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].