Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[awatkins]

Interesting thing I found for an atheistic possibility of why there is something rather nothing, by Victor Stenger:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Origin.pdf

[Sativa Indica]

*Yawns*

1st

Consider the Lagrangian

L
G
da
dt
a a
a
a
= −
æ
è ç
ö
ø ÷
+
æ
è ç
ö
ø ÷
é
ë êê
ù
û úú
3
4
1
2 2
0
2
p

ah well didnt quite work, anyway my point being that if

a is some coordinate in one dimension

then (da/dt)^2 is ONLY two dimensions, if it where three we would have THREE seperate derivatives such as the more COMMON expression of vectors

FX= fx(dx/dx) + fy(dy/dx) + Fz(dz/dx)
FY= fx(dx/dy) + fy(dy/dy) + Fz(dz/dy)
FZ=fx(dx/dz) + fy(dy/dz) +fz(dz/dz)

so this forumula assume TWO spacial dimenions plus time as a third da/dt

which it later even states WHY they do so

While not precisely the exponential usually associated with inflationary
cosmology, which occurs when k=0, it amounts to the same thing. The fact
that k=1 may seem to contradict the familiar prediction of inflationary cosmology
that k=0, that is, that the universe is flat. Actually, a highly flat universe
is still possible with k=1. Such a universe is simply very large, like a
giant inflated balloon, with the part within our horizon simply a tiny patch
on the surface. It eventually collapses in a “big crunch”

flat universe and big crunch i think NOT

and again

In general, the wave function of the universe described by the
Wheeler-DeWitt equation is a function of functions (that is, it is a functional)
that specifies the geometry of the universe at every point in threedimensional
space, with time puzzlingly absent as a parameter. Here we
consider the situation where the geometry can be described by a single
parameter, the radial scale factor a.

scalar= two dimensions
vector= three

now then MY turn

http://van.physics.uiuc.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1228

Observer effect

When we fire an electron at a plate with two closely spaced slits in it, and detect the electron on a screen behind these slits, the behavior of the electron is the same as that of a wave in that it can actually go though both holes at once. This may seem odd, but its true. If we repeat this experiment lots of times with lots of electrons, we see that some positions on the screen will have been hit by many electrons and some will have been hit by none. The observed "interference pattern" for these electrons is evidence of their dual wave-particle nature, and is well described by thinking of each electron as a superposition of two "states", one that goes through one slit, one that goes through the other.

http://www.amherst.edu/~jrfriedman/NYTimes/071100sci-quantum-mechanics.html

n the realm of atoms and smaller particles, objects exist not so much as objects as mists of possibilities of being here or there and everywhere at the same time -- and then someone looks and the possibilities suddenly collapse to definite locations.

so in a nutshell, ANYTHING that is not observed, can be in ALL POSSIBLE STATES and VALUES at any given SINGLE time, untill the point where its DOES become observed, it which it will become both REAL and of VALUE

now then the more accepted theory of the orginis of the universe

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Astro/planck.html#c2

Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity. Nothing is known of this period.

indeed nothing is known about this period, however as this is the most generally accepted theory, and unless you have another

http://www.physlink.com/Education/askExperts/ae251.cfm

When a physicist refers to a singularity he or she is generally referring to a quantity which is infinite. Specifically, a quantity which approaches infinity as another parameter goes to zero, such as



therefore a singularity has no real values, it can be ANYTHING

now then, explain how a singulairty become both real and of value WITHOUT an observer?

[awatkins]

sativaindica I really didn't understand this post at all   

therefore a singularity has no real values, it can be ANYTHING

now then, explain how a singulairty become both real and of value WITHOUT an observer?

I think you are trying to argue that the singularity must have an observer (god).

n the realm of atoms and smaller particles, objects exist not so much as objects as mists of possibilities of being here or there and everywhere at the same time -- and then someone looks and the possibilities suddenly collapse to definite locations.

so in a nutshell, ANYTHING that is not observed, can be in ALL POSSIBLE STATES and VALUES at any given SINGLE time, untill the point where its DOES become observed, it which it will become both REAL and of VALUE

why does something have to have a definite location to be 'real'? Please explain.
Also, "time" and "space" only exist WITHIN the universe. The "Observer effect" exists WITHIN the universe.

Correct me if I am wrong,  but all you are saying is that the singularity must have had a definite location, therefor must have had an observer. The question "where is the universe?" is impossible, like asking "when is time?"

[Sativa Indica]

the singularity NO, not oin the slightest, the  big bang YES

explain how a singulairty become(s) both real and of value WITHOUT an observer?

basically 3 things can be said about ANYTHING in our universe
1. they exist
2. the occupy space
3. they progress through time

however, a singularity DOES NOT abide by these laws, infact, NOTHING can be prooven about them....nothing at all.


