What is Nothing vs Absolutely Nothing?

[michelle s]

___________________________________________

it is and therefore so is substance.substance NEEDS space and therefore absolute nothing is impossible.[/QUOTE

so... space is substance?
and there are no ends to the universe...no nothing, always something

 

[Antonio Lao]

define what you mean by SPACE does not change

Defined in cosmological theories as that is expanding. Infinite space implies no such expansion hence does not change. Steady state theory implies continuous creation of matter, it does not implies an infinite space, but it implies eternal, self-replicating expansion of something either matter or space.

 

[bettysfetish]

"unknown state" is nothing to do with the logic of "absolute nothing" since it IMPLIES that a substance exists but as of yet is undefined.
Hello all. I was going to drop out of this thread since there seems to be no answers at this time, but I'd like to clarify one point.
North, I'm honered to be one of thoses you've singled out for comment. I may not have elaborated enough to make myself clear, sorry. I was referring to whatever "state", or whatever term you personally might apply to it, that "may" have exsisted, since this "is" theoriticle, or didn't or couldn't have exsisted, depending on your viewpoint, before the creation of matter.
I used the word "state" for just the reason you've pointed out as problematic, simply because it does not imply the exsistance of matter. The only reference I made to matter was in using the word "mass" in reference to a point in time "after" the conversion started.
As Antonio stated, the best problem solving theory right now is the inflationary theory. What theory do you subscribe to? And what was there before "that" started? How do you "set the arrow of time" without real particles, be they antiparticles or not. And before this point could there not be energy? Photons are energy with no decernable mass, or mabey it's nutrinos, but there seems no reason to think this type of energy can't be present without mass to stretch the fabric of space. And even if that be the case, what lead to the creation of the energy?- - and so on and so on. What I was concerned with was what it may have been like to lead to the creation of mass.
But as I said, as far as I can find, there is no answer now or on the horizon. Even if string theory works out it won't answer absolutly every question.
I be happy to communicate with anyone who can come up with anything new or interesting, but this "is" getting a bit trite. And North, I'd like to hear from you, I think I sortof ment things the way you stated them, perhaps I just didn't choose my words or phrasing correctly.
L8R
----------"Atfter all is said and done, Gravity Rules."--------------

 

[Antonio Lao]

I be happy to communicate with anyone who can come up with anything new

The ideas that I'm proposing is that we are living in a quantum universe. The quanta are 1D spacetime structures giving two distinct topological geometries. These geometries can describe both mass and charge concept in physics. And what is quantized space is definitely different from what is quantized energy and from what is quantized mass.

Quantum theory as set forth by Planck is the quantization of energy. But the atomic theory did partially the quantization of mass for it did not give good explanation why some masses could be zero. For a theory to account to zero mass, it must defnitely take negative valued mass into consideration even if only for mathematical equations and not for any physically meaningful negativity. So the quantum of mass is really the Planck mass and the mass of the electron is just some multiples of positive and negative of the Planck mass.

 

[John]

What if space has mass?

The concept of "nothing" doesn't contain the concept of space. We think of nothing as empty space, but that is not accurate. A creator would make space in nothing by having points of matter that define the places. So imagine space as being a dust cloud of points of matter. Space has mass.

A photon supposedly doesn't have mass, but what if a photon is one of the points in the dust cloud that makes up space? Now a photon and space have the same mass, which we define as zero mass, but really it has some mass.

If something were lighter than space, it would have negative mass.

 

[north]

___________________________________________

it is and therefore so is substance.substance NEEDS space and therefore absolute nothing is impossible.[/QUOTE

so... space is substance?
and there are no ends to the universe...no nothing, always something

___________________________________________

to the first question,no.(space and substance become at the same time,to me) the universe is the result of SPACE,for if there was no space, substance could not be. of all dimensions space is most important,think about it.

 

[north]

Defined in cosmological theories as that is expanding. Infinite space implies no such expansion hence does not change. Steady state theory implies continuous creation of matter, it does not implies an infinite space, but it implies eternal, self-replicating expansion of something either matter or space.

___________________________________________

why do you say that infinite space does not expand? why not infinite expanding space?
is there a continuous creation of substance? if there is show it.(no disagreement here, just asking,define the thought)

 

[north]

What if space has mass?

