What is Nothing?

Aug 22, 2014 by Fraser Cain, Universe Today
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Credit: NASA

Is there any place in the Universe where there's truly nothing? Consider the gaps between stars and galaxies? Or the gaps between atoms? What are the properties of nothing?

I want you to take a second and think about nothing. Close your eyes. Picture it in your mind. Focus. Fooooocus. On nothing….It's pretty hard, isn't it? Especially when I keep nattering at you.

Instead, let's just consider the vast spaces between , or the gaps between atoms and other . When we talk about nothing in the vast reaches between of space, it's not actually, technically nothing. Got that? It's not nothing. There's… something there.

Even in the gulfs of intergalactic space, there are hundreds or thousands of particles in every cubic meter. But even if you could rent MegaMaid from a Dark Helmet surplus store, and vacuum up those particles, there would still be wavelengths of radiation, stretching across vast distances of space.

There's the inevitable reach of gravity stretching across the entire Universe. There's the weak magnetic field from a distant quasar. It's infinitesimally weak, but it's not nothing. It's still something.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

Philosophers, and some physicists, argue that *that* nothing isn't the same as "real" nothing. Different physicists see different things as nothing, from nothing is classical vacuum, to the idea of nothing as undifferentiated potential.

Even if you could remove all the particles, shield against all electric and magnetic fields, your box would still contain gravity, because gravity can never be shielded or cancelled out. Gravity doesn't go away, and it's always attractive, so you can't do anything to block it. In Newton's physics that's because it is a force, but in general relativity space and time *are* gravity.

So, imagine if you could remove all particles, energy, … everything from a system. You'd be left with a true vacuum. Even at its lowest energy level, there are fluctuations in the quantum vacuum of the Universe. There are popping into and out of existence throughout the Universe. There's nothing, then pop, something, and then the collide and you're left with nothing again. And so, even if you could remove everything from the Universe, you'd still be left with these quantum fluctuations embedded in spacetime.

Quantum theory includes strange particles like these quarks, seen here in a three-dimensional computer-generated simulation. Credit: PASIEKA/SPL

There are physicists like Lawrence Krauss that argue the "universe from nothing", really meaning "the universe from a potentiality". Which comes down to if you add all the mass and energy in the universe, all the gravitational curvature, everything… it looks like it all sums up to zero. So it is possible that the really did come from nothing. And if that's the case, then "nothing" is everything we see around us, and "everything" is nothing.

What do you think? How do you wrap your head around the idea of nothing? Tell us in the comments below. And if you like what you see, come check out our Patreon page and find out how you can get these videos early while helping us bring you more great content!

Explore further: Clumped galaxies give General Relativity its toughest test yet

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Boosting the force of empty space

Jul 22, 2014

Vacuum fluctuations may be among the most counter-intuitive phenomena of quantum physics. Theorists from the Weizmann Institute (Rehovot, Israel) and the Vienna University of Technology propose a way to amplify ...

GR20/Amaldi10: Space-time is not the same for everyone

Jul 09, 2013

Before the Big Bang, space-time as we know it did not exist. So how was it born? The process of creating normal space-time from an earlier state dominated by quantum gravity has been studied for years by ...

Recommended for you

New terahertz device could strengthen security

7 hours ago

We are all familiar with the hassles that accompany air travel. We shuffle through long lines, remove our shoes, and carry liquids in regulation-sized tubes. And even after all the effort, we still wonder if these procedures ...

CERN makes public first data of LHC experiments

12 hours ago

CERN today launched its Open Data Portal where data from real collision events, produced by experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will for the first time be made openly available to all. It is expected ...

New technique allows ultrasound to penetrate bone, metal

Nov 20, 2014

Researchers from North Carolina State University have developed a technique that allows ultrasound to penetrate bone or metal, using customized structures that offset the distortion usually caused by these ...

User comments : 161

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Yevgen
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 22, 2014
Using quantum mechanics as justification for "something out of nothing" is not philosophically correct since quantum mechanics itself as an empirically derived in this universe physical law. Existence of such a law is not "nothing" by itself - the law itself at least is required, an so is the entity which makes this law possible. On more technical issue, it is not clear if it is possible to extrapolate this law with any accuracy to complete nothingness, since there is no experiment possible that would confirm or deny it.
More philosophically correct approach is mathematical, since it does not require any experiment and has no limits to area of applicability. It has been used in my derivation of probability of creation of something out of nothing with zero probability single event, tried infinite number of times. It results in non-zero probability of "at least once occurrence": 1-exp(-1)=0.632121(...) See details here: http://sudy_zhenja.tripod.com/something_out_of_nothing.html
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2014
I group it into sets.
set of nothing (so now it's something)
set of everything. Which, by definition, includes - the set of nothing.

So... it's apparent that, either;
a. Frasier Cain did some drug experimentation when in school...
b. He didn't...
kochevnik
5 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2014
There is no nothing because the moment it exists it becomes something

The core of the problem is that humans are hard-wired to perceive everything (complete symmetry) as nothing
Toiea
1 / 5 (13) Aug 22, 2014
Water surface is EMPTY for surface ripples, because there are no obstacles for surface wave spreading - but it still provides the SPACE and TIME for their spreading. The underwater is NOTHINGNESS for these ripples, because it provides not even space. Of course, you can have faster waves and in this moment even the nothing with change into something. This nothingness has a potentiality for formation of something. In AWT the formation of something from nothing is a process not conceptually different from common condensation of droplets from saturated vapor, i.e. spontaneous symmetry breaking.
When the space-time gets created, this process is analogous to condensation of foamy density fluctuations from dense gas. These fluctuations have a character of nested foam inside of such environment. Why to complicate stuffs more than absolutely necessary?
arom
1.1 / 5 (17) Aug 22, 2014
Is there any place in the Universe where there's truly nothing? Consider the gaps between stars and galaxies? Or the gaps between atoms? What are the properties of nothing?
Instead, let's just consider the vast spaces between stars and galaxies, or the gaps between atoms and other microscopic particles. When we talk about nothing in the vast reaches between of space, it's not actually, technically nothing. Got that? It's not nothing. There's… something there.


It seems that this is the old problem about whether there is something –aether in vacuum space or not, which then give rise to the famous Michelson-Morley experiment in Einstein special theory of relativity. Anyway there is still no decisive experiment result given, maybe this simple experiment could help to settle the problem ….
http://www.vacuum...=6〈=en
mikep608
1.1 / 5 (17) Aug 22, 2014
There is no such thing as Empty. The universe is filled with a strange inanimate substance called aether. atomic particles are like carbonation, Aether is like the liquid. Light and other EMR is the liquid having a rash. that is why all of these things seem connected. atomic particles aren't "energy" they are a material that doesn't get along with Aether. or at least they are born of it somehow. -Mike P
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (15) Aug 22, 2014
The universe is filled with a strange inanimate substance called aether. atomic particles are like carbonation, Aether is like the liquid
@mikep608
Sorry Mike, but that is proven absolutely wrong (to a VERY high degree of accuracy) with the following studies:
http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf

http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

I know that this comes as a shock... or not...
but just because zephir says it or he produces something that you think makes it sound legit, doesn't mean it is real.

aether is dead and died long ago...
artisticmischief
3.1 / 5 (17) Aug 22, 2014
In Buddhism, it is understood that there is only nothingness and it is only when there is a perception of something that it comes into existence. This nuance is evident in several comments that I have read here, though it is founded in Physics. Nothing, as a thing to be perceived, becomes something, and therefore not nothing. The box of nothing defined as containing a vacuum still contains a something identified as a vacuum. Nothing only exists in the absence of the perception of a something. It can be, but it can not be conceived, measured nor proven. To attempt to grasp it, even just in thought gives it existence, and existence is something, not nothing. This can be solved by defining nothing as something that is void of any other thing, but then it would have to be void of the thing known as vacuum. The ancients recognized this as the realm of infinite possibility. The void out of which all things derive their being. Nothing can not be found in the Universe because it has existence.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 22, 2014
In Buddhism, it is understood that there is only nothingness... can not be found in the Universe because it has existence.

Quite the existentialist word salad, there, ArtisticMischief, but I got it. There, but you just can't see it...
In my dictionary, it exists only as a referential concept, not an actual state. IE - there is always at least ONE of something in any conceived nothing. Even if it's another nothing...:-)
mikep608
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 22, 2014
The universe is filled with a strange inanimate substance called aether. atomic particles are like carbonation, Aether is like the liquid
@mikep608
Sorry Mike, but that is proven absolutely wrong (to a VERY high degree of accuracy) with the following studies:
http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf

I know that this comes as a shock... or not...
but just because zephir says it or he produces something that you think makes it sound legit, doesn't mean it is real.

aether is dead and died long ago...


They just didn't do the correct experiment.the experiment performed was this-- they measured light being emitted from an object in motion. they observed that the light did not have any drag due to aether, and concluded that this is because there is no aether.. there is a few things wrong with this. Light is not physically attached to the object which emits it, so there would be no drag.
mikep608
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 22, 2014
PART 2 Second, the idea that light may not be a particel, but rather some type of reaction that aether has due to atomic activity was NEVER considered. To make it simple. Ligth is part of Aether. And what god has proved this ideaq of aether to be incorrect?
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2014
aether is dead and died long ago...

Understand your point, Cap'n.
But then why are we looking for it in the form of "dark matter"?
A sea of bosons and fermions could conceivably be considered aether - ish...
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 22, 2014
"Philosophers, and some physicists, argue..."

