Creation Ex Nihilo

<i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />JRich,

I have no mathematics to support my view but my hunch is that BB is a false concept. In fact I favor a Big Rip view. Not having a singularity BB could infact eliminate the need for an inflationary period.

My view could be seen more along the lines of an osmosis Creation ex niholo. I do not accept singularities nor infinite physical realities or eternities.
_____________________________________________________________________

mac

i don't accept singularities either but osmosis creation ex nihilo? and awayyyyy we go!! okay, explain that one!!

Mac,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>

My view could be seen more along the lines of an osmosis Creation ex niholo.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Some think Tom is tilting at windmills, but I think you are attacking the business side of a jet engine with toothpicks.[]


JR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />If mass and energy are apples and gravity is -apples (rotten apples, apples in decay) the Tryon stand vindicated.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">As I said, gravity does not have the same units as mass or energy, so it cannot cancel them. This is literally an apples and oranges problem, meaning a "mixed units" problem.

Surely you are not a stranger to the importance of physical units? For example, if +apples are equated to area A for a square, and –apples are equated to its length L, it is mathematically valid but physically invalid to write L = A even when L = 1 yard and A = 1 square yard. That is because the units are different. So for a square of any specific size, if the equation holds for one set of units, it will not hold for other sets of units. For example, if we measure that same square in feet, the equation would say that 3 feet = 9 square feet, which is nonsense.

Writing equations for physical entities in which the units do not match is a nonsensical thing to do in physics. But that is what your equation tries to do.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Energy is energy, be it a bullet or that I expend at the key board defending "Nothing".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But energy is not a bullet. It is an arbitrary property of a bullet. Measures of properties cannot be equated to, or cancel, physical objects.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>[tvf]: By contrast, if you have P physical entities having positive properties and wish to combine them with N physical entities having negative properties, you will have P+N physical entities no matter what value you get for their net properties.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">ANS: You seem to prefer to not also recognize that your P & N are my +s and -s and may be derived from "Nothing" without violating conservation.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You missed the point of my example. What you suggest is physically impossible. P and N are intrinsically positive counts of entities. The sum of two positive counts cannot be zero.

The only way you can get a negative here is by switching from physical entities to one of their properties. But the count of physical entities itself is intrinsically positive and cannot be canceled. So you cannot get any entity from nothing, and cannot change any entity into nothing. You can only change its properties; for example, its form.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">ANS: I have yet to witness better logic than Creation ex nihilo.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Things exist. There are two ways to get to this state: (1) creation ex nihilo, which requires a miracle because logic precludes it; or (2) non-creation, ever, meaning always existing components. That requires no miracle. By the laws of logic, which exclude literal miracles, the latter must be accepted over the former.

To clarify definitions, a "miracle" is a physical effect without a physical cause. Creation ex nihilo is a miracle by definition, because if there were a physical cause, the effect would not be "from nothing". Eternal existence requires no miracle because every effect still has a preceding cause.

I understand you think you can get something from nothing without a miracle. Many of the points raised in the discussion, including my "units" argument above, are intended to show that you cannot. This should be no big deal for you or for the majority of humans, who are perfectly prepared to accept miracles and an eternal Deity to perform them. But arriving at creation ex nihilo from logic has never yet been accomplished.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I do think you use to broad a brush when your assert these things violate some cast in stone law. Our physics have no such laws.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Please allow a correction of definitions. The laws of physics (example: the law of gravity) are developed from experiments and observations, and are subject to change as knowledge advances. The principles of physics, by contrast, are derived from logic alone and are therefore not subject to change.

You complain about the certainty expressed by your opponents. But that is the nature of logic. It is to be contrasted with beliefs, which require taking someone or something on faith, thereby necessarily introducing an element of doubt when trying to persuade others. But logic's best attribute is its transportability between minds who have learned its rules, which gives it the ability to be persuasive to others without that intrinsic element of doubt.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Many of your examples are readily explained by symmetry breaking theories or the Uncertainity Principle, etc.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">My book "Dark Matter…" explains why the uncertainty principle and other unphysical aspects of quantum mechanics are bad interpretations of experiments. There are alternate interpretations that make better physical sense. It would be a shame if your beliefs were influenced by such mysticism. But one of our goals here at Meta Research is to get the mysticism back out of science.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Damn bees always won.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Now I see your interest in (+s) + (–s) = 0: "s" stands for "stinger". [}] But even there, stinger in plus stinger out is not equivalent to nothing. [] -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Damn bees always won.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Now I see your interest in (+s) + (–s) = 0: "s" stands for "stinger". [}] But even there, stinger in plus stinger out is not equivalent to nothing. [] -|Tom|-
_____________________________________________________________________

Tom

i can tell you i had more than a chuckle out of this one[], and the simplicity was wonderful!! Mac, apparently Tom has a sense of humor as well!!

I think the comment Tom made about N= nothing and S = something that -S would have to equal the opposite of something. What is the opposite of something???? Wouldn't that be nothing or something less than nothing. And to have something less than nothing would require that nothing is indeed something. Even the idea about the apples can be understood in this way. In math 6 Apples-6 Apples will give us 0 Apples, this is true. In the real world, if I have 6 apples and you take 6 apples from me, those 6 Apples still exist but relatively speaking I would have 0 Apples. Even if I ate those 6 apples their energy and byproduct will continue. Mac this is just my further elaboration on Tom's points about Principles of Physics and no such thing or possibility of pure nothing. As for God, even he started with a void.

north,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>and of course i have never witnessed anything more illogical than creation ex nihilo!!</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Let me suggest that you notify Hawkins, Vilenkin and other highly reconized names that you can prove they are being illogical.



"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien