Why is there a Universe Rather than Nothing???

That gave me my theory "Something has to be" Reality is my thinking
has to separate Micro objects in the quantum world(like electrons
protons etc) from macro objects in our world I do know why
light can only travel at 186,242 mps,and that helps my thinking.(never
slower never faster) Space is not empty.(full of energy created by
virtual particles,and their evil twins You all are saying well this
stuff tells us little how the universe was created,but it at lease shows
us there is something that can come into existence spontaneously.,and
that is a most significant factor I'm sorry nightbat if I have to stay
with virtual particles(not to your thinking) but they are a consequence
of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Best to remember that this
principle not only relates to position and momentum,but also to energy
and "time" So my idea is these energy burst of space virtual particles
who's burst only last for 10^-21 seconds give birth(creation of matter
particles.Both regular as electron or anti as it twin the positron.(both
created almost instantly) In this spacetime we are clever enough to
know particles,and antiparticle pairs can be created from energy. I
could go on and on. My thinking about this goes to infinity.
Like to photons add in and lots of other stuff Most of this post was
on QM so I'll sum it up by saying Quantum fluctuations are a ubiquitous
effect of the universe that we are emerged in Bert. PS Treb's
thinking added nuch to this post

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
That gave me my theory "Something has to be" Reality is my thinking
has to separate Micro objects in the quantum world(like electrons
protons etc) from macro objects in our world I do know why
light can only travel at 186,242 mps,and that helps my thinking.(never
slower never faster) Space is not empty.(full of energy created by
virtual particles,and their evil twins You all are saying well this
stuff tells us little how the universe was created,but it at lease shows
us there is something that can come into existence spontaneously.,and
that is a most significant factor I'm sorry nightbat if I have to stay
with virtual particles(not to your thinking) but they are a consequence
of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Best to remember that this
principle not only relates to position and momentum,but also to energy
and "time" So my idea is these energy burst of space virtual particles
who's burst only last for 10^-21 seconds give birth(creation of matter
particles.Both regular as electron or anti as it twin the positron.(both
created almost instantly) In this spacetime we are clever enough to
know particles,and antiparticle pairs can be created from energy. I
could go on and on. My thinking about this goes to infinity.
Like to photons add in and lots of other stuff Most of this post was
on QM so I'll sum it up by saying Quantum fluctuations are a ubiquitous
effect of the universe that we are emerged in Bert. PS Treb's
thinking added nuch to this post


It all depends on you.

When you are alive, there is something.

When you are dead, there is nothing.

Double-A

Why is there a Universe Rather than Nothing???



Originally there was nothing. But reality got so bored with itself that it
produced the primordial atom that became what we know as the Big Bang.

The photon that you can see is light. The photon that can't see isn't light.
The speed of photon may not equal C if it isn't light.


"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
That gave me my theory "Something has to be" Reality is my thinking
has to separate Micro objects in the quantum world(like electrons
protons etc) from macro objects in our world I do know why
light can only travel at 186,242 mps,and that helps my thinking.(never
slower never faster) Space is not empty.(full of energy created by
virtual particles,and their evil twins You all are saying well this
stuff tells us little how the universe was created,but it at lease shows
us there is something that can come into existence spontaneously.,and
that is a most significant factor I'm sorry nightbat if I have to stay
with virtual particles(not to your thinking) but they are a consequence
of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Best to remember that this
principle not only relates to position and momentum,but also to energy
and "time" So my idea is these energy burst of space virtual particles
who's burst only last for 10^-21 seconds give birth(creation of matter
particles.Both regular as electron or anti as it twin the positron.(both
created almost instantly) In this spacetime we are clever enough to
know particles,and antiparticle pairs can be created from energy. I
could go on and on. My thinking about this goes to infinity.
Like to photons add in and lots of other stuff Most of this post was
on QM so I'll sum it up by saying Quantum fluctuations are a ubiquitous
effect of the universe that we are emerged in Bert. PS Treb's
thinking added nuch to this post

'Nothing' is unstable!:

http://www.csicop.org/sb/2006-06/reality-check.html

Reality Check

Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?

VICTOR STENGER
Why is there something rather than nothing? This question is often the
last resort of the theist who seeks to argue for the existence of God
from science and finds all his other arguments fail. In his 2004 book
Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing, philosopher Bede Rundle
calls it "philosophy's central, and most perplexing, question." His
simple (but book-length) answer: "There has to be something."