-We can disregard what philos have to say about physics. Here is Lawrence krauss addressing David alberts critical review of his book, 'A Universe from Nothing';

"When it comes to the real operational issues that govern our understanding of physical reality, ontological definitions of classical philosophers are, in my opinion, sterile. Moreover, arguments based on authority, be it Aristotle, or Leibniz, are irrelevant... Instead, sticking firm to the classical ontological definition of nothing as "the absence of anything"—whatever this means—so essential to theological, and some subset of philosophical intransigence, strikes me as essentially sterile, backward, useless and annoying... this sort of philosophical speculation has not led to any progress over the centuries... Please go on talking to each other, and let the rest of us get on with the goal of learning more about nature..." scientific american
Toiea
1.9 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2014
Universe is simply random stuff and some ordered portion of (which exists inside of every randomness) is considered a reality with creatures, who are formed with most ordered portion of it. The Boltzmann brain idea was deeply underestimated. The vacuum around us is not empty, it's just too chaotic for being recognizable for us.

Why the Universe is not Uniform? Because the Uniform state is of low probability and entropy. Why it should start as an oceans of zeros? Such a state is actually very artificial, if you try to think about it (disclaimer: it hurts, really).
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2014
In Buddhism, it is understood that there is only nothingness and it is only when there is a perception of something that it comes into existence
The only relevant thing about buddhism is that adherents still find ample reason to slaughter each other, and of course unbelievers, over the cause of 'nothing'. As with any religion.
http://en.wikiped...violence
mikep608
1 / 5 (9) Aug 22, 2014
I'm not much for conspiracy theories, but here's a vid. .interesting up until 19:40
.interesting up until 19:40 One thing to nottice, I came up with the idea of aether, even before I learned someone else has. So there actually might be truth to it.
.https://www.youtu...7bNQsJDQ
Toiea
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 22, 2014
@mikep608: If you would really understand the aether concept, you would realize, that the relativity is its product too. Even at the water surface the large portion of distance scale is of pronouncedly relativist behavior. The dense aether model doesn't falsify the relativity at the scope of its validity - it does explain it instead. After all, Einstein was first, who recognized, without aether the relativity is unthinkable. But the scientists unlearned to think about relativity and its aetheric roots fast and they replaced the thinking with mechanical derivations of formal equations. It doesn't requires to think, if you're trained in it - it's highly reproducible activity.
mikep608
1 / 5 (10) Aug 22, 2014
aether is dead and died long ago...

Understand your point, Cap'n.
But then why are we looking for it in the form of "dark matter"?
A sea of bosons and fermions could conceivably be considered aether - ish...

They need to reinvent their understanding of things. They seemed to have nailed the concepts that are taught in classes like chemistry. We can even see atomic structures with https://www.youtu...qRq6NyUw
but how they really work ended before the idea of probability distribution
mikep608
1 / 5 (9) Aug 22, 2014
@mikep608: If you would really understand the aether concept, you would realize, that the relativity is its product too. - it does explain it instead. After all, Einstein was first, who recognized, without https://www.youtu...AIdMqng. But the scientists unlearned to think about relativity and its aetheric roots fast and they replaced the thinking with mechanical derivations of formal equations. It doesn't requires to think, if you're trained in it - it's highly reproducible activity.

It's my own version of what a medium like aether is and how it behaves. I just call it aether, the name is already out there. Einstien and any other scientist is not god, nor fantasy level smart. Einstein has in an unintentional way corrupted the understanding of things. Most of this is caused by scientists whos education has ecceeded their intelligence. PS math equations dont mean sh1t
Toiea
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2014
BTW The dark matter PERVADES the space, so it cannot serve as an analogy of luminiferous aether, which FORMS the space instead. The dark matter and quintessence is rather analogy of sparse aether of pre-Maxwell era. This aether model was disproved with many experiments (including M-M experiment) and due to its low density it even cannot serve for propagation of light, in transverse waves the less. Even if it would exist, it could only mediate the light like the sound waves in air, i.e. like in longitudinal waves - which contradicts the transverse character of EM waves. The sparse aether model is simply wrong, but some aspects of dark matter resemble the elastic sparse gas (Bullet cluster). But this is not an aether, which the luminiferous, i.e. dense aether model is about and sparse aether models (like the quintessence or Einstein's aether theory) aren't interesting for me at all.
Toiea
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 22, 2014
@mikep608:The main problem of sparse aether model is, it cannot explain the space-time and their mutual relation, because the sparse gas still needs some space-time for its existence. Such a model is not even fundamental: you can explain the sparse aether models with dense aether - but not vice-versa. Unfortunately many naive aetherists (including these very zealous ones, like the T.J.J.See) didn't understand the fundamental duality and difference of both aether models and they rather did disservice to this concept. I'm afraid, you're belonging into this category too.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 22, 2014
mike - latoya's 'aether' does not equal 'ether'. Just so you know.

And I did not know that relativity was an anti-xian conspiracy. But then all of science is an anti-xian conspiracy isnt it?

"Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God." -martin luther

-Hallejuiah.
@mikep608:The main problem of sparse aether model is, it cannot explain the space-time and their mutual relation
Yeah because it doesnt have pond water, and ripples, and stuff like that right jigga?
Toiea
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 22, 2014
Einstein has in an unintentional way corrupted the understanding of things
Einstein was rather close to understanding of aether model, he has dealt with it from his children years, after all. But the understanding of aether concept in his time was heavily complicated with lack of physical analogies - mostly because the first superfluid was observed in 1931 only. Even Maxwell was perfectly aware, that his model fits well the frictionless fluid - but because such a fluid wasn't known in his time, he naturally considered it only as an abstract oddity. I'm convinced, that if the superfluids would be known in the time of M-M experiment, its zero result would be already interpreted as the evidence of superfluidity of vacuum, rather than absence of aether - and the contemporary physics would probably appear quite differently (mostly under influence of scalar wave physics of Tesla).
mikep608
1 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2014
@Toiea then ditch the idea of space time. Aether and atomic particles would interct in such a way that we wouldn't sense. We are solid and made of these particles. To us the particles seem "charged". To us "charge" seems a bit magical. We think it requires a source of feul. That is how we understand things We think therer needs to be angular momentum from an electron.etc etc. this is also the approach of people like Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger etc. This is also where they fail. We kind of can only "see" things by their imprint in things like a magnetic feild, or electric charge. We don't see the actual thing

Toiea
1 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2014
because it doesnt have pond water, and ripples, and stuff like that right
It really hasn't. The density fluctuations of sparse gas can be only blobby stuffs, which don't allow the propagation of transverse ripples at distance. But when we consider the dense gas (similar to supercritical fluid), then its density fluctuations can get a foamy character, which already allows the propagation of transverse waves in similar manner, like the ripples at the water surface.

The foamy model of space-time may appear strange for someone, but it's already common in physics in form of LQG or string field theories and it's able to explain even the subtleties like the existence of two-time dimensions in so-called HE string theories based on E8xE8 gauge groups. The foam membranes have always two surface gradients, as the above animation illustrates.
Doug_Huffman
1 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2014
This is the source of Lee Smolin's advocacy of a background independent physics. The conceptual background that we inherited from Newton and Einstein is so tortured as to spit particles and fields. Trying to grasp the infinities is like squeezing a magnetic field - Nature will out.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2014
It's my own version of what a medium like aether is and how it behaves. I just call it aether, the name is already out there. Einstien and any other scientist is not god, nor fantasy level smart. Einstein has in an unintentional way corrupted the understanding of things. Most of this is caused by scientists whos education has ecceeded their intelligence. PS math equations dont mean sh1t

Just as your spelling skills don't seem to have exceeded yours....
Toiea
2 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2014
To us the particles seem "charged". To us "charge" seems a bit magical.
The charge is magic even for Maxwell theory - the Coulomb law cannot be deduced for it and it does exist there as an independent equation. But it can be understood easily if we adopt the notion of elementary particles like the spatial vortices. Their curvature is the source of vorticity, which manifest itself at distance in similar way, like the magnetic field. For example the neutron and protons are composed of spatial vortices, each loop of which is the source of elementary charge. These elementary vortices are recognized with mainstream physics as so-called quarks. These tiny swirling miniature tornadoes are indeed doing their neighborhood turbulent at distance, which manifest itself with force.
mikep608
1 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2014
If we have aether, we can better explain a magnetic feild, gravity, radiation, the strong force, light traveling at a fixed speed with different energy levels, and electrons orbiting nucleus.
All of these things are very similar and it's as if they are the same thing.
mikep608
1 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2014
@Whydening Gyre

there is nothing wrong with my spelling . You just can't read.
Toiea
2 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2014
The most complete way, how to imagine the true appearance of elementary particles is to observe or simulate the formation of composite density fluctuations, which emerge inside of condensing supercritical fluids. Under narrow range of experimental conditions this fluid appears like being composed of density fluctuations of another level of fluid and this process can even repeat few times in fractal way. The final products of this fractal condensation are rather complex composite density fluctuations, which should model the elementary particles rather closely. IMO the heavier particles aren't formed with individual vortices, but rather tiny dense clusters of vortices (virtual quarks) of shared geometry which gradually vanish with distance and they're blurred with space-time foam in which they reside. They're forming rather clusters of the space-time foam.
Toiea
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2014
A somewhat similar fuzzy mixture of vortex and foam concepts represents the appearance of central black holes inside of galaxies. These holes may look like the less or more complex spatial vortex (sorta turbulent star similar to gas giants), which is nearly seamlessly attached and blurred structure of dark matter foam around it. The AdS/CFT correspondence says, we can get inspired with space-time geometry of large scales for description of geometry at these small ones - and vice-versa. The physicists have already a most of components of their toolbox prepared - the problem for formal math is, these low-dimensional concepts are getting heavily mixed, blurred and violated each other at the extreme distance and energy density scales, where the stuffs become high-dimensional. Until we model and visualize them with massive particle simulations, it's more effective to imagine it rather than compute it
malapropism
5 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2014
@artisticmischief
...there is only nothingness and it is only when there is a perception of something that it comes into existence.

So you're saying that if a tree in a forest falls and nobody is there to hear it, there actually is no sound?

Really?
Toiea
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2014
So you're saying that if a tree in a forest falls and nobody is there to hear it, there actually is no sound
The interior of black holes may host quite complex worlds, but until we will not condense and shrink into the same density scale, we cannot interact with it and observe it. From outside we would see only fuzzy shadows of this complexity. This is the rational core of the scale invariant multiverse concept and/or this famous Simpson intro.
Toiea
1.8 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2014
A good example of the detection of this hidden reality is the observation of Higgs bosons. This resonance doesn't manifest itself with anything observable in the fuzzy noise of the collision jets and streamers - we can only deduce it from careful analysis of energy symmetry of each collision in quite indirect way. It has no tangible physical representation - it's an emergent ghost constructed of many collisions in abstract way.
malapropism
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2014
So you're saying that if a tree in a forest falls and nobody is there to hear it, there actually is no sound
The interior of black holes may host quite complex worlds, but until we will not condense and shrink into the same density scale, we cannot interact with it and observe it. From outside we would see only fuzzy shadows of this complexity. This is the rational core of the scale invariant multiverse concept and/or this https://www.youtu...uR6aWT4.

I used the "urban myth" type example in my post, for effect I admit, but what s/he's actually saying (I think) is that if there's nobody there, no tree falls in fact because it doesn't exist without an observer to perceive it.
MurphDog
1 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2014
We exist in an universe of something, so there being something in every corner of it, be it matter, waves or gravity shouldn't surprise anyone. Whether the universe came from nothing or something is a different story. I am not of the opinion that there was nothing to begin with then the universe sprang to life, I'm not referring to the big bang as a process for the beginning of our existence, but the meaning of existence itself. I don't perceive a nothing to something process but rather that we live in an existence of substance. That being that substance has always been a part of what we call reality.
It is sometimes a hard concept to realize since most people can't fathom that what we call reality has always been, in one form or another.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2014
This conversation, as in previous discussions involving the concept of 'nothing' in the Physorg comments, has degraded into lexical semantics.

Fuel for the fire. WG - an 'empty set ' is not equivalent to a 'set of nothing'. By definition 'nothing' cannot have any properties. So it's nonsensical to apply mathematical techniques.

I want you to take a second and think about nothing. Close your eyes. Picture it in your mind. Focus. Fooooocus. On nothing….It's pretty hard, isn't it?


Not just hard. It's impossible.
DingleBerry
1 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2014
Article Quote:
So it is possible that the universe really did come from nothing. And if that's the case, then "nothing" is everything we see around us, and "everything" is nothing. What do you think?

Answer:
Now that is one of the most dumb things I have ever heard! From nothing comes nothing!
So therefore, there must be something out there, but I am taking about the space outside of the universe(s). So close your eyes and picture that! What would you think the "something" consist of?
bluehigh
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2014
There is no 'space' outside the universe(s). 'Space' is a property of 'something'. 'Space' is created when a universe expands into 'nothing'.

Time for morning coffee. Is it too early for medication?

Toiea
1 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2014
This is the animation of quantum wave of particle inside of potential hole (a quite rigorous solution of Schroedinger equation). This particle undulates and condenses/evaporates periodically. It essentially behaves like the density fluctuation inside of gas, once this gas becomes sufficiently dense and inertial. One of principles of quantum field theory is, it's particles are moving the faster, the smaller they are. This principle is derived from theory of Brownian motion and random walk: the smaller interval we use for observations, the faster speed of it we measure. Once the particles evaporate bellow certain size, they exceed the speed of light and simply disappear from our sight. They're still here, but they cannot be seen in deterministic way, being divided into too many small pieces. In real life many effects evade our attention, once they get dispersed enough. The favorite method of "savings" is to divide the cost into many subjects.
Toiea
2 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2014
BTW The water surface analogy of this motion is illustrated here. The main reason, why this quantum wave undulates so wildly is, it's trapped inside of potential hole into small volume. As the result, the particle is not undulating along space dimension, but across temporal dimension, i.e. along entropic time arrow: its entropy content undulates. In thermodynamics the objects change entropy, when they condense or expand, the breathing of quantum wave is therefore nothing else, than the time travel in narrow interval at place. The particles which are forced to undulate at place across time dimension are often called the Dirac fermions - this is because the Dirac described first the time symmetry between particles and antiparticles. We could therefore also say, that the quantum wave of said particle annihilates and materializes temporarily in small extent. It just illustrates, how the single process can be described from multiple perspectives.
DingleBerry
1 / 5 (1) Aug 22, 2014
There is no 'space' outside the universe(s). 'Space' is a property of 'something'. 'Space' is created when a universe expands into 'nothing'.

Time for morning coffee. Is it too early for medication?


Bluehigh, you seem like a mellow person, but once you understanding what "somethingness" in space outside of our universe(s) is, then you will understand.
11791
Aug 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mantyvaara
1 / 5 (1) Aug 22, 2014
Defining "nothing" is a mind game, in the same way "defining" anything is. When you don't define, that's when you get to....
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2014
I used the "urban myth" type example in my post, for effect I admit, but what s/he's actually saying (I think) is that if there's nobody there, no tree falls in fact because it doesn't exist without an observer to perceive it.


So then... When we walk through a woods for the first time, why do we see fallen trees? Something must haven already been there and perceived it for us?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2014
Time for morning coffee. Is it too early for medication?

I think I answered this one for you a few weeks ago - not if it's a good bourbon...
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2014
They just didn't do the correct experiment
@mikep608
tell you what mike, when you can present this evidence in a peer reviewed study supported by the same rigors of the scientific method that the evidence that I produced was given, then I will reconsider your attachment to aether. that is how SCIENCE works. not by accepting the word of another, but by presenting empirical data supporting your position and proving something
but rather some type of reaction that aether has due to atomic activity was NEVER considered
bullsnot
this was considered LONG before GR, SR and it was the particle wave duality (double slit experiment) that pretty much left this in the dust to die
sorry mikey, we don't like stupidity here. bring evidence to the table or you are nothing but a TROLL to be downvoted and reported
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2014
But then why are we looking for it in the form of "dark matter"?
A sea of bosons and fermions could conceivably be considered aether - ish...
@Whyde
were not.
dark matter is a mass particle that doesn't interact with light and we can measure it's effects via gravity... aether, also called quintessence, is the material that fills the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere. The concept of aether was used in several theories to explain several natural phenomena, such as the traveling of light and gravity. In the late 19th century, physicists postulated that aether permeated all throughout space, providing a medium through which light could travel in a vacuum, but evidence for the presence of such a medium was not found in the Michelson-Morley experiment https://en.wikipe...ement%29

therefore aether MUST interact with light
subtle difference but HUGE RESULTS and VISIBLE changes in means of detection
xstos
1 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2014
All possibilities exist across the continuum of all imaginable dimensions and universes. Nothing is actually everything. We exist, in an unbounded, unfettered, infinite spectrum. There is no beginning; there is no end; we simply are.
mogmich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 23, 2014
Even if it is true, that "if you add up everything, there is nothing" there will be something. Because "adding up everything" is an abstract thought, and not reality. What is the probability, that this state of "everything added up" is actual reality? If this probability is not only low, but zero, there will necessarily be something.

But at the same time: If everything add up to nothing (in this abstract sense) there must be something that exists without the need of anything else existing?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2014
Einstien and any other scientist is not god, nor fantasy level smart. Einstein has in an unintentional way corrupted the understanding of things. Most of this is caused by scientists whos education has ecceeded their intelligence. PS math equations dont mean sh1t
@mikey
in other words, you are willing to IGNORE the empirical evidence and the proof, and the experiments that PROVE GR and SR... and the predictions that are accurate (which aether does not provide) just to live with your fantasy world religious faith of aether and your belief that only you can be right??
CONJECTURE is NOT SCIENCE

http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2014
@Whydening Gyre

there is nothing wrong with my spelling . You just can't read.

In example;
PART 2 Second, the idea that light may not be a particel, but rather some type of reaction that aether has due to atomic activity was NEVER considered. To make it simple. Ligth is part of Aether. And what god has proved this ideaq of aether to be incorrect?


Spot the misspellings and you might win a prize! Like an unpaid trip to your local dictionary...

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2014
there is nothing wrong with my spelling . You just can't read.
@mikey
try that again... look at your spelling of Einstein and exceeded here
Einstien and any other scientist is not god, nor fantasy level smart. Einstein has in an unintentional way corrupted the understanding of things. Most of this is caused by scientists whos education has ecceeded their intelligence. PS math equations dont mean sh1t
PROTIP - spell-check is FREE
and MATH is a FAR BETTER means to logical extrapolation of a physics idea than CONJECTURE BASED UPON A FALLACY
sorry mikey, we don't even care whether you like it
(satirical reference to ancient commercials FYI)
Spot the misspellings
@Whyde
we might be talking to a wall here Whyde! LOL
sorry about posting for you... now people will think you are ME
LMFAO
P.S> forgot apostrophe in We're above... sorry
take it out of my allowance. I owe you a beer
Urgelt
5 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2014
Between the subatomic scale we can probe with our instruments (10 ^ -15) and the Planck scale (10 ^ -35)... well, 20 orders of magnitude is a lot of unknown. And below the Planck scale? Theoretically, there is no 'below the Planck scale.' But that's untested theory. We can't probe that empirically, either.

