I often here this by people who lack basic understanding on the matter. Was wondering, do people in these forums understand "something can come out nothing", because the thing we consider nothing is something.

Let's not make mountains out of mole hills now.

I'm not sure exactly what you're attempting to get at. However, it's my understanding that the most accepted theory in physics today is that the universe potentially began as a quantum fluctuation. They even describe mathematically how this is possible using the laws of quantum mechanics.

In this sense, something "physical" will appear to have come out of something that's "not physical". At least "not physical" in terms of anything that can be observed in a physical way.

However, as you have eluded to, the quantum field itself cannot truly be thought of as "nothing" since it must at least contain the information and ability to give rise to physical matter. So that can hardly be "nothing".

So in answer to your question, "for me personally" my answer would be yes. The thing we consider to be nothing is actually "something" just maybe not in a physical way that we are used to. But, yes, it's definitely something.

That's my view and my understanding of Modern Theoretical Physics.

Aren't you quite the philosopher. You do understand the definition of nothing, right? So how did you dtermine that nothing is something? Can you please explain that to me.

Amarii, I think Abracadabra just gave the answer before your post that answers your post.

We assume there was a big bang, that started the universe. This necessitates the existence of nothing before the big bang.

Therefore there was nothing before the big bang.

But the big bang started somehow, whether it was a quantum resonation or not that caused it to start, and therefore nothing was something -- it was not physical of how we define things today as "physical", and non-phycical entities are not considered physcially "something"; therefore the physically nothing was something in a different aspect, because we also assume that the creation of the big bang was caused, not intentionally or by will necessarily, but by the necessity of "cause-effect" chain of events.

My post here reminds me that the newest and much talked about "endless" view of our three-dimensional universe shows an expanding three-dimensional space, which can be viewed as the surface of a four-dimensional space; much like a two-dimensional surface of a soap-bubble can expand, on the surface of a three-dimensional sphere.

This gave me reason to think that maybe we can't put our finger on time (what it is, and if it is in the first place; we can measure it, but is it really an existing objective feature of our universe, or is it not) because it is a zero-dimensional entity, and as such it is truly nothing.

At the same time, this zero-dimensional something which we perceive as time can be the surface of a "minus one dimensional" entity (it's impossible to have such a thing), and like the surface of the bubble, it reaches back into itself constantly, and therefore the universe always gives its own material to create a new big bang. It is not a pulsating universe-model, but rather a self-repeating thing of time, which is not simply a line returning into itself like in the case of a circle, but rather a point returning into itself, and the end of one universe gives rise to the pupulating of space with matter in the next, by providing its matter and readership to the next big bang.

Amaraii, what I was trying to say was that you're right, nothing can't both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect, but "nothing" that created or was instrumental in creating the big bang was "nothing" in the respect we view things as "something", but it was at the same time "something", albeit not IN THE SAME RESPECT as we call something "something" in our conceptual and logical constructs.

Whether that preexisting "something" that we call "nothing" had to do anything with quantum theory, I don't know; but if math proves it, I accept that.

What I am saying is that the preexisting "something" that we call "nothing" could have been "anything", literally, except "everything". It couldn't have been "everything" coz "something" in our world is a subset of "everything", and as we have seen, "something" can't be a part of "nothing".

Believe it or not, it all makes sense.

If not, then take the pills that I take, and it will.

You will notice, as all sharp-eyed readers of philosophy ought to, that I used two instances of circular reasoning, or tautologies; the effect of something was explained by the axiom's definition of the effect. The rest of the confusion comes from the poverty of our language that is incapable to reflect my thoughts properly. Honest: this is not MY fault.

As I understand it, the Quantum Field in the QFT would only exist in space and time. Therefore something would have to have created space and time in order for the QF to exist. Is that not correct? If not, can you site a source?

No, nothing is nothing. As I understand QTF, the Quantum Field must exist in space/time. I've never heard a QTF that said it could exist in nothing.

I did hear an atheist say that the Big Bang would have produced matter and anti-matter, which when combined would be nothing. So he believed that nothing could produce the universe. An interesting theory at first blush, but matter + antimatter produces a huge amount of light and energy, so it doesn't produce nothing.

matter + antimatter => nothing + energy

energy + nothing => matter plus antimatter

If you say energy is not nothing, but something, I do not agree. Energy can exist without any matter existing, as for instance the basic temperature of four Kelvin degrees that exists in space uniformly all over proves it to me. But I ain't no physicist. You can shoot me down, and I won't even fight for my theory.

That's A.

