Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login - Register]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1    3
Author: Subject: Irony of borrowing from nothingness concept
Morgan
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1326
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 25-1-2012 at 07:54
Irony of borrowing from nothingness concept


I wonder if we will ever understand how you go about making a universe - how to split nothingness into positive and negative charges. In one sense you apparently don't need anything, it just happens. Maybe you could use a giant electrophorus. ha

"To understand how something can come out of nothing, he writes, you have to appreciate the fact that "there probably isn't anything here anyway" -- that "at a deep level there is nothing" in the universe, really. "The substrate of existence," he argues, "is nothing at all."
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2011/06/the...
View user's profile View All Posts By User
neptunium
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 921
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline

Mood: meta stable

[*] posted on 25-1-2012 at 08:08


tricky concept hum?
if you wait long enough ,things that normaly dont happen in the physical world will happen.
long enough being trillions of trillions of years ,much longer than the life of the universe.
99% of any atom is mostly empty space.
that space is space its something called space its not nothingness.
it has a certain level of potential energy in a balanced state.
the balance could tilt either way (positive or negative energy) and in fact it does it all the time , the average of all this positive and negative energy is most of the time equal to zero...but wait long enough and things start to happen .
Particules seems to pop up out of it or...whole universes
the quantum foam is too small to be seen but its effect can be felt in laboratory.




Http://www.d-radlab.com/
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
White Yeti
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 816
Registered: 20-7-2011
Location: Asperger's spectrum
Member Is Offline

Mood: delocalized

[*] posted on 25-1-2012 at 10:38


Interesting stuff.

There's actually a theory (it might be outdated) that black holes radiate positive gravity particles which appear from.... nothingness.

Actually, I don't think the universe is "nothingness". In fact, I'd argue that the universe is (or once was) pure energy. You could argue that the big bang was just a colossal conversion of massive amounts of energy to matter.

I like armchair speculation on this subject, because it involves things that are beyond our understanding. I think that if there is perfect symmetry in this universe, we would have to find "negative energy". Since everythig with mass has energy, we would either have to find negative mass or negative energy to prove that the universe came from nothing, and is perfectly symmetric.




"Ja, Kalzium, das ist alles!" -Otto Loewi
View user's profile View All Posts By User
neptunium
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 921
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline

Mood: meta stable

[*] posted on 25-1-2012 at 10:52


Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti  
Interesting stuff.

There's actually a theory (it might be outdated) that black holes radiate positive gravity particles which appear from.... nothingness.

Actually, I don't think the universe is "nothingness". In fact, I'd argue that the universe is (or once was) pure energy. You could argue that the big bang was just a colossal conversion of massive amounts of energy to matter.


back in the golden age of black holes (70's and 80's) it was speculated that black holes evaporate over time by radiating real particules from the vacuum...is a gamma ray of energy >1.02Mev passes by a black hole just at the event horizon, and materialises in a pair of electron/positron one could be free if the other was captured by the black hole.
hence the radiation of real particule from pure energy.

the universe is NOT nothingness it arises FROM nothingness ,
i like these armchair speculation as well ....

one thing that wakes me up at night (besides the bills and my wife) is the fact that this very universe we live in could very well be the last edition of a non working concept and many many trials of failled universes could indeed came to be on a scale of time beyond comprehension...this universe and reality could be just one that works for intelligent life to wonder and think about it .




Http://www.d-radlab.com/
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
White Yeti
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 816
Registered: 20-7-2011
Location: Asperger's spectrum
Member Is Offline

Mood: delocalized

[*] posted on 25-1-2012 at 11:07


Quote: Originally posted by neptunium  
the universe is NOT nothingness it arises FROM nothingness ,
i like these armchair speculation as well ....


That's my point, if the universe arose from nothingness, it would mean that it has perfect symmetry, that is, all the mass and all the energy in this universe adds up to zero, meaning there is either negative mass or negative energy somewhere out there and we haven't found it yet. This, of course would rely on E=mc2 being completely and unquestionably correct, even at the instant of a big bang or in the presence of black holes and what not.