Any discussion of 'nothing' inevitably drives you down into those weeds, where empiricism fails (currently, at least).

There is still a great deal we do not understand about physics. Which of course makes it fun.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2014
dark matter is a mass particle that doesn't interact with light and we can measure it's effects via gravity.

Mass, but not solid enough to actually reflect, absorb or emit light - hmmm...

In the late 19th century, physicists postulated that aether permeated all throughout space, providing a medium through which light could travel in a vacuum, but evidence for the presence of such a medium was not found in the Michelson-Morley experiment

That was an interesting read over at Wiki...
It was found, just not at their predicted levels. Hmmm... BTW - it was considered a failed experiment...
And.... what the hell am I doing up at 2AM thinking about this stuff?!?!?!?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2014
there is nothing wrong with my spelling . You just can't read.

And in one post you even spelled shit wrong.
Your spelling - sh1t.
How do you you pronounce that - shwunt?
C'mon... it's only a hugely popular 4 letter word...
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2014
It was found, just not at their predicted levels. Hmmm...
@Whyde
perhaps you should PM me about what this means... on Sapo's site...
and include reference material for this conclusion too... thanks.

ya-ha
4 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2014
Fundamental to the argument is the nature of existence. Nothing is where existence is not. If space and time are there then there is existence. If a cubed meter was there with 'nothing in it' it would still be filled with space. If it truly had nothing in it, it would collapse and cease to be, or more likely, never was. Otherwise nothing exists. Nothing can only be what isn't.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (1) Aug 23, 2014
Nothing is quantum vacuum itself. And Nothing has its enegy densiy which is carring inertial and gravitational mass http://article.sc...3.11.pdf
Balena
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2014
They say at the beginning there was the Big Bang and the universe expanded rapidly and now still have an accelerated expansion.
This means it is limited.
What is beyond the first wave of photons or "the nothing" which is considered part of our universe?
Describe what happens on this membrane which is expanding.

Possibly an answer to this question would answer also to "what was before Big Bang".
Bob Osaka
5 / 5 (1) Aug 23, 2014
Thanks for the zen exercise. I doubt that nothing will come from this conversation. If one reaches satori, it cannot be explained. Which could mean that zen buddhists are notoriously inarticulate. "What's your problem?" "Oh, nothing."
Nothing invariably become something when observed.
The answer may lie in what was stated as an impossibility: building a box or sphere (shape is unimportant) capable of shielding or canceling out local gravity, solving that problem may give an insight into nothing.
Inflationary cosmology states that nothing(the dark something between galaxies) can travel faster than the speed of light. If one solves the problem of nothing they may also be able to break the speed limit.
"How did you do that?" "Aw, shucks it was nothing."
Toiea
1 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2014
"Philosophical superficiality has harmed physics" according to quantum gravity expert Carlo Rovelli. Unfortunately the above Lawrence Krauss article still suffers with this superficiality too. The Universe wasn't formed at single place and even if it would be formed, it didn't arise from nothing. We already have much better physical analogies for formation of something from "potentiality" of nothing, like the condensation of particles from their environment. IMO the formation of elementary particles from vacuum is not more miraculous, than for example the formation of snow flake from seemingly empty air. The main reason, why the physicists avoid this simple interpretation is solely ideological and based on belief in immaterial character of vacuum and on fringe ignorance of dense aether concept before years.
Toiea
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2014
It's also not difficult to understand the ideological roots of both physicists. Lawrence Krauss is supporter of string theory, which has dozens of formulations, but only two postulates are fundamental: the extradimensions and Lorentz invariance. For string theorists the space-time is simply empty and background independent. And if it's empty, the matter must be formed from nothing and after then we must find some miraculous mechanism, how it does it. Lawrence Krauss also dismisses the philosophy in physics in any form, because the string theory is strictly formal theory - it's transcendence follows from assumption of extradimensions and existence of many mutually contradicting versions of this theory instead.
The Carlo Rovelli is typical modern quantum gravity theorist, who is focused to research of space-time structure instead and finding of phenomenological models for it. He doesn't push some giant theory from scratch, rather the system of modifications of existing theories.
xx010xx
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2014
Part 1

When I was a 13 year old boy back in 1973, I asked my math teacher what was zero. He answered the boundary between negative and positive.
Then I asked him to define the boundary and he told me he could not. So I had a problem, because zero was back in that time for me .... nothing.
I wasn't able then to crack my problem mathematically so I tried to approach it in a philosophical way of a 13 years old boy's mind to understand what that nothing actually might be.
After several weeks I found an approach to circumscribe what nothing actually was for me:

"Nothing is something because without that something, nothing can not exist" Or in other words: "Nothing=Something and at the same time Something=Nothing"

But there is more ... see part 2
xx010xx
1 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2014
Part 2

Suppose Part 1 is "true", then I need an approach to circumscribe what is "everything" (the whole of it), isn't it?
So if part 1 is "true" then Nothing generates all the Physical, Cosmological, Mathematical etc. laws in this universe which are "true" and without that Nothing all these Laws would fail, right?
Then the universe we live in is generated by this Nothing, thus:

"Everything is nothing because without that nothing, everything can not exist" Or again in other words: "Everything = Nothing and at the same time Nothing = Everything"

It seems if if both parts are "true" then they agree with the arguments listed in Fraser Cain's article.

Question: Do we live in the nothingness of everything or is it the way around or both? Don't dig to deep, you might find...... Nothing or is it Everything??? "Smiley"

Have fun,

Jeff
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2014
Dr. John sang a song a Lo-o-ong time ago -
"Nuthin' from nuthin' means nuthin'. Ya gotta have sumethin'.."
Anyway. It seems we all agree on one thing - nothing is something.
"A spiraling, entropic gyre of existence driven by awareness that just works, if you let it." - Chuck G
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2014
Nothing (the literlal 'nothing') is defined by the absence of any property. Therefore there cannot BE nothing because as as soon as something IS it has a property (viz: being).

In effect the something from nothing argument is quite right: Something is the result of the inability to have nothing. having 'nothingness' is not an attainable state and thefore something must exist.

("Existence exists because it's opposite can't" - Hegel)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2014
@Toiea then ditch the idea of space time.

You just - can't.
Our five senses tell our brains we are surrounded by it and an integral part of it. We ALL sense it, so we must go along with the concensus and work within that framework.

bluehigh
3 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2014
Therefore there cannot BE nothing ..
- AA

Rephrasing: Nothing does not exist. Tautology?

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Aug 23, 2014
It was found, just not at their predicted levels. Hmmm...

@Whyde
perhaps you should PM me about what this means... on Sapo's site...
and include reference material for this conclusion too... thanks.

It just means that when reading the Wiki article, M-M predicted a .4 deviation in light path, but instead got a .02 or thereabouts. Still there, but not a the level they deemed sufficient to explain "aetherial drag"... (which is what they were actually trying to do..) It failed their calculations, so it was considered a failure (at the time). And therefore the subsequent interpretation that aether did not exist.
It reminds me of a Shakespeare quote -
"The best laid plans of mice and men oft gang awry..."
nikola_milovic_378
1 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2014
It is really time that one needs to understand what it is NOTHING. If we start from the two-entity structure of human beings us, it will be easier to understand, if, indeed, there was NOTHING. We are taught to believe that it is not what where we neither see nor feel, nor hear, nor anything we measured, photographed, and the like. Signs to think, where there is no matter and energy, it's NOTHING. If we keep this, then we realized one of us entity (matter and energy), and the other spiritual, from which originated the material, we can not see the measure, record, and so on. It would seem that this is NOTHING. The universe is NOTHING the ether with which the government absolute consciousness of the universe, which is formed from the ether COSMOS (entity of matter and energy). For those with a spiritual stifled, their personal entity, this statement is absurd and they will never understand that in the universe there is nowhere that NOTHING. It is NOTHING that which produces EVERYTHING.
orti
1 / 5 (1) Aug 23, 2014
"What is nothing?" To me the more interesting question is: "Why is there something instead of nothing?" For that you need philosophy and religion. All things are not physical – especially the important things.
Toiea
3 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2014
Why is there something instead of nothing. For that you need philosophy and religion.
IMO not, just probability calculus. Why some particular zero state should be favored over completely random states? IMO this question is simply ill defined. Is it more natural to have space-time well smooth, flat and zeroed or rather pretty randomly curved? Such a state is thermodynamically disfavored and it doesn't help the explanation at all - only occupation of people, who are dealing with it. It just transfers the answer for another generations. Why to bring the notion of origin, if it just brings another question about reason of the formation?
Egleton
5 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2014
Much ado about nothing.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2014
It just means that when reading the Wiki article, M-M predicted a .4 deviation in light path, but instead got a .02 or thereabouts.
@Whyde
but that is not the last word on the subject... try this one, which pretty much is the last word on the subject IMHO
http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf

this invalidates aether theory to a high degree of accuracy. 10 (^-17) which is a far cry better than the MM experiment. you can't always assume that the first word is the defining word... it only drove a single nail into the coffin. that link above (and I have another) pretty much threw the last heaps of dirt on the buried subject.
which, i might add, simply says that there are still experiments going on that prove aether wrong in various ways, which means that until zeph can bring like evidence to the table exposed to the same rigors and peer review, published in the same impact journal, etc, then he is simply clinging to a FAITH, not science.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Aug 23, 2014
Here's another "Buddhist" question for you -
If that tree falling in the forest falls on and kills a guy who happens to be walking under it -
did he hear it? and - is he really dead?
Apparently not - and - not til someone else finds him...
Very Schroedinger - ish...