And B is that I heard somewhere that according to QT, energy increases in proportion to the inverse of a finite volume in space. This theory states nothing about matter needing to occupay that space. But I do admit this was hearsay and an anecdotal way of learning about QT.

In case my anecdotal theory is true, then QT and the "non-something nothing that is still something" theory can be valid, and true.

But we are still a long way away from proving that.

Energy is just "liquid" matter. Energy is matter and matter is energy. E=MC2, ya know?

It is possible to have no time, so we can't say it must exist in time. If it must exist in time, and time does not exist, then nothing exists. Which is not true, as things exists. therefore the statement must be wrong, or else time exists.

On the other hand, space always has existed and will. It is a geometrical construct, but also a geometrical construct that is defeinitely and absolutely real, not only a conceptual construct.

In other words, planes and lines exist, but they have no material equivalents. No matter can exist in a line or in a plane, or in a point. But three dimensional matter can exist in space.

Space is always there for matter to occupy it, fully or in part. Space is not dependent on matter to occupy it in order to exist. Space is created in the Big Bang theory as far as I know by designating a space or its fraction full of matter. But it does not deny the existence of space when there is no matter in it.

Much like our concept and conceptualization of time can't comprehend a world with no time passing in it. The closest we can imagine is a "frozen" world, like those scenes in Fiddler on the Roof, but in this imaginary scene movement is ceased, while time tics away.

So to come back to "As I understand it, the Quantum Field in the QFT would only exist in space and time. Therefore something would have to have created space and time in order for the QF to exist", it is futile to talk about no space and no time and as such, to talk about them as something that needed to be created.

What we can say is that space always has existed, it is not dependent on anything to exist; time exists or not, we don't know; but matter did not exist and now it exists.

So if we define matter as "something" and the lack of matter or the lack of material stuff as "nothing", then before the big bang space contained for some time "nothing", and because of a "something" that is not matter-based, or because of the action of that "something", matter was created.

Maybe by combining energy with nothing, and creating matter and antimatter.

Maybe by just allowing a momentary time to pass between configurations of matter in a "dying" universe to rearrange itself to give rise to a new "big bang" not in a pulsating universe model, but in a self-repeating time model.

After all, there is nothing new under the sun.

The self-repeating time model... excludes the possibility of a finite amount of matter over time to produce all possible configurations of matter, since the history of the entire universe is happening in a finite period of time, and the matter contained therein is also finite.

Therefore the infinity factor is missing that would enable all possible worlds to exist.

Without going deep into the subject, energy is not "liquid" matter, and it is not true that energy is the same as matter.

What is true is that they can be transformed into each other.

But since there is a transformation, ab ovo they must be different.

Yes, their tranformation is predictable in quantity, but still, energy is not matter.

It would be the same as to say that water is hydrogen and oxygen.

No. Hydrogen and oxygen are compounds that behave each singly or the two together quite differently from how water behaves. yet

2H2O + energy => 2H2 + O2.

The three are not the same, by a long shot.

Energy and matter are not the same, either.

yes, they transform, but they are still not the same.

Why does the big bang necessitate the existence of nothing before it happened?

Universal expansion may indeed be intruding on a lot of something. Perhaps the expanding universe is a bubble within all that something and perhaps the something that the universe expands into becomes part of a matrix that creates the effects we attribute to string theory and quantum physics.

Possible?

"Matter is frozen energy" - Einstein

Poke yourself in the eye first with liquid H2O, then with a sharp, frozen piece of frozen, solid H2O.

You will notice that the two, liquid and frozen water, are different in their properties.

The qualities are different. They are tranformable. But they behave differently, and have wholly different characteristics. So in the case of water as in the case of matter and energy.

Einstein may have said that seriously, in a popularizing way, philosophically, or truthfully to how he realized reality was. In any way he meant it, Matter is different from Energy. It goes through a transformation, yes, and they are not the same.

Math necessitates that the matter that we see around us now, did not exist before the big bang.

You are right, other stuff may have existed, but we have no apparent evidence of that other stuff existing prior to the matter existing in our universe.

There is a lot of math involved which proves this, and I am too small a fry to understand even the first hypothesis of the mathematical proof of this.

What we know -- I mean, what Steven Hawking knows -- about the universe, the Big Bang is inevitable, and it is inevitable also, by the same knowledge, that there was nothing befor the big bang, and math is applied to prove it inasmuch a few assumptions are assumed to be correct.

I don't know what those assumptions are, please don't ask me.

That Hawking guy knows a lot that most of us don't. Don't believe his popularizing books about the universe -- if you understood his math, you'd find the books no more than fairy tales compared to Hamlet or to Goethe's Dr. Faustus. Or to War and Peace, if you are Russian (I seem to remember you are, but I could be wrong), or to "L'isle" by Robert Merle if you are French. Or to "Chi mu Hin" if you are Chinese, or to "Mnungubele afkaristo" if you are Mnengalese. Or to "Ther Republic" if you are Greek... jeeze, I gotta stop this sometime. Just one more: To the "Manxthahianxianum" if you speak Aztec.

So you are saying that the Big Bang didn't happen?

I can't site a single source that would specifically address your point of view. However, I can offer the following:

The very notion of space and time is not a concrete notion that is totally free of controversy.

"Space" as we think of it may very well have preexisted the universe. It is the current stance of modern physics that there does not even exist such a thing as truly 'empty' space. All of space is believed to be filled with quantum fluctuations.

That condition may have very well preexisted the space-time fabric that we today call the "physical universe". We have no way of knowing one way or the other.

In fact, for a theory that postulates a quantum fluctuation as the cause of the birth of the space-time that we currently see around us to work, that theory would already be working under the premise that quantum fluctuations preexisted our current space-time situation.

The concept of "Time" is probably the more interesting element here. Because there are two entirely different notions of time. I can give you a specific source for that. See "About Time" by Paul Davies. Although I'm sure these same concepts are addressed in many other books on physics. I'm citing this example because Davies addresses this particular concept in some detail.

"Time" as we experience it is associated with our experience of entropy. Entropy is the concept that gives "physical time" it's "arrow".

Quantum time is quite different. Quantum time has no direction. There is no entropy associated with quantum time. Time in a quantum sense is just change. However, as Davies points out in his book, change alone does not create entropy nor a direction for time. He gives various examples of this to drive home the point and make it crystal clear.

So whilst "time as motion and change" may have preexisted our space-time universe, "time as entropy" did not.

So in this sense we can actually envision space and time as being separate phenomena in a quantum field. However, when a quantum fluctuation reaches a point of triggering inflation then 'gravity' is created. Gravity does not exist with a quantum field. In fact, as we all know quantum theory and quantum mechanics don't even mention gravity at all. There is no need for it at the quantum level.

Thus when a quantum fluctuation occurs and creates gravity it simultaneously creates a field of entropy in time. And this gives rise to the fabric of space-time where gravity and entropic time are intimately weaved together as a single inseparable fabric.

So this theory is currently completely compatible with everything we know about the current status of our universe.

And so yes, a quantum field may have very well preexisted the fabric of space-time that we call our "physical universe".

Just because a quantum field requires both space and time, it does not necessarily follow that it requires a space-time fabric that gives rise to our macro entropic existence.

So there is no problem with this theory.

~~~~

On a deeper more philosophical note, if you are actually suggesting that because a quantum field itself must have existed in its own form of space and time (albeit quite different from the space-time fabric of our physical universe), that this implies that there must have been a "Creator" of that space and time, then this becomes circular and infinite.

Because using the very same reasoning, if you point to something that was required to Create that original space and time, then you'd also need to point to something even beyond that which gave rise to whatever that thing was. And that just becomes a stack of tortoises that can have no bottom turtle.

So that line of reasoning is a philosophical black hole.

The Eastern Mystical philosophers recognized the this problem and realized that if we are going to assume a bottom turtle exists we may as well conclude that the foundational entity that gave rise to our physical existence is indeed the "bottom turtle".

In other words, in terms of modern physics. If a quantum field is what gave rise to the macro space-time fabric that we experience as a physical world, then why not just cut to the chase and recognize that the quantum field (whatever it is) must be the creator of our universe.

They also take this one step further and recognize that everything that we are ultimately arises from this underlying field of information and thought. Therefore they conclude that the space-time in which we exist is nothing more than a dream of sorts being dreamed by this underlying cosmic entity. And since everything that exists ultimately belongs to this foundational entity, then clearly we are it. Tat T'vam Asi.

That is how their philosophy concludes and they avoid the infinite stack of turtles by recognizing that when all is said and done, we are the "bottom turtle".

In fact, this would actually be true even if there were an infinite stack of turtles. If turtle #1 gives rise to turtle #2 and turtle #2, gives rise to turtle #3, and so forth. That all of the turtles that exist above turtle #1 are actually a direct extension of that original turtle.

So even after you climb the pole of turtles to get our level you're still stuck with the very same conclusion as the Eastern Mystics. Necessarily it must be that we are it. We are the original turtle just taking on a slightly different form.

Tat T'vam Asi.

There's no escaping it.

Those Eastern Mystics were pretty darn smart. Gotta hand them that.