God and Nothing seems to be equivalent

[Crunchy Cat]

Sorry for the delay in replies, I don't have a internet connection at home and have to use it while visiting a relative.

No worries.

Many theories are mistakenly claimed as facts. The only difference is that some are more plausible than others. My point is that even though the total energy could be zero, it would still have existence. I thought that it was a generally accepted idea that the total energy of the universe was zero, hence something that I qualified (perhaps mistakenly) as "knowledge". It's hard to keep up with all the theories.

Ahh, it's actually not a popular notion but it is one of many theories.

Yes, I understand what fields are, I just didn't understand that it related to the virtual particles in such a way that it created them from the field. I thought the field was always created by the particles, since they carry the forces, and not the other way around.

That's what makes fields and particles so damn cool.

I heard of this vibrating mirror thingy...and guess what, they still described it as "particles coming from nothing", they never learn do they?

Nope, they certainly don't.

What causes the jiggling?

No idea.

Then I guess you weren't aware of Stephen Hawkings model then? He states that everything came from a state of pure nothing, such that it is absent from everything and anything, including space and time.

This is what he said (amongst other things), from his book "The Grand Design":
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing," the excerpt says. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going."

So there are theories that real nothing (the one without space/time, or anything else for that matter) was the state that brought about the universe.

Take the law of gravity quote. He is saying that because gravity (i.e. *something*) exists then the universe can create itself from *nothing*. That doesn't make much sense does it? It can however make sense with a relative definition of *nothing*, but I don't think the average Joe would have any way to discern that.

"Nothing" is a word that can both mean "empty" and can mean "absence of anything/everything", it has to be seen in context, unfortunately the context implied that the particle became non-existent, hence that it "vanished" from existence, I had never seen any mention that it transformed to and from a field. Why they almost never say that is beyond me, but might be because QFT is a incomplete theory, which has to use "hand-crafted" techniques to avoid infinities.

I agree, it's a poor use of language.

Well, Enmos did understand what I meant, he agreed that "we didn't exist", though added "but the matter that made us up did". So generally I think people did understand what I meant and I later clarified what I meant because I saw that it could be interpreted differently. Though I still think it should have been clear. If we want to push it though, we could say that the exact definition of "you" if we are to take away everything that is essentially "not you" is your awareness, because without your awareness there wouldn't be anything defining 'you', and the body would be just as any other body.

If you ask anyone "do you believe that we exist after we die?", then you can be certain that they do understand what you mean. It was in context that the meaning had to be interpreted, and there is no reason to believe that you meant the body.

Kind of like interpreting the use of the word nothing in Hawking's theory eh?

Trust me, there are words with several meanings in science too, it's a general flaw of language, perhaps it's just a way to minimise the number of words to make the number tolerable, if we had to invent a exact word for everything then we would probably have tenfold as many words, I know that science tries to be as exact as possible, but only to a certain limit and explanations of theories and maths are often made using ordinary words when that is possible.

mmhmmm.

There's also a risk that if we use too many words that the ordinary people can't relate to we minimise societies understanding of what's going on in science. This is generally a flaw of science, I think.

We could just educate people instead of trying to dumb everything down.

I would also like to remind you that we are in a discussion forum were not only scientists can participate, and I like to use ordinary/common words as much as possible even though a explanation of what I mean might be required later on.

They may not ask you questions if their interpretation of what you said makes sense to them (even though you may have an utterly different meaning in mind). It may be a preference, but I would rather explain something in correct/accurate terminology and then explain something if someone didn't understand.

It would still only be what I *believe* to be the external reality. Because any knowledge of it is completely subjective, can you be objectively aware of the external reality?

You could choose not to believe it, but it wouldn't change the result. That is just another verification. That means your knowledge of it isn't completely subjective and your experience of it is both subjective and objective.

Yes, indeed. If particles become 'nothing' then I can't interpret it that they become 'empty'. If they want to use the kind of relative nothing that you talk about then they have to use it relative to something. Hence that the space that the particle occupied has become empty. But that's not true either, because the particle has returned to the field.

A good way to think of it is that virtual particles are field disturbances... much like ripples from tossing a rock into a still pond. Wether the pond (field) has ripples (paricles), the pond (field) is still a pond (field).

