What is Nothing vs Absolutely Nothing?

[Erck]

Zero is less than we give it credit for being.

 

[p-brane]

absolute nothing is that which exists befor you and after you, all of reality, all matter and energy, all things real and imagined popped into existence when you became aware. and all things will cease to exist when you are no more..

I'd like to see some proof of this! There's no way to prove it. Can you come up with a way to prove your statement?


Erck.

How's the surf out there in CA!?

Zero: if zero were as less as we can't fathom, it wouldn't be a number. In some number systems zero is just a "-" or a "x" or a "knot". Its hard to work with absolute zero since

it can't be quantified.

 

[Erck]

Hi p-brane... surf, I got no stinking surf... I do however, live on a boat up a muddy canal off the SF bay.

Absolute zero is the most secretive thing there isn't.

 

[JesseBonin]

I'd like to see some proof of this! There's no way to prove it. Can you come up with a way to prove your statement?

I could prove it, but i wold have to kill you 8) lol JK

I think the real question is, prove that it is anything else...

 

[JesseBonin]

here is a mind bender, can you find anything that exists that is absolute?
or better still, find anything that has no motion at all? we know that all mass has motion, so we can count out all reality, what is left?
lets combine the 2 questions, is there an abslute? and is there anything with zero motion? light, as we struggle to figure out why the speed of light is absolute we may well find it is us that is moveing and light that is perfectly still... and thus the nothing or zero we cannot find

 

[sol2]

The Virtual Particles Of The Quantum Vacuum

http://www.calphysics.org/images/zpe.jpg


I could not put my finger on how to explain about nothing, which cannot exist?

useful calculational tool in physics is the ideal harmonic oscillator: a hypothetical mass on a perfect spring moving back and forth. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle dictates that such an ideal harmonic oscillator -- one small enough to be subject to quantum laws -- can never come entirely to rest, since that would be a state of exactly zero energy, which is forbidden. In this case the average minimum energy is one-half h times the frequency, hf/2.

http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

Nernst correctly deduced in 1916 (ref. 8) that empty space is still not completely devoid of all radiation after this is done. He predicted that the vacuum is still permanently filled withan electromagnetic field propagating at the speed of light, called the zero-pointfluctuations (sometimes called vacuum fluctuations). This was later confirmed by the full quantum field theory developed in the 1920’s and 30’s. Later, with the development of QED, it was realized that all quantum fields should contribute to the vacuum state, like virtual electrons and positron particles, for example. According to modern quantum field theory, the perfect vacuum is teeming with all kinds of activity, as all types of quantum virtual matter particles (and virtual bosons or forceparticles) from the various quantum fields, appear and disappear spontaneously. These particles are called ‘virtual’ particles because they result from quantum processes that have small energies and very short lifetimes, and are therefore undetectable.One way to look at the existence of the quantum vacuum is to consider that quantum theory forbids the absence of motion, as well as the absence of propagating fields(exchange particles).

This follows from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. In QED, the quantum vacuum consists of the virtual particle pair creation/annihilation processes (for example, electron-positron pairs), and the zero-point-fluctuation (ZPF) of the electromagnetic field (virtual photons) just discussed

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cach.../9903025+Lense-Thirring+Effect&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

 

[Erck]

here is a mind bender, can you find anything that exists that is absolute? or better still, find anything that has no motion at all? we know that all mass has motion, so we can count out all reality, what is left?

Now you're talkin'...

The absolute IS what we are looking for.

An absolute has no motion, no mass, no position, no relatives outside of itself.

 

[JesseBonin]

here is the paradox
there is no perfect vacuum, perfect vacuum = absolute nothing.
nothing is perfectly still so the absence of such a thing is absolute?. maybe
photons, tacheons(?), ect are conjectural .. we surmise that they "can" exist but have no means of verifying it? why? If photons are absolutly still as i guess, then anything man makes or devises will be unable to detect such a thing due to the fact that all matter in this reality has motion.
what do we know? we know that light has no mass ..
we know that becouse we can manipulate light that it does exist..
the paradox, how can something without mass exist?