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2014
Forgive my argumentative bent today (wife's gone an' I'm feeling sorta free of controls), but;
but that is not the last word on the subject... try this one, which pretty much is the last word

Not that I understood most of it, but - the LATEST word, but not the last...:-)
this invalidates aether theory to a high degree of accuracy. 10 (^-17) which is a far cry better than the MM experiment.

But STILL indicating deviation (predicted ~5 x 10-17 ,observed ~7 x 10-17), albeit smaller.
A key drift I got was locality dependence/relevance)
which means that until zeph ...is simply clinging to a FAITH, not science.

I just think he is holding on to his own understanding and interpretation of the meaning of that same data...
(Kinda like that arrest I was telling about - first look at video shows FST failure. A deeper look shows he conditioned the test FOR failure)
A contrarian's (aka - Devil's advocate) work is never done.:-)
bloopotheclown
1 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2014
% is a symbol for zero divided by zero.
%=1...
Nothing (space) constantly going into itself is one, infinite motion.
There are no variables in this equation, yet % can equal any number. Comprehending this paradox, can help visualize a principal quantum equation.
%=1... describes the perpetual motion of elastic space. The motion is one total wave structure, a unity of waves that intersect forming spherical standing waves, matter. Space is one regardless of dividing itself. The waves are not individual, but connected, combined, and multiplied by the perpetual motion of space.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2014

% is a symbol for zero divided by zero.
%=1...

"In mathematics, division by zero is division where the divisor (denominator) is zero. Such a division can be formally expressed as a/0 where a is the dividend (numerator). In ordinary arithmetic, the expression has no meaning, as there is no number which, multiplied by 0, gives a (assuming a≠0), and so division by zero is undefined. Since any number multiplied by zero is zero, the expression 0/0 has no defined value and is called an indeterminate form."

-There are probably sites which cater to bad poets but this is not one of them. Alas it seems to appear regularly. Heres some;

"In effect the something from nothing argument is quite right: Something is the result of the inability to have nothing. having 'nothingness' is not an attainable state and thefore something must exist."

-Blech.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2014
% is a symbol for zero divided by zero.
%=1...
Nothing (space) constantly going into itself is one, infinite motion.
There are no variables in this equation, yet % can equal any number. Comprehending this paradox, can help visualize a principal quantum equation.
%=1... describes the perpetual motion of elastic space. The motion is one total wave structure, a unity of waves that intersect forming spherical standing waves, matter. Space is one regardless of dividing itself. The waves are not individual, but connected, combined, and multiplied by the perpetual motion of space.

Hittin' the hard stuff pretty early, aren't ya Bloop?
bloopotheclown
1 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2014
Everything combined is one whole thing. All is connected and united as the one and only Universe. The Universe is everywhere without beginning or end. Space is the universal unity. Space does not keep us apart, space surrounds and holds us together. Space is not still or empty, space is full of constant motion. All of space has always vibrated together, a background of energy waves continually passing through us and the entire Universe. This perpetual wave motion is the basic energy behind all forces, gravity, light and life. Matter is energy, formed of waves (see Wave Structure of Matter).
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2014
Here is physics' favorite spokesmodel with his own def of 'nothing'
https://www.youtu...hCsaeGgc
Everything combined is one whole thing. All is connected and united as the one and only Universe. The Universe is everywhere without beginning or end. Space is the universal unity. Space does not keep us apart, space surrounds and holds us together. Space is not still or empty, space is full of constant motion. All of space has always vibrated together, a background of energy waves continually passing through us and the entire Universe. This perpetual wave motion is the basic energy behind all forces, gravity, light and life. Matter is energy, formed of waves
"Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!
"Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred."
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Aug 23, 2014
Everything combined is one whole thing. All is connected and united as the one and only Universe. The Universe is everywhere without beginning or end. Space is the universal unity. Space does not keep us apart, space surrounds and holds us together. Space is not still or empty, space is full of constant motion. All of space has always vibrated together, a background of energy waves continually passing through us and the entire Universe. This perpetual wave motion is the basic energy behind all forces, gravity, light and life. Matter is energy, formed of waves (see Wave Structure of Matter).

All well n good as a fancy figurative way of describing it.
Our senses don't perceive it that way, however - just our imagination.
Science is geared to the former, but oft times panders to the latter...:-)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2014
but - the LATEST word, but not the last...:-)
@Whyde
you are correct!
and I stand corrected. Thanks :-)

Everything combined is one whole thing. All is connected and united as the one and only Universe. The Universe is everywhere without beginning or end. Space is the universal unity. Space does not keep us apart, space surrounds and holds us together. Space is not still or empty, space is full of constant motion. All of space has always vibrated together, a background of energy waves continually passing through us and the entire Universe. This perpetual wave motion is the basic energy behind all forces, gravity, light and life. Matter is energy, formed of waves (see Wave Structure of Matter).
@bloop
and (of course) you have empirical evidence of this?
other than jack straight up on an empty stomach with a hit of ''shrumes?
WTF?
Seeker725
1 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2014
The question "What is nothing?" is inherently philosophical. You are forced to define an abstract "not thing" and it becomes a "something" as soon as you define it. The question is a paradoxical piece of trickery.

So get rid of the trickery and re-state the question thusly..."What is empty space made of? Since we cannot escape the universe we are embedded in surely defining empty space is equivalent to defining "What is nothing?

One must list the known properties of empty space.

1. length, width, height
2. the speed of light through it is forced to travel at C, no slower no faster through undistorted spacetime
3. matter and energy pop into and out existence seemingly randomely following quantum mechanical rules
4. it can be "bent" by gravitational fields and the passage of time within it distorted as well
5. it expands over time, possibly exponentially

Space may not be made of anything in the classic sense of it being made of a material substance, but the "NOTHING" plays by rules.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2014
The question "What is nothing?" is inherently philosophical
No, the question has nothing to do whatsoever with philosophy and everything to do with science.

"the most useful progress has been made, again in my experience, by physicists. The work of individuals such as Jim Hartle, and Murray Gell-Mann, Yakir Aharonov, Asher Peres, John Bell and others like them, who have done careful calculations associated with quantum measurement, has led to great progress in our appreciation of the subtle and confusing issues of translating an underlying quantum reality into the classical world we observe. There have been people who one can classify as philosophers who have contributed usefully to this discussion, such as Abner Shimony, but when they have, they have been essentially doing physics... " krauss
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2014
"philosophical speculations about physics and the nature of science are not particularly useful, and have had little or no impact upon progress in my field. Even in several areas associated with what one can rightfully call the philosophy of science I have found the reflections of physicists to be more useful. ... sticking firm to the classical ontological definition of nothing as "the absence of anything"—whatever this means—so essential to theological, and some subset of philosophical intransigence, strikes me as essentially sterile, backward, useless and annoying." again, krauss
Seeker725
1 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2014
The study of "What is Nothing?" is not philosophical, on this we agree. The simple question "What is Nothing?" is philosophical, I stand by my comment.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2014
The study of "What is Nothing?" is not philosophical, on this we agree. The simple question "What is Nothing?" is philosophical, I stand by my comment.
So lets see... we must ask a philosophical question but in order to answer it we must do science. Should we conclude that the eventual answer is then a philosophical or a scientific one?

""Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred."

-blah.
Gyuri
1 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2014
we are talking about primordial particles which are moving much faster than the speed of light. Therefore they cannot be detected by Michelson - Morley type experiments. This empiricist philosophical concept was explored by collision of inelastic particles that cannot rebound after collisions, but translate and rotate relative to their conjoint center of geometry.
See simulation of primordial particles by vector based math at, George Sagi at You Tube
russell_russell
1 / 5 (1) Aug 23, 2014
Akin to AA & Ghost postings there are definitions!
"Without property" or an "indeterminate".

Language is necessary, insufficient and incomplete.
And never stops evolving. If probability exists, then change and chance exists to form and render replacements for definitions representing the information known at that time.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2014

Rephrasing: Nothing does not exist. Tautology?

Yes. Nothing is an intellectual construct (like the number zero). It is an extrapolation to a state that breaks its own rules. Like the number zero it is sometimes useful to have it as a concept. But usefulness does not imply that it must exist in reality.

Which directly answers the question
"Why is there something instead of nothing?"

...because there's no alternative to there being something. (If 'nothing' cannot have a state then -even if it were attainable- it would occupy neither neither space nor have a duration. It would be over the instant it started.)

(The question "why is there something that is like the stuff we observe" is an entirely different question)
dickclarkshead
1 / 5 (1) Aug 23, 2014
...of course there is the notion of infinite density, infinite inertia, infinite propensity(social) et al ...questioning questionable questions raises questions...
...like density between the ears...truly infinity...
javjav
3 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2014
The universe exist, so either something can appear from the nothingness or there was always something. In both cases, the nothingness can not exist. It is a human invention
djpallotta
1 / 5 (1) Aug 23, 2014
By acknowledging Nothing exists, we give perception it. Does the perceptual experience change the state of Nothingness?
malapropism
not rated yet Aug 23, 2014
I used the "urban myth" type example in my post, for effect I admit, but what s/he's actually saying (I think) is that if there's nobody there, no tree falls in fact because it doesn't exist without an observer to perceive it.