"For whatever reason" is not good enough though. If it is completely random then it's still something from 'nothing'.

You'll have to research it then, because I don't know what causes the field disturbances. I suspect you are going to look for that elusive something from nothing and always find something from something. Rather then go down this path (which is becoming a little silly), why not analyze why you want something from nothing to be real? What is motivating you? What is there to gain? Why is it so hard to accept that reality is telling you over and over again that it's not a valid idea?

So the energy required for the fields to jiggle just isn't there? You understand that this would actually be energy from nothing then? Or do you believe that there are hidden variables to account for the energy needed to make them jiggle?

I think that you misunderstood my response. I am saying there is enough potential energy in all fields to account for jiggling (although I don't know the mechanics of the jiggling).

I should also say that the 'uncertainty principle of energy-time' states that the shorter timespan that is measured the more uncertain is the amount of energy that could be present during that time. Which is why that amount of energy (to account for the jiggles) could briefly exist as long as it only exists for a short period.

I don't suspect this has any relation to field jiggling.

But the jiggles is uncaused according to current theories?

There is nothing to indicate they don't have a cause; however, I do not know why the jiggle.

The uncertainty principle of position and momentum does imply it though, cause space-time in this view has the structure of all the properties of the particle reset to zero. Which means that it is well-defined and therefor must have a uncertainty as to wether the properties really are zero, so that we can't measure it's position and momentum to such a great degree.

As much as I read that, it doesn't make any sense to me (and I know the uncertainty principle very well). Maybe a paraphrase of what you are trying to say will clear it up?

Yes, but it doesn't take away the notion that something could come from nothing though, cause what are the "fields jiggling around" caused by?

I don't know why, it's something you will have to research. Your desire to have something from nothing seems so strong to me that I suspect that the moment you reach an "I don't know" moment in science, you will fill that gap with *nothing* and declare yourself victorious. This is something that Theism has consequently done and continues to do. Whenever something is unexplainable then it's declared that "God did it"... at least until science comes along and replaces the gap of "God" did it with a real explanation.

Not completely synonym, because when they say that a particle becomes 'nothing', then they don't mean that the particle becomes 'empty'. There is not a 1 to 1 correspondence. They should have said (if they meant nothing as in 'empty') that the space that the particle previously occupied as now become nothing - but that seems to be a stretch too.

I never claimed that they are using the best grammatical constructs. IMO, a better option would be to use more explicit/accurate language.

How come they 'naturally' do this?

Don't know.

Then why do they say 'spontanious'? Even in well-regarded scientific magazines and in scientific papers they say that they are created 'sponaniously'. Is this yet another blunder from their side? Is it a way to appeal to the crowd?

It could be a combination of factors. It could be a writer's interpretation of what a physicist is saying, it could be a poor choice of words used by people who don't have writing degrees but do have science degrees, it could be an attempt to dumb things down, etc.

Nothing is a word that has no correspondence to reality (if taken literally), we use it to illustrate something that can't be imagined, words can be like that sometimes. It's like black is the absence of light. Naturally we can't describe visually the absence of light in any other way than the color black, it is still useful though. Nothing is often not taken in the literal sense that way, but fundamentally that is what it means.

We can describe the absence of light as "Dark", we can use the phrase "There is no light", etc. The word nothing can be used like that. "There is nothing in the glass", "I see nothing", etc. That's all relative definition.

If something is purely random, then that is *something* coming from *nothing*.

Random is another one of those problem words. Random is used to describe when an outcome cannot be predicted by a human being. In other words, it describes a human limitation. I am not even sure how you would define a purely objective counterpart... I suspect that like *nothing* it's not a real entity.

It's just more natural for me to think of frozen stuff as avoid of differentiation. Unfrozen stuff is always changing and by the nature of it should offer much more differentiation.

I kind of see what you are getting at and it means that what I stated was not completely understood. When dealing with supersymmetric stuff, it lacks difference (similar to water molecules in a pool of pure water). When you freeze water, it gains a ton of crystalline structure and you can observe a lot of differences. That is what would be happening to the supersymmetric stuff.