here is a good one, we assume atoms exist becouse we can detect motion and magnetics .. but have you ever actually seen one?
we have a telescope that can see to the far edges of the universe, but we have not one micro-scope that can see a simple atom. (this discludes electron type microscopes, they do not actually magnify a visual thing but bounce electrons off of something and record the results and i don't think i need to explain the problem in magnifying an atom with an electron)

how do we see if light actually moves or if it is absolutly still? well we could try to freeze something to absolute zero..oh wait, we can't do that either.. absolute zero is as unattainable as 188,000 miles per second. 8) i do however think that we are closer to absolute zero than we are to light speed (c). and this is why. if light is "at rest" then no matter how fast we travel light will still be at rest (might also answer one of special relativities biggest questions "why does light travel away from you at the same speed no matter how fast your frame of referance is moveing)

i digress, we are looking for "nothing" and light is at the very least "something" i simply wounder if the nothing we wish to uncover is the something we already have 8)

 

[JesseBonin]

btw - the harmonic balace thing
a great tool for learning the theory, but essentially flawed... at some point (in a perfect vacuum) a atom will find molecular balance, as the orbitals rotate against them selves, the atom will not rest, but the nucleus will, thus a value of zero .. but that's still more conjecture.

 

[Erck]

We have to think "outside" the box (universe).

 

[sol2]

We have to think "outside" the box (universe).

Sort of like telling us what a black hole looks like inside?

 

[Erck]

Sort of like telling us what a black hole looks like inside?

Interesting reaction.

A black hole is a microcosmic representation of the big bang.

These two conditions are as close as relativity can get, to becoming absolute.

 

[paglren]

Nothing, or Nothingness, is an antinomy

Nothing, or Nothingness, is an antinomy: it negate itself as a thing though it's representation IS evidently something.
The interesting fact is that this antinomy is really outside of any language contest, so we could affirm that it is the "seed of antinomy" or, as I called it, the "Originary Antinomy".
The most interesting consequence is that "Nothingness" can be imagined as infinite oscillations between "not expression" (actually I couldn't write anything) and "expression" of itself.
The subtle difference can be noted by this formula

\rightarrow \emptyset​

in which the lacking term on the left side of implication sign is the real, unwritable, unthinkable, nothingness. Whatever you think about that lacking is not nothingness though.
Since this infinite series of oscillations should be repeated infinite times, we could affirm that in this originary condition neither time nor space exist.
We could yet say that "space" is representative of "manifesting nothing", while "time" is representative of "number of occurrencies of this happening".
Since each occurrence of this "space" must happen at least "one time", it is natural that space and time must be strictly related between them.
Indeed, if we suppose that there is mathematical limit to which the ratio of the two series (Space/Time) converge, this limit would lead to a non breakable limit of speed in a Universe based on this ratio (say the light speed of that Universe?).

 

[sol2]

Let's assume Sound in Analogy?

Interesting reaction.

A black hole is a microcosmic representation of the big bang.

These two conditions are as close as relativity can get, to becoming absolute.

I am responding to Palgren's post using yours.

If the basis then is "oscillations," then the distinction between the balckhole expanding and contracting raise the potential of extremes of energy gatherings, and its collapse?

Matter distinctions are raised in the ideas of such singularties, not as a infintie density, but where all is "ONE."

So in the early universe, dualism is taken out of the picture, for http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@139.mutQbxfLPVq.0@.1dde779c ?

Just thinking out loud

See http://hep.uchicago.edu/cdf/smaria/ms/aaas03_ms.pdf

 

[John]

Trying to describe nothingness, I realized the least thing that can exist is existence itself. Even if nothingness could exist on its own, nothingness would be a state of existence. Therefore the idea of creation is not creation out of nothingness but changing what exists into something else.

When we talk about Space/Time, we believe empty space plus time is the fundamental state from which everything starts. But I realized space is a more complex thing. It can’t be fundamental because there is no natural state of emptiness. The natural state of things is existence.

The next thing, creation, is to modify existence into something else. Force is applied to modify it, but because of inertia the change doesn't occur simultaneous to the force being applied. It occurs later, and that way, we have time. So a more accurate description of Space/Time is Matter/Time. Which suggests space is made of matter. (You can move backwads in space but you can't move backwards in matter. Everything is action, then reaction.)

The Higgs Field is like a space made of matter, like "molasses". He concluded the drag of particles and things through that space is what we see as their mass.

That’s very neat, but I say mass, momentum, etc exists as a natural state of matter, but there is also the drag that comes from a space made of matter when complex systems, molecules, objects move through that space. The vibrant molecule has to power itself through a space that has some drag to it.