The concept of "nothing" doesn't contain the concept of space. We think of nothing as empty space, but that is not accurate. A creator would make space in nothing by having points of matter that define the places. So imagine space as being a dust cloud of points of matter. Space has mass.
___________________________________________

no, nothing(or absolute nothing,in the strictess sense of the word) is not just empty space,it has no time or dimension.
___________________________________________

 

[north]

"unknown state" is nothing to do with the logic of "absolute nothing" since it IMPLIES that a substance exists but as of yet is undefined.
Hello all. I was going to drop out of this thread since there seems to be no answers at this time, but I'd like to clarify one point.
North, I'm honered to be one of thoses you've singled out for comment. I may not have elaborated enough to make myself clear, sorry. I was referring to whatever "state", or whatever term you personally might apply to it, that "may" have exsisted, since this "is" theoriticle, or didn't or couldn't have exsisted, depending on your viewpoint, before the creation of matter.
___________________________________________

there was no before substance.that would lead to "nothing" producing something.but this is erroneous.since substance must be infinite.

so why do i think that, simply because "nothing" would be infinite(since there is no possibility of form to the concept) and therefore "nothing" would always be "nothing". there is no possibility of change.

___________________________________________

I used the word "state" for just the reason you've pointed out as problematic, simply because it does not imply the exsistance of matter. The only reference I made to matter was in using the word "mass" in reference to a point in time "after" the conversion started.
___________________________________________

to me it is ALL intertwined,energy in all it's forms is only limited by it's self and that which holds it(space for instance).

more later,got to go!

___________________________________________
As Antonio stated, the best problem solving theory right now is the inflationary theory. What theory do you subscribe to? And what was there before "that" started? How do you "set the arrow of time" without real particles, be they antiparticles or not. And before this point could there not be energy? Photons are energy with no decernable mass, or mabey it's nutrinos, but there seems no reason to think this type of energy can't be present without mass to stretch the fabric of space. And even if that be the case, what lead to the creation of the energy?- - and so on and so on. What I was concerned with was what it may have been like to lead to the creation of mass.
But as I said, as far as I can find, there is no answer now or on the horizon. Even if string theory works out it won't answer absolutly every question.
I be happy to communicate with anyone who can come up with anything new or interesting, but this "is" getting a bit trite. And North, I'd like to hear from you, I think I sortof ment things the way you stated them, perhaps I just didn't choose my words or phrasing correctly.
L8R
----------"Atfter all is said and done, Gravity Rules."--------------

___________________________________________

 

[UltraPi1]

Can't say I've had any personal experience with nothing, but I can say we are the definition of it. This is meted out through conceptual geometrics. This means that there is nothing physical about our universe at all.

Hence - In our universe there are only ones ... one at a time. Where time is the nothing one's are composed of.

 

[Nimbupani]

Can't say I've had any personal experience with nothing, but I can say we are the definition of it. This is meted out through conceptual geometrics. This means that there is nothing physical about our universe at all.

Hence - In our universe there are only ones ... one at a time. Where time is the nothing one's are composed of.

So you are saying that if we came from nothing we can expect to be made of nothing? How can one nothing effect another nothing?

 

[UltraPi1]

So you are saying that if we came from nothing we can expect to be made of nothing?

Yes - There are no other choices when beginning with nothing.

How can one nothing effect another nothing?

To exist - (ONE) must have form, and the universe is full of these forms. To have form - difference is established. I.E. Inside the form verses outside the form. Plus verses minus. If all forms carry with it (difference). We can expect (effect) between forms. Thus - No form can pass another form without effect. Keep in mind that all forms are conceptual in nature. Physicality is not possible in a universe made from nothing.

To add to this - Contradiction is at the cornerstone in this model. Suffice to say ... A thing is equally dependent on what it is not. I exist because I don't exist as a necessary statement. I.E. 0 and 1 ... pure contradiction.

 

[Antonio Lao]

why do you say that infinite space does not expand?

For infinity has nowhere to expand to. It is full and empty at the same time.

Continuous creation of matter is a proposal of the debunked steady state theory of the universe originated by Bondi, Gold and Hoyle in the 1940s. The observed high redshift of many objects is a proof that the universe is changing as if it's aging hence it's not infinite.

