Physics of nothing

Emerging Significance of Nothing (Part #4)

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx ]

---

As noted with respect to the explorations of physics (Configuring the Varieties of Experiential Nothingness), the notion of "nothing" (and of how the "universe" is engendered from a "point"), is now a fundamental preoccupation -- however obscure the reasons for which it is discussed. As noted there, at a time when many are faced with the experience of some form of "nothing", physicists are giving increased recognition to the fundamental role of "nothing" in relation to cosmology and the emergence of "everything" (Lawrence Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: why there is something rather than nothing, 2011; John D. Barrow, The Book of Nothing: vacuums, voids, and the latest ideas about the origins of the universe, 2002). The integrative implications are separately discussed (Fundamental integrative role of nothing -- the ultimate remainder?, 2011). For Krauss, space and time come from "nothing", understood as an extremely unstable state from which the production of "something" is virtually inevitable. A major meeting of physicists and cosmologists highlighted unresolved issues in that respect (Lisa Grossman, Death of the Eternal Cosmos, New Scientist, 14 January 2012).

If there is anything to be learned from physics, its more sophisticated insights into the relation between "nothing", a "point", and the emergence of a "universe", are worthy of the most careful consideration in the current context -- as the product of the creativity of those upheld as having the most "brilliant minds". How might such insight "inform" that relating to the strategic preoccupations making such extensive metaphorical use of geometrical forms? How might consideration be given to the neglected attention to the "nothing" implied by strategic use of those forms, as separately discussed (Global Strategic Implications of the Unsaid, 2003; Lipoproblems: developing a strategy omitting a key problem, 2009).

An example is provided by the insight of the premier cosmologist, Stephen Hawking (The Dreams That Stuff Is Made Of: the most astounding papers of quantum physics -- and how they shook the scientific world, 2011). With others he is preoccupied by the first second in the creation of the universe -- from a "point" -- using insights from the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics towards the elaboration of a Theory of Everything. Of relevance to the above argument, he is widely quoted as saying: I avoid problems with a lot of equations or translate them into problems of geometry... I can then picture them in my mind.

A focus for these preoccupations is both the emergence of the universe from a "point" and the collapse of a universe back into a singularity -- at which "point" the density would be infinite and all the basic laws of physics would have broken down. This framing is suggestive of the conditions of "point making" as well as of the collapse of the emergent "worldview", potentially into some form of "singularity" (Emerging Memetic Singularity in the Global Knowledge Society, 2009). The argument with respect to the "breakdown" of the laws of physics is reminiscent of that with respect to "childlike" cognition in relation to "conventional thinking", as discussed separately (Requisite Childlike Cognition for "Heavenly" Integration? 2012) -- especially ironic in the light of continuing use of the legacy term "celestial mechanics".

Hawking has promoted the geometry of a ''no-boundary universe'', a finite, closed universe in the shape of a sphere -- in four dimensions. Expanding from a Big Bang to a maximum, it then contracts toward an eventual collapse -- the Big Crunch. Lacking a boundary, this would seem to require a "closed" universe. Others have promoted the geometry of an "open" universe -- resembling an open horn. Proposals have been made by physicists to reconcile these two distinct forms, as was done with the alternatives of the wave-particle duality -- by allowing for distinct "points of view". 

Hawking has  reframed the no-boundary universe with the aid of extra dimensions in space-time -- including an ''imaginary time'' running at right angles to real time. It could be shaped like a cone. Sliced horizontally, it would look like a circle, or a closed universe. Sliced vertically, it would be a parabola, or an open universe. The universe is thus open and closed, depending on how it is "viewed" (although it is unclear from what "points" this may be possible).

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx ]