Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Q: Why Is There Nothing?


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#69 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1839 posts

Posted 01 July 2019 - 11:58 AM

Yes, there is a planck length cubed, but you can't obtain relavant symmetries to call a 2-d theory as one which satisfies the 3-d case. It really is as simple as that. 2-d is an oversimplification.

 

Well I agree with that because you are missing all the data from the 3rd dimension if you use a 2-D. There is no 2-D manifold that can contain all the information exactly of a 3-D space.

 

Webp-net-resizeimage-13.png

But even if that is the case you are still missing the information inside the 3-D shape when you take it 2-D.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 01 July 2019 - 12:10 PM.


#70 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3314 posts

Posted 02 July 2019 - 11:42 AM

2-d encodes a simpification, but 2-d is encoded in a 3-dimenisonal world. So 2-d is not enough to preserve the symmetries of the Poincare group of pseudo-forces. Nor is the removal of torsion from Einstein's equations enough. Poincare symmetries must be preserved.



#71 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 993 posts

Posted 03 July 2019 - 07:30 AM

Why not try a N dimensional black hole with collapsed dimensions forming a singularity, connecting other none collapsed dimensions via a singularity, like a membrane.

 

You could have a volume in space time connected to another volume in space time via the N dimensional black hole singularity.

 

 

Popolawskis 5 d black holes and holographic principle might not be aq million miles apart, all things may be connected like what verlinde says

etc 


Edited by Flummoxed, 03 July 2019 - 07:31 AM.


#72 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3314 posts

Posted 03 July 2019 - 07:34 AM

No, because:

 

1. A black hole is not two dimensional, it has an interior meaning it has a density which must include a three dimensional model

 

2. There are no such things as infinities, which is just a ad hoc way to introduce singularities - I don't say these things for no reason, no infinity can be observed and there is quantum mechanics which forbids it anyway - you cannot squeeze a wavelength of a system into a space smaller than it is capable of, which prevents such things from happening.

 

3. Infinity is not even a number - this has been well-known by a number of physicists and mathematicians for a long time, it is only a imaginary concept.



#73 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 993 posts

Posted 03 July 2019 - 09:24 AM

No, because:

 

1. A black hole is not two dimensional, it has an interior meaning it has a density which must include a three dimensional model

 

2. There are no such things as infinities, which is just a ad hoc way to introduce singularities - I don't say these things for no reason, no infinity can be observed and there is quantum mechanics which forbids it anyway - you cannot squeeze a wavelength of a system into a space smaller than it is capable of, which prevents such things from happening.

 

3. Infinity is not even a number - this has been well-known by a number of physicists and mathematicians for a long time, it is only a imaginary concept.

 

you misunderstand me.

 

Never attainable thing = an infinite thing, I know infinity is not a value, as I know you must know? :)

 

 

The political view is all view points are correct to certain extent. They are just different ways of looking at a problem.

 

The insides of a blackhole existing inside our space time have dimensions which contract to a singularity mathematically, ie space and time theoretically according to some models do not exist inside a BH. I stated a volume connected to another volume which does not indicate 2 dimensional. The Holographic principle connects 2 regions in space, simplistically represented as a 2 dimensional sheet folded over. This can equally be viewed as a wormhole as you might according to theory find in a black hole. Emergent gravity uses both 2 dimensional and three d modes



#74 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3314 posts

Posted 03 July 2019 - 11:31 AM

you misunderstand me.

 

Never attainable thing = an infinite thing, I know infinity is not a value, as I know you must know? :)

 

 

The political view is all view points are correct to certain extent. They are just different ways of looking at a problem.

 

The insides of a blackhole existing inside our space time have dimensions which contract to a singularity mathematically, ie space and time theoretically according to some models do not exist inside a BH. I stated a volume connected to another volume which does not indicate 2 dimensional. The Holographic principle connects 2 regions in space, simplistically represented as a 2 dimensional sheet folded over. This can equally be viewed as a wormhole as you might according to theory find in a black hole. Emergent gravity uses both 2 dimensional and three d modes

 

And yet, wormholes have not been proven real, the only example in the real world is a magnetic wormhole and as have explained before, the magnetic force is a pseudoforce (or explainable) as a frame of reference movement. 



#75 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1839 posts

Posted 03 July 2019 - 11:45 AM

And I would dare to say that even those models of 2-D space for wormholes are too simple to actually show the inner workings of an actual wormhole which requires you take in account things like particle position,Spin and other properties and without such properties there would be no wormhole, a folded sheet hardly does justice to wormholes. A folded sheet to wormholes is analogous to saying that your house is just hallways.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 03 July 2019 - 11:50 AM.


#76 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 993 posts

Posted 04 July 2019 - 03:24 AM

And yet, wormholes have not been proven real, the only example in the real world is a magnetic wormhole and as have explained before, the magnetic force is a pseudoforce (or explainable) as a frame of reference movement. 

I should have said geometry instead of politics.


  • Kardashev6 likes this

#77 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1153 posts

Posted 22 December 2019 - 03:16 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.

So, what is a "cookie"?  Time to call in Sir Winston? 



#78 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 993 posts

Posted 23 December 2019 - 05:55 AM

So, what is a "cookie"?  Time to call in Sir Winston? 

 

How do cookies link into what 006 posted :) I am sure you know as every English speaker knows and welsh speaker included :)  the english language has very little to do with Hebrew. English is a mix of many different languages, from peoples who settled/conquered britain Celtic, Galic, Germanic, Latin, etc, with one or two words borrowed from various countries. English is a dynamic language with very little to do with Hebrew. 

 

Unrelated but after Brexit the English may have a new swear word B****t off, or what the B*****t have they done. Also a new meaning for fukew > former united kingdom of england and wales. Clearly Scotland would like to go its own way and rejoin the EU, and Northern Ireland will likely form a new country with Southern Ireland to maintain their open borders. 

 

The highly patriotic mainly elderly conservatives have just voted to break up the UK, electing a PM just like Trump. Times are a changing. According to many former politians he will be the worst PM Britain has ever had. 



#79 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1153 posts

Posted 23 December 2019 - 08:34 AM

How do cookies link into what 006 posted :) I am sure you know as every English speaker knows and welsh speaker included :)  the english language has very little to do with Hebrew. English is a mix of many different languages, from peoples who settled/conquered britain Celtic, Galic, Germanic, Latin, etc, with one or two words borrowed from various countries. English is a dynamic language with very little to do with Hebrew. 

 

Unrelated but after Brexit the English may have a new swear word B****t off, or what the B*****t have they done. Also a new meaning for fukew > former united kingdom of england and wales. Clearly Scotland would like to go its own way and rejoin the EU, and Northern Ireland will likely form a new country with Southern Ireland to maintain their open borders. 

 

The highly patriotic mainly elderly conservatives have just voted to break up the UK, electing a PM just like Trump. Times are a changing. According to many former politians he will be the worst PM Britain has ever had. 

I do not know.  I asked myself the same question after I posted.    I was actually re-reading about nothingness and was suddenly into English/American.  I thought my computer had played a trick on me.  But, then I went back to page 1 and realized what I had done when I found this from 006:

 

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.

 

Guess I fell asleep.  I am sorry.  Now, would I dare ask about Hebrew and Brexit?  Or, no, we'd best just drop it after I admit I was asleep at the switch.


Edited by hazelm, 23 December 2019 - 08:37 AM.


#80 Mutex

Mutex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 29 January 2020 - 10:49 PM

Nothing is the Ying to something's Yang, so nothing is the inverse or the counter-point to something. Either you have something, or you have the absence of something, that is nothing.

 

Another way to look at it, nothing is the 'placeholder' for something, it is also the seperation (or space) between things.

 

Nothing is simply that with which something may or maynot exist in, we can think of space as simply nothing (in itself) that things can exist over.

 

But nothing can have a property (of sorts), if you consider that nothing as the gap (or space) between two somethings then you can say the property of that nothing is its length.

 

So in that sense, nothing is not simply just the absence of something, which is not in itself a something (nothing is not something), nothing is then just the framework or canvas in which it is possible for something to exist. 

 

Is space and/or time nothing or something?

 

Say you have a box, you take out all the air and matter inside that box, a perfect vacuum, so you could say that within the boundary of that box there is nothing, or you could argue you still have heat/light, gravity etc, So lets assume you can make that box at absolute zero kelvin (no EM/heat radiation), and somehow shield it from gravity. Could you then say that within the bounds of that box you have nothing?

 

You could then argue that you have space and time in that box and space and time are things right?

 

To answer that  you have to work out if nothing qualifies as something! Is the nothing between the walls of the box (the space) actually something, it contains no energy, no matter, no radiation and no gravity so is it something?

 

I would say that space itself is nothing, but that nothing has a length (the length of the nothing between the walls of the box). 

 

So we HAVE to have nothing, otherwise we have no space (with a length) in order for something to exist within it. 

 

So nothing is nothing, but it has a property. That property is the length of that nothing, that determines the size/length of the things that exist in that nothing.

 

You can understand solid state physics and semi-conductors with the electron-hole model, is a hole a thing? In this case a hole is just a placeholder for an electron, it is in itself not a thing. (it is the absence of a thing, in this case the absence of an electron).

 

An electron hole is what a virtual particle is, it is not a real thing (it is not something), but it fits an explanatory model to explain some principle. 

 

We should do an entire show about nothing !!!

 

Who would have thought that nothing would be so interesting!


Edited by Mutex, 29 January 2020 - 11:34 PM.


#81 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 993 posts

Posted 30 January 2020 - 05:16 AM

Is space and/or time nothing or something?

 

 

Why not both. Space time 4 dimensional + another none spacial dimension. Non Locality is a proven fact of quantum mechanics and can not be explained by the restrictions of space time coordinates. Information exchange between points in space is not restricted by c, and appears almost instantaneous. This might cause a negligible effect, in our observations, or perhaps explain the rotation curves of galaxies. 

 

All things, points in space, could be connected to a certain extent.



#82 Mutex

Mutex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 30 January 2020 - 06:10 AM

Why not both. Space time 4 dimensional + another none spacial dimension. Non Locality is a proven fact of quantum mechanics and can not be explained by the restrictions of space time coordinates. Information exchange between points in space is not restricted by c, and appears almost instantaneous. This might cause a negligible effect, in our observations, or perhaps explain the rotation curves of galaxies. 

 

All things, points in space, could be connected to a certain extent.

 

Nonlocality is a thing, what entanglement is, is when two particles are entangled (locally) and they become permanently correlated. However "and cannot be explained by the restrictions of spacetime coordinates..." is not an established or proven fact. It certainly has not been established that there is a FTL information transfer between to non-local entangled particles. 

 

With entanglement, the information that is needed to determine the state of the remote entangled particle is contained in the local particle, the information transfer and communication between the two particles occurred in the past when the particles were entangled. 

 

So the information transfer from your local particle is almost instant, because it's local it has already been 'programmed' with the information that you observe.

 

But as I was saying yes, of course nothing can have something in it, it's still itself nothing, but with something in it, there is just as much nothing of space inside a proton as there is if the proton was not in that position, so the nothing of space can certainly contain particles, light or energy or even entangled particles. 

But just because the nothing has something in it, that does not make the nothing something, it just means there is something in the nothing !!  :eek:



#83 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 993 posts

Posted 30 January 2020 - 09:37 AM

Nonlocality is a thing, what entanglement is, is when two particles are entangled (locally) and they become permanently correlated. However "and cannot be explained by the restrictions of spacetime coordinates..." is not an established or proven fact. It certainly has not been established that there is a FTL information transfer between to non-local entangled particles. 

 

 

 

Yes it is. At least 3 experiments have proven it. Its a done deal, putting your head in the sand and ignoring it will not make it go away.

 

 

 

With entanglement, the information that is needed to determine the state of the remote entangled particle is contained in the local particle, the information transfer and communication between the two particles occurred in the past when the particles were entangled. 

 

So the information transfer from your local particle is almost instant, because it's local it has already been 'programmed' with the information that you observe.

 

 

 

Wrong, i posted links already on the subject, try googling it, you might be surprised  :surprise:

 

 

 

 

But as I was saying yes, of course nothing can have something in it, it's still itself nothing, but with something in it, there is just as much nothing of space inside a proton as there is if the proton was not in that position, so the nothing of space can certainly contain particles, light or energy or even entangled particles. 

But just because the nothing has something in it, that does not make the nothing something, it just means there is something in the nothing !!  :eek:

 

You incorrectly assume solid particles spinning around each other with nothing in between. Particles are fields with hazy overlapping edges, check out quantum chromodynamics, https://en.wikipedia..._chromodynamics there are no gaps between the various fields. 

 

Also Stochaistic electrodynamics has some interesting ideas ref virtual particles. supporting the structure of fundamental particles.