So then... When we walk through a woods for the first time, why do we see fallen trees? Something must haven already been there and perceived it for us?

I didn't say I agree with it (I don't - it's a stupid premise) I was only giving my interpretation of what I thought was being posted.

If a thing existed only while an observer was seeing it how would we characterise, say, a camera? Is that an observer? I suggest not since it has no consciousness to realise what is being observed. This whole philosophical argument also breaks down when we consider situations like when a probe goes behind the far side of the moon - presumably it must cease to exist while it can't be observed, and then re-instantiate when it becomes visible? Crazy.
movementiseternal
1 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2014
Space is eternal and infinity place which is nothing!

Space = 0

"In" space is eternal real thing and this eternal real thing is some area very much and there this eternal thing is very density!

some other area dont have so much that eternal real thing and there is not so density!

Eternal real thing = 1

Eternal thing is always pushing to somewhere!

Movement is energy!

Eternal movement!

Eternal recycling!

Onesimpleprinciple
movementiseternal
1 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2014
Denser which have eternal real thing which is always pushing somewhere have own inside movementv / energy and whit that energy / movement / pushing force denser take and keep some space!

Only real force is pushing force!

also photons have density, volume and internal movement / energy and also photons recycling eternal thing all a time!

Thats why old light is redshifting!

New photons are faster and because new photons give old photons some movement / energy / pushing, then old light redshifting!

Thats the way it is going!

:) ;) :)
cyberowen
not rated yet Aug 24, 2014
Please see my previous post
mikep608
1 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2014
t
PROTIP - spell-check is FREE
and MATH is a FAR BETTER means to logical extrapolation of a physics idea than CONJECTURE BASED UPON A FALLACY
sorry mikey, we don't even care whether you like it
(satirical reference to ancient commercials FYI)
Spot the misspellings
@Whyde
we might be talking to a wall here Whyde! LOL
sorry about posting for you... now people will think you are ME
LMFAO


So you're more suited to a 7nth grade English class rather than having the mind for the abstract and conceptual nature of science. You do not understand how the math equations are derived and applied to physics. there is a difference between using the math as a tool to achieve expected results in things like designing electric ciircuits or escape velocity, and then using math to speculate. but you couldn't figure this out mr correct spelling. are you the species who could only copy the same tool for a million year, 'cause you couldn't figure out a ne
mikep608
1 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2014
It was found, just not at their predicted levels. Hmmm...
@Whyde
perhaps you should PM me about what this means... on Sapo's site...
and include reference material for this conclusion too... thanks.

Don't listen to Whyde he only knows how to copy things like spelling. he may be a living member of the species who could only copy the same stone tool for a million years and couldn't visiualize and create something better
SteveGinGTO
1 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2014
It is a shame that this has to be said:

Has cosmology come to this? Asking how many angels can fit on the head of a pin? And then bring commenters into the act, because the Big Boys can't get it done?

And the comments? Gobbledegook posturing against gobbledegook, and each based on Holy Writ - as each reads it. And, as in other Holy Writs, each person can read whatever he/she wants to into it.

Has it come to THIS?

Hoyle and Hubble are probably turning over in their graves...
SteveGinGTO
1 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2014
No, I am not a troll. I know a fair bit of all of this and come at it from a logical, hard-nosed approach. Models and equations replace empirical evidence and experiments, and both are wrapped up in physical-reality untested assumptions. It's like going to the Talmud and the Kabballah to find out the mind of God himself. Just HOW is it different from mysticism?

It's sad. This is a field I seriously considered as a career, long ago.
Mayday
not rated yet Aug 24, 2014
IMO, the barrier to much understanding in these fields is the persistent belief in "space" as the same kind of hard-edged and easily tape-measured space that exists all around us in our macro world. Go greatly larger or smaller and this overly simplistic Euclidean view is not so helpful. What's nothing? It's that gap where our flat-footed macro-based concepts break down. So we fill it with something to keep our brains from exploding.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2014
Q: What is nothing.
A: What's between Captain_Stunty's ears.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2014
Don't listen to Whyde he only knows how to copy things like spelling. he may be a living member of the species who could only copy the same stone tool for a million years and couldn't visiualize and create something better

LOL, Mike. A Little touchy this morning aren't we...
For your info, I don't "copy", I hit the quote button at the bottom of your comment...:-)
As to my use of old tools - well, I use a high tension carbon fiber hammer... But, it's still a hammer... And if it's not used right - you can still mash your thumb and look foolish to on lookers...
Let's analogize that for a moment and imagine the marvelous tool of language - as a hammer, let's say...
Don't use it right and - you guessed it - you'll mash your finger and look foolish to on lookers...
Which is REALLY why you are lashing out. You've realized you looked foolish to on lookers...:-)
Toiea
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2014
the persistent belief in "space" as the same kind of hard-edged and easily tape-measured space
Yes, this is a very good insight. IMO (by AWT) the space forms the smooth continuum with matter and the main reason, why we are observing it sharp and discontinuous is, we are actually quite huge objects. Another indicia of this model is, we are observing the stars like spherical objects, because we are observing the objects at this distance scale from all directions. In AWT everything is made of density fluctuations of the same material (space-time curvatures) - the only thing which matters here is, how complex & nested this fluctuation is. The complex fluctuations can interact at large distance with its neighborhood in complex way like so-called the Boltzmann brains. The source of this complexity is, we managed to move across universe at place long time. In this sense we are exceptional.
Toiea
1 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2014
Of course for schematically thinking physicists and their models (and their wannabes) such ideas sound as unpleasantly, as the ideas about heliocentric model for Galileo opponents. Why? Because in the transition between space and time coordinates their simplistic formal model will not work. Despite of it, the transition of space into time is already contained in Schwarzchild model of black holes, for example (compare the Eddington-Finkelstein spacetime diagram). And by opinion of increasing number of physicists, the tiny particles are equivalent of black holes. So that the space-time inversion is lurking at the surface of matter too.
Toiea
1 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2014
So that at the very end most of dismissals of AWT models and my explanations here follows just from plain ignorance and lack of education of my contemporaries. They're all believing, they're guarding the science and its traditional qualities - but instead of it they're just guarding their own religion & ignorance, because they even don't know/understand, what the contemporary physics is actually about. Their time spent at PO is useless, because they don't actually understand the articles presented here and even if they would, they already forget them with reading of another article. And even if they would occasionally understand and remember the both at the same moment, their theoretical background is insufficient for to get the connections of these two seemingly unrelated pieces of information together. The emergent cognitive background behaves here like the true NOTHINGness for such a people.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2014
Hoyle and Hubble are probably turning over in their graves...

Nope. they're laughin' their asses off...:-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2014
Wow, Toiea. That was one blistering commentary on other peoples comprehension skills...
...because they even don't know/understand, what the contemporary physics is actually about....

It's about re-defining the OLD physics. Doesn't always come out the same way...
Their time spent at PO is useless, because they don't actually understand the articles presented here ...

The articles here are relatively easy to understand (that's what science writers do)."They" just don't understand them from the same perspective as you...
And even if they would occasionally understand and remember the both at the same moment, their theoretical background is insufficient for to get the connections of these two seemingly unrelated pieces of information together.

Maybe they're just not connecting the same dots as you...
Toiea
1 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2014
Of course, Hoyle and Hubble were the most famous opponents of BigBang and expanding universe model in their era.
Toiea
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2014
That was one blistering commentary on other peoples comprehension skills
The comprehension skills aren't really very strong trait, even for contemporary physicists. The above quote of Ashoke Sen's article just illustrates it in full depth:
Elementary particles may be thought of as small black holes...Unfortunately a direct test of string theory requires colliding extremely high energy particles and observing the result of this collision. It is impossible to achieve this with present technology
The string theory was already tested in colliders and these tests failed officially. Their purpose was to observe the formation of tiny black holes, which would be stabilized with extradimensions, which would support the string theory.
Toiea
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2014
Now, just try think about it: during collider experiments many particles are formed routinely. Actually their quantity represents the main obstacle for exact evaluation of high energy collisions. And if these particles are small black holes soughed with string theorists, as the string theorists are saying - how is it possible, their formation would require the energies, which aren't available yet? Weren't they prepared whole myriads of such black holes already?
In this way, the contemporary scientists - despite of their apparent erudition - cannot think logically and they just cannot see the light under the candlestick. And this is just an one example of many others - the search for SUSY particles or gravitational waves all suffer with the same kind of idiocy: they scientists are diligently eliminating just these artifacts from observations, which they're actually supposed to detect and measure. It's very omnipresent attitude in contemporary physics in fact.
Toiea
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2014
Why the physicists are so blind toward it? Well, they've a few good (mostly ideological) reasons for it. At first, it's the occupational criterion: The longer the physicists could continue in their experiments, the more scientists and their grants can get involved. Also, their formal theories are very biased - they recognize the time and space only, nothing between it as we explained above. And when the space gets blurred with matter and time, they're simply lost. Their theories will get violated with their own postulates with no mercy. Now the scientists are in interesting but unenviable position: they're forced to ask for colliders allowing "better confirmation of theories", while they're forced to ignore all existing findings, which support their theories qualitatively well, but quantitatively poorly. Currently the physicists value more the quantitative agreement of their theories over this qualitative one - so that their tactic is as it is.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2014
Why the physicists are so blind toward it? Well, they've a few good (mostly ideological) reasons for it. At first, it's the occupational criterion:

Guess u have to hand it to the mainstream, then. They've created a system that keeps advancing (albeit at a slower pace than your own) and employs an ever growing number of individuals who are working and NOT UNEMPLOYED, thereby not attacking you or others for food or whatever. Kudos to the mainstream guys for "taming the jungle", I'd be inclined to say...
Toiea
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2014
I've no problem with overemployment and stupidity of physicists, but I've problem with the unemployment and poverty of the rest of world, caused with ignorance of research of the cold fusion, magnetic motors (negentropic phenomena) and scalar waves. Not to say about risk of nuclear wars and destruction of life environment.