 

[bettysfetish]

Well, I certainly don't know where to go with this. For one thing, I'm not formally educated enough to use the proper terms when required and I have a hard time keeping all these concepts and theories straight. It sometimes makes it difficult to convey what one truly means.
Antonio, what can you suggest for reading material covering the 1D quantum spacetime packets thing you mentioned?
To all; Can we agree that spacetime has an origin?, A begining? And what might that have been? No one seems to be able to offer anything beyond this. And here is where I dwell. I'm getting just about leary of proposing any ideas at all because every idea put forth seems to get tossed in the blender, but that's the way it's been since Gallilio, Newton and many others. I have no problem if shown a more enlightend path and to date see no reason to exclude my postulations because of a more rational concept.
Who here beleives that some form of energy quantum tunneled into exsistance to be the embryo for mass? There might be a few of you. That said, from what place might you think this energy came from? Where ever or whatever it was there was certainly no "arrow of time" at that point. Therefore that "place" (and i use that word quite unspecifically) would have "been" for ever; infinitly.
And North; "No possibility" of form to the concept, and "no possibility" of change? - - In the system in question? Here before us is the concept of infinity; fragmented time which follows no specific direction. Surly you jest. Hiesenburg would be quite put out with the thought. In some limited time frame perhaps the impossibiltys would prove you correct, but how can we assume nothing like what is put forth here could happen when we have forever to wait? This topic does seem to usually end up discussing aspects which require "matter" to be added to the equation. We might fare better to not go that far in the timeline. After all we're discussing "what is nothing" here so the subject should stop with the creation of matter.
L8R

 

[John]

We start with nothing, then realize, that is not a first principle but a second principle. Nothing is made up to two ideas, no and thing. We can’t start with nothing. We have to start with “thing”. Whatever existed or didn’t exist was thing. What is thing? The definition of thing is: what it is. That means it can’t be something else, and right there, we have the definition of mass. "What is" resists movement or change. It resists becoming something else.

And by the definition of existence, two things can’t occupy the same place. That is the same definition as a point. Two points can’t occupy the same place. So the universe had to start as a thing, a single point of existence. That point, that thing was surrounded by nothing.

The third quality of a thing: it must occupy some amount of volume. That can be debated. A point is a thing that pure math says doesn’t occupy any volume. String theory says that a point is not really a volumeless thing, but it occupies a certain distance on a number line. And then, string theory goes on to say, in fact, a string is a hollow tube and has volume.

So a point occupies some volume. Now this point, this thing, which occupies volume is surrounded by nothing.

If it occupies volume, then it can occupy less volume. So let’s break this string in half and separate the two halves. What resists the separation? Nothing. What are they separating into? They have nothing to separate into. So they can’t separate, yet nothing resists their separation. Two things are possible at the same time, which gives birth to? Force. It takes force to separate the divided string into nothing.

Let’s remove the force that broke the string and separated it. Here is the first place we ask ourselves, “Does nothing contain a lot of empty space?” If it does, then the two strings, or points that have volume can float in the nothingness of empty space. But we have already defined space or volume as a quality that only exists in a point, because we call the point a string, and really a hollow tube that has volume. Therefore, no volume exists in “the nothingness of empty space”. The only volume that exists is within each string, and now, we have definitely separated the two strings. Let them go, in you imagination, and what do they do? They must come back together because there is nothing between them, yet they are separated.

Ask yourself, "When do they come back together?" Not instantaneously, but after the mass is overcome because the mass says they are in a state of separation. The thing required for them to come back together is time. The thing pushing them back together is an attractive force the same direction as gravity. It always pushes masses together. The coming back together is from the fact they are separated into nothing, which does not contain space.

Here, by pure defintion we have created mass, force, time and distance. We also created the concept of gravity.

We created those things from no, and thing. Imagine what can be created from mass, force, time, and distance, and gravity!

 

[elas]

Don't confuse nothingness with the physicists "vacuum state", which is the state you can't subtract particles from.

Surely "nothing' or 'absolute nothing' are both states that carry the force of vacuum, just as gravitons carry gravity etc. That is to say 'nothingness is a vacuum state.

 

[Antonio Lao]

what can you suggest for reading material covering the 1D quantum spacetime packets thing you mentioned?

The mainstream physics is going into higher dimensional formulation using tensor analysis. But for the sake of visualization in many specific demonstration of theories, the theorists, more often than not, use 1D of space and time. For example the Feynman diagram and the light-cone diagram in Einstein's relativity theories.

 

[north]

Can't say I've had any personal experience with nothing, but I can say we are the definition of it. This is meted out through conceptual geometrics. This means that there is nothing physical about our universe at all.
___________________________________________

really,so what came first,the elements of biology,or biology? which of course the essence of conceptualisation of any thing,which is based on substance being already there.
___________________________________________
Hence - In our universe there are only ones ... one at a time. Where time is the nothing one's are composed of.

