acceptance. It is one thing to be wary of organised institutions that demand various forms of social conformity and another to genuinely question the reality of the subject. I don’t suggest any belief but I expect a reasonable explanation for any assertion.

“no god” needs proof as much as the alternative.

you don’t “prove” negatives for a start and as we make no claims other than for believers to supply “proof” then we as atheists don’t have to “prove” anything. if we made the counterclaim that we “knew” there was no god then we would have to supply “proof”.

i should add that this is basic stuff regarding science and the burden of “proof”.

What would be acceptable proof of a god?

What would be acceptable proof of a god?

wouldn’t have a clue.

>“no god” needs proof as much as the alternative.

Nooo. It just needs no god.

Read all the physical science books, there’s no god in them. Because there’s no evidence for the existence of a god, outside of the human imagination.

But there’s shedloads of evidence for the existence of imaginary gods, in the belief systems that people have put together. Atheists are happy to concede that these gods exist, in the human imagination. And it’s the human imagination that is the proper subject of study for those who wish to understand gods and their place in the scheme of things.

Divine Angel said:

What would be acceptable proof of a god?

Julie Andrews’ autograph.

Divine Angel said:

What would be acceptable proof of a god?

Comes back to life as a zombie three days after being buried.

If you were just abiding in the fields right, watching a flock of ungulates and lo an Angel of the Lord came and told you “unto ewe a child is born, unto ewe a son is given” well you’d be mighty worried.

OCDC said:

Divine Angel said:

What would be acceptable proof of a god?

Julie Andrews’ autograph.

Did you know the old boiler has never once been to Australia?

Skeptic Pete said:

OCDC said:

Divine Angel said:

What would be acceptable proof of a god?

Julie Andrews’ autograph.

Did you know the old boiler has never once been to Australia?

Had never, yes.

OCDC said:

Skeptic Pete said:

OCDC said:

Julie Andrews’ autograph.

Did you know the old boiler has never once been to Australia?

Had never, yes.

Acualy you were right. Still never been to Australia, only Kweenzland.

OCDC said:

OCDC said:

Skeptic Pete said:

Did you know the old boiler has never once been to Australia?

Had never, yes.

Acualy you were right. Still never been to Australia, only Kweenzland.

Touche

Bubblecar said:

>“no god” needs proof as much as the alternative.

Nooo. It just needs no god.

Read all the physical science books, there’s no god in them. Because there’s no evidence for the existence of a god, outside of the human imagination.

But there’s shedloads of evidence for the existence of imaginary gods, in the belief systems that people have put together. Atheists are happy to concede that these gods exist, in the human imagination. And it’s the human imagination that is the proper subject of study for those who wish to understand gods and their place in the scheme of things.

Physical science books address the subject of science. You will not find a great deal of any substantially definitive material on the origin of reality. From my point of view, one group is denying another groups beliefs. There is no scientific addressing of whether any consciousness is real, let alone that of a supreme consciousness. Though scientific reasoning is applied to avoiding providing proof, the conviction is biased, not scientific, in my view.

Physical science books address the subject of science. You will not find a great deal of any substantially definitive material on the origin of reality. From my point of view, one group is denying another groups beliefs. There is no scientific addressing of whether any consciousness is real, let alone that of a supreme consciousness. Though scientific reasoning is applied to avoiding providing proof, the conviction is biased, not scientific,

science isn’t about belief. and as i have said before atheists don’t have to prove anything because we make no claims.

> atheists don’t have to prove anything because we make no claims.

I do, but it’s normally about my good looks and debonair ways.

I do, but it’s normally about my good looks and debonair ways.

science has nothing to say on the subject. science deals in modeling reality.

Boris said:

I do, but it’s normally about my good looks and debonair ways.

science has nothing to say on the subject. science deals in modeling reality.

Then why is it so often mentioned by scientists?

I’m thinking it’s ready to serve the first serving:

Needless to say, that was for chat :)

Boris said:

I do, but it’s normally about my good looks and debonair ways.

science has nothing to say on the subject. science deals in modeling reality.

Hah.

Then why is it so often mentioned by scientists?

there is a difference between science and scientists. one is a method of enquiry and the other is a human.

whats the diff between inquiry and enquiry?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Boris said:

I do, but it’s normally about my good looks and debonair ways.

science has nothing to say on the subject. science deals in modeling reality.

Then why is it so often mentioned by scientists?

Well, my good looks and debonair ways are world famous, so why wouldn’t they be?

Boris said:

Then why is it so often mentioned by scientists?

there is a difference between science and scientists. one is a method of enquiry and the other is a human.

whats the diff between inquiry and enquiry?

I. :P

OTOH, your modesty needs work.

i’ve emailed deakin and told them what an obstreperous person you are poik.

science has nothing to say on the subject. science deals in modeling reality.
————————————

Stragly enough, reality already exists…

Seriously do you check the floor boards are still still there and the density is able to hold your weight before you hop out of bed and have a piss?

Of course not, you believe it is so.

So ferken hypocritical.

Mr Ironic said:

science has nothing to say on the subject. science deals in modeling reality.
————————————

Stragly enough, reality already exists…

Seriously do you check the floor boards are still still there and the density is able to hold your weight before you hop out of bed and have a piss?

Of course not, you believe it is so.

So ferken hypocritical.

Why go that far?

Why go that far?
————————-

Are you talking about waking up and believing the past is true?

Otherwise I dunno. Why?

Mr Ironic said:

science has nothing to say on the subject. science deals in modeling reality.
————————————

Stragly enough, reality already exists…

Seriously do you check the floor boards are still still there and the density is able to hold your weight before you hop out of bed and have a piss?

Of course not, you believe it is so.

So ferken hypocritical.

What’s hypocritical about making models of reality?

What’s hypocritical about making models of reality?
————————————————-

Well all models are based on a belief.

Well all models are based on a belief.

yes, belief that the observations are accurate. not just blind faith as it appears you mean.

Mr Ironic said:

What’s hypocritical about making models of reality?
————————————————-

Well all models are based on a belief.

More an assumption than belief.

it’s the old “you’re no different to religion cos you have beliefs too”. after you’ve heard eleventybillion times it gets boring.

yes, belief that the observations are accurate
———————————————

Yep, Thanks.

Yep, Thanks.

you forgot the rest. bit dishonest, but to be expected.

Boris said:

it’s the old “you’re no different to religion cos you have beliefs too”. after you’ve heard eleventybillion times it gets boring.

sheesh.. you must live in the desert..

why?

Boris said:

why?

only eleventy billion?

Mr Ironic said:

What’s hypocritical about making models of reality?
————————————————-

Well all models are based on a belief.

Ok. But not all beliefs are created equal: in science, we want our models to accurately reflect the part of reality that they are modeling, so we make observations and perform experiments. We look for evidence that suggests that our model is consistent with reality, but more importantly, we do everything we can think of to try and disprove our model.

In contrast, traditional belief systems tend to build self-reinforcing pictures of the world, and stuff that doesn’t mesh well with the accepted worldview tends to get ignored or warped to make it fit. Traditional belief systems present stories of the world that may work well as a satisfying story (at least, for the adherents of that belief system), but merely being a good narrative doesn’t mean that the story accurately reflects reality.

See http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/index.php/Narrativium

roughbarked said:

Boris said:

it’s the old “you’re no different to religion cos you have beliefs too”. after you’ve heard eleventybillion times it gets boring.

sheesh.. you must live in the desert..

Well, the second most deserty continent at least…

Boris said:

Yep, Thanks.

you forgot the rest. bit dishonest, but to be expected.

Do you always expect dishonesty?

after you’ve heard eleventybillion times it gets boring.
—————————————————————
It’s a slow learning curve.

yes.

Stealth said:

roughbarked said:

Boris said:

it’s the old “you’re no different to religion cos you have beliefs too”. after you’ve heard eleventybillion times it gets boring.

sheesh.. you must live in the desert..

Well, the second most deserty continent at least…

It is possible that we have registered the highest evaporation rates.

But not all beliefs are created equal:
———————————————————-

Seriously, before I read the rest… :)

It’s a slow learning curve.

i’ll type slower so you can keep up then.

Boris said:

yes.

OK.. so I can lie freely?

we want our models to accurately reflect the part of reality that they are modeling, so we make observations and perform experiments. We look for evidence that suggests that our model is consistent with reality, but more importantly, we do everything we can think of to try and disprove our model.
———————————

Yep me two.

Mr Ironic said:

we want our models to accurately reflect the part of reality that they are modeling, so we make observations and perform experiments. We look for evidence that suggests that our model is consistent with reality, but more importantly, we do everything we can think of to try and disprove our model. ———————————

Yep me two.

most of my modelling is about comprehending how the controls function.

Mr Ironic said:

But not all beliefs are created equal:
———————————————————-

Seriously, before I read the rest… :)

Sorry, I don’t get what you’re trying to say.

In contrast, traditional belief systems tend to build self-reinforcing pictures of the world, and stuff that doesn’t mesh well with the accepted worldview tends to get ignored or warped to make it fit. Traditional belief systems present stories of the world that may work well as a satisfying story (at least, for the adherents of that belief system), but merely being a good narrative doesn’t mean that the story accurately reflects reality.
————————————————-

Contrast, WTF. Does anybody think that normal humans have not questioned thier beliefs.

I think the above statment says more about others.

Mr Ironic said:

In contrast, traditional belief systems tend to build self-reinforcing pictures of the world, and stuff that doesn’t mesh well with the accepted worldview tends to get ignored or warped to make it fit. Traditional belief systems present stories of the world that may work well as a satisfying story (at least, for the adherents of that belief system), but merely being a good narrative doesn’t mean that the story accurately reflects reality.
————————————————-

Contrast, WTF. Does anybody think that normal humans have not questioned thier beliefs.

I think the above statment says more about others.

um.. let me read all that again..

i’ll type slower so you can keep up then.
———————————————
O K T h n aks.

Sorry, I don’t get what you’re trying to say.
——————————————————-

Just loving the statment…

Anyway nice chatting, I believe it is time for bed.

I hope all your floor boards are under you when you rise.

Mr Ironic said:

Anyway nice chatting, I believe it is time for bed.

I hope all your floor boards are under you when you rise.

back to basics.

Mr Ironic said:

In contrast, traditional belief systems tend to build self-reinforcing pictures of the world, and stuff that doesn’t mesh well with the accepted worldview tends to get ignored or warped to make it fit. Traditional belief systems present stories of the world that may work well as a satisfying story (at least, for the adherents of that belief system), but merely being a good narrative doesn’t mean that the story accurately reflects reality.
————————————————-

Contrast, WTF. Does anybody think that normal humans have not questioned thier beliefs.

Yes, contrast.

It’s not easy to effectively question a faith-based worldview, especially when you are part of a community that appears to accept that world view and any dissent is seen as sinful.

I hope all your floor boards are under you when you rise.

what that has to do with science i have no idea.