"Ja, Kalzium, das ist alles!" -Otto Loewi
View user's profile View All Posts By User
neptunium
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 921
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline

Mood: meta stable

[*] posted on 25-1-2012 at 11:13


do you remember the anti matter problem?

it was true the first few milliseconds of the universe life but somehow 1 in a billion particule of matter versus anti matter was in exes , resulting in what we can see today. everything came from that 1 in a billion particule that survived the original anihilation.
why? i am not smart enough to answer that but it did happen.
so what now? is E=MC2 not true?
no it is still valid for what we can see and experiment with today but somehow 1 particule out of 10e9 survived....




Http://www.d-radlab.com/
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Adas
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 711
Registered: 21-9-2011
Location: Slovakia
Member Is Offline

Mood: Sensitive to shock and friction

[*] posted on 25-1-2012 at 11:26


How can you say it was created out of "nothing"???



Rest In Pieces!
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
neptunium
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 921
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline

Mood: meta stable

[*] posted on 25-1-2012 at 11:29


how? because a lot of people think so. and thats the best we've got! there has to be nothing before anything right?



Http://www.d-radlab.com/
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
phlogiston
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1262
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline

Mood: pyrophoric

[*] posted on 25-1-2012 at 15:16


AFAIK the theory that black holes radiate (so called hawking radiation) is still thought to be correct.

What puzzles me is how conservation of energy is preserved by black holes.

You gain energy when mass falls into the black holes gravity field. Eventually it dissapears into the black hole, but its mass is converted into radiation (=more energy).

Where is any work being performed in this process?




-----
"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down, that's not my concern said Wernher von Braun" - Tom Lehrer
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Sedit
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1934
Registered: 23-11-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: Manic Expressive

[*] posted on 25-1-2012 at 18:33




Since we are on an armchair basis here I have no shame in stating that there is no such thing as matter, all matter appears to be is a bending of electromagnetic radiation by energy to give the appearance of a solid object of a specific color. It has already been proven that matter and energy are interchangeable, I argue that it is energy in the form of a standing wave that causes it to push other standing waves(other matter) away from itself causing the illusion of it being a solid object.

My hypothesis goes much deeper then this but its a rough outline on how I view matter. I have done much research into standing waves and I have noticed groups of them moving though water and acting as if it where a solid object. If those waves where to small for me to see I would no doubt feel that the cluster was nothing more then a solid object.

[Edited on 26-1-2012 by Sedit]





Knowledge is useless to useless people...

"I see a lot of patterns in our behavior as a nation that parallel a lot of other historical processes. The fall of Rome, the fall of Germany — the fall of the ruling country, the people who think they can do whatever they want without anybody else's consent. I've seen this story before."~Maynard James Keenan
View user's profile View All Posts By User
phlogiston
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1262
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline

Mood: pyrophoric

[*] posted on 26-1-2012 at 06:33


There is no such things as a 'solid object'.
At the smallest level, particles have no dimensions or color.

The fact that we experience something as solid at the human scale is because electromagnetic interactions generate a force. If you push your finger against the wall, what you feel pushing back are the electrons in the wall exchanging (virtual) photons with the electrons in the tip your finger.

Consider a 'collision' of elementary particles, for instance in a accelerator. What I imagine really happens is that the speeding particles exchange photons/gluons/Z-bosons etc, and these mediate a force between the two, altering their trajectory, or even generating new particles if the interaction is energetic enough. It is called a 'collision', but the process is quite different from what you might picture as a such at the human scale.




-----
"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down, that's not my concern said Wernher von Braun" - Tom Lehrer
View user's profile View All Posts By User
neptunium
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 921
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline

Mood: meta stable

[*] posted on 26-1-2012 at 07:42


Quote: Originally posted by Sedit  


Since we are on an armchair basis here I have no shame in stating that there is no such thing as matter, all matter appears to be is a bending of electromagnetic radiation by energy to give the appearance of a solid object of a specific color. It has already been proven that matter and energy are interchangeable, I argue that it is energy in the form of a standing wave that causes it to push other standing waves(other matter) away from itself causing the illusion of it being a solid object.

My hypothesis goes much deeper then this but its a rough outline on how I view matter. I have done much research into standing waves and I have noticed groups of them moving though water and acting as if it where a solid object. If those waves where to small for me to see I would no doubt feel that the cluster was nothing more then a solid object.

[Edited on 26-1-2012 by Sedit]


sounds alot like string theory.