Clearly, many conceptual problems are associated with this question.
How do we define nothing? What are its properties? If it has
properties, doesn't that make it something? The theist claims that God
is the answer. But, then, why is there God rather than nothing?
Assuming we can define nothing, why should nothing be a more natural
state of affairs than something?

In fact, we can give a plausible scientific reason based on our best
current knowledge of physics that something is more natural than
nothing! Of course, that requires providing a physical definition of
nothing. Can I imagine a physical system that has no properties? Yes,
as long as you do not insist on playing word games with me by calling
the lack of properties a property.

Suppose we remove all the particles and any possible non-particulate
energy from some unbounded region of space. Then we have no mass, no
energy, or any other physical property. This includes space and time,
if you accept that these are relational properties that depend on the
presence of matter to be meaningful.

While we can never produce this physical nothing in practice, we have
the theoretical tools to describe a system with no particles. The
methods of quantum field theory provide the means to move
mathematically from a state with n particles to a state of more or
fewer particles, including zero particles. If an n-particle state can
be described, then so can a state with n = 0.

Let us start with a monochromatic electromagnetic field, which is
described quantum mechanically as system of n photons of equal energy
E. The mathematical description of the field is equivalent to a
harmonic oscillator whose quantum solution is a series of energy levels
equally spaced like the rungs of a ladder by an amount E, each rung
representing a field with one more photon than the field represented by
the rung below. Stepping down the ladder you find that the bottom rung
corresponding to a field of zero photons is not zero energy but rather
E/2. This is called the zero-point energy.

This result is true for all bosons, particles that have zero or
integral spin. On the other hand, fermions that have half-integral
spin, such as the electron and quark, have a zero-point energy of -E/2
(negative energy is no problem in relativistic quantum mechanics; in
fact, it is required by the simple mathematical fact that a square root
has two possible signs).

In the current universe, bosons outnumber fermions by a factor of a
billion. This has led people to conclude that the vacuum energy of the
universe, identified with the zero point energy remaining after all
matter is removed, is very large. A simple calculation indicates that
the energy density of the vacuum is 120 orders of magnitude greater
than its experimental upper limit. Clearly this estimate is wrong. This
calculation must be one of the worst in scientific history! Since a
non-particulate vacuum's energy density is proportional to Einstein's
cosmological constant, this is called the cosmological constant
problem.

Instead of using numbers from the current universe, we can visualize a
vacuum with equal numbers of bosons and fermions. Such a vacuum might
have existed at the very beginning of the big bang. Indeed this is
exactly what is to be expected if the vacuum out of which the universe
emerged was supersymmetric-that is made no distinction between bosons
and fermions.

This suggests a more precise definition of nothing. Nothing is a state
that is the simplest of all conceivable states. It has no mass, no
energy, no space, no time, no spin, no bosons, no fermions-nothing.

Then why is there something rather than nothing? Because something is
the more natural state of affairs and is thus more likely than
nothing-more than twice as likely according to one calculation. We can
infer this from the processes of nature where simple systems tend to be
unstable and often spontaneously transform into more complex ones.
Theoretical models such as the inflationary model of the early universe
bear this out.

Consider the example of the snowflake. Our experience tells us that a
snowflake is very ephemeral, melting quickly to drops of liquid water
that exhibit far less structure. But that is only because we live in a
relatively high temperature environment, where collisions with
molecules in thermal motion reduce the fragile arrangement of crystals
to a simpler liquid. Energy is required to destroy the structure of a
snowflake.

But consider an environment where the ambient temperature is well below
the melting point of ice, as it is in most of the universe far from the
highly localized effects of stellar heating. In such an environment,
any water vapor would readily crystallize into complex structures.
Snowflakes would be eternal, or at least will remain intact until
cosmic rays tear them apart.

What this example illustrates is that many simple systems are unstable,
that is, have limited lifetimes as they undergo spontaneous phase
transitions to more complex structures of lower energy. Since "nothing"
is as simple as it gets, we would not expect it to be completely
stable. In some models of the origin of the universe, the vacuum
undergoes a spontaneous phase transition to something more complicated,
like a universe containing matter. The transition nothing-to-something
is a natural one, not requiring any external agent.

As Nobel Laureate physicist Frank Wilczek has put it, "The answer to
the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?'
would then be that 'nothing' is unstable."

Bri wrote:
The photon that you can see is light. The photon that can't see isn't light.
The speed of photon may not equal C if it isn't light.


