Nothingness

[Thunderbird]

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?

 

A photon has no independent existence. At the sub atomic level there are no things.:hihi:

[jedaisoul]

What "things" are not made out of particles?

Well, the answer really lies in the philosophy forum, but you've asked so I'll answer...

 

The macro universe exists. We can see it, we can touch it, we can measure it. It is real and it contains things that exist. Whereas, the world of particle physics, as you have said, is composed of things that do not ultimately exist, they are just probabilities. The conventional wisdom at this point is to say: "Particles don't exist, therefore the macro universe doesn't exist. It's all just probability".

 

I disagree. There is no reason to assume that. You could say: "The macro universe exists, but particles are only probabilities, therefore the macro universe is not actually composed of particles". The same facts, the same evidence, a different conclusion. And, in my opinion, a better one, because it does not deny the existence of the macro universe. That's called fittting the theory to the observations, instead of the other way round.

 

Of course, that leads to the question of what the macro universe is composed of? Well, what do particle physicists observe when they do experiments? What they observe are events. They give the results of those events names, and call them particles. But what they are principally observing are events. What is the difference between an event and a physical entity? An event is transitory, a physical entity is persistent, it's a "thing" . What do sub-atomic particles most resemble? An event, not a physical entity.

 

So what is the macro universe made of? Well, for want of a better term, I'd call it "isness", the fundamental building block of reality. Particle physicists metaphorically "poke a stick" at isnesss and observe the results. Nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is the assumption that the events they observe constitute reality. No, they are the effects of poking reality with a stick. To claim any more than that is an assumption, and it ignores the transitory nature of the vast majority of sub-atomic "particles".

 

I'm not decrying what particle physicists do, it's the interpretation of what it means that is, imo, faulty. So there is no reason to assume that the macro universe is composed of sub-atomic particles, they are merely what is observed. There is an alternative interpretation which, imo, fits the facts better.

[coldcreation]

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?"

 

...

 

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"...

 

The beginning and the end (the big rip?) are exceptionally unique in the genre, raising the expectation of a utopian universe. Uniqueness aside (intuition aside too while we’re at it), the location of the initial event, annihilation-creation, itself is best contemplated as occurring everywhere. Of course, the big bang is no utopia. Before the event there was nowhere, and at t = 0 (no one really knows) the theory collapse into barren geometry, if any. The date is poignant (13.7 billion years ago) as if evolution was not the norm but is replace by a radical rupture, a coming to being, a transformation of something from nothing. It is tempting to speculate as to the initial conditions or state of the universe at that time to which a comparison could be made as somehow summing up the show, yet it is simply one of a series of examples in this model that conveys the array of perplexing mosaic proffered by modern cosmology: its multiple paths of investigation, its numerous morphed versions over time and its inconsistencies.

 

These words may sound harsh, but they are only in response to rhetorical statements that put forward the creation concept of the entire universe from nothing, zero, ex nihilo, no space and no time: from the void. This interpretation is quite a stretch, and there is more sangria in it than Sangreal whirling around.

 

 

Ex nihilo nihil.

(Nothing [comes] from nothing)

 

 

The inherent uncertainty in our knowledge of specific quantities during interactions (or events) opens the door to the possibility that new particles and virtual particles are spontaneously belched out of the vacuum—as long as they disappear back into the vacuum as readily as they were created, the violation of energy or momentum conservation cannot be measured.

 

During the brief interval of virtual particle creation enough energy may be absorbed through collision processes the particles may become “real” and remain in the vacuum without violating energy-momentum conservation. That is, our current model of physical phenomena states that certain elementary particles can be created or destroyed as an outcome of a suitable spontaneous course relating only the electromagnetic field. Massive particles are fabricated spontaneously from massless electromagnetic fields, or annihilate by transferring their masses into energy of the massless electromagnetic field. Accordingly, we have the quantum mechanics version of creation ex nihilo, of something out of nothing—called creation and annihilation reactions.

 

The net exchange of ground-energy (in the area of interaction) with the environment = the change in energy of the system. Each unit of energy carries with it the equivalent in ‘mass.’

 

According to Alan H. Guth, all the matter and radiation visible today in the universe emerged from the colossal energy that was stored in empty space during the inflationary stage. Though, astutely, there is no mentioning from where originated the energy (the universe, like a virgin giving birth, sprang from nothing :rolleyes:). This form of creation ex nihilo he calls the ultimate “free lunch.” But it loses its flavor somehow.

 

 

“Grilling, broiling, barbecuing - whatever you want to call it - is an art, not just a matter of building a pyre and throwing on a piece of meat as a sacrifice to the gods of the stomach.” James Beard. (1974)

 

 

 

 

CC

[CHADS]

There was never nothing!!! ...... fact! lol