REAL and of VALUE, thsoe a keywords here, location doesnt mean anything.

read the links they explain superposition, or the most famous explaination

http://theobservereffect.wordpress.com/schrodingers-cat/

all possible states at a single moment in Time, however also their is wave particle duality

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html

without creator, the big bang, evolution the whole universe is not possible, much like beyond the event horizon, however, none of this can actually be prooven substantially enough to become a law.

[awatkins]

 
I still don't think I understand this argument.

basically 3 things can be said about ANYTHING in our universe
1. they exist
2. the occupy space
3. they progress through time

however, a singularity DOES NOT abide by these laws, infact, NOTHING can be prooven about them....nothing at all.

err, wouldn't it have to abide by #1?

http://theobservereffect.wordpress.com/schrodingers-cat/
the cat is both alive and dead for as long as the chamber is sealed, in a superposition of states. It is only when we open the chamber and observe the condition of the cat (thereby collapsing the wave function), that the superposition is lost and the cat becomes either alive or dead.

I don't understand how they possibly came to that conclusion, but w/e.

This is what I don't understand:

So why can't the universe be just like inside the steel chamber? Why can't it lose it's superposition once it is observed?

none of this can actually be prooven substantially enough to become a law.

 

[awatkins]

Also, Sativaindica: How Do you know whether or not the observer effect holds true on these larger scales?
there are things (gravity, Law of Conservation of energy) which are NOT the same on different  scales.

[Sativa Indica]

the law of gravity breaks down BELOW planck Length, however you REALLY need to READ awatkins. YES the universe is a grand size now, but the ORGINS of the universe BEGINS with quantum mechanics, at moments just after planck time there were not even ATOMS existent, let alone planets and stars.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Astro/planck.html#c2

quite simply, you are goind the wrong way man, they dont use regular physics when trying to decopher the origins of the universe at cern, they use QUANTUM MECHANICS becuase thats ALL there was is the begining. therefore observer effect holds true at the start of the big bang.

the cat in the box is a THOUGHT experiment, hence why i posted wave-particle duality, as it suggest the electron, which is considered to be a particle, actually can have the charateristics of a wave, ALL POSSIBLE STATES

the universe is NOT in a state of superposition, anymore IMO. see many here think that to observe it needs an eye or something, NOT TRUE. a particle can observe another particle which causes the observed particle to then become REAL and of VALUE, for it to then observe another itself. therefore the reaction of this process from one to another to another, would increase EXPONENTIALLY, ala big bang.

you need to atleats TRY abd understand before you make a n arguement.

none of this can actually be prooven substantially enough to become a law

i only deal with the truth yo, i would feel wrong to make my point and NOT state waht is obviously known in the scientific community. the point is that unless we can OBSERVE a model/theory work the way we think it should, i.e experiment, then we CAN NOT proove our model theory as fact.

and since we can not OBSERVE the singularity, we can not proove one exist, merely hypothesize.

[awatkins]

see many here think that to observe it needs an eye or something, NOT TRUE. a particle can observe another particle

So it is not really a conscious observer needed, it is only another PARTICLE thats important here. But God is nonphysical, so he wouldn't make a difference anyway.

NOTHING can be prooven about them....nothing at all.

Lets get this straight here: Singularity =/= quantum particle, you even admit it, we don't know anything about it, so why would you jump to the assumption that quantum mechanics applies here? Just because it is the same size doesn't mean it is the same.

Despite whether not something is in a superposition, it still exists. Let's say the singularity did behave like a quantum particle. Then what is wrong with this?:
1. Singularity in superposition
2. Singularity blows up (big bang) but remains in superposition
3. Energy forms new matter, which observes the other matter, ending the superposition

and since we can not OBSERVE the singularity god, we can not proove one exist, merely hypothesize.

fixed

[Sativa Indica]

lets go through this one last time awatkins

The Big Bang is not a creation theory, merely an evolution theory.

who says god is nonphysical, we cane not comprehend ANYTHING that exits outside our time-space, for God to have created this Time-space, god MUST have prexisted this one.

point is SOMETHING made this happen, i do not hold any pre-conditions for what god is, beyond that god is essential for life to exist.

you REALLY need to read about the big bang, quantum mechanics is our ONLY understanding of the Big bang, i make NO ASSUMPTIONS, unless afcourse every scientist since the late 40's is wrong.

Despite whether not something is in a superposition, it still exists.

and where did i say that it DOESNT exists, are you even reading what im writing. it DOES exist, however it exists in ALL POSSIBLE STATES and ALL POSSIBLE VALUES at ONE SINGLE MOMENT IN TIME.

1. correct, still a theory as i said can not be prooven, but correct.
2. WRONG. charge of an electron, Newtons gravitational constant, plancks constant etc. ALL where ESSENTIAL in the formation of the universe at moments just after the big bang. all FIXED in their values, therefore, can NOT be superposition.
3.superposition being in ALL possible values and states at one time, how is that even stable enough for energy to form matter.

correct. much like  a singularity we can not comprehend what happens inside one, we can not proove what happens beyond the event horizon, HOWEVER, we can point to it, we can use the surouding evironment to show its existence and we can point to it.