The Big Bang never happened?

[Ori Vandewalle]

Yeah, error is not quite the best term. I meant it in the sense of "calculator error" the same way Venusian Broon talked about division by zero not being calculable.

 

[RJM Corbet]

Yeah, error is not quite the best term. I meant it in the sense of "calculator error"

Sure. Understood. Thank you.
This is interesting:

... an event horizon implies the existence of something outside the horizon, and if the universe is all of spacetime, there's no outside for which any part of the universe could serve as an event horizon.

 

[Astro Pen]

Whilst we are on this I will mention that zero isn't a 'number' and never was. It is a mathematical 'sign or symbol' meaning "nothing at this power"

 

[Ori Vandewalle]

This is interesting:

Yeah. The math of a black hole describes what happens to spacetime outside some chunk of mass. As far as that math is concerned, the event horizon isn't anything special. Spacetime on one side and spacetime on the other look pretty identical, and there's nothing in the math that establishes any kind of physical border or barrier. The difference is merely that for particles inside the event horizon, their future is confined to being inside that horizon.

Whilst we are on this I will mention that zero isn't a 'number' and never was. It is a mathematical 'sign or symbol' meaning "nothing at this power"

Eh, I think what counts as a number is up to us. But according to set theory, the logic that underlies modern mathematics, 0 is the cardinality of the empty set, and that's basically the same kind of definition all the natural numbers have.

 

[Astro Pen]

They reckon the James Webb will be able to see back to the first 100 million years of the observable universe. Which is kind of interesting because the implication is that if we could see back another 100 million we could see the singularity - all around us. Which looks like something of a paradox to me.

 

[Ori Vandewalle]

JWST will be looking back in infrared, which should let it see some of the very first stars. If it ever launches, it's gonna be awesome.

We can already see further back, though, to about 400,000 years after the the big bang, by looking at the CMB. But that's radio/microwave. Going back even further still is problematic because light gets progressively fainter and more redshifted, and because the CMB is opaque to a wide swath of interesting wavelengths.

 

[RJM Corbet]

Well

Whilst we are on this I will mention that zero isn't a 'number' and never was. It is a mathematical 'sign or symbol' meaning "nothing at this power"

...Eh, I think what counts as a number is up to us. But according to set theory, the logic that underlies modern mathematics, 0 is the cardinality of the empty set, and that's basically the same kind of definition all the natural numbers have.

Well, this is an issue where media celebrity scientists talk about 'a universe from nothing' -- uh uh -- that is a universe from something. 'Nothing' has no properties: it is not a void or an empty place -- because that is space -- nothing is not the opposite of 'something' -- nothing is not an emptiness -- nothing just is not, never was, and never will be?

Quantum vacume peturbations are space/time events. The vacume is not 'nothingness'?

Nothing is not zero, because zero can be written down and conceptualised. Nothing has no properties, not even zero? Nothing can ever come from nothing because nothing is non-existent? It just isn't there.

I don't find this so hard to understand as some people seem to have a problem with?

,

 

[Ori Vandewalle]

If you want to learn about nothing, talk to philosophers:

(Actually an interesting book.)

 

[RJM Corbet]

If you want to learn about nothing, talk to philosophers:

View attachment 65421



(Actually an interesting book.)

IMO: There is nothing to be learned about or from nothing. Nothing is not the absence of something. It is not a hole in 'something' -- a hole is a hole. A hole exists in space/time. As a part of spacetime.

If you're writing about nothing, you are writing about something -- or about the alternative of 'something' -- but the alternative of 'something' is 'something else' because nothing can be said about nothing?

Here's his wiki

Eric Lerner - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That much said...

Thank you

 

[Astro Pen]

scottadams | Twitter | Linktree

If you want to find Dilbert or Scott Adams, here are some leads.

dilbert.com

 

[RJM Corbet]

And nothing continues to have no properties, regardless of desperate attempts?

 

[Stephen Palmer]

A Universe From Nothing - short review.

 

[mosaix]

Whilst we are on this I will mention that zero isn't a 'number' and never was. It is a mathematical 'sign or symbol' meaning "nothing at this power"

Surely, if zero wasn’t a number when you subtracted 1 from 1 you’d go straight to -1 instead of zero.

 

[Astro Pen]

Surely, if zero wasn’t a number when you subtracted 1 from 1 you’d go straight to -1 instead of zero.

You'd go straight to the absence of a number or quantity. Which is represented by the sign 0
No beans is not a 'quantity' of beans, it's just no beans.

 

[mosaix]

You'd go straight to the absence of a number or quantity. Which is represented by the sign 0
Is the space between your words included in the alphabet? Nope.

But subtracting 1 from this ‘absence of a number’ suddenly produces another number. Which would, to me, seem to indicate that zero has all the properties of the numbers on either side of it.

Additionally if zero wasn't a number then you’d have two consecutive odd numbers (1 and -1).

 

[RJM Corbet]

A Universe From Nothing - short review.

But Stephen, it is exactly this attempt by especially Lawrence Krauss to manipulate the meaning of 'nothing' that I have a problem with.

"Above all, his goal is to show how the universe could have appeared from nothing, and how that means a creator is unnecessary"

Nothing does not exist. 'Nothing' is not another name for a void, or for emptiness, both of which exist.

Quantum virtual fluctuations do not originate from a state of 'nothingness' outside of spacetime/nature. They are spacetime events. Natural events. If something is there, it came from something else? So the debate has to eventually concern what that 'something else' might be?

EDIT
That does not mean it has to be 'a creator' -- but it definitely indicates the existence of a state beyond nature?

 

[Astro Pen]

But subtracting 1 from this ‘absence of a number’ suddenly produces another number. Which would, to me, seem to indicate that zero has all the properties of the numbers on either side of it.

Additionally if zero wasn't a number then you’d have two consecutive odd numbers (1 and -1).

That isn't subtracting from anything, it is "placing" -1 on the table. Yes you have 2 odd numbers because the zero point acts as a mirror reflecting a sequence, so obviously the reflected sequence starts with -1 which must be odd.

 

[Ambrose]

I have nothing to add to the discussion, but it brought back a memory.

More than ten years ago I was trying to explain the Big Bang to my grandson and used the illustration of the change of pitch as a fire-engine approaches and then recedes. Shortly after he sent me a text which said: 'So that's why some people appear bright, until they start to speak?' I forget how I replied.

 

[Astro Pen]

ps. Being as this zero thing is getting circular . I will drop out. I said what I believe, and that is how I see it. Since everyone else adheres to the quantity notion rather than the placeholder concept, it is pretty pointless repeating my apparently eccentric position.
I think todays Dilbert kind of swung it for me LoL

scottadams | Twitter | Linktree

If you want to find Dilbert or Scott Adams, here are some leads.

dilbert.com

 

[Ori Vandewalle]

No beans is not a 'quantity' of beans, it's just no beans.

How many beans is i beans?

Edit: Whoops, didn't see latest post. Fair enough.