The Nothingness of Nothing
- Thread starter 786
- Start date
The evidence that supports current theory, of course.
Of course, just like I said. We observe an accelerating rate of separation between galaxies and galaxy groups (and to add to that, a host of other observations of the physical universe that we can detect).
Can I refer to you as someone that does not speculate about things that we cannot test observationally?
I have no problem with speculation, as long as the evidence agrees with the speculation.
I speculate to an extent that is consistent with observations and data and follows a methodology that connects it to the current consensus.
This thread is about what 786 brought up in the OP, a topic I am interested in. Insistence that the only evidence we can consider is physical, though true from a scientific perspective, is more appropriate in a hard science forum. We don't have to agree any more than 786 and I have to agree so I am not getting it when you repeat yourself about evidence. This thread is about what we think not what we can prove. No one can prove this stuff
.
Last edited:
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
There's nothing terribly wrong with speculation, on an individual level, so long as it does not contradict the evidence. We all get hunches and flashes of creativity. We'd be rather dull if we didn't. But this speculation does not become a respectable hypothesis until we roll up our sleeves and start looking for evidence. And our search must be organized in such a way that if falsifying evidence exists we will have a fair chance of finding it, rather than myopically searching only for supporting evidence.
Gosh I think the reason my dog is having seizures is that he's finding something poisonous in the yard and eating it. I'll get six friends and we'll search every square inch of the yard every day for a week and see what we find. If we don't find anything then my hypothesis starts to look a little doubtful.
But speculation is not ok when the speculator begins to indoctrinate others in his belief without having any supporting evidence. It's one thing to tell your friends, "I think Jesus was a real historical figure. Come help me search for evidence." It's quite another to tell them, "Jesus was a real historical figure. I know this and you all wish it were true, so you don't need to peer-review my evidence."
Nothing
I am inclined to believe there is no such thing as nothing. A vacuum contains energy according to quantum physics. That energy can be converted to matter is accepted by scientists around the world. So weather it was a big bang or some other means, a vacuum can eventually produce universes. The magnitude of univeres is another matter. This leads me to think there has always been somethng, or the energy to produce it. Even when it may appear there is "nothing" the potential is there.
I am inclined to believe there is no such thing as nothing. A vacuum contains energy according to quantum physics. That energy can be converted to matter is accepted by scientists around the world. So weather it was a big bang or some other means, a vacuum can eventually produce universes. The magnitude of univeres is another matter. This leads me to think there has always been somethng, or the energy to produce it. Even when it may appear there is "nothing" the potential is there.
This is not some conclusisve answer but aimed to be a bit more on the science side of the view.
The process being discussed is called ex-nihilo and applies to the routinely observered appearance and disappearance of virtual particles in space. This can occur by what is considered "Borrowed Energy" and not violate conservation.
What is interesting is that purportedly the duration of existance to not violate conservation is linked to the particle masses and if you apply that standard to the mass of the universe you get something on the order of the decay time or a proton which is likely not an accident but happens to be a few billion trillions of years duration.
Now from my own work I have choosen to represent this by the following mathematical process.
(N)othingness = (+S)omethingness + (-S)omethingness
If you now assign any +/- symmetrical numerical value to the processs you get:
N----------------> (+S) + (-S) = (1) + (-1) = 0
We came into existance and exist in the form of bifurcated nothing or borrowed energy. Nothing created, no creator and no infinite or eternal existance nonsense.
I see eternal existance as nonsense because it cannot exist eternally without having come into existance initially. The issue is how it came into existance. God certainly is not a solution to that paradox.
None the less ex-nihilo is not any more understandable at the same time.
The process being discussed is called ex-nihilo and applies to the routinely observered appearance and disappearance of virtual particles in space. This can occur by what is considered "Borrowed Energy" and not violate conservation.
What is interesting is that purportedly the duration of existance to not violate conservation is linked to the particle masses and if you apply that standard to the mass of the universe you get something on the order of the decay time or a proton which is likely not an accident but happens to be a few billion trillions of years duration.
Now from my own work I have choosen to represent this by the following mathematical process.
(N)othingness = (+S)omethingness + (-S)omethingness
If you now assign any +/- symmetrical numerical value to the processs you get:
N----------------> (+S) + (-S) = (1) + (-1) = 0
We came into existance and exist in the form of bifurcated nothing or borrowed energy. Nothing created, no creator and no infinite or eternal existance nonsense.
I see eternal existance as nonsense because it cannot exist eternally without having come into existance initially. The issue is how it came into existance. God certainly is not a solution to that paradox.
None the less ex-nihilo is not any more understandable at the same time.
So, MacM, you can guess that initially there is NO THING. No time. No space. No mass. No electric field. No nothin'.
Out of no nothin' springs up time, space, vacuum, false vacuum, Laws Of Quantum Physics, some kind of magicke sheriff that enforces Laws Of Quantum Physics, and a virtual particle pops out of hyperspace.
