Something from nothing or a past-eternal something?

40 posts / 0 new
Last post
David Killens's picture
I agree. Although Zhe came

I agree. Although Zhe came here just to raise heck and fight, the topics are worth consideration and respectful debate.

Tin-Man's picture
I still prefer my ginormous

I still prefer my ginormous Cosmic Bunnies theory.

Sushisnake's picture
Well, I'm no scientist- and

Well, I'm no scientist- and my formal science education didn't make it to high school graduation- but I think the problem is many (including the dear, departed myusername) misunderstand what physicists mean when they use the word "nothing" in the context of the origins of the universe. Physicists mean a metastable false vacuum- a form of wavefunction called "quantum potential" - when they talk about "nothing". They're not using the word the way it's usually meant. Their "nothing" isn't nothing at all. Their "nothing" is more like the "empty" in an empty cardboard box: the box is empty of objects, but it's full of air and particles. It isn't empty at all.

If I'm on the wrong track, please correct me, guys, because I'd like to understand this.

Sheldon's picture
Why atheist? That question is

Why atheist? That question is a scientific question, so it has absolutely nothing to do with atheism.

I'm happy to accept scientific facts, as these are objectively evidenced. What is the current scientific position?

David Killens's picture
Sheldon, you just hit the

Sheldon, you just hit the bullseye. While we laymen continue to debate on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, there is very serious science examining this very question. The answer today is "we do not know". Because if someone does put out a viable concept, that would be a major scientific breakthrough and Nobel Prize territory.

In the pursuit of more knowledge, mathematical models are being generated. When Einstein came out with his great statements, Feynman had not been born. But Feynman made a major contribution to quantum mechanics, which allowed us a better understanding of physics.

My personal position is that we have not YET developed the mathematical infrastructure that will lead mankind to a better understanding of the "pre big bang model".

Dave Matson's picture
You have to ask yourself if

You have to ask yourself if reality even deals with absolute nothing. It seems that empty space is as nothing as nothing can get in reality. But it's not the nothing you have in mind. If true, then there must always have been something, if only empty space. Then you have to ask yourself if you really understand time which nobody seems to have a really good grip on. This idea of an infinite past is based on certain assumptions about time and might just be an erroneous extrapolation. It may be that time is of such a nature that an infinite past is an incoherent idea. What you see around you may be quite different under extreme circumstances. For example, a bug on the equator may assume that it always has the option of going north and not realize that in a very unusual place, the north pole, you can't go north!

Cognostic's picture
@myusernamekthx Something

@myusernamekthx Something from Nothing or an infinite regression? This is called a "False Dichotomy." The fact is that we have no idea. We have no idea if "Nothing" is actually capable of existing. We have no idea how far back things can regress. We do not know what is outside of our universe of matter, energy, and time. ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE (Universe Creating Pixies, Turtles all the way down, a Giant jar of universe creating peanut butter.) There is nothing that can be said about that which we do not know. Our current model of physics breaks down a Plank Time. Beyond that we know nothing.,

arakish's picture
Tin-Man: I still prefer my

Tin-Man: I still prefer my ginormous Cosmic Bunnies theory.

So do I. At least it is more plausible than anything s/he has presented.

Here is something for y'all's consideration.

What happens when you are close to a massive gravitational force? Time dilation, right?

Well, if you take the "entire" universe of mass (hell, include the hypothetical dark matter and dark energy if you want) and compress it into an infinite singularity? Don't you get a true infinite gravity source? If time slows as you approach a true infinite gravity source, won't time itself become infinitely dilated to the point it is stopped, or becomes infinite? If time becomes infinite at an infinite gravity source, that means the universe IS infinitely old. It has ALWAYS existed. Just that it is in an "expanded state" at this current occurrence.



Tin-Man's picture
@Arakish Re: Infinity

@Arakish Re: Infinity explanation

Ouch. I think I just sprain my noodle. May need a second cup of coffee before trying to handle that. Still freakin' cool, though.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.