Nothingness

[LJP07]

Just a quick question bout the "beginning of the expanding universe", a lot claim that it came from nothing or whatever. But can nothing have properties, for example, a perfect vacuum...can this have essentially nothing? I think not because I remember learning about particles that appear from nothing and collapse into each other to form nothing.

 

So do you need a "Universe" for this to exist, would these particles just not always be there...regardless of how many Universes you have or any other current theory regarding the Universe?

[CHADS]

I know what your saying .... how can nothing at all exist and create everything we know .... It has to Impossible , The foundations for building everthing had to be present this is logic.

 

With the particle creation and annihalation They have to be created from energy and then annihalate back to the medium.

 

The lowest energetic state a Wave can be is as good as a flat line where the highest energy state will look like more a vertical straight line.

 

Only a Certain amount of energy can occupy a swarchild radius ... giving a limit on Mass/energy in 3d ..... Can the longest Wave Length and lowest Amplitude fit one wavelentgh across the entire Exspanding universe?

 

The universe exists becuase of this Wave Medium it is a reference point for dimension. If there was no Universe then there would be no Reference point for Anything .... Except Potential .

 

Maybe potential Could exist without the universe but paradoxically the universe would Still Exist Potentially.:eek_big:

 

Its an amazing thought if you grasp the recent concepts an theorys .. the big bang and relativity to find at the very Start of your logic "Where did it all come from.. " That my friend can amaze or scare the hell out of you ...lol

 

How can Energy Always be there? Beggers Discription...!!!

 

If it was Created ... Then from what? That would be more Amazing ... !!!

 

You would have to veiw Energy as something completely different from the logical interepertation we use today ...

You would have to give it conciousness somewhere to allow you to Rastionalise this place 15 billion years later.

 

If Nothing was in the beginning then Nothing became Aware of itself and an opposite was formed Called something... Like flat line that Knew it seperated something ...(this gets philisophical).

 

One of the Acient greeks liked the idea that the universe was Eternal ... he said this was more perfect ... than creation..

 

If it was always there then thats a good thing ... Your veiw that theres an infinite framework regardless of a universe would imply an eternal infinate structure of possible multiverses .. but why stop there....

 

The Multiverses could be infinite in number in all directions .. like an infinite continuum... Cantor worked on finding infinity and found that when you divide infinite points the divisions them selves have more infinite and on and on and on ................ this sent Cantor mad and he ended up in an asylumn where he died....

 

 

Maybe its alive becuase we exist now?

 

Sorry boring the pants off of you...lolol

[Thunderbird]

Speaking for myself, I have broken it down to dualities. Opposites that create the universe though an occultation between opposing poles. The singularity is a quality of the universe that represents no time no things, just a central point, a coordinate. Inside this is literally nothingness, but also pure order . The opposite is the sphere of time. Movement the multiplicity of connections and relationships. The classic wave particle duality. One quality cannot exist without the other. The chaos of time seeks and revolves around the stability of the central point aspect as a simultaneous point of origin... and a destination point like the magnetic field of a bar magnet. When we measure time from this point of origin “The Big Bang” we are actually just measuring a partial cycle that is circular, not linear, IMHO, that is.

[jedaisoul]

Just a quick question bout the "beginning of the expanding universe", a lot claim that it came from nothing or whatever. But can nothing have properties, for example, a perfect vacuum...can this have essentially nothing? I think not because I remember learning about particles that appear from nothing and collapse into each other to form nothing.

 

So do you need a "Universe" for this to exist, would these particles just not always be there...regardless of how many Universes you have or any other current theory regarding the Universe?

I have not got an answer to your query, but I would like to clear up some misconceptions which you may have:

• Nothing cannot exist. There is no difference betweeen nothing and non-existence. To exist, a thing has to be something.
  
• A perfect vacuum is not nothing. It has metric properties, so is something. E.g. Imagine an empty box, with absolutely nothing inside it except empty space. Now take away the box, the empty space is still there. Hence a perfect vacuum (if it were possible) would exist.
  
• There can only ever be one universe. Universe means everything that exists. This confusion arises because, if there is only one space-time continuum, it is the universe. But as soon as you posit the existence of more than one space-time continuum, the universe is the sum of all space-time continua.

 

I hope that helps...

[CHADS]

Interesting ...

With Black Holes There are Massive Gravitational Warpage Distorstions Yet a Theorised Singularity in the centre ... Maybe the Mass/Energy

Wants to occupy the Ordered singularity not becuase there is lots of energy pushing on a single point but becuase the singularity always becons ..

 

even a lone photon is beconed by a singularity .

 

The Chaotic blackhole distortions are all the mass/energy seeking perfect order .. nothingness Where it will have no restrictions , perfect and eternally comfortable?

[LJP07]

I suppose the primary reason I'm looking deeper into the issue is because Theists always come back to the argument "How can something come from nothing?"...I hate this question because I don't have a good argument, I'm not up on the Big Ban and most current theories i.e I'm a Chemist not a Physicist.

 

Anyway, back to the issue at hand, I understand our brain is coded and functioned in that we always look and see a "Beginning" and an "End"...I believe when applied to physics, this has to be overlooked...and it's quite simple to see why!!

 

Obviously there is NO God. Therefore if there was NOTHING...(and I mean no annihilation particles or any other form of energy or particle) then nothing could be formed from this, so obviously there was something, it just makes sense. Connecting this point from the Universe is the big question as far as I'm concerned, I don't view a "Beginning" or an "End"...rather the full story should be sought and not just what's happened in our universe, however I understand we can only work with what were given. But what if you could work backwards from the singularity...a gradual build-up of this energy upto a limit where it has no alternative choice but to expand out...for example, like feeding small amounts of heat into a system, when it goes beyond stability it goes Kaboom!...