The virtual particle knows that it has not existed forever(?) and so knows that it will cease existing soon(?).
As an extreme example; I have been knocked out by anesthetic in a medical procedure and had zero zip zilch nada NO memory of the past passed few hours. Simple acceptance of my memory told me that I had not existed prior to the first minute that I waked and began to wonder WTH I was and WTF was going on.
Scientifically speaking, it is contradictory to try to employ Quantum Physics principles of virtual particle borrowed energy to explain existence. Why? Because immediately prior to the emergence of the virtual particle, there had to already be false vacuum, vacuum fluctuations, a virtual particle field (commonly called the "quantum field"), the Laws Of Quantum Physics, and a magicke sheriff to enforce the Laws Of Quantum Physics.
I CAN GUESS that you think it is silly to believe in eternal existence. But, I CAN GUESS also that it is equally silly to believe in momentary existence. I have just before explained how silly it is to believe in either eternal or momentary existence.
It is completely silly to believe in either eternal or momentary existence.
But here you and me and all of us are, existing and believing that we exist.
Out of no nothin' springs up time, space, vacuum, false vacuum, Laws Of Quantum Physics, some kind of magicke sheriff that enforces Laws Of Quantum Physics, and a virtual particle pops out of hyperspace.
The virtual particle knows that it has not existed forever(?) and so knows that it will cease existing soon(?).
As an extreme example; I have been knocked out by anesthetic in a medical procedure and had zero zip zilch nada NO memory of the past passed few hours. Simple acceptance of my memory told me that I had not existed prior to the first minute that I waked and began to wonder WTH I was and WTF was going on.
Scientifically speaking, it is contradictory to try to employ Quantum Physics principles of virtual particle borrowed energy to explain existence. Why? Because immediately prior to the emergence of the virtual particle, there had to already be false vacuum, vacuum fluctuations, a virtual particle field (commonly called the "quantum field"), the Laws Of Quantum Physics, and a magicke sheriff to enforce the Laws Of Quantum Physics.
I CAN GUESS that you think it is silly to believe in eternal existence. But, I CAN GUESS also that it is equally silly to believe in momentary existence. I have just before explained how silly it is to believe in either eternal or momentary existence.
It is completely silly to believe in either eternal or momentary existence.
But here you and me and all of us are, existing and believing that we exist.
Correct.
Yes other than it isn't magic as you imply. It must be inherent in the ability to generate the balanced borrowed energy in the first place. I would not even consider thinking I knew how the process works but it does.
Un-called for assertion. Particles don't have a conscience and know or think anything.
Conjecture that a false vacuum had to exist. A false vacuum would not be "Nothing" hence you are not discussing an ex-nihilo process.
Absolutely. Eternal and infinite are synonyms and by definition physical things cannot be or become infinite. To exist at all eternal or otherwise it must come into existance. Eternal and infinite are mere words inapplicable to the real physical world.
You make no sense here. Existence is rather well established and however long momentary might be it will not and cannot ever become infinite.
----Eternal Time--------------------->You are Here. Guess what it has not been eternal because there is a terminal point or end. Infinite does not have any ends.
Politely but I have to say your statement is what is silly.
Yep, I just pinched myself to be sure and it hurt.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
There may be energy in a vacuum, but I don't think there is any requirement that there must be energy in every vacuum. Energy after all is comprised of quarks and bosons just like matter, merely in a different arrangement.
Of course. Just change the charge and spin on those fermions, and the waves and the particles turn into one another.
Wait, you are begging the question of whether there was once "nothing." "Nothing" means no energy too, not just no matter. To argue that before the Big Bang a universe existed that was devoid only of matter but not of energy is, to use the language of the law, "assuming facts not in evidence," and in any case it is totally inconsistent with the Big Bang Model as it is now accepted.
You're free to speculate because hypotheses come from speculations and every theory was once a hypothesis. But your assertion qualifies only as speculation until you present some evidence for it. And since what little evidence we've managed to gather supports the Big Bang Model--i.e. literally "nothing" before the singularity occurred--you've got an uphill battle.
The sudden springing into existence of a completely balanced set of quarks and anti-quarks and all the other pairs of elementary particles is nothing but a local reversal of entropy. As I speculated earlier, this singularity becomes unremarkable if the universe is infinite both spatially and temporally, because the law of averages then tells us that local reversals of entropy are quite possible. As I also speculated, this could happen more than once, but the occurrences would likely be so far apart spatially and temporally that we'll never have a means of detecting any of the others.
I assume you meant to write "consciousness." But sure, particles probably don't have morality either.
* * * * NOTE FROM THE LINGUISTICS MODERATOR * * * *
"Eternal" is used only when referring to time. "Infinite" can mean either space or time. "Infinite" is generally applied to time in scientific parlance, where "eternal" is regarded as more of a literary or downright poetic term.
This is not 'nothingness'- Why don't you explain where each component came from? 1 + -1 ? They are definitely something.