If space is defined by particles of matter, then we have a particle of matter separated by nothingness and another particle of matter. When basic particles move, they move from particle to particle. These are physical points of matter, which possesses inertia, that define space. They are exactly like our concept of non-dimensional points, but they are real things and they are not infinite. Take any box and put a certain number of points in it, like fifteen points. If you are a point, to move from point to point, you can only move in a limited number of directions. But if you are not a point, but a complex system, you move through the sea of points that have mass. There is a drag, like the Higgs Field, but the drag is not the whole reason the system seems to have mass. It is only part of the reason. The way that molecules overcome this drag is the same way gravity works.

So the condition of emptiness that we imagine all physics to operate in is wrong. It is more accurate to say we operate in a space made of matter, because matter or fullness is the most basic form of existence, not emptiness.

 

[anandshanbhag2003]

how vast our universe ,is it limitless?

 

[p-brane]

I could prove it, but i wold have to kill you 8) lol JK

Kill yourself and send postcards from your place in the anti-life explaining how all existence has become non-existent and how you are the only one existing. Rather self-centered approach, no?

There's no way to prove something does not exist when you're not observing it because you're not observing the lack of existence because you're not observing it and its not there. Its a vicious psycho, and I'm putting it to rest (lol).

Have a nice life.

 

[Erck]

Trying to describe nothingness, I realized the least thing that can exist is existence itself. Even if nothingness could exist on its own, nothingness would be a state of existence. Therefore the idea of creation is not creation out of nothingness but changing what exists into something else.

So the condition of emptiness that we imagine all physics to operate in is wrong. It is more accurate to say we operate in a space made of matter, because matter or fullness is the most basic form of existence, not emptiness.

Good stuff John.

Especially the first paragraph.

In the last paragraph the implication seems to be that we would end up with a representaion of the universe as one solid piece of matter, so to speak.

 

[Erck]

how vast our universe ,is it limitless?

This won't clarify your question completely, but the universe does have a set of limits, but they are not absolute.

 

[pelastration]

This won't clarify your question completely, but the universe does have a set of limits, but they are not absolute.

"... they are not absolute"? You have inside information ?

 

[JesseBonin]

nothing requiers that there be something to compare it to otherwise how else would you know there was nothing?

 

[ranyart]

... and, more specifically, what is the difference between nothing and absolutely nothing?

Relatively speaking one can ask thisow 'SMALL' is the Universe?..and How 'BIG' is an Atom?

 

[Erck]

>Relatively speaking one can ask thisow 'SMALL' is the Universe?..and How 'BIG' is an Atom?

I'd say the unvierse has no size and the atom is a lot smaller than that.

>nothing requiers that there be something to compare it to otherwise how else would you know there was nothing?

Yes, that's the whole idea of no-thing. Absolutely nothing is different.

>"... they are not absolute"? You have inside information ?

"Outside" information. :-)

 

[ranyart]

>Relatively speaking one can ask thisow 'SMALL' is the Universe?..and How 'BIG' is an Atom?

I'd say the unvierse has no size and the atom is a lot smaller than that.

>nothing requiers that there be something to compare it to otherwise how else would you know there was nothing?

Yes, that's the whole idea of no-thing. Absolutely nothing is different.

>"... they are not absolute"? You have inside information ?

"Outside" information. :-)

Agreed, where one asks the question is important for the formulation of a Relative answer.

One can make different conclusions for the sake of aqmbiguity?..for instance if I say:ZERO+ = nothing (positive zero)..I could also state that absolute nothing = ZERO - (Negative Zero)

 

[Erck]

One can make different conclusions for the sake of aqmbiguity?..for instance if I say:ZERO+ = nothing (positive zero)..I could also state that absolute nothing = ZERO - (Negative Zero)

Intersting way of stating it.

Although, I think it's a conclusion that leads us beyond ambiguity.

 

[pelastration]

Agreed, where one asks the question is important for the formulation of a Relative answer.

One can make different conclusions for the sake of aqmbiguity?..for instance if I say:ZERO+ = nothing (positive zero)..I could also state that absolute nothing = ZERO - (Negative Zero)

Nice.
Here the WU CHI becomes Yin and Yang.
Wu Chi

 

[Dlanorrenrag]

On The Art Of Making Something Out Of Nothing

At its limits, I am not sure that science is completely separate from faith or art. At some limits, thinking something so sometimes seems to help make it become so. Someday, might scientific pharaohs be able to say, "So let it be written, so let it be done"? Or, as Shakespeare said, "For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

Is this possibly part of the gist of the idea:
For there to exist a concept of “no matter,” it would seem that there must exist a conceptualizer as well as a potential for some matter, as if the present lack of matter were merely attributable to an equally symmetrical offsetting of matter and anti-matter. But, might a potential for matter exist even without a conception of matter if a potential for matter were itself endowed with a property or capacity for somehow, over time, consistently recording information regarding a pattern of interactional influences---such as if space could be induced to crack a potential for matter into actual parts of matter, thereby breaking any perfect, symmetrically annihilating effect of anti-matter? Perhaps only if there were both no potential for a conscious concept of matter and no potential for inanimate matter with a capacity for preserving interactional information over an arrow of time could there be a “true or perfect” state of “nothingness.”