Http://www.d-radlab.com/
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Bot0nist
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1559
Registered: 15-2-2011
Location: Right behind you.
Member Is Offline

Mood: Streching my cotyledons.

[*] posted on 26-1-2012 at 07:47


Quote: Originally posted by Sedit  


Since we are on an armchair basis here I have no shame in stating that there is no such thing as matter, all matter appears to be is a bending of electromagnetic radiation by energy to give the appearance of a solid object of a specific color. It has already been proven that matter and energy are interchangeable, I argue that it is energy in the form of a standing wave that causes it to push other standing waves(other matter) away from itself causing the illusion of it being a solid object.

My hypothesis goes much deeper then this but its a rough outline on how I view matter. I have done much research into standing waves and I have noticed groups of them moving though water and acting as if it where a solid object. If those waves where to small for me to see I would no doubt feel that the cluster was nothing more then a solid object.

[Edited on 26-1-2012 by Sedit]


Have you read "The Holographic Universe"?, by Talbot I think.

It was a great read. I love speculation on this subject a well. There are many good programs that I have seen recently on the science channels. Some stuff will really blow your mind. A lot of really good science (and some bad). The book talked a lot about interference patterns, and how the holographic model explained many of the unexplainables in physics. I definitely recommend it. Even if it is not meant to be taken "seriously," it is still great at stretching the bounds of your logic and helping see things from a different perspective.




U.T.F.S.E. and learn the joys of autodidacticism!


Don't judge each day only by the harvest you reap, but also by the seeds you sow.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Pulverulescent
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 792
Registered: 31-1-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: Torn between two monikers ─ "hissingnoise" and the present incarnation!

[*] posted on 26-1-2012 at 09:40


"irony of borrowing from nothingness concept"???

If this isn't completely nonsensical ─ then I'm losing my fucking mind!

P
View user's profile View All Posts By User
neptunium
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 921
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline

Mood: meta stable

[*] posted on 26-1-2012 at 14:25


relax ! it will be alright




Http://www.d-radlab.com/
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Pulverulescent
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 792
Registered: 31-1-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: Torn between two monikers ─ "hissingnoise" and the present incarnation!

[*] posted on 26-1-2012 at 14:49


(er) We are talking about the same thing?
What'll be alright?

P
View user's profile View All Posts By User
neptunium
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 921
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline

Mood: meta stable

[*] posted on 26-1-2012 at 14:54


you,re not gonna lose your mind brother, the subject is very interesting but very abstract and at limit of science fiction...
i think its cool




Http://www.d-radlab.com/
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Morgan
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1326
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 26-1-2012 at 18:22


While this podcast doesn't provide any answer to the question of how it all began, it does a good job of hinting about the nature of how "it" works. The actual start of the program begins around the 2:30 minute mark if you want to skip the chaff. At first you will probably be skeptical, but as you listen to the analogies with air and Joseph Priestley, light and eyes, and such you might get a glimmer of perceiving the universe in a new way. One of the speakers remarks that the idea presented in the book is kind of creepy. And to me too, it's kind of eerie to look at what might really be going on and what is to come. If you can just hang in there, the latter part of the talk will be worth the listen I think.
I promise you won't lose your mind, there's some stairstepping but I didn't hear anything along the lines of my feeble attempt of satirizing "borrowing from nothingness" or all adding up to zero as in the article I first posted/linked.
Recall the article...
"To understand how something can come out of nothing, he writes, you have to appreciate the fact that "there probably isn't anything here anyway" -- that "at a deep level there is nothing" in the universe, really."

Anyway, this talk explores a different aspect, and might provide some clues.
What Does Technology Want?
http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2010/nov/16/idea...

View user's profile View All Posts By User
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
*****




Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 26-1-2012 at 22:51


Why do you assume that the universe began with nothingness? Also remember that there is a relationship between mass, space, and gravity. The phenomena of space arrises from mass. The phenomena of mass arrises from the potential energy of gravitational force. "Space" is a very long wavelength type of energy, so long that the flux is imperceptible. The "vacuum" energy (responsible for radioactive decay) is more of a rogue wave phenomena. In the absence of space, matter would move infinitely fast, simultaneously occupying an entire linear path, which is the same effect that would be observed if the matter was without mass. Neutrinos have a much lower cross section interaction, so it is possible to exceed the speed of light because there is less coupling with the vacuum energy. The coupling between light and vacuum energy is analogous to the coupling between a photon of light inside a transparent dielectric medium. (Photons are, in fact, statistically transiently absorbed into their medium, but they are reradiated in synchrony due to interference phenomena, rather than scattered)