___________________________________________

but time is happening everywhere,in all instances(in the universe)beyond just our perception and conception.

 

[north]

For infinity has nowhere to expand to. It is full and empty at the same time.

Continuous creation of matter is a proposal of the debunked steady state theory of the universe originated by Bondi, Gold and Hoyle in the 1940s. The observed high redshift of many objects is a proof that the universe is changing as if it's aging hence it's not infinite.

___________________________________________

but space is also infinite,so substance and space proceed together.

 

[north]

Well, I certainly don't know where to go with this. For one thing, I'm not formally educated enough to use the proper terms when required and I have a hard time keeping all these concepts and theories straight. It sometimes makes it difficult to convey what one truly means.
Antonio, what can you suggest for reading material covering the 1D quantum spacetime packets thing you mentioned?
To all; Can we agree that spacetime has an origin?, A begining? And what might that have been? No one seems to be able to offer anything beyond this. And here is where I dwell. I'm getting just about leary of proposing any ideas at all because every idea put forth seems to get tossed in the blender, but that's the way it's been since Gallilio, Newton and many others. I have no problem if shown a more enlightend path and to date see no reason to exclude my postulations because of a more rational concept.
Who here beleives that some form of energy quantum tunneled into exsistance to be the embryo for mass? There might be a few of you. That said, from what place might you think this energy came from? Where ever or whatever it was there was certainly no "arrow of time" at that point. Therefore that "place" (and i use that word quite unspecifically) would have "been" for ever; infinitly.
And North; "No possibility" of form to the concept, and "no possibility" of change? - - In the system in question? Here before us is the concept of infinity; fragmented time which follows no specific direction. Surly you jest. Hiesenburg would be quite put out with the thought. In some limited time frame perhaps the impossibiltys would prove you correct, but how can we assume nothing like what is put forth here could happen when we have forever to wait? This topic does seem to usually end up discussing aspects which require "matter" to be added to the equation. We might fare better to not go that far in the timeline. After all we're discussing "what is nothing" here so the subject should stop with the creation of matter.
L8R

___________________________________________

nothing is nothing is nothing in the nonexpression sense.in nothing there is nothing to change.as far as Heisenberg is concerned then he is wrong,whether he's put out or not.

simply i don't get what the problem with " absolute nothing" is. it has no space,time or dimension.so where does the possibility of change come from? put another way if we start with the above mentioned criteria,then what happens?

 

[north]

Don't confuse nothingness with the physicists "vacuum state", which is the state you can't subtract particles from.

Surely "nothing' or 'absolute nothing' are both states that carry the force of vacuum, just as gravitons carry gravity etc. That is to say 'nothingness is a vacuum state.

___________________________________________

nothing has well NOTHING,there is NO force of any kind.is seems to me that we ADD things to nothing.nothing is nothing people,plain and simple.nothing hidden or to be discovered, nothing in it's purest formless concept is all it is or ever will be.

 

[Antonio Lao]

but space is also infinite,so substance and space proceed together.

This statement is an assumption. Because it can be observed that the domination of redshifts against blueshifts is an astronomical fact and that can only be described if the universe is finite and has a beginning. The universe might expand forever if the value of omega is less than 1. Omega is defined as the ratio of observed total density of matter to the critical density.

 

[north]

We start with nothing, then realize, that is not a first principle but a second principle. Nothing is made up to two ideas, no and thing. We can’t start with nothing. We have to start with “thing”. Whatever existed or didn’t exist was thing. What is thing? The definition of thing is: what it is. That means it can’t be something else, and right there, we have the definition of mass. "What is" resists movement or change. It resists becoming something else.
___________________________________________

nothing may have two ideas but not "absolute nothing" mass cannot even exist here since in absolute nothing there NOTHING for mass to exist IN.

 

[north]

This statement is an assumption. Because it can be observed that the domination of redshifts against blueshifts is an astronomical fact and that can only be described if the universe is finite and has a beginning. The universe might expand forever if the value of omega is less than 1. Omega is defined as the ratio of observed total density of matter to the critical density.