 

[John]

Since we can agree nothing can’t be absolute, possibly we can agree the opposite of nothing can be absolute. I think the whole universe started as one big solid piece of matter, surrounded by nothingness. The first big question was, How strong was the rock the universe was made of? I finally realized it didn't need to have any tensile strength; it just needed to be nearly impossible to compress. What is nearly impossible to compress and has no tensile strength? Water. The entirety of the original universe was like a huge ocean of water. Then I remembered the Bible, where it says: The Earth (or the universe) was formless and void and the spirit of God flew above the waves of the abyss. This describes liquid raw matter.

The most interesting feature was the waves. God, who flew above the surface of the liquid matter created a universe that was made mostly of waves. The waves on the surface of the matter happened because nothingness outside the matter had no space. When a wave rose up, it pushed into nothingness, which pushed back because there was no space. This was the same concept as gravity, and gravity causes the waves of water in the ocean to function. The idea for gravity may have came from the original condition between matter and nothingness. Nothingness is always pushing into matter. We say the whole universe can be understood by understanding gravity, but the real quest may be to understand the universal force that pushes in only one direction, inward.

The Koran has some interesting things to say about creation. It says the original Gods had bodies of smokeless fire. In other words, they were heat. It also says the original Gods broke up the matter to create the universe. So this solid matter, that once did make up the entire universe was broken up into many small pieces by the original Gods, who had bodies of smokeless fire. I am not Muslim. I read this to my amazement after I realized for myself what happened. There was a big heat explosion and all the matter was broken up and thrown out into nothingness, which does not contain space.

Imagine a dust devil. You step on it, and it makes a cloud of smoke made of tiny particles. All the tiny particles define the cloud, just as all the tiny particles from the original matter now define space. They are no longer one solid piece but they are broken up.

If I put periods like this……………it would represent a line. If I wanted to put fifteen periods with no distance between them, it would look
like this . Fifteen periods with no distance between them is a singularity. It is one point. When all the matter of the entire universe was together, it was a singularity (but a large singularity, characterized as an abyss). When it was broken up, it became all the mathematical points of space. So bits of matter define space just like tiny bits define the cloud made by a dust devil. The universe is still solid matter, but the matter is broken up. String theory says there is a distance between points.

 

[selfAdjoint]

If I put periods like this……………it would represent a line. If I wanted to put fifteen periods with no distance between them, it would look
like this . Fifteen periods with no distance between them is a singularity. It is one point. When all the matter of the entire universe was together, it was a singularity (but a large singularity, characterized as an abyss). When it was broken up, it became all the mathematical points of space. So bits of matter define space just like tiny bits define the cloud made by a dust devil. The universe is still solid matter, but the matter is broken up. String theory says there is a distance between points.

This paragraph is wrong. The bit with the periods is a musunderstanding of continuity, which is not built from a finite number of points like that. And string theory does NOT say there is a distance betrween points. It is a radically "smooth and continuous" theory before quantisation, and quantization brings discrete string states but not discrete points in what they call the target space.

 

[Erck]

And string theory does NOT say there is a distance betrween points.

Is there any semblance of "empty space" in string theory?

 

[Erck]

It is a radically "smooth and continuous" theory before quantisation, and quantization brings discrete string states but not discrete points in what they call the target space.

Also... whatever shape a "discrete state" might take and however "target space" might differ from empty space... is this really fundamentally different from the idea of a "thing" and a "no-thing" interchanging with each other... so to speak?

 

[John]

String theory says a point in a line is a string, like this

---------------

That is fifteen strings. Or type them connected like this

_______________

That is made with fifteen undelines that connect, each have a length.

Since a string is a point, it is accurate to say fifteen points with distance between them is the same as fifteen strings. It is also accurate to say that when you line up fifteen points that have no length, they make one point. Try this 0+0+0=0

If a string has a length of .012, then three strings gives a line that is .036.

So .012 would be the distance between the points on the line.