The problem of layman people is, they don't realize, they're not only threated with things which did happen, but they're getting threatened with things, which didn't happen (although they could). Soon or later the physicists would be forced to accept the existence of these phenomena too, after all - they're just delaying the solution of their problem.
Slick
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2014
As a lay person the one element of the question that grabs me is that time has to be a factor. If time and nothing are mutually exclusive. Time exists exclusively as a function of a measurable distance between any time measured entities emerging from a zero charge probability entity.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2014
Stumpy, Phys.org is science for the layman. If you want serious science then you should direct yourself to the serious science sites that offer actual peer-reviewed papers. Most of the articles here are written by free-lance authors, many of them amateurs, and almost none of them scientists. Contrary to what antigoracle might think, I don't think that you have nothing between your ears. You really want to read peer reviewed papers like what you will find here, http://www.eureka...p?jrnl=A and comment on blogs such as you'll find here, http://blogs.nature.com/. Of course, there goes the fun quotient.

baudrunner
1 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2014
Nothing is the absence of Space, Time, and Matter. If there is a need to represent the concept mathematically, then "0" just won't do. I think that "Infinite Density" fits the bill. With infinite density, you will have infinite potential for differentiation into the fractal expression that creation represents. Big Bang theory doesn't cut it with me because an explosion yields a finite product, and the Universe is infinite. Therefore, the Universe must continue to create at the periphery, beyond which the nothing is differentiated infinitely. So, no big crunch. No collapsing Universe. An object moving at light speed has infinite mass. Expansion of the Universe is observed to accelerate faster the farther out we observe. At the periphery, the "creation front" as it were, infinite mass is being attained (think asympotote). Infinite mass = infinite density = infinite potential meeting requirement for the creation scenario. Lovely psuedo-science (read theory), if you ask me.
Toiea
1 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2014
Most of the articles here are written by free-lance authors, many of them amateurs, and almost none of them scientists
IMO not quite, as the PO is mostly just a copy& paste aggregator of academia & university news, which are mostly written by scientists itself. The PR secretary of the universities only collect & complete the source texts submitted with individual research departments.
Kang Huayue
1 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2014
In Buddhism, it is understood that there is only nothingness and it is only when there is a perception of something that it comes into existence.

Good, so you mean, "there is no such thing called nothing, existence is absolute and it's the real Eternity, it's an a priori conclusion", thus no further discussion. So the starting point of physics should be based on this awareness, and those as Lawrence M. Krauss are only lazy ostriches who hide there heads in the sands ignoring the face that their fundamental assumptions were simply rooted in the philosophical pondering about existence and laughing this history as stupidity and uselessness.
movementiseternal
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2014
Space is nothing!

So, space cant change at all!

Space dont expanding or curving!

Nobody who believe that space expanding, cant tell what happend for expanding space when is expanding!

Space is eternal and infinity place which is nothing!

So, space dont have to expanding!

Quarks expanding and recycling expanding thing / stuff!

Also photons expanding and recycling expanding thing / stuff "in" space which is nothing!

Thats the way it is pushing!

Eternal recycling!

Onesimpleprinciple

:)
yvchawla
not rated yet Aug 25, 2014
Brain can not see any thing without contrast. We are conscious (existence) against being not-conscious (not-existence). This is the totality.
Watebba
1 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2014
Brain can not see any thing without contrast
I.e. noise is nothing and the causal gradients are something. Even the time arrow cannot be estimated within noise.
swordsman
1 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2014
1. Space has electromagnetic properties that define electric and magnetic properties that are common to matter. It is therefore reasonable to believe that space may contain some for of dark matter.

2. Electromagnetic fields bend as they begin to reach the speed of light. As Lord Kelvin put it, space is very similar to a liquid.

For more details, see www.science-site.net
Uncle Ira
1 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2014
@ Everybody. This one has ol Ira really confused. Does anybody have the simple definition of what qualifies to be nothing and to be not-nothing?

I am not the scientist school Skippy but I have read some easy stuffs about scientists doing their work, so I maybe am not reading some of it right. But some of the books say that all the atoms have some empty spaces between them and don't really touch. Is that nothing between thems?

Some of the books say that between the electrons and the nucleus that is mostly really empty and that it is like a fly in a cathedral. Is that nothing in there too?

If somebody has the simple answer to where I am confused I would sure be obliged to know how I can understand what everybody is calling nothing and calling not-nothing.
Uncle Ira
1 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2014
@ P.S. for Everybody. I mean explaining to me without all the philosopher-Skippy word twisting mumbo jumbo gumbo. Simple like. Thanks.
sparkscienceforkids
not rated yet Aug 25, 2014
Nothing can't exist in any form. (Thanks English language for making that last sentence almost incoherent) The very act of conceiving nothing creates or establishes nothing as a thing.
Uncle Ira
1 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2014
Nothing can't exist in any form. (Thanks English language for making that last sentence almost incoherent) The very act of conceiving nothing creates or establishes nothing as a thing.


That does not help me no.

What is "nothing"? It sounds like you saying the nothing is nothing. That's like saying Ira-Skippy is Ira-Skippy to somebody that don't know Ira-Skippy and expecting them to know what you mean, which might work if I'm standing right there but won't mean much if I'm not.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Aug 25, 2014
1. Space has electromagnetic properties that define electric and magnetic properties that are common to matter. It is therefore reasonable to believe that space may contain some for of dark matter.

Are you stating that without matter there is no electromagnetic activity?
2. Electromagnetic fields bend as they begin to reach the speed of light. As Lord Kelvin put it, space is very similar to a liquid.

Lord Kelvin was right. But, do you know in which direction it initially "bends"?

Jerry Seinfeld had a show about "nothing" (in particular) - therefore making it a show about anything. No wonder he's a billionaire...

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2014
Nothing can't exist in any form. (Thanks English language for making that last sentence almost incoherent) The very act of conceiving nothing creates or establishes nothing as a thing.

That does not help me no.
What is "nothing"? It sounds like you saying the nothing is nothing. That's like saying Ira-Skippy is Ira-Skippy to somebody that don't know Ira-Skippy and expecting them to know what you mean, which might work if I'm standing right there but won't mean much if I'm not.

Nothing DOES exist - but only as a point of reference. A concept of comparison. IE a place marker.
It's the one thing that exists ONLY in our heads. When we see "nothing" in a space, for example, what we really are seeing is "empty". Let's go fill it!
Brushfoot
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2014
Nothing doesn't exist.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2014
Nothing DOES exist - but only as a point of reference. A concept of comparison. IE a place marker.
It's the one thing that exists ONLY in our heads. When we see "nothing" in a space, for example, what we really are seeing is "empty". Let's go fill it!


@ Thanks for trying Whydening-Skippy. That makes about as much sense to me as anything else I read so far. That's my fault not yours. What ol Ira has come to think is when we are dealing with "nothing" there is nothing to argue about since everybody is allowed to have their own self's idea of what nothing means to start with. I'm just going to let the philosopher-Skippys argue it out and go with grade-school-science-class-Skippys. Nothing is where there isn't something.
Toiea
3 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2014
Nothing-Something isn't actually a duality. Nothing is just zero state of Something. The negative state of Something is Missing. And the absence of something can have tangible impacts, like the lensing of dark matter or absence of cold fusion research - therefore it's Something again.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2014
Nothing is the absence of time, space, and matter.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2014
... Nothing is where there isn't something.

Until there is...
movementiseternal
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2014
Expanding space dont exist!

Curving space dont exist!

Extra dimensions dont exist!

Pulling force dont exist!

Movement exist!

There is movement from every directions to every directions!

Movement is always pushing force!

Pushing force exist!

:)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2014
Curving space dont exist!

No, but matter assuming a curve WITHIN space certainly does...
Accounts
1 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2014
No space, no time, no energy, no points and especially NO NATURAL LAWS.

Finally no first causes.
movementiseternal
1 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2014
Light bending when is moving near sun because photons recycling eternal thing!

Near sun moving photons get more movement / energy / pushing force for photons which coming from outside sun!

New photons from sun dont give so much energy / pushing force for photons which moving near sun!

So, curving space dont exist! We dont need curving space!

Photons which recycling eternal thing is enaf!

:)

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2014
No space, no time, no energy, no points and especially NO NATURAL LAWS.

Finally no first causes.

You just established a first cause...
moebiex
1 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2014
As I understand what is being said - the simple expression "zero x infinity = 1" would about cover it wouldn't it? It is a circular expression but makes sense in another kind of way. i.e. by this then: 1/0 = infinity and 1/infinity = 0. Everything from nothing and nothing from everything- how could it be anything different?
pandora4real
5 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2014
"Even if you could remove all the particles, shield against all electric and magnetic fields, your box would still contain gravity, because gravity can never be shielded or cancelled out."