The original reason for discounting the theory of the "aether" as a medium for the propagation of light did itself become obsolete after the theory of relativity, but theorists never went back to reexamine their justification for the non-existence of aether. In other words, it is a logical fallacy to infer that the Michelson–Morley experiment disproves the theory of aether while at the same time accepting the theory of relativity. The "aether" itself is electromagnetic radiation subject to relativity, so any possible confirmation of the Michelson–Morley experiment would be contradictory to the theory of relativity.

As for the nature of the universe, the only thing that can be said is that everything that "exists" is only relative to everything else that exists. It is illogical to claim any inherent property for anything outside of this.

[Edited on 27-1-2012 by AndersHoveland]
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
neptunium
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 921
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline

Mood: meta stable

[*] posted on 27-1-2012 at 09:34


Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland  
Why do you assume that the universe began with nothingness? Also remember that there is a relationship between mass, space, and gravity. The phenomena of space arrises from mass. The phenomena of mass arrises from the potential energy of gravitational force. "Space" is a very long wavelength type of energy, so long that the flux is imperceptible. The "vacuum" energy (responsible for radioactive decay)]


i am a simple man with a simple mind ...you lost me there !
however
Neutrinos DO have a mass indeed o.o7 ev ! small ! granted, and a very discrete cross section but absolutly no potential for traveling over the speed of light at all!
did you mean tachions? theorytical particules invented to account for observation on entanglement.

please explain the vacuum energy and radioactive decay?





Http://www.d-radlab.com/
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Morgan
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1326
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 27-1-2012 at 10:35


I don't think there's an explantion, for neither proposition seems to make any sense. 13 billion years ago and then here we are, incubated from stars, all the horror and wonder and on some level not a clue to where these forces are headed. In the podcast it was brought up how the eye evolves without any direction or intelligent design, and yet some powerful force drives it to happen. There's a kind of intelligence in matter that likes to mimic itself, to parrot the sounds it hears, to playback the images of itself.
I was watching an episode of The Power of Myth where Joseph Campbell talks about the earth as an embryo and people becoming it's eyes to see itself. And when asked about a purpose he says there is no purpose to life.

This article kind of plays into the closing theme of the podcast of What Technology Wants and where the author assumes we are headed, the podcast suggesting higher artificial life forms may come to solve the riddle but we, never to comprehend.
Humans will become the 'dogs of the house', says Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak
http://www.news.com.au/technology/humans-will-become-the-pet...
Or this thought ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_hlGm8V3Yc#t=6m0s


[Edited on 27-1-2012 by Morgan]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Pulverulescent
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 792
Registered: 31-1-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: Torn between two monikers ─ "hissingnoise" and the present incarnation!

[*] posted on 27-1-2012 at 12:58


Quote:
you,re not gonna lose your mind brother, the subject is very interesting but very abstract and at limit of science fiction...
i think its cool

I can give you only one out of three, nep!
'Could try harder . . . :D

P
View user's profile View All Posts By User
neptunium
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 921
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline

Mood: meta stable

[*] posted on 27-1-2012 at 17:47


talking about time without space is irrelevant, talking about space without time is irrelevant as well...
time and space are one aspect of reality. it can be stretched and compress at will , but i still struggle to understand where does radioactivity fits in all of this .....
protons are the longest living particules known but yet they too have a half life of several trillion years...so what is matter ?



wait i am getting off course.

time matter and space were created at the big bang thats a known fact, but from what ? nothing ?
possibly ,
the M theory ( M or brane for menbrane) put a recycling universe that keeps bouncing on itself ,and everytime it does ,a new big bang appear...again thats just a theory but very seductive i may say ...
it does beg the question...
where and when the hell does it all begin????




Http://www.d-radlab.com/
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Morgan
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1326
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 27-1-2012 at 20:54


Tidbit about the cube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Gt4WSK_NlQ&feature=fvwp&...
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Morgan
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1326
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 28-1-2012 at 11:56


Roses and hummingbirds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCqA9EHQDYE#t=1m0s
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1    3

  Go To Top