What is most interesting is it is more accurate to say a string is two points that have distance between them. You can even more accurately say that a point is a sphere with distance all around it. When you line up fifteen spheres you have a line that looks like this

000000000000000

If you stack those efficiently in a 2D space you create triangles, and in a 3D space you create tetrahedrons. If you stack tetrahedrons you have straight lines going in only six directions. So if space is made out of strings, or points with distance between them, or spheres with distance all around them, you have the unsual fact of only being able to travel in six directions in primary space. To travel in any direction, a point particle has to zigzag through six "dimensions". String theory, the idea that a point on a line is really a small string predicts six extra dimensions. The correlation between my underlying six directions when stacking spheres that have distance all aroud them, and the six extra dimensions is too extraordinary to be ignored.

If points are spheres with distance all around them, then points could be matter fragments of the original state of the universe if it was ever made of solid matter. When you break up the solid matter and separate the pieces, you can only travel from point to point in six underlying directions. Think of the real universe, the points themselves, as solid matter not empty space.

We have concluded that you can't have nothing, total emptiness; so the space in the universe has to be made of matter. There is no empty space, really. There is something, and there is nothing. Nothing does not contain the concept of empty space. So the concept of space has to be made with little fragments of matter that have distance all around them. And that space will have six underlying directions; or six underlying dimensions.

 

[selfAdjoint]

String theory says a point in a line is a string

No it doesn't. You keep saying string theory says this, string theory says that, and you keep getting it wrong.

 

[John]

String theory says two point particles can only approach each other so close. To believe it does not say that is to make what is simple too complicated. It says there will always be some distance between point patricles. That simple fact leads to six extra dimensions. I have extended that idea to all points in space and came up with space that has only six underlying directions, which can be called dimensions.

 

[Erck]

SelfAdjoint... does string theory presuppose this "space" between strings?

John... I can see your idea that if things broke up and went in all directions that would make it 6... but dimensions? How does one make the leap from direction to dimension?

And anybody... if we can't say conclusively, that space is empty, does it make sense to then say it's completely filled up with something that we can't say conclusively, even exists? Doesn't it point more directly, to them simply being a relative pair, and as long as we keep trying to force absolutism on them, we will be kidding ourselves?

 

[paglren]

And anybody... if we can't say conclusively, that space is empty, does it make sense to then say it's completely filled up with something that we can't say conclusively, even exists? Doesn't it point more directly, to them simply being a relative pair, and as long as we keep trying to force absolutism on them, we will be kidding ourselves?

It is simpler to think of nothing as the only ... thing that has not to be explained by nobody: it explains by itself... and this make all to exist.
If we speak about space we are immerged in time. If we speak of time we are in some place of space.
Fortunately nothingness can always express itself: with or without us.
Let's think of any computer program (or likely of any card play): were they anything when in mind of some guy?
It is hard to think but "nothing" is always "something else" and my point is that this is the first brick of any knowable Universe.

 

[Erck]

It is hard to think but "nothing" is always "something else" and my point is that this is the first brick of any knowable Universe.

I'm with you, I think. Could you rephrase this?

 

[selfAdjoint]

SelfAdjoint... does string theory presuppose this "space" between strings?

John... I can see your idea that if things broke up and went in all directions that would make it 6... but dimensions? How does one make the leap from direction to dimension?

And anybody... if we can't say conclusively, that space is empty, does it make sense to then say it's completely filled up with something that we can't say conclusively, even exists? Doesn't it point more directly, to them simply being a relative pair, and as long as we keep trying to force absolutism on them, we will be kidding ourselves?

Strings exist in the target space no different than we exist in our 3+1 space. The space is continuous, with no gaps in its points. John doesn't know what he's talking about. He's just got his own private theory and is calling it string theory. Don't be fooled.

The dimension of the string target space is fixed by a requirement that makes string theory (the real one) self-consistent. For simple bosonic strings the number is 26 (25 space and 1 time), for superstrings it is 10 (9 space and 1 time) and M-theory, which is a little different, has 11 (10 space and 1 time, but one of the space ones is a little odd).

This is all well understood; there is no room in it for John's personal theories.

 

[John]

String Theory is proved by math and experience that does not completely describe existence. We are all immersed in math because it gives us answers, but we can't answer "What is an electron?"

I played with a personal theory starting in 1984 that suggested maybe space is made of individual points.