Yes. Very profound, Bri. A photon, once it has left its source, could
be anywhere. It cannot be detected unless it is interacted with, and
interacting with it destroys it. So it can never be observed in
flight. So possibly, unobserved photons might travel at speeds
different than C. Why can we not see them? Perhaps only the photons
travelling at C can interact with the matter we are made of. Sort of
like only sound of a certain pitch can make a tuning fork vibrate.
When we travel towards a star at relativistic speed, we might be seeing
only photons that are travelling at less than C relative to the star.
When we are receding from the star, we might be seeing only photons
travelling at greater than C relative to the star. In either case, we
will perceive the light to be travelling at C relative to us, because
those are the only photons we can perceive.

Double-A


"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
That gave me my theory "Something has to be" Reality is my thinking
has to separate Micro objects in the quantum world(like electrons
protons etc) from macro objects in our world I do know why
light can only travel at 186,242 mps,and that helps my thinking.(never
slower never faster) Space is not empty.(full of energy created by
virtual particles,and their evil twins You all are saying well this
stuff tells us little how the universe was created,but it at lease shows
us there is something that can come into existence spontaneously.,and
that is a most significant factor I'm sorry nightbat if I have to stay
with virtual particles(not to your thinking) but they are a consequence
of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Best to remember that this
principle not only relates to position and momentum,but also to energy
and "time" So my idea is these energy burst of space virtual particles
who's burst only last for 10^-21 seconds give birth(creation of matter
particles.Both regular as electron or anti as it twin the positron.(both
created almost instantly) In this spacetime we are clever enough to
know particles,and antiparticle pairs can be created from energy. I
could go on and on. My thinking about this goes to infinity.
Like to photons add in and lots of other stuff Most of this post was
on QM so I'll sum it up by saying Quantum fluctuations are a ubiquitous
effect of the universe that we are emerged in Bert. PS Treb's
thinking added nuch to this post

wrote:
'Nothing' is unstable!:

http://www.csicop.org/sb/2006-06/reality-check.html

Reality Check

Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?

VICTOR STENGER
Why is there something rather than nothing? This question is often the
last resort of the theist who seeks to argue for the existence of God
from science and finds all his other arguments fail. In his 2004 book
Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing, philosopher Bede Rundle
calls it "philosophy's central, and most perplexing, question." His
simple (but book-length) answer: "There has to be something."

Clearly, many conceptual problems are associated with this question.
How do we define nothing? What are its properties? If it has
properties, doesn't that make it something? The theist claims that God
is the answer. But, then, why is there God rather than nothing?
Assuming we can define nothing, why should nothing be a more natural
state of affairs than something?

In fact, we can give a plausible scientific reason based on our best
current knowledge of physics that something is more natural than
nothing! Of course, that requires providing a physical definition of
nothing. Can I imagine a physical system that has no properties? Yes,
as long as you do not insist on playing word games with me by calling
the lack of properties a property.

Suppose we remove all the particles and any possible non-particulate
energy from some unbounded region of space. Then we have no mass, no
energy, or any other physical property. This includes space and time,
if you accept that these are relational properties that depend on the
presence of matter to be meaningful.

While we can never produce this physical nothing in practice, we have
the theoretical tools to describe a system with no particles. The
methods of quantum field theory provide the means to move
mathematically from a state with n particles to a state of more or
fewer particles, including zero particles. If an n-particle state can
be described, then so can a state with n = 0.

Let us start with a monochromatic electromagnetic field, which is
described quantum mechanically as system of n photons of equal energy
E. The mathematical description of the field is equivalent to a
harmonic oscillator whose quantum solution is a series of energy levels
equally spaced like the rungs of a ladder by an amount E, each rung
representing a field with one more photon than the field represented by
the rung below. Stepping down the ladder you find that the bottom rung
corresponding to a field of zero photons is not zero energy but rather
E/2. This is called the zero-point energy.

This result is true for all bosons, particles that have zero or
integral spin. On the other hand, fermions that have half-integral
spin, such as the electron and quark, have a zero-point energy of -E/2
(negative energy is no problem in relativistic quantum mechanics; in
fact, it is required by the simple mathematical fact that a square root
has two possible signs).

In the current universe, bosons outnumber fermions by a factor of a
billion. This has led people to conclude that the vacuum energy of the
universe, identified with the zero point energy remaining after all
matter is removed, is very large. A simple calculation indicates that
the energy density of the vacuum is 120 orders of magnitude greater
than its experimental upper limit. Clearly this estimate is wrong. This
calculation must be one of the worst in scientific history! Since a
non-particulate vacuum's energy density is proportional to Einstein's
cosmological constant, this is called the cosmological constant
problem.