So, which is more reasonable. There's a magic force that can do what none other can, or its a mathematical artifact used to describe the curvature of space-time? What happened to parsimony? Why do we need a force like gravity?

Consider Newton's apple. "It was on the tree then started falling, deviating from its restful position, ergo there must be a force". How about, "It was always travelling along a straight line along the curvature of space-time until stopped by the electromagnetic forces holding the stem together. When they broke it continued in its straight line motion until acted upon by an outside force, i.e. the electromagnetic force holding the molecules of ground together"?!?

How about some Heidegger? "Das nichts nichtet".
pandora4real
5 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2014
Expanding space dont exist!

Curving space dont exist!

Extra dimensions dont exist!

Pulling force dont exist!

Movement exist!

There is movement from every directions to every directions!

Movement is always pushing force!

Pushing force exist!

:)


Your ability to put together a grammatically correct English language sentence: "Don't exist". I love these types, "I know what billions cannot comprehend- but I can't learn a language well enough to speak coherently". Right. It's called, "A legend in your own mind".
someone11235813
4 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2014
The only thing, literally the only thing that you can have any certainty about is that you exist. Philosophers, scientists, clerics, or whoever may wonder and argue about what this 'you' that exists is, but whatever it is, it cannot be nothing, therefore it must be something.

Something cannot come from nothing, therefore there can be no such thing as nothing. Whatever anyone wants to call 'nothing' it is something. There is no 'nothing', in the sense that this article means it.

However one may wonder what the use of this knowledge is, other than to point out the fallacy of the Buddhists, who prattle on about nothingness as if it really is nothing.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2014
Well, it must be something - it has 148 comments on it...:-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2014
Light bending when is moving near sun because photons recycling eternal thing!

Near sun moving photons get more movement / energy / pushing force for photons which coming from outside sun!

New photons from sun dont give so much energy / pushing force for photons which moving near sun!

So, curving space dont exist! We dont need curving space!

Photons which recycling eternal thing is enaf!

:)

Man, substance abuse is never pretty, is it....
bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) Aug 26, 2014
Perhaps one way to experience (or not) 'nothing' is quite simple.

Die.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2014
Perhaps one way to experience (or not) 'nothing' is quite simple.

Die.

Let me be polite, here..
After you?
Iourii Gribov
1 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2014
Einstein was first, who recognized, without aether the relativity is unthinkable. But how to construct necessarily weightless "ether" from "SOMETHING"? Solution easily comes from 3D-->4D Multiversal view! Here an empty vacuum can be very dense superfluid, composed of weightless, q=0, S=0 (e-/e+) coupled Cooper-like pairs, where our matter particles are ELEMENTARY DEFECTS = HOLES of "NOTHING" in this weightless superfluid (see my concept of Periodic Waveguided Multiverse (PWM) http://vixra.org/...35v1.pdf . The PWM unites & refines the basic laws (SR&&EP&GR&QM, etc), inseparably emergent in the 3D-waveguided dynamics; correctly explains the PWM-emergent DE&DM-phenomena including two-component DM. The PWM is testable – it predicts (a) antigravity in the anti-hydrogen gravity test at CERN; (b) direct-atypical DM&ANTIMATTER annihilation with radiation of one – visible-detectable and one – dark-undetectable gamma quantum - as basis for the proposed selective direct DM-detection.
Kang Huayue
1 / 5 (1) Aug 26, 2014
Not really, I guess. Although Descartes's conclusion about one's own existence is self-evident and convenient,but his idea is not thoroughly scrutinized and thus inadequate and incomplete. The isolation and hence the disconnection between ourselves and the outside world is the instigator which triggers our doubt and reluctance to recognize the outside as real as ourselves.Descartes doubted everything expect the limitation of his doubt.He didn't realize and include the possibility of the relativity about his own perception of reality.He didn't exclude the possibility of the existence of a much more real and profound state of his perception and the world, and connection of the two. In fact,his speculation of dream was only halfway,he thought his dreams were unreal, but he didn't realize that,"they were real when he himself was in those dreams", he woke up in the morning and underestimated the possibility of a second wake-up,then totally misunderstood them.
The only thing..
Kang Huayue
1 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2014
The only disturbing or interesting thing is, you can not exclude the possibility that there is a much more real world there. We can wake up from a dream or even a series of dreams, so the question turn to be, is there a final state that we will never wake up again? why is it impossible to imagine its existence? All things considered, we should try our best to dream a sweet dream just in case of another wake-up when we are leaving this real world. So we can recall a piece of sweet memory.

You can not tell whether it is real or not if you are involved in it, you can form a good judgement only when you are an outsider.
Kang Huayue
1 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2014
Citing: Jeyaprakash April 30, 2011 at 11:41 am
I too used to have this doubt: How could we take up everything in this world as unreal/maya though we see misery before our eyes. But, I got a better understanding later: As the dreams seem to be completely real when we dream, the life in this world 'seem to be completely real' when we live here. It is just a different perception, at a different state of consciousness. When we go beyond the walking, sleeping and dreaming state and get established in the super consciousness, we would be able to better understand the reality. http://blog.talki.../?p=1767
Kang Huayue
1 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2014
If Existence is absolute,it is always here(and there and everywhere),consequently,we get the word Forever,what does Forever mean? It means in terms of the ontological concept Existence,the concept "time" is Invalid and meaningless,you probably can't apply the idea of linear time to a forever-lasting object,it's meaningless or at least inappropriate and inconvenient.Thus,in the opposite side,we can safely imagine what will happen for a ever-lasting and Evolving and Developing stuff,thing,object.What's it? It means"life and intelligence"had already emerged through a way of continuous trial and error in that 'timeless' Existence for many many or even should be called countless (infinite)times! Isn't it? Thus,if life has the common desire of being immortal,I don't see why it is impossible for a number of highly advanced civilizations to experiment countless times by using the basic method,that is the Trial And Error Caution! Here we have limitless chances and methods!
LariAnn
5 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2014
Nothing will always elude us as observers because, as observers, we cannot separate ourselves out from the observed. Therefore, if we observe "nothing", it is not really nothing because we as observers are part of it. So nothing cannot be observed. Here's an exercise for you - as pure consciousness without a body or other frame of reference, and floating in "nothingness", how do you know how "big" the "space" is? In that situation, from a perceptual standpoint, the space could be infinite or it could be nothing and there is no way you could tell the difference. Same with "time" - how would you know how much "time" you spent floating in the nothingness? No way to do that without at least two reference points. In our reality, the two points are 1) the chronometer and 2) the event to be "timed". For space, there is 1) your reference position and 2) the position of the object whose distance you wish to measure. In nothingness, you would lack all of these.
Kang Huayue
1 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2014
Sorry guys, I'm a little excited. Certainly people will aruge that you forgot the second law,but if we know nothing about the dark enery and matter which the univese mainly consisits of, how can we fool ourselves that it won't be broken down? Experimental Challenges to the Second Law of Thermodynamics
June 10, 2010 at 3:300 PM MST | D. SHEEHAN http://www.scient...ics.html

And the paper (and book,the author published it in June this year) is interesting: The Beginning and the End: The Meaning of Life in a Cosmological Perspective by Clement Vidal http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1648 http://www.amazon...19050613
Kang Huayue
1 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2014
I learned that Gödel is very metaphysical through Palle Yourgrau's book A World Without Time,it refers to an essay written by Gödel,which says he believed he can get the conclusion from relativity theory that, time is invalid.

Albert Einstein Philosopher-Scientist Volume VII in the Library of Living Philosophers, Page 556: A remark about the relationship between relativity theory and idealistic philosophy.
ogg_ogg
1 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2014
It's amazing how confused people don't know they are. 1st: Fraiser says gravity's always attractive. After 159 comments, someone should have called him on that (arguable) error. 2nd: inclusion of ∞ as a number (member of the set of objects of interest) may or may not be postulated...it depends on the mathematics (and the mathematicians). Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Same with a÷0, although this generally isn't allowed (is not defined - hence has no meaning - by definition). Thirdly, he conflates "nothing" with the "vacuum". (& commenters mostly don't understand the epic blunder). IF we postulate space-time can exist without requiring the parallel existence of matter, electromagnetic energy, U(1)xSU(3)xSU(2), quarks, gluons, charge, spin, dark matter, dark energy, inflaton field, higgs field, any field; pretty much 'every'thing, then this (4-D) volume is 'nothing' and is similar to SOME conceptions of 'pure' vacuum. But 'quantum fluctuations' require fields to exist...
ogg_ogg
1 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2014
Like ANY technical term, "nothing" is a tool to use. If it isn't defined, then its useless. If we define it, then we need a context IN which to do so. (basic semantics, this). Confusing levels of meaning is typical of journalists, & seems endemic with commenters here. Some even confuse physical 'Laws' with whats real! We can't speak, except theoretically, about a volume of pure vacuum (see above post). It doesn't exist. We know that. How much time should be spent arguing about it? Do you exist? Does matter exist? Does the number 1 or 0 or π or i? Do thoughts exist? The past? The future? The Present? Context. It depends on context. Our existence (switching gears) is in a context of (what we understand to be) an expanding Universe, with both General Relativistic & Quantum Gauge components (these components are of our understanding, rather than existing independently). We impose persistence: nothing or everything exists. We differentiate, so how do we reductively describe it ALL?
Aligo
Aug 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) Aug 31, 2014
@WG, So much good bourbon to enjoy, so maybe just a general anaesthetic. No time. No space. No experience. Nothing for hours. Or an induced coma ... Experience nothing! Thanks anyway for being polite.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.