I found a lot of correlation between my ideas and what we have observed in String Theory.

paglren has the first principle right, except he didn't phrase it right. He said, "think of nothing as the only ... thing that has not to be explained by nobody: it explains by itself... and this makes all to exist"

Rephrasing it right: the thing that has not to be explained by anybody: it explains itself, is existence. We can't start with nothing, we have to start with existence!

What exists is limited. To make it bigger, we break it up and send it out in all directions.

Now we have an array of points that look a lot like an array of stars.

In Flatland, if we have an array of stars (draw 24 randon dots on a piece of paper) try to find three or more of the dots that nearly line up and draw lines through the dots that nearly line up. Look at your lines and group the lines that go in similar directions. Separately draw those groups as parallel lines. You will end up with sets of parallel lines and individual lines. When I did that just now, I ended up with two sets of parallel lines and two lines going in two random directions. One of the single lines was 60 degrees from the two groups, one line was at 30 degrees.

Now look at a snowflake. All the lines in the snowflake are either at 30 degrees or 60 degrees. Even a random array of points produces most of the parallel lines at 60 degrees and some lines at 30 degrees, just like a snowflake. I say a snowflake is fornmed on the stucture of space which is made of points.

If the points are all that exist, in this flatland of points you have only three major lines of dimension and three other minor lines of dimension. You can only go from point to point. The points are all that exist. The points aren't random places picked out of nothing. You can't do that because nothing doesn't exist. The only thing that exists is existence. So therefore, at the most basic level in this plane made of points, which look like stars, there are three primary dimensions and three secondary dimensions, which sounds a lot like 25 space dimensions and 9 space dimensions.

So String Theory seems to agree with my ideas. I have described a flatland that actually has six dimensions or three dimensions, starting with the idea: what exists is what exists; nothing does not exist.

Math starts with a blank sheet of paper and you can put points or numbers anywhere. But we can't start with a blank sheet of paper, or a "target space". We start with the array of dots. The dots are all that exist. The blank paper does not exist.

 

[Erck]

We can't start with nothing, we have to start with existence!
What exists is limited. To make it bigger, we break it up and send it out in all directions.

I certainly agree that we have to start with existence... that's what the whole search is all about.

Saying "what exists is limited" though... doesn't answer the "what," or the how or why or when.

Breaking it up and sending it out in all directions, if that is the case... might have more to do with making it more diverse than bigger?

 

[John]

Regardless of how big all the matter in the universe is, there can be something bigger. If all the matter is in one place it is a singularity, like two drops of water that become one drop when they touch. Matter has a tensile strength which is the weak force, just like water has a weak electromagentic attraction to itself (ultimate matter and water are very similar). The whole universe was once a great sea of matter, as described in the Bible. There was no up or down or sideways and no measure of time. Matter combined with the nothingness around it to form a more interesting and diverse world. This forming with nothingness was a kind of fuzzy logic. How can you combine with something that does not exist? But in fact, nothingness existed as the opposite of matter. And life also existed in the form of heat.

Three things, three dimensions combined to form what we know. It always takes a mininum of three dimensions to make something.

 

[Dlanorrenrag]

Simon and Garfunkel

Might there be aspects of being and concepts such as “nothing” that simply defy consistent, unambiguous, or perfectly mathematical analysis, even though still being helpful for conveying aspects of meaning subject to limited perspectives? How much changing and ambiguous oscillation is there at the points of theories that attempt to relate order to chaos, pattern to flux, *something to nothing*, meaning to non-meaning, belief to doubt?

Is even Physics subject to being ruled by limitations in language, as manifested in failures to communicate that necessarily oscillate with changing identities, points of view, contexts, and emotions?

***If not for “nothing,” then for what fundamental concept can meaning be communicated, independent of point of view, context, and emotion?*** Is it only well outside areas of oscillation that differences can temporarily collapse to become of kind rather than of degree?

Admittedly, I have little background in physics. And, as Simon and Garfunkel once said, "after all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can think at all." So, my wonder is, HOW IS IT THAT WE SEEM ABLE TO COMMUNICATE ANYTHING AT ALL?

 

[John]

There is meaning (nothing is nothing).

There is relative meaning (nothing is no-thing, nothing is only a subset of thing, thing is absolute).

There is degree (the more thing encroaches on nothing, the more force is needed).

Math people are very comfortable thinking only in degree, but that can't answer a lot of the questions. It can give us very accurate indications. If our logical ideas don't agree with what math tells us, our logical ideas are wrong. But Einstein said imagination is the most important part of discovery.

 

[paglren]

I'm with you, I think. Could you rephrase this?