Instead of using numbers from the current universe, we can visualize a
vacuum with equal numbers of bosons and fermions. Such a vacuum might
have existed at the very beginning of the big bang. Indeed this is
exactly what is to be expected if the vacuum out of which the universe
emerged was supersymmetric-that is made no distinction between bosons
and fermions.

This suggests a more precise definition of nothing. Nothing is a state
that is the simplest of all conceivable states. It has no mass, no
energy, no space, no time, no spin, no bosons, no fermions-nothing.

Then why is there something rather than nothing? Because something is
the more natural state of affairs and is thus more likely than
nothing-more than twice as likely according to one calculation. We can
infer this from the processes of nature where simple systems tend to be
unstable and often spontaneously transform into more complex ones.
Theoretical models such as the inflationary model of the early universe
bear this out.

Consider the example of the snowflake. Our experience tells us that a
snowflake is very ephemeral, melting quickly to drops of liquid water
that exhibit far less structure. But that is only because we live in a
relatively high temperature environment, where collisions with
molecules in thermal motion reduce the fragile arrangement of crystals
to a simpler liquid. Energy is required to destroy the structure of a
snowflake.

But consider an environment where the ambient temperature is well below
the melting point of ice, as it is in most of the universe far from the
highly localized effects of stellar heating. In such an environment,
any water vapor would readily crystallize into complex structures.
Snowflakes would be eternal, or at least will remain intact until
cosmic rays tear them apart.

What this example illustrates is that many simple systems are unstable,
that is, have limited lifetimes as they undergo spontaneous phase
transitions to more complex structures of lower energy. Since "nothing"
is as simple as it gets, we would not expect it to be completely
stable. In some models of the origin of the universe, the vacuum
undergoes a spontaneous phase transition to something more complicated,
like a universe containing matter. The transition nothing-to-something
is a natural one, not requiring any external agent.

As Nobel Laureate physicist Frank Wilczek has put it, "The answer to
the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?'
would then be that 'nothing' is unstable."
Nice troll, Bruce.

Double-A wrote:

Bri wrote:
The photon that you can see is light. The photon that can't see isn't light.
The speed of photon may not equal C if it isn't light.


Yes. Very profound, Bri. A photon, once it has left its source, could
be anywhere. It cannot be detected unless it is interacted with, and
interacting with it destroys it. So it can never be observed in
flight. So possibly, unobserved photons might travel at speeds
different than C. Why can we not see them? Perhaps only the photons
travelling at C can interact with the matter we are made of. Sort of
like only sound of a certain pitch can make a tuning fork vibrate.
When we travel towards a star at relativistic speed, we might be seeing
only photons that are travelling at less than C relative to the star.
When we are receding from the star, we might be seeing only photons
travelling at greater than C relative to the star. In either case, we
will perceive the light to be travelling at C relative to us, because
those are the only photons we can perceive.

A fine word salad. But you forgot about the little aether mites that
gobble up all the photons that saucerheads can't perceive.

Double-A


"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
That gave me my theory "Something has to be" Reality is my thinking
has to separate Micro objects in the quantum world(like electrons
protons etc) from macro objects in our world I do know why
light can only travel at 186,242 mps,and that helps my thinking.(never
slower never faster) Space is not empty.(full of energy created by
virtual particles,and their evil twins You all are saying well this
stuff tells us little how the universe was created,but it at lease shows
us there is something that can come into existence spontaneously.,and
that is a most significant factor I'm sorry nightbat if I have to stay
with virtual particles(not to your thinking) but they are a consequence
of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Best to remember that this
principle not only relates to position and momentum,but also to energy
and "time" So my idea is these energy burst of space virtual particles
who's burst only last for 10^-21 seconds give birth(creation of matter
particles.Both regular as electron or anti as it twin the positron.(both
created almost instantly) In this spacetime we are clever enough to
know particles,and antiparticle pairs can be created from energy. I
could go on and on. My thinking about this goes to infinity.
Like to photons add in and lots of other stuff Most of this post was
on QM so I'll sum it up by saying Quantum fluctuations are a ubiquitous
effect of the universe that we are emerged in Bert. PS Treb's
thinking added nuch to this post



--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth

"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen

Double-A You gave an interesting insight on photons bert

Raving rather nice post. I don't go with "nothing' being unstable. It
take stuff to create chaos.and I do have a "chaos theory" Bert