___________________________________________

in Halton Arp's idea mass is created all the time.(his book SEEING RED isbn#0-9683689-0-5)
further this a discussion of nothing,substance always was and will be since nothing has NO possibility of creating substance.or show that nothing can.substance survives always,no ifs ands or buts.if you disagree explain.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Another alternative but hopefully more comprehensive description of nothing is the following:

In physics, when we say nothing we usually mean there is no mass. But what is mass? There is still no satisfactory answer. In experiment, we defined equal mass with respect to other mass (the standard mass) when the gravitational attraction to both is balanced. Gravity is a force. What is a force? When a force moves an object thru certain distance, the product of this force and distance is defined as the work energy or kinetic energy. But a motionless object a distant apart from a gravity field of force is defined as possessing potential energy. So that in a time independent isolated system, the total energy is a constant and is equal to the sum of kinetic energy and potential energy.

if the universe is considered as an isolated system, then its total energy is a constant. From this constancy of energy, we can defined two kinds of mass: the potential mass and the kinetic mass. Everything is composed of some amount of potential and some amount of kinetic mass. When the amounts are equal, the object has zero mass and its speed is always equal the speed of light.

 

[Antonio Lao]

in Halton Arp's idea mass is created all the time

This seems to be a revival of the steady state hypothesis of Bondi-Gold-Hoyle. But this idea cannot account for the dominant redshifts over blueshifts as observed in a homogeneous and isotropic universe like the one we are in.

 

[north]

This seems to be a revival of the steady state hypothesis of Bondi-Gold-Hoyle. But this idea cannot account for the dominant redshifts over blueshifts as observed in a homogeneous and isotropic universe like the one we are in.

___________________________________________

it seems to me that red shift and blue shift are relative to where you are to the source of the shifts,north-south-west-east and all points in between are a matter of observational perspective.blues would be hidden more than reds.

 

[elas]

nothing has well NOTHING,there is NO force of any kind.is seems to me that we ADD things to nothing.nothing is nothing people,plain and simple.nothing hidden or to be discovered, nothing in it's purest formless concept is all it is or ever will be.

QT states that the void has a minimum energy state, so
1)how does it get into the state envisaged in the above statement? and
2) if such a state ever existed what caused creation to commence?

This seems to be a revival of the steady state hypothesis of Bondi-Gold-Hoyle. But this idea cannot account for the dominant redshifts over blueshifts as observed in a homogeneous and isotropic universe like the one we are in.

All that has to be done to make sense of the steady atate theory is to replace 'galaxy' with 'universe'. Bondi-gold- and Hoyle did not think big enough.

 

[north]

Another alternative but hopefully more comprehensive description of nothing is the following:

In physics, when we say nothing we usually mean there is no mass. But what is mass? There is still no satisfactory answer. In experiment, we defined equal mass with respect to other mass (the standard mass) when the gravitational attraction to both is balanced. Gravity is a force. What is a force? When a force moves an object thru certain distance, the product of this force and distance is defined as the work energy or kinetic energy. But a motionless object a distant apart from a gravity field of force is defined as possessing potential energy. So that in a time independent isolated system, the total energy is a constant and is equal to the sum of kinetic energy and potential energy.

if the universe is considered as an isolated system, then its total energy is a constant. From this constancy of energy, we can defined two kinds of mass: the potential mass and the kinetic mass. Everything is composed of some amount of potential and some amount of kinetic mass. When the amounts are equal, the object has zero mass and its speed is always equal the speed of light.

___________________________________________

this getting away from the original forum here.lets not loose sight of what the original question is here.i mean now you are talking of mass.in "absolute nothing" there is nothing,no energy of any kind.what you are talking about is some sort of mathematical definition of nothing based on cancellation of energies in an equation and yet this a contridiction of nothing,THERE IS NO EQUATION. nothing is nothing is nothing.physics DOES NOT MAKE IT CLEARER,PLAIN AND SIMPLE there are no variations of the theme.there is no mass,time,space or dimension period! physics is not the answer to nothing,its a contradiction,physics NEEDS something physical to analyze,nothing HAS NOTHING physical TOO analyze.

 

[BoulderHead]

[foot in door] There was a show I saw on television where young people were asked to draw air in a syringe, then, the same amount of air in the syringe under compression. Virtually all drew little dots to represent air molecules, closer together in the compressed stage, not as close in the other. The troubling question was then asked; what’s in-between the dots? It made them pause, but none of them seemed comfortable with the idea of ‘nothing’. [/foot in door]

 

[John]

What exists between the dots?

Does the vacuum exist between planets, stars, and galaxies? The answer is, nothing as powerful as the vacuum could exist between planets.

So, what does exist between the planets and stars?

