Why is there something rather than nothing redux?

PSI Blog 20190213 Why is there something rather than nothing redux?

Here is a heads up from George Coyne:

Glenn:  This BBC article titled “Why is there something rather than nothing?” sums up the orthodox view in physics and cosmology.  In that article, they say:

“Their admittedly controversial answer is that the entire universe, from the fireball of the Big Bang to the star-studded cosmos we now inhabit, popped into existence from nothing at all. It had to happen, they say, because "nothing" is inherently unstable.”

I prefer your answer to this question, which is the universe exists because "nothing" would not be a possible alternative.

The author also writes:

"Linde offers a simple but mind-bending answer. He thinks universes have always been springing into existence, and that this process will continue forever.  When a new universe stops inflating, says Linde, it is still surrounded by space that is continuing to inflate. That inflating space can spawn more universes, with yet more inflating space around them. So once inflation starts it should make an endless cascade of universes, which Linde calls eternal inflation. Our universe may be just one grain of sand on an endless beach."

For many years you have logically and properly contested this idea. You may want to rationally critique the many dubious concepts in the article:

[GB: Thanks for the easy one George. At least these regressives are consistent. Remember “nothing,” that is, “perfectly empty space” is an idealization. Like all idealizations, it cannot possibly exist. It is one of the ideal end members of the “empty space-solid matter” continuum. The empty space idea, however, has been a favorite of religious idealists for millennia. Despite claiming to be an atheist, Einstein was one of these. That is where he got his “there is no aether” and the empty space needed for his erroneous theory that light was a particle that therefore could travel from galaxy to eyeball without losing energy.

Enter Hubble’s discovery that light from distant galaxies was redshifted. There are many ways this could happen, but regressives grabbed onto the Doppler Shift as the reason for that. Magically, everything in the cosmos supposedly was going away from us (species egocentrism anyone?). The alternative was some sort of “tired light effect,” which commonly befalls classical particles after their initial acceleration. That is what happens to a football or baseball after it is thrown. Only former patent officer Einstein could be the first to claim perpetual motion and get away with it. The result, of course, was the “expanding universe” interpretation that became the foundation of the Big Bang Theory.

Now, the folks you quote are reformists trying to handle data implying the universe is much larger than the one containing the 2 trillion galaxies we observe (e.g., see the previous two PSI Blogs and Kashlinsky[1]). Still, they dare not immediately abandon the cosmogonic expanding universe idea, so they invent “multiverses” or “parallel universes.” Each explodes out of empty space just like the “nothingness” through which Einstein’s light is assumed to travel. As mentioned, “empty space,” that is, “nothingness” is dear to the hearts of religious folks raised on the ubiquitous propaganda that the universe had a beginning.

All this is an excellent example of why the switch to Infinite Universe Theory will amount to the Last Cosmological Revolution. The radical switch from the assumption of finity to the assumption of infinity is a one-time, momentous event for humanity. Either there is empty space, nothingness, and possibility of nonexistence or there is not. Once the empty space notion is gone, the expanding universe notion will be gone too. The Big Bang Theory and cosmogony will meet their timely deaths.]  

[1] Kashlinsky, A., Atrio-Barandela, F., Ebeling, H., Edge, A., and Kocevski, D., 2010, A New Measurement of the Bulk Flow of X-Ray Luminous Clusters of Galaxies: The Astrophysical Journal Letters, v. 712, no. 1, p. L81-L85. [doi:10.1088/2041-8205/712/1/L81].


Bligh said...

There is a seldom mentioned BBT that allows form multible BBs in an infinite universe.This is far less objectionable, but of course, Redshift was misinterpreted into the BBT, and not by Hubble, for those who do not know. Mainly, it was a Belgian Priest.

George Coyne said...

On any rational or logical basis, all of your points are indisputable.

If “nothing” existed it would have to be something because the word “exist” implies a thing is present.

Proponents of the debunked Big Bang theory rely on the concept of a “beginning” for the universe, when "time, space, matter, and “energy” came into being. This contradicts the definition of “beginning” supplied by the Oxford dictionary: “The point in time or space at which something begins.” https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/beginning

As one can observe in this definition, a “beginning” occurs in time or space, but the Big Bangers claim that there was no “time” (which actually is motion as you have written about often), and no “space” before the universe sprang into existence, thereby bringing about time and space with it’s emergence from "nothing".

In a dictionary that specializes in defining biblical ideas, the word “beginning" is defined as:
“The natural meaning of the word is with reference to time. The primitive Greek root means "to be long," "to draw out." Thus, it is used to refer to some point of time long drawn out, or long past (Genesis 1:1). It is used also to express the inauguration of a particular event (Exodus 12:12). The principal interest in the word centers in the use of it in (John 1:1).It must be interpreted here by that which follows in the statement as to the relation of the Logos to the Eternal God and the use of the word "was." It is true that the word arche cannot be separated from the idea of time, but when time began He already was, and therefore He was from eternity.”

This definition helps to reveal that the concept of a beginning is a religious one. As the abstraction is not based on the scientific method, it has no place in scientific models. Thus any model incorporating the idea of a beginning is pseudoscience.

Pierre said...

Occam razor applies here. No-brainer in favour of infinite universe.

Pierre said...

...then again, a statement like « there is no such thing as empty space » coming from bigbangers might be viewed as TSW making progress!

WTG, Glenn!