If the Net Force of a system is 0, that doesn't mean there is no force there.... The Force of X direction and Force of Y direction could be there - which is like your 1 and -1 BUT this is NOT nothing...these components are something.
Peace be unto you
Good point; I agree.This is not 'nothingness'- Why don't you explain where each component came from? 1 + -1 ? They are definitely something.
If the Net Force of a system is 0, that doesn't mean there is no force there.... The Force of X direction and Force of Y direction could be there - which is like your 1 and -1 BUT this is NOT nothing...these components are something.
Peace be unto you
I thought you were gone since you haven't posted here and didn't respond to the "no-boundary proposal" question I asked you. But again, no one has to respond to anyone else and I am not whining
. It still looks to me like there are four possible explanations for the existence of the universe:
1) God did it
2) Something from nothing
3) Always existed (no beginning)
4) Some other possibility
I want to ask MacM if you agree with the list, and would be interested in how you respond to 786's point.
I take back what I said about FR since I guess it is not clear that he agrees with me on #3 as I had indicated earlier.
I wonder if 786 can add a poll to see how many are willing to commit to one of the four possibilities?
Wow, you did the poll. Thanks.
Edit: And I see that 100% say #3. Oh wait, only one vote so far.
Edit: And I see that 100% say #3. Oh wait, only one vote so far
.
Ex nihilo, nihil fit. Out of nothing comes nothing. Not true according to some physicists. And you know what? They aren't necessarily wrong if their definition of reality is limited to what can currently be measured or detected, or what can reasonably be said to exist based on current evidence. But I believe, as do many others, that as we probe deeper and deeper into the structure and fabric of reality, we will eventually expand our definition of the physical to include states that were previously undetectable, and will eventually integrate these discoveries into a more complete description of reality and expand our definition of the universe. As long as our methods are based on empirical, observable and measurable evidence, whatever we discover about reality will always be scientific, no matter what it is.
The point of contention here is whether or not the nothing that some physicists are suggesting that the universe transitioned from actually exists as part of reality. Whether or not it has the quality of being actually real. Physics tells us that it doesn't, because according to our current definitions it does not have any physical properties and something must have physical properties in order to be said to actually exist. But is this an absolute truth, or merely a limitation of our current model to describe the true scope of reality?
Let's examine this nothing again. An unstable unphysical state that is somehow just itching to undergo a phase transition to a physical state. Although it can't be said to have physical properties, it obviously does have at least one property, which is it's mathematically supported overwhelming tendency to become something. It is this instability, this potential, that I want to focus on. How can something have the potential to become something else if it does not actually exist? Or phrased differently, and more in line with how physics would define the elements in play, how can nothing have the potential to become something if it is really nothing? The answer to the latter question is that it can't. Nothing can not become something because it is nothing. Ex nihilo, nihil fit. The only explanation that makes any kind of logical sense is that this nothing is actually something. That it's something that one day physics will be able to at least describe due to inevitable advances in our understanding of the universe we live in.
Last edited:
I share this view of future discoveries that might yield a new understanding of states of energy. Right now the thought of an eternal universe has too much of a religious connotation to be acceptable to some reasonably large percentage of the scientifically oriented. A new or better understanding of physics will bring us closer to an understanding of reality. Right now the term "reality" is considered philosophical by some of those in that reasonably large percentage. There is a gap between math and reality, i.e. between the correspondence of mathematical representations of physical phenomena and that philosophical concept of reality. Science narrows the gap as understanding improves.
I think the kind of advancements and discoveries you refer to will lead to explanations of how our enemy entropy is managed by an eternal universe without the need for either the hand of a Creator or the falsification of Ex nihilo, nihil fit.
ripleofdeath
Registered Senior Member
probably a good idea to look at the definition a little and maybe get examples of various definitions/examples through the ages and across religions.
nothingness to Christians is probably hell which is an anti Christ of ones own desires(somewhat a lustful materialistic concept but that's Christianity in its fundamentalist constructs.
mayan
egyptian
etc...
Alsophia Theophilos
Registered Senior Member
no-thingness
I would look at nothing as "no thing" which would bring it to an issue of dualistic consciousness which creates it's own boundaries or limits. Probably the closest we can come to an understanding of this would be found in quantum physics? Or maybe Zen. Or even Plato.
There are some questions that are ultimately unanswerable by logic because every answer will only beg another question, ad infinitum. Nature of dualism. Answered by subjective experience will be unprovable scientifically. Just the nature of the beast.
:shrug:
I would look at nothing as "no thing" which would bring it to an issue of dualistic consciousness which creates it's own boundaries or limits. Probably the closest we can come to an understanding of this would be found in quantum physics? Or maybe Zen. Or even Plato.
There are some questions that are ultimately unanswerable by logic because every answer will only beg another question, ad infinitum. Nature of dualism. Answered by subjective experience will be unprovable scientifically. Just the nature of the beast.
:shrug:
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Which brings us back to my definition of "cosmology" as an awkward place where physics, mathematics and philosophy meet.