 

Although these are incredibly small things to think about...I know I'm going out on a limb saying all this...probably wrong again...but better than accepting nothing. If you had an INFINITE Space where particles existed...maybe ones not known to physics and probably never will be known...and this was like a Particle Playground...high temps...fast moving particles... etc and forces that held multiple colliding particles together, if this happened over time, an incredibly dense and incredibly hot object like the singularity would be created which could expand on itself and form the "Big Bang"...

 

But flatter me with the physics of how I could be wrong?

[CHADS]

There could be creator That knows how everything works and had lots of energy to get it started but thats another post ..lol

 

So the singularity would hold the Particles wave representations within a stable singularity where all possible wave forms hold in a stable dimensional form ...

 

As soon as a small increment anywhere is felt this causes an exponential change in the initial stability and creates waves to fluctuate and not allow Stability to be reached again ... These fluctation would seek the same stability but along a different plane .. or all possible planes until Exponential Probable planes are sought ...

 

this would make the waves so chaotic and excited taht the would generate heat

which would be the total sum of all the patterns and Vectors sought to regain stability.

 

Stability would never be reached again in this region so Waves would merge and supperimpose .. coelese form heavier stuff ... All from seeking stability..

 

I Always believe that Dimensionality plays a massive part in it all.

 

What are all of the Possible Wave forms in creation ?

What wave forms are not permitted ?

 

All the possible waveforms in a singularity what would the diagram look like ?

A solid Block ? A CIRCLE?

[Thunderbird]

Interesting ...

With Black Holes There are Massive Gravitational Warpage Distorstions Yet a Theorised Singularity in the centre ... Maybe the Mass/Energy

Wants to occupy the Ordered singularity not becuase there is lots of energy pushing on a single point but becuase the singularity always becons ..

 

even a lone photon is beconed by a singularity .

 

The Chaotic blackhole distortions are all the mass/energy seeking perfect order .. nothingness Where it will have no restrictions , perfect and eternally comfortable?

 

 

A fractal nesting effect, were the micro systems of the particle on one ultimate particle point below. reflects the same pattern as the ultimate whole above...?

The singularity effect inward as well as outward . Our universe in-between those two points. It does have an intuitive symmetry to it.

[CHADS]

This is exactly my point ...

 

What could we expect from the model if the universe was composed of only one particle ... say a photon / or an elctron ..

 

Could an Electron even exist entirely alone in its own universe?

[LJP07]

But the electron wouldn't exist due to the immense density and heat, would it? It would be smaller than this surely.

[CHADS]

I see what your saying.

I mean independant of the the big bang mass ... like if a particle was the whole universe by itself; It would be more like a little pop instead of a big bang i agree but it couldnt transfer heat becuase it would be alone? .i dont know. What characteristics do waves play in tranfereing heat?

Ive got millions more questions now lol

[jedaisoul]

I suppose the primary reason I'm looking deeper into the issue is because Theists always come back to the argument "How can something come from nothing?"...I hate this question because I don't have a good argument, I'm not up on the Big Ban and most current theories i.e I'm a Chemist not a Physicist.

Being a physicist would not help. This is a philosophic question. There are well used answers to the Theist position. They don't really belong here in the Phys and Math section, but I hope I'll be forgiven for repeating them here. I'm not trying to start a discussion of this point, just clarifying...

 

Firstly, the Theist answer "God did it" does not answer the question any way, because you just say "So where did God come from?". If they answer "He's always existed", you reply, "Well then the universe has always existed".

 

The universe is the total of all that exists. If God exists, then God is also part of the universe. If God has always existed, then so has the universe. (It is a common misconception to confuse our space-time continuum with the universe).

 

This is not as trite as it may sound, because, arguably, there was nothing before the Big Bang, not even time and space. So time began at the Big Bang. Hence our space-time continuum has existed "for all time", i.e. always.

 

Anyway, apologies to anyone upset at my putting these comments here. They are relevant to the circumstances, but not to the forum.

[Thunderbird]

 

Could an Electron even exist entirely alone in its own universe?

 

I would say no, keep in mind a particle has no independent existence.

[Thunderbird]

I have not got an answer to your query, but I would like to clear up some misconceptions which you may have:

• Nothing cannot exist. There is no difference betweeen nothing and non-existence. To exist, a thing has to be something.

In particle physics your never really end up with anything that can be called a "thing" at the deepest level all you end up with is probability patterns.
 
 

There can only ever be one universe. Universe means everything that exists. This confusion arises because, if there is only one space-time continuum, it is the universe. But as soon as you posit the existence of more than one space-time continuum, the universe is the sum of all space-time continua.

I think Universe means one verse.

[jedaisoul]

In particle physics your never really end up with anything that can be called a "thing" at the deepest level all you end up with is probability patterns.

True, but as you yourself said:

...keep in mind a particle has no independent existence.

Hence if we are talking about things that do exist, we are not talking particle physics.

 

I think Universe means one verse.

I quote from Wikipedia:

The Universe is most commonly defined as everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

...keep in mind a particle has no independent existence.

 

 

 

True, but as you yourself said:

 

Hence if we are talking about things that do exist, we are not talking particle physics.

What "things" are not made out of particles?

[CHADS]

Do you mean Wave/Particle duality ...... depends where or how you veiw them but they are the same representations/interperetations of the same particle.

 

Ok say the universe was one photon and everything that lay underneath ... What would the Universe look like Without all other things we know of except this single photon and its underlying nature/medium?