We have the idea that matter (from stars to atoms) live in this empty expanse of nothing. But we really have two definitions of nothing. The more sophisticated definition is “vacuum state” which we have found inside the structure of atoms and greatly affecting particles. What exists between stars? Space is different from the vacuum, so what is space?

The old answer was “ether”. Ether, or anything that makes up space would involve the vacuum state and something else filling it, making it less intense. Empty space, like the space inside a box, is literally a collection of points. A line is literally a series of points. Ask the question do the points take up any space on a line?

Strings do take up space on a line.

Are points on a line non-dimensional? or are they strings? Strings would be little segments of the line. If you put any number of non-dimensional dots side by side, you still have a non-dimensional dot. You don’t have a line. To make a line, you have to separate the dots and then you have something between the dots. If you constructed a line, it must be constructed of strings not non-dimensional points, and strings take up space on the line. The strings fill up the vacuum state and create a line.

What is the space between stars? Little tetrahedrons, not strings can make up a 3D space. The tetrahedrons must have some volume. You have space made of little tetrahedral points that have volume. Tetrahedrons have six edges, six dimensions. Add the classic three dimensions and that is nine dimensions, with one dimension of time, and that is exactly what string theory predicts. String theory, in pure math terms, is a theory that says a point on a line is really a little segment of that line. Likewise, a point in space would really be a little segment of space. It is shaped like a tetrahedron and has six edges, which could be called six dimensions. This space filled with points that have volume is not absolute vacuum. It is something else, like ether. If space were the absolute vacuum, then all the stars would be sucked together in a few years. This tetrahedral structure of space is what makes the vacuum less intense and converts the vacuum to gravity, and this tetrahedral structure with nine dimensions is what light, cosmic waves, and all particles travel through.

 

[C. Michael Turner]

Something exists, nothing doesn't. Therefore expanding space is something because nothing doesn't exist. Space is the expanding monopole gravitational wave as it changes from bound matter to unbound wave. an Unwinding! Everything is something and something always eventually becomes the gravitational wave, therefore nothing is outside the realm of matter which includes the gravitational wave and therefore space!

 

[Antonio Lao]

it seems to me that red shift and blue shift are relative to where you are to the source of the shifts,north-south-west-east and all points in between are a matter of observational perspective.blues would be hidden more than reds.

Hubble didn't think so and Einstein agreed with him.

 

[Antonio Lao]

this getting away from the original forum here.

The "nothing" in physics is the false vacuum. The "nothing" in philosophy is the true vacuum. The true vacuum is unreachable either by time or space or force or energy.

 

[bettysfetish]

O.K. - - I'll agree that nothing is nothing. To have something, you need mass. Do we agree? But do we agree the Big Bang provided the essential requirments to create the mass we see today in our universe as it is today? All things considered, this mass originated at a singular point, right? Where would that have been; in what environment?
Antonio, help me here - - as you stated, the nothing in physics is the "false Vacuum State." Does anyone else here grasp that concept? That is the key to where the singularity came into exsistance, or "what" the environment was like before mass. I ask; can energy "be" without mass? And why not? Does space really "need" to be strecthed by mass to "be there"?
We may fare better to pursue the false vacuum angle as it represents a state of nothing where virtual particles can interact for an infinite length of time until one lucky pair of particles don't annililate one another in a timely mannor. This would create quite an imbalance in the system in question. I will stand by proven theory or the most reasonable and logical theories to date. Heisenburg may have tried to bomb us first and thanks to many operatives he failed, but his theories stand firm. Nothing is an unstable system. If one waits an infinite length of time, something will happen.
L8R

 

[John]

Bettysfetish-- To have something you need mass.

I won’t question why you said it, but it’s absolutely right; and you put that statement at the beginning. It is the beginning of understanding creation and the big bang, at least, according to my theory. To have something you need mass. Everything else you said was on the same point and it was the point I was going to address next. Let's see if we can understand each other and maybe agree.

A single point on the number line is considered non-dimensional, which, by definition, is nothing. We say number lines are made up of non-dimensional points. Are they? An infinite amount of nothing is still nothing, so we have a real contradiction in our most basic concepts. We think a number line is made of an infinite amount of nothing. We think the universe was made from nothing.

We say that in the line from 0 to 1, you can divide it in half and find a non-dimensional point halfway between. Divide it in fourths and you find four non-dimensional points. Divided it by infinity and you have an infinite number of non-dimensional points between 0 and 1. You can say the line from 0 to 1 is constructed of an infinite number of non-dimensional points. In other words, it is constructed of an infinite amount of nothing. But can you?