As many of participants to this thread have already said: "nothing" is nothing.
But this frase is an Antinomy (i.e. it declares its own falseness as true).
I think that this particular antinomy, being by definition outside any language contest (there's no language yet defined), can be considered a primary vibrating status from which anything could be derived.
In other terms any thing we consider, ourselves included, can be described by interacting rules among void points. There is no need of anything else (like mass or energy). The only real things are the rules of the Universe and these rules come out from the rule-generator that we call "nothing".
Think of space-time as a frame due to some "3d symmetry" manifesting n times.
The symmetry rules lead to "space" and the occurrencies lead to "time".
This approach leaves all unchanged and doesn't conflict with any phisics law, but could re-define almost all known concepts:

• Mass is the limit of pulsating contraction of 3d space towards a point (at c speed)
• Energy is the change of space curvature (due to contraction)
• Light is still (i.e. it does not travel through space: rather it is the pulling of space that brings information to mass)
• Any explosion is accompanied by light emission when some parts of mass stop contracting (i.e. become still points)
• Light acts as an anti-inertial screen (i.e. the real mass of stars is partially "masked" by the still points of light that surround them)

And so on.

A last observation: Space is 3dimensional due to 3d symmetry of contraction. This contraction has to happen in a 4th (3+1) orthogonal dimension to work as we see (i.e. it's projection in 3d space concides with the center of contraction and it is not perceived as "space").

 

[Erck]

As many of participants to this thread have already said: "nothing" is nothing.

But as I asked at the beginning of this thread... "is there a difference between nothing (no-thing) and absolutely nothing?"

If the answer is no... then so be it.

But if it isn't... then?

 

[Messiah]

Logic requires definition

Logic requires definition. The concept of infinity is not contrary to logic - it violates none of its precepts - yet it is beyond the realm of logic because it is UNdefined.

The Universe occupies volume; hence it HAS size. It's size is; however, undefined. Between every two points in the Universe there is a finite distance, but there is no furthest point. . . that is the RELATIVE concept of infinity.

By the same token if you define 'nothing' as that which does not exist, well - "that which does not exist" does not exist - it is a fiction. In the relative context, nothing is the relative value of zero or the empty set.

 

[Erck]

By the same token if you define 'nothing' as that which does not exist, well - "that which does not exist" does not exist - it is a fiction.

To accurately define something that doesn't exist, as "not existing"... doesn't necessarily make it fiction.

Doesn't it simply mean, that we've arrived at understanding and using language and logic, more completely.

Could understanding something "not existing"... help us better understand the "something" that might exist?

 

[John]

paglren,

What you said was exactly wrong. You started with nothing, and went to vibrations, and then went to laws.

The problem is that all of math and physics is incorrectly starting with nothing. The very concept of nothing presupposes a thing. To have no thing you must have a thing, therefore nothing cannot exist on its on, therefore the universe can't grow out of nothing, starting itself with vibrations and laws.

Instead, we start with something. All the matter in the universe existed as one giant blob. It had to be finite because anything that exists is finite. But more importantly, it could exist on it own, without needing anything outside of itself for its state of existence. It just existed. But this thing was finite, and outside this "thing" was nothing. Now we have contradictions. We have nothing, which is zero, and nothing is infinite. It exsits because the "thing", which is all there is, is finite. All there is, is finite, wow, contradictions. This fuzzy logic almost operates like people themselves operate.

For example, let's define matter. Matter is what is, therefore it can't be something else, therefore it has inertia, therefore it can't change. Yet the slightest force can change it. I tried to show in another post that only if something doesn't have mass can it have infinite inertia, and really can't be changed. Here is the 0, Infinity correlation over and over. Logic breaks down.

In this fuzzy logic universe, we don't have empty space; we have a universe made of individual points of matter. The only thing that is real is the points themselves, but because of how they must be arranged, we have six extra physical dimensions. When consdering we start from something, we realize we have a solid matter universe made of points of matter that have distance between them, not an empty universe. The solid matter unvierse (the one that exists) has at least 10 dimensions and has secondary dimensions because of how the points can line up, and how you can go between them. Going between points is why particle fragements spiral wildly, sometimes. Their paths are not pure spirals. They have little angular changes in them, which indicate they are passing by real points in space. You only see this when you realize you must start with something and something is all you can have. You can never have nothing. But nothing has a radical effect, which is the strong force. The strong force; all force, is the result of fuzzy logic, which says things such as, 0 is infinite; and it's true, there really is an infinite amount of nothing. We can't build a universe there, though.

