Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Q: Why Is There Nothing?


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#1 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1062 posts

Posted 03 June 2019 - 12:38 PM

A:  So there can be something.

 

Paradox of Nothing

 

Thirty spokes join together in the hub,

It is because of what is not there that the cart is useful.

Clay is formed into a vessel.

It is because of its emptiness that the vessel is useful.

Cut doors and windows to make a room.

It is because of emptiness that the room is useful.

Therefore, what is present is used for profit.

But it is in absence that there is usefulness.

      ......(Lao Tzu:  Tao Te Ching)

 

 

Dark and Light.  Earth and Moon.  Empty and Full.  Something and Nothing. Yin and Yang.  We cannot have one without the other.

 

Q:  Space and  ???   Time?


  • fahrquad likes this

#2 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3000 posts

Posted 03 June 2019 - 12:51 PM

The way I believe this question is related to the universe, is that you cannot get something from nothing, which is why I support pre-big bang theories.



#3 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1062 posts

Posted 03 June 2019 - 01:48 PM

The way I believe this question is related to the universe, is that you cannot get something from nothing, which is why I support pre-big bang theories.

The nothingness is the empty space that the universe made use of - took residence in.  So there was something (the universe) because we had space (emptiness) for it.  Does that fit?  Does it almost fit both theories? 



#4 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3000 posts

Posted 03 June 2019 - 02:02 PM

The nothingness is the empty space that the universe made use of - took residence in.  So there was something (the universe) because we had space (emptiness) for it.  Does that fit?  Does it almost fit both theories? 

 

No because space is not nothing, space is actually a spectroscopy of quantum actions - this is known as the zero point field. The statement, ''the nothingness'' of space, does not hold up, because it is a Newtonian view. While relativity had not predicted the existence of these fields directly, it never excluded them. It is interesting that it was first Planck and Einstein later that used the concept of zero point fields but for some reason, Einstein never included these terms into the general relativistic theory, while his special theory did not require it.



#5 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1062 posts

Posted 03 June 2019 - 02:11 PM

No because space is not nothing, space is actually a spectroscopy of quantum actions - this is known as the zero point field. The statement, ''the nothingness'' of space, does not hold up, because it is a Newtonian view. While relativity had not predicted the existence of these fields directly, it never excluded them. It is interesting that it was first Planck and Einstein later that used the concept of zero point fields but for some reason, Einstein never included these terms into the general relativistic theory, while his special theory did not require it.

All right.  Still a lovely poem and thought.  Because of there is "nothing in the space" we can use it for something.



#6 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3000 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 10:35 AM

Poetic certainly, but a misinterpretation of how we understand the meaning of nothingness, because space is not nothing. But I like the fact you are showing creativity, you will one day come up with a new idea with proper equations to back them up, if you put the time into it. Other than that, it was an interesting question on the philosophy of the universe and its origin theory. 



#7 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1062 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 11:15 AM

Poetic certainly, but a misinterpretation of how we understand the meaning of nothingness, because space is not nothing. But I like the fact you are showing creativity, you will one day come up with a new idea with proper equations to back them up, if you put the time into it. Other than that, it was an interesting question on the philosophy of the universe and its origin theory. 

No equations ever, I promise.  Just plain American. 



#8 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3000 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 12:39 PM

Hate to be a stater of facts, but it is English. There is no ''American'' only a bastardization of the english language. The original Americans left England because of a political dispute - there is no ''speaking american'' we are all talking from the original source, old English, which itself derived from Latin, and before that, Hebrew... and there are other languages that descended even before that. The fact is, we are speaking the same language.



#9 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1209 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 01:26 PM

I strongly disagree.  There is no such thing as "Standard English".  The English language has morphed into different dialects everywhere it has been adopted.  You cannot say that the English used in India, South Africa, Jamaica, Bermuda, the Bahamas. London, Wales, or even different parts of America is the same thing.  Incidentally English is defined as a "Western Germanic language" so get your facts right before you pompously try to school someone else.

 

https://en.wikipedia...tory_of_English



#10 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3000 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 01:45 PM

I strongly disagree.  There is no such thing as "Standard English".  The English language has morphed into different dialects everywhere ....

 

What part of bastardization of the english language didn't quite become clear with you?



#11 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1062 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 02:04 PM

Hate to be a stater of facts, but it is English. There is no ''American'' only a bastardization of the english language. The original Americans left England because of a political dispute - there is no ''speaking american'' we are all talking from the original source, old English, which itself derived from Latin, and before that, Hebrew... and there are other languages that descended even before that. The fact is, we are speaking the same language.

Sir Winston:  "Two nations separated by a common language"?  Then, pray tell me what a "cookie" is.  Or a "boot".  And many more such.  Enough to enable Norman Schur to publish a book.   Or, would you prefer Columbia's Guide to Standard American English? 

 

Ah well, we still generally understand each other.  That's more than I can say for a fellow American who gets all riled up at something I said - not.  :-)


Edited by hazelm, 04 June 2019 - 02:05 PM.

  • Dubbelosix likes this

#12 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3000 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 02:15 PM


Ah well, we still generally understand each other.  That's more than I can say for a fellow American who gets all riled up at something I said - not.  :-)

 

Indeed.



#13 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1209 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 03:41 PM

What part of bastardization of the english language didn't quite become clear with you?

 

Bastardization implies deviation from an accepted standard, and in this case there is none.



#14 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3000 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 04:00 PM

Technically, bastardization means that you take a language and it evolves into a new set of terminologies. The word bastardization of something, means you have taken the English language which came first and foremost. No one is saying the American's have not taken the English language, because that is fact and if you use your logic, its an accepted standard in America.



#15 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2669 posts

Posted 20 June 2019 - 04:40 PM

The way I believe this question is related to the universe, is that you cannot get something from nothing, which is why I support pre-big bang theories.

Just a small note on this.
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0605063
 

Depends on your definition of nothing. It kinda hurts to go turtles all the way down, even with sets. It's hard to even conceive of pure void.


  • Dubbelosix likes this

#16 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3000 posts

Posted 21 June 2019 - 12:58 AM

Though it is related, zero energy universes are probably the wrong way to think - because of the absence of an equal amount of antimatter.

 

I think it may be wiser to consider that there is something, because there was no such thing as nothing - an asymmetry interpreted as a non-conserved feature of a universe. The universe itself, in this sense, is an expression of non-conservation and does have an energy content.



#17 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2669 posts

Posted 21 June 2019 - 01:56 AM

Though it is related, zero energy universes are probably the wrong way to think - because of the absence of an equal amount of antimatter.

 

I think it may be wiser to consider that there is something, because there was no such thing as nothing - an asymmetry interpreted as a non-conserved feature of a universe. The universe itself, in this sense, is an expression of non-conservation and does have an energy content.

Ahh you have it wrong. The premise is that gravitation (and some of the other attractive forces really) cancel out the energy of mass. Doesn't matter if it's a positron or an electron, proton or antiproton, neutron or antineutron, it's still mass-energy. Mass-energy just happens to exactly cancel out with the attractive forces. Think we had a talk about this not to long ago re: negative energy. It's a neat model, gives a counter-intuitive take on how a vac-flux can just pop something into existence because the energy is still conserved. 

That's of course contrasted with the weirdo voodoo stuff that negative matter would be. That right there would throw quite a wrench in the beauty if it was ever observed.

For the somewhat asymmetrical nature of the matter around us; that's apples, this is oranges. Heck maybe it's just tunneling luck and grouping bunched all the anti-goodness into nice little Schwarzschild packages. Be hard to tell, wouldn't it?