I'm trying to find *nothing* not because I suspect that it is real, but because I suspect that if we find it then it actually wouldn't be *nothing* but something, and I like to study the behaviour of this *something* that seems to us to be *nothing*. Do you understand my intent with this?

You are waiting for someone to find a pure absence of everything / anything and then you want to study it to show that it is really something? If you wanted to do something like that with people's relative usage of nothing then I could see some benefit of saying there is "absolute something" there... and this is what it is; however, in it's present form, I think what you are trying to do is a little silly.

Truth doesn't have a specific meaning, it has many meanings depending on context (as do many other words).

In the context that you have been using it in, there is only one correct meaning. Trying to promote an alternative meaning in this context is a dishonest guise.

A "identical" twin is not really identical, their DNA is identical upon inception but later becomes diverse as 'spontanious' mutations happen due to cellular processes and radiation. The "identical" twins therefor has small but significant alterations. Are you implying that our awareness is a function of space-time itself and not the physical properties of the body, or that it needs to be in this specific space and time, and cannot be in any other? What is the justification for such a view?

Thought experiment (to get around the minor alterations you object to). If you could engineer an exact twin, would it have a seperate consciousness from the original? The answer is yes becuse it would exist in a different location in space-time. What I am stating is that awareness is caused by your brain and if there are two brains side by side (identical in every way) then they are still seperate brains with seperate instances of consciousness.

If a exactly identical body was born and developed until it resembled our brains as much as when we were born, then we wouldn't be that body? Is it space-time that holds the fact that we must be in this particular body? What property of spacetime would hold that information?

Now you've got it. It's the brain's location in space-time. It hosts a unique instance of consciousness. You might have a seperate instance of consciousness hosted by a seperate brain (an identical brain even), but no matter where that secondary brain is located in space-time, it is still a seperate brain producing a seperate instance of consciousness.

 

[Cyperium]

Ahh, it's actually not a popular notion but it is one of many theories.

Yes, and theories couldn't survive long unless observations don't rule them out. The fact (if I'm correctly) that the theory still persists is a reason to not take it lightly, I don't know what the fault would be with this theory other than the fact that it isn't proven because of limitations of testing. That it isn't as popular doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with it. Perhaps it just means that some other theory is perceived to have more potential to explain other observed phenomena as well, or that it isn't as useful - but usefulness doesn't imply "incorrectness".

That's what makes fields and particles so damn cool.

Yes, they are, if only they are correctly explained to the public, without having to use complex terms for that matter.

Take the law of gravity quote. He is saying that because gravity (i.e. *something*) exists then the universe can create itself from *nothing*. That doesn't make much sense does it? It can however make sense with a relative definition of *nothing*, but I don't think the average Joe would have any way to discern that.

Not if the *nothing* he means is that it is the absence of everything and anything (which he obviously meant in the quote). Then it isn't the relative *nothing* that you speak about. He did say that it was the reason anything existed at all, hence the nothing he meant must have been the absence of anything and everything.

Kind of like interpreting the use of the word nothing in Hawking's theory eh?

Not quite, the word *nothing* used in Hawking's theory was very clear to mean "the absence of anything and everything", since he elaborates on it with that meaning. Just as I explained what I meant a couple of posts down, he did it better though since there can't be any misunderstanding of what he meant if seen in context.

We could just educate people instead of trying to dumb everything down.

To explain it in a way that people understand isn't dumbing it down. If we use the word "field" then it will be clear what is meant if we just explain it with ordinary words. If I'm not mistaken, then a field is the area where a particle has a higher probability to be found, right? If I'm right, (I'm not *that* well versed in fields) then that wasn't too difficult. To say that there is no place where there is no field, is like saying that there is no place where a particle has zero probability to be found. The reason why the fields are associated with force is because the particles carry the forces, the more particles (stronger field = more probability for particles) the more force.

I'm not saying that this is the way it works (I don't have a intuitive understanding of fields that way), but it's just a example that if a scientists really understands fields, then he should be able to describe them with ordinary words. Our language isn't that bad.

They may not ask you questions if their interpretation of what you said makes sense to them (even though you may have an utterly different meaning in mind). It may be a preference, but I would rather explain something in correct/accurate terminology and then explain something if someone didn't understand.

True, it's always a hazard trying to pick the correct words when explaining a concept to someone. It does depend a bit on accuracy, if I perceive that someone could misunderstand something then a better accuracy is needed, but this usually means (in my preference) that I just elaborate on it some more, without introducing words that the receiver would be unlikely to understand. A discussion of any length would reveal whether the receiver has understood or not, and just as in your case he could ask questions if he was unsure of what I meant.

You could choose not to believe it, but it wouldn't change the result. That is just another verification. That means your knowledge of it isn't completely subjective and your experience of it is both subjective and objective.

Our subjective world is a filtered (through the brain interpreting the senses) copy of the objective world, and that copy is all we have to go on and all we know. There is no evidence of a objective reality, whether or not we believe in it is not the issue here.

A good way to think of it is that virtual particles are field disturbances... much like ripples from tossing a rock into a still pond. Wether the pond (field) has ripples (paricles), the pond (field) is still a pond (field).

Yes, that is a good way to think about it.

You'll have to research it then, because I don't know what causes the field disturbances. I suspect you are going to look for that elusive something from nothing and always find something from something. Rather then go down this path (which is becoming a little silly), why not analyze why you want something from nothing to be real? What is motivating you? What is there to gain? Why is it so hard to accept that reality is telling you over and over again that it's not a valid idea?

As I said, I don't really believe that it truly *nothing*, hence if science has to accept it as *nothing* (absent from everything/anything, or absence of everything/anything - depending on frame of view) because it makes sense mathematically or something else, then it is a nice study for those not interested as much in maths (like me) which can then find a more plausible reality of what they call *nothing*.


Also, it isn't necessarily my desire to find "nothing", it's my desire that as long as I don't feel entirely confident that I've found facts I will keep on looking. After all, many respected scientists seem to accept the idea for one reason or another, if I were to trust only what you say then I would be more or less a fool, no matter what I believed of the reality of "nothing at all".

I think that you misunderstood my response. I am saying there is enough potential energy in all fields to account for jiggling (although I don't know the mechanics of the jiggling).

I think we talked past eachother, let's go back:

“ Originally Posted by Cyperium
Also, is the energy present in the EM field to account for the energy required for them to materialise? ”

Yep.

---------------Here you say that there is enough energy present in the EM field to account for the energy required for them to materialise.

“ Originally Posted by Cyperium
I read that the energy required was too big, but that they were allowed to be created anyway because they existed for only a fraction of the planck unit (planck time?). ”

It's the energy required to make the fields jiggle. It's a very small amount and the disturbances in the fields clear fast (as you have noted).

---------------Here you say that they meant the energy required to make the fields jiggle. Implied is that the energy is too big to make them jiggle.


So what is it, is the energy too big to make them jiggle or not?

I don't suspect this has any relation to field jiggling.

But it does have relation to virtual particle creation, which you say is related to field jiggling.

There is nothing to indicate they don't have a cause; however, I do not know why the jiggle.

Ok, I will research this "jiggle" then, do you know what would be the accepted scientific term of this jiggle?

As much as I read that, it doesn't make any sense to me (and I know the uncertainty principle very well). Maybe a paraphrase of what you are trying to say will clear it up?

Taken from Does God Play Dice?
"These particles and anti particles occur because a field, such as the fields that carry light and gravity, can't be exactly zero. That would mean that the value of the field, would have both an exact position (at zero), and an exact speed or rate of change (also zero). This would be against the Uncertainty Principle, just as a particle can't have both an exact position, and an exact speed. So all fields must have what are called, vacuum fluctuations. Because of the quantum behaviour of nature, one can interpret these vacuum fluctuations, in terms of particles and anti particles, as I have described."



I also found this but admittedly it is a bit abstract:

"If you believe the uncertainty principle, and you believe that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, you can estimate the range of the strong nuclear force as follows. The uncertainty principle says that you can't exactly determine the position and momentum of a very small particle simultaneously. If x is the uncertainty in the particle's position, and (mv) is the uncertainty in the particle's momentum, the uncertainty principle says that


x(mv) = h/2
where m is the particle's mass, v is its velocity, and h is Planck's constant (6.626 × 10-34 Js). The virtual particle must exist within x = h/2(mc) of the nucleon that generated it. Now, given that the mass of messenger mesons is about 2.5 × 10-28 kg, and the uncertainty in the velocity can't be any larger than the speed of light (2.9979 × 108 m/s), the virtual particle can't move any more than x = h/(2(mc)) = 1.4 × 10-15 m from the nucleon that generated it without violating the uncertainty principle or the universal speed limit. That's the range of the strong nuclear force!"

Taken from Why Don't Electrons Get Stuck In The Nucleus





The free dictionary states that the virtual particles do violate law of conservation for a limited amount of time, I know it isn't related to this particular question but I'll show them here anyway, if not else for book keeping in case I need it later:
The Free Dictionary - Virtual Particle

There are other (perhaps more trusted) sources too that says the same thing, so it appears to be a violation after all.

I don't know why, it's something you will have to research. Your desire to have something from nothing seems so strong to me that I suspect that the moment you reach an "I don't know" moment in science, you will fill that gap with *nothing* and declare yourself victorious. This is something that Theism has consequently done and continues to do. Whenever something is unexplainable then it's declared that "God did it"... at least until science comes along and replaces the gap of "God" did it with a real explanation.

I respect "I don't know", you shouldn't equate me with other theists out there, or every theist with every other theist for that matter (it's only the loud ones that are heard by the masses). I don't work that way, I think that everything is a consequence of God. I don't suspect that we will find God scientifically, if God wanted himself to be known 100% to everybody then he would have done so, instead (appearently) he has chosen a path that requires faith to believe in him for whatever reason (there are numerous reasons that each could hold true).

I never claimed that they are using the best grammatical constructs. IMO, a better option would be to use more explicit/accurate language.

I agree, but then it would be too dry for the masses, instead I think they should've used a natural easy language but still descriptive of what's really going on. It isn't necessary to use a wrong word in order for people to understand. Don't people understand fields? Then provide a explanation of them later down the article...not everything has to be "dumbed" down.

It could be a combination of factors. It could be a writer's interpretation of what a physicist is saying, it could be a poor choice of words used by people who don't have writing degrees but do have science degrees, it could be an attempt to dumb things down, etc.

But that particular interpretation is so common that I suspect that it's down to other things, you could be right though but even well-respected scientists like Stephen Hawking seems to have interpreted it the same way.

We can describe the absence of light as "Dark", we can use the phrase "There is no light", etc. The word nothing can be used like that. "There is nothing in the glass", "I see nothing", etc. That's all relative definition.

Yes, except "I see nothing", cause that really would be nothing if it wasn't filled with black. Black is the representation of "no light", if you could see "no light" then you would see "nothing" as there is no stimulus to create any color, instead you see "black" as of course "nothing" can't be seen. If "nothing" would be "seen" then all we would see would be colors which are produced from varying degree of stimulus.

Random is another one of those problem words. Random is used to describe when an outcome cannot be predicted by a human being. In other words, it describes a human limitation. I am not even sure how you would define a purely objective counterpart... I suspect that like *nothing* it's not a real entity.

Well they have tested Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle against the possibility of hidden variables and it seems that the principle isn't due to human measuring problems but is a fundamental principle of nature, implying that the uncertainty really is a expression of randomness. Einstein was against this notion by saying "God doesn't play dice with the universe", in which he received a reply (don't know if this is a myth but...) "Stop telling God what to do!".

I kind of see what you are getting at and it means that what I stated was not completely understood. When dealing with supersymmetric stuff, it lacks difference (similar to water molecules in a pool of pure water). When you freeze water, it gains a ton of crystalline structure and you can observe a lot of differences. That is what would be happening to the supersymmetric stuff.

Ok, thanks for the explanation, it helped me understand it better.

You are waiting for someone to find a pure absence of everything / anything and then you want to study it to show that it is really something? If you wanted to do something like that with people's relative usage of nothing then I could see some benefit of saying there is "absolute something" there... and this is what it is; however, in it's present form, I think what you are trying to do is a little silly.

I don't think so, in one way or another what is random, and what is spontanious, and what is "nothing" should be related and by seeing correspondence between the circumstances where these phenomena occur and in what way they manifest we could find some theory of what actually causes them.

In the context that you have been using it in, there is only one correct meaning. Trying to promote an alternative meaning in this context is a dishonest guise.

I don't think so, since truth (a quality of God) is what I'm comparing. Truth, as uncorrupted by anything. In other words; if something comes from nothing, then we can be sure that it is the truth and not corrupted by anything.

Thought experiment (to get around the minor alterations you object to). If you could engineer an exact twin, would it have a seperate consciousness from the original? The answer is yes becuse it would exist in a different location in space-time. What I am stating is that awareness is caused by your brain and if there are two brains side by side (identical in every way) then they are still seperate brains with seperate instances of consciousness.

Yes, that is the predominant view. However, why then are you confined to this particular space and time, there must be a reason why you didn't exist in the 11th century instead. Why is this your particular time and space?

If it is because of your body, then we are back in the loop again. What property of space and time is unique in that way that you can only exist in that particular frame if not for the properties of the body?

Consider also that space and time are the same everywhere, there isn't any special spacetime, relativity relies on that.

Now you've got it. It's the brain's location in space-time. It hosts a unique instance of consciousness. You might have a seperate instance of consciousness hosted by a seperate brain (an identical brain even), but no matter where that secondary brain is located in space-time, it is still a seperate brain producing a seperate instance of consciousness.

So in other words, even if a exactly identical brain was produced in the 11th century you couldn't exist there, cause you can only ever exist in this particular century? So why is that?

 

[-ND-]

Nothing and the universe of today seems to be equivalent. Let's not forget, there was nothing before the big bang.

 

[kx000]

Nothing and the universe of today seems to be equivalent. Let's not forget, there was nothing before the big bang.

Big bang theory: According to the Big Bang model, the Universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. A common analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like spots on an inflating balloon. The graphic scheme above is an artist's concept illustrating the expansion of a portion of a flat universe.
-wiki

So chemical reaction caused by unknown catylyst with no outside factors is what we base the existince of everything? Im sorry, thats retarded. Better theory.
Being exist > Being ask why > Being ask how> Being ask who> Being answers im not sure, also not sure just kind of got here I dont even remember not being here, and me, YHWH. Then being, YHWH continues asking why, and how until he has learned everything there is to learn inside of the universe. He found every little particle, and every magic trick science could come up with. Then YHWH wondered I know all these great amazing things, but I wonder what the true possibilities of these things are. > Can I create another me? > Im quite lonley > Might as well. > Lets start. So he came up with his plan. THIS marks the begging of the 7 days of creation. The first thing he did was define the lights of God, since he was the only being around he defined himself as perfect, so he wanted to take the 7 most perfect virtues of himself and make them into living beings, so he did.

You have to ask, what are the 7 most perfect ways of being? I came up with 7 passive (Jesus), 4 faith (Michael), 6 hope (Gabriel f), 5 science (Raphael), 1 courage (John), 2 patience, and 3 contempt. At this point he is no longer lonley, but he still wants to test nature, but that is a whole nother animal. (numbers represent order in which those things came into being.)

 

[-ND-]

Big bang theory: According to the Big Bang model, the Universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. A common analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like spots on an inflating balloon. The graphic scheme above is an artist's concept illustrating the expansion of a portion of a flat universe.
-wiki

So chemical reaction caused by unknown catylyst with no outside factors is what we base the existince of everything? Im sorry, thats retarded. Better theory.

I don't think you understand my little friend. I was being sarcastic.

 

[kx000]

I don't think you understand my little friend. I was being sarcastic.

Im not little, im not your friend, and sarcasim anoys me.

 

[-ND-]

Im not little, im not your friend, and sarcasim anoys me.

At least you don't deny that, you, don't, understand.

 

[Felixx89]

funny how both of you argue like your right but none of your points have ever been proven in life. And knowledge, you seriously need a check up.

 

[-ND-]

funny how both of you argue like your right but none of your points have ever been proven in life. And knowledge, you seriously need a check up.

Do explain, I am interested in this part.