If you divide the number line by 10 million, then each point in the number line is a small segment 1/10millionth long, or each non-dimensional point is separated by 1/10millionth.

Something in that equation is real: either the non-dimensional point is real, or the separation of 1/10millionth is real. The non-dimensional point is not real, because “to have something you need mass”, or at least, you need a numerical value. So instead of a non-dimensional point, we have the length between two points that is 1/10millionth long, and that is real. It could be called a string point. We could take 10 million of those string points and make the line.

No matter what we divide the line by, we can divide it by a little more (or even a lot more) so we never reach infinity, therefore a non-dimensional point, which has the value 1 / Infinity doesn’t exist. The only thing that does exist is a string point.

If the singularity that the universe was created from was a string point then the point that the universe was created from had to have some value or mass. Here is the cool part. You can always cut a string point in half. In fact, you can cut it into any number of pieces. So if all the mass in the universe was one string point, you could cut up the singularity into a large number of pieces and explode it all into the vacuum of nothing.

Now you have a dynamic, which is, "nothing" has neither any space to separate into, nor any ability to resist the separation. That is a dynamic. A dynamic is a force, in this case a force pushing inward, like gravity. Scientist say the solution to the whole mystery is to understand gravity. Two strings that have value or mass, separating into nothing... nothing neither allows then to separate nor can resist it, creates a force that has the same direction as gravity, pulling the two strings or points back together.

Since the singularity is a string point and must have some value, some mass, we can have a normal big bang, which is the explosion of something that does have mass. Now the creation looks a lot more normal.

 

[elas]

A single point on the number line is considered non-dimensional, which, by definition, is nothing. We say number lines are made up of non-dimensional points. Are they? An infinite amount of nothing is still nothing, so we have a real contradiction in our most basic concepts. We think a number line is made of an infinite amount of nothing. We think the universe was made from nothing.

You are missing the point made first by Newton, who realized that the centre was a Zero Point (no dimensions) but all other volumes have dimensions and therefore must have a quantity greater than zero. Newton decided this is a quantity of force, hence gravity, but gravity is a hypothetical term.
Newton was the first person to use the term Zero Point but it has since be given a different definition.

 

[Chronos]

Permit me to step out of this argument in the same way I stepped in. 'Nothing' quantifies the operator in a 'null premise' mathematical argument. What remains is philosophy. You guys are on the wrong board.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Where would that have been; in what environment?

In physics, it's called the quantum vacuum fluctuation. Proven to exist by the Casimir effect. This expeiment was suggested by the Dutch physicist in 1940s.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Does space really "need" to be strecthed by mass to "be there"?

Actually, it's spacetime not space alone that is being stretched by mass. It is very hard or impossible to visualize but using math, it can be calculated. But because Einstein's field equations of general relativity are 16 coupled hyperbolic-elliptic nonlinear partial differential equations, their solutions are infinite. Even Einstein himself, at first, thought that a solution could never be found. Subsequent works by many other have led to many particular solutions forming various models of the universe.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Since the singularity is a string point and must have some value, some mass, we can have a normal big bang, which is the explosion of something that does have mass. Now the creation looks a lot more normal.

My hypothesis is this: before the string point can exist, it needs to possesses 8 properties of a principle of directional invariance.

These 8 properties are 3-way permutations of right-left, back-for, top-down symmetries.

All 3D objects possesses these properties. A left, a right, a back, a front, a top and a down. If either one is missing, the object cease to exist in 3D. When these properties become dynamic then the object becomes 4D of space and time. This 4D object is what we call mass. The 3D object is what we call energy. The 2D object is what we call continuous space. The 1D object is what we call quantized space. The 0D object is what we call the false vacuum.

 

[bettysfetish]

Well, the last few threads "were" quite thought provolking. And thanks to Antonio Lao. I'll digest this and return.
L8R

 

[John]

I wrote a kind of proof that said a non-dimensional point can’t really exist on a 1D line: the point must be a string. That explanation would have been too involved if I had not just accepted the fact that if a point has to be a string on a line, it has to have volume in 3D.

It takes four imaginary points to make a 3D structure, and those four imaginary points form a tetrahedron. If you use string points, it takes six strings to form a tetrahedron, which is the number of extra dimensions in string theory.