 

[pelastration]

Instead, we start with something. All the matter in the universe existed as one giant blob. ...
...
In this fuzzy logic universe, we don't have empty space; we have a universe made of individual points of matter.

John, Why many individual points of matter?
Start with one.
Apply
Razor.[/URL]
What is the most logic and simple ... (1) start with one point (First Point) or (2) postulate billions of points from the start?
Do you need to destroy (with Universal Scissors) this point ( or boundary) to make billions of subsets (micro-points). No.
How can we come for one point to billions of points? The billions of points are on another level (dimension).
I explain:
One point (The First Point being All) has boundary. Yes?
Can we say that the First Point is just it's boundary? Yes.
The boundary has the properties to reshape.

In the PRIOR-GEOMETRY there is in our language no-THING (thus no-matter, no-energy like we know it in dimension), but this does not mean zero. There is always prior-geometry dynamics (Chaos). Yes, the boundary is a pre-geometrical some-THING, but that's not the geometric some-things.

The dynamic boundary can now restructure to (appearent) independent GEOMETRICAL sub-sets. So on a geometrical sub-level we see a lot of some-THING's : sub-sets that we call Energy and Matter : restructured boundary.
Between these sub-sets is an never-broken linkage: the boundary. Tear on one spot and the total system will be effected. That's the interconnectness (called attraction or gravity) of this universe(s). That's the real fundament of All.

 

[whitelighter]

A few years ago I put this little abstraction together as a way to stimulate debate on "Nothing" and just how important this thing that "doesn't" exist by default is.


Time in continuum.

A while ago I posted a question at a forum about the nature of the Time continuum and how Science comprehended it’s nature.
The response I got was simply stating that the words “time continuum” meant very little to the reader. May be this was because of the terminology used or simply the idea of a time continuum is foreign, I am not sure. Thus the reason for this post.

When looking at the nature of time and understanding the variations in dilations and compressions one can still see that everything moves through time in continuum and together.

The philosophers will argue that what I am referring to is the “Now” and that is as simple as it gets.

The time continuum is just a uniform universal existence in the “Now” even with curved space and time dilations etc. are considered.

The question is: How does it all stick together and move through time as one?

Keeping in mind that the word “move” is not really correct in that the “Now “ goes no where as such.

The notions that I have of it is that the true “Now” is a time event horizon, the “now being right in the middle between the past and the future. Essentially the “Now “ is nothing and could be considered the centre of time.

Because the past is always “starting to exist” it can be inferred that everything we are cognizant of is actually a memory. Therefore the event horizon of the “Now” is actually only able to be comprehended as “nothing”. The “Now” is actually nothing , being ahead of cognition.

So to the original question about the physical nature of the time continuum.
I would suggest that the universe shares the same centre of time ( Nothing ) and all stems from this nothing to become the past that we can recognise as the present.
The present being a collection of past and future aspirations.

Because the past determines the future there is nothing separating the past and the future thus the “Now” is only an event horizon that in itself is not time or nothing- time. The actual moment of the event horizon could be considered as a moment of anticipation, the anticipation that movement is about to happen. As we know movement and time are essentially the same thing.

Another reason for considering this notion is that in the centre of all matter and space ( if centre is the right word to use) is this event horizon, as matter “Moves” in continuum with every thing else, so therefore it can be suggested that in the centre of matter is nothing, thus nothing exists only because it doesn’t.

An earlier post tried to put forward the notion that “Nothing” is in fact the most important source of energy “inversely applied”, in the universe.

If one thinks of time as a physical entity in gravitational and spatial terms then what creates a continuum of universal movements is the existence of nothing by is absolute nature “pulling” it all together. If one thinks of “Nothing” as being an absolute vacuum then in pressure terms it is extremely powerful in attracting pressure to it. So “Nothing” is what holds the universe together not only regards time but everything else as well.

The time continuum being essentially supported by the inverse energy of Absolute Vacuum.
As Vacuum is omni attractive, it is attractive to itself thus all matter has an attraction to all matter. This attraction I would suggest is the action of Absolute vacuum (Nothing) and is currently referred to as gravity.

Further to this

A photon is suggested to travel at a constant speed. It is even suggested that to travel faster than 'c' is to travel back in time. This would suggest that the photon travels at a speed that is right on the middle of time neither past or future therefore "nothing"

Light can only be seen in reflection where it achieves a state of "something" ( over time.) The reflection having a past and a future but not the photon itself as it exists only in the "now" thus it is "nothing"