If you construct 3D space out of strings, you are met with an amazing fact that you can only travel back and forth in six directions in the string space you have constructed. And the smallest structure in 3D space with string points, the tetrahedron, has volume.

When you realize you can’t have any point that doesn’t have numerical value on a line, you are faced with a 3D space that has an underlying structure of little tetrahedrons, which are little things that turn in on themselves underneath 3D space, like the underlying dimensions of string theory. A string point in 3D space is a hollow tetrahedron with six edges.

When you prove, or realize you can't have a non-dimensional point that isn't imaginary, and when you realize what you can have, you arrive at physical space with 9 dimensions! There could be considered six extra dimensions in the little tetrahedrons underneath the 3 dimensions.

Each little tetrahedron, which has volume and mass and is therefore able to create space out of nothing, is just a point in the 3D space, but in that underlying tetrahedron space, you can only go back and forth in six directions!

 

[bettysfetish]

Hello all. Antonio is right about the "Casimir Effect"; that was 1948, and the dudes first name was Hendrick. The experiment indicates some very compellingly possibilitys. "Acually, it's spacetime, not space alone, that is being stretched by mass." -- O.K., I'll grant you that, but it seems that if gravity was the last force to "freeze out" and manifest itself as "real" then that "in itself" requires the presence of mass. Gravity gradually took hold as more and more energy converted to more and more mass. So here's my problem; before this point, at about 10-35 > 10-45 seconds "Was it a "SpaceTime" or just "Space?" At this point, (how 1o1), you realize the pressures and energys keep everything in an energy state; we're a "Plancks Hair" before the beggining of conversion to mass. Now, without mass, and all this energy contained within a 3 millimeter radius, if your into the expanding universe thing, but then you have to explain X-particles and Monopoles, "or" a radius of 3x10-35 centimeters, which needs "expotential expansion" for the inflationary universe, Is there gravity yet? Might the false vacuum be space without matter so therefore no "time?" Or might the timeline be there without a particle of mass "to set a direction" by it's very disintigration. It seems the very first particle of mass created would have set history in motion; entropy was already at work here. Where did the beggining of entropy begin? Could energy itself trigger time? Is energy "something"? It exsits without mass. If it's timeless then is it something or not? Hummm.
L8R

 

[John]

Mass has to exist. Mass is the very definition of existence: I am, therefore I can't be something else, which is inertia. Energy is mass in motion. Simple.

But ask yourself, where does attractive force come from? It comes from something on the outside pushing in. There is an envelope of nothing around primal matter, such as the matter inside of atoms. The envelope of nothing, pushing in, creates the strong force.

To get from the strong attractive force to gravity is not mathematical, but mechanical, like trying to figure out equations between how much gas you put in a car and how much energy you get out. It goes through a mechanical process and there is no set answer. Gravity is essentially the mechanical relationship between mass which has volume; and nothing, which is perfectly empty and has no space.

The radical concept here is that mass has volume; and emptiness has no space. Physics believes the opposite, that a point particle is dimensionless and there is a vast amount of empty space, though they are questioning the latter.

String theory at its root says that a point particle has volume.

 

[north]

Permit me to step out of this argument in the same way I stepped in. 'Nothing' quantifies the operator in a 'null premise' mathematical argument. What remains is philosophy. You guys are on the wrong board.

___________________________________________

couldn't agree more,guys the original question was what is the difference between "nothing" and "absolute nothing".it has been answered.but the discussion NOW IS BASED ON MASS AND MATH.

i suggest a NEW TOPIC board.then go from there.

 

[John]

What is nothing? is the perfect title for what is being discussed.

If mass has volume, then it fills the absolute vacuum. Filling the absolute vacuum with something that has volume makes absolute nothing into the less intense nothing of space.

But we are not talking about the mass of galaxies that we can see. We are talking about dark matter that fills the void of absolute nothing and creates the properties of space. If we realize space is made of absolute vacuum, and mass which is distributed throughout that vacuum as dark matter has volume, filling the vacuum with its volume and making it less intense, then you can answer a lot of questions.

 

[elas]

If mass has volume, then it fills the absolute vacuum. Filling the absolute vacuum with something that has volume makes absolute nothing into the less intense nothing of space.

There is an implied assumption in this statement which is that absolute nothing has dimensions. Newton, QT, black holes and now string theory all give absolute vacuum as dimensionless zero points, or have I missed something?

 

[north]

there is no such thing as an "absolute vacuum" in reality. have any of you heard of "chiral condensate"?