The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Nothingness does not exist?  (Read 10592 times)

Offline Fluid_thinker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Nothingness does not exist?
« on: 07/05/2009 17:07:18 »
It seems that a space and even vacuums are not empty. Everytime we drill down, we get to the point where something else exists. How does electromagetic or gravity exist in an environment where particles do not exist.

Is this the premise of Energy can exist here? Albeit in incredibly small quantities or size? Is this the premise of string theory?


 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Nothingness does not exist?
« Reply #1 on: 07/05/2009 17:36:11 »
I suspect that there is a condition where empty space can be devoid of material particles and energy. That condition probably does not exist anywhere in this universe. Present day theories generally assume that space is an empty nothingness. Lately, however, we have taken to the notion that space can expand. If it can expand, it must have some property that can be different in the future than it was in the past.

I know of only two properties of empty space. Those are electric permittivity and magnetic permeability. Those two properties allow for the propagation of electromagnetism.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Nothingness does not exist?
« Reply #2 on: 07/05/2009 20:52:03 »
Is this the premise of Energy can exist here? Albeit in incredibly small quantities or size? Is this the premise of string theory?

This is probably a question that won't have a full answer until we understand quantum gravity. 

My vote for the best current theory of "nothingness" is quantum field theory (QFT), which pretty much agrees with what you say.  In QFT, each point in space is filled with fields.  Even for empty space, these fields have some tiny energy associated with them, and have a chance of spitting out particles.  The one problem with this theory, as I understand it, is that if you sum up all the energy associated with these empty fields, you should have a lot more "dark energy" in the universe than we observe, but at least over small scales, it seems to be the most accurate theory we have.
 

Ethos

  • Guest
Nothingness does not exist?
« Reply #3 on: 07/05/2009 21:06:07 »
This answer to this question truly lies at the foundational nature of the universe. There are those who insist that space is constructed of a fabric, just what this fabric is made of, is nevertheless also in question. On the otherhand, others insist that true space is absolute nothingness.

I have long been troubled by the concept of action at a distance and if space is truly nothingness, we need to understand how this action occurs. Action at a distance is understood as a force applied locally having the ability to perturb an object remote from itself. With nothingness standing between, how is this perturbation accomplished? The most common explanation is that carriers of force particles are sent from the local influence and upon reaching the remote object, they transfer their energies to it.

Now we come to the big question, the difference between particle and wave. If the force particle is a true particle, it simply travels from point A to point B where it gives up it's energy to the remote object. If the transfer of energy is accomplished by a wave, what is the wave moving thru? For a wave to exist, it must have a medium to move thru.

This is the conundrum:

How can light energy be a particle and a wave at the same time? If it's a particle, it simply leaves it's source and transfers it's energy upon reaching it's distination. This can be understood as transpiring thru the nothingness of space. If on the otherhand, light is transmitted as a wave thru space, what is the medium thru which it is moving? I have heard many explanations about this process but to this date, none has sufficiently satisfied my understanding.

I am open to any and all possible explanations about this phenomenon.

How can light be a particle and a wave at the same time?
 
« Last Edit: 09/05/2009 01:26:22 by Ethos »
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Nothingness does not exist?
« Reply #4 on: 07/05/2009 23:50:15 »
Firstly... what is space?
I suspect that there is a condition where empty space can be devoid of material particles and energy. That condition probably does not exist anywhere in this universe. Present day theories generally assume that space is an empty nothingness. Lately, however, we have taken to the notion that space can expand. If it can expand, it must have some property that can be different in the future than it was in the past.

I know of only two properties of empty space. Those are electric permittivity and magnetic permeability. Those two properties allow for the propagation of electromagnetism.

or is this just a place where another dimension is dominant?
 

Offline Raghavendra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 835
  • Quantum
    • View Profile
    • Raghavendra
Nothingness does not exist?
« Reply #5 on: 08/05/2009 12:37:29 »
Which particles are you talking about.... Elementary particles...

  No one thinks it is drilled
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Nothingness does not exist?
« Reply #6 on: 08/05/2009 13:10:07 »
Quote from: echochartruse
or is this just a place where another dimension is dominant?
Dimensions other than the three of space and one of time can be imagined. So far as anyone knows, they can not be experienced. The same is true for virtual entities. To me those things are only place holders to be replaced by real things after the real things are discovered.

 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Nothingness does not exist?
« Reply #7 on: 08/05/2009 13:21:55 »
Which particles are you talking about.... Elementary particles...

  No one thinks it is drilled
I'm not sure what this is in reference to. When I refer to a particle, I mean any material thing that can be a constituent of some more complex material thing. So, sub-atomic, atomic, and super-atomic particles all qualify as members of the class.
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Nothingness does not exist?
« Reply #8 on: 08/05/2009 14:34:51 »
Dimensions other than the three of space and one of time can be imagined. So far as anyone knows, they can not be experienced. The same is true for virtual entities. To me those things are only place holders to be replaced by real things after the real things are discovered.
If they can not be experienced then some may think there is 'nothing' and when we learn to see/experience the other dimensions, they will be discovered and that space, that nothingness will be filled.
« Last Edit: 08/05/2009 14:37:06 by echochartruse »
 

Ethos

  • Guest
Nothingness does not exist?
« Reply #9 on: 08/05/2009 23:03:29 »
Which particles are you talking about.... Elementary particles...


Speaking of particles; I would be interested in a definition that spells out the difference between a particle and the associated energy that is required to create it. I find it very difficult to divorce one from the other, only in the relationship that E=MC^2 gives a greater value to the energy but also draws an equivalence. In my mind, I view matter in what ever form it takes as; Localized Orbital Energy Flux Because the energy flux has established a center around which it revolves, in various shells or clouds, we define it as matter. Even though it may be impossible to point to a particular location and say with certainty that, here resides the electron, the energy asssociated with the formation of this particle can be said to reside within a general area.

Now we come to the question; If matter is only energy that has found a way to become localized, what is the seed around which this energy congregates. And why does it now demonstrate the phenomenon of gravitational attraction?

I spoke earlier about action at a distance. When it is realized that even within very small particles, space is still the dominant feature and when we boil it all down, the electromagnetic wave is still the cause behind almost every action. Even gravity may have an electromagnetic explanation. Again I must ask; Whether dealing with matter or energy, when we speak about waves, there must be a medium thru which the wave propagates.

What is this medium?
« Last Edit: 09/05/2009 01:39:14 by Ethos »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Nothingness does not exist?
« Reply #10 on: 10/05/2009 17:01:40 »
Quote from: Ethos
Now we come to the question; If matter is only energy that has found a way to become localized, what is the seed around which this energy congregates. And why does it now demonstrate the phenomenon of gravitational attraction?
I think the gravitational attraction is there even before the energy finds a way to become localized. Gravity belongs to the energy. Matter exhibits gravitational attraction because of its relationship with energy IMHO.

I guess the only way we could ever know whether there is some medium responsible for the propagation of electromagnetic fields would be to find some place where this medium does not exist.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2009 17:06:57 by Vern »
 

Offline irish del

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Nothingness does not exist?
« Reply #11 on: 11/05/2009 00:44:57 »
If you can see any stars then there is something.....
Photons of light are traveling through space all the time in all directions from there source ......
I wonder if you where to sit on the first photon of light from the big bang what would you see ?? maybe the only time you could have seen nothing...
 

Ethos

  • Guest
Nothingness does not exist?
« Reply #12 on: 11/05/2009 00:50:20 »
Quote from: Ethos
Now we come to the question; If matter is only energy that has found a way to become localized, what is the seed around which this energy congregates. And why does it now demonstrate the phenomenon of gravitational attraction?
I think the gravitational attraction is there even before the energy finds a way to become localized. Gravity belongs to the energy. Matter exhibits gravitational attraction because of its relationship with energy IMHO.
I happen to agree with this Vern, but I'm not sure how many others will. I stated earlier that I believe that gravitation also attracts energy because light will bend in a gravitational field. So matter and energy are influenced by gravity and I think you can agree to this also.

What follows may seem like an unusual question but I'll ask it anyway.

Is matter responsible for the gravitational effect or, is energy responsible for the creation of gravity which in turn becomes the creator of matter? At first glance, this view may seem a bit backwards. What leads me to ask this question is this; Energy must, IMHO, come first whether one believes in the Big Bang or Steadystate model. Energy effects the geometry of space thru the electromagnetic force and causes these waves we've been talking about. The waves are the evidence that the geometry is changed because without them, space remains flat and uniform. It is common belief for science to suppose that matter is the cause of gravity. I'm not so sure!

Because energy came first, what follows is my hypothesis:

Energy waves change the structure of space from flat to wave. The waves create a vortex around which gravity finds it's local influence. As energy is everywhere, the local vortex begins to accumulate the supply of energy surrounding it. At some point, according to the equation; E=MC^2, the quanity of energy becomes great enough for the creation of matter. Again I stress, whether Big Bang or Steadystate, the energy was first. So somewhere along the time line, a mechanism for the formation of matter has to be discovered.

In my view of things, Energy gives rise to the Gravity. And Gravity gives rise to the Matter. So you see, IMHO, Gravity is responsible for the creation of Matter and not the other way around.

...........................Ethos


« Last Edit: 11/05/2009 00:52:58 by Ethos »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Nothingness does not exist?
« Reply #13 on: 11/05/2009 02:05:42 »
I have things pretty solid in my mind about how energy, matter, and gravity interact. That does not mean that they do interact that way. It is just a consistent concept that works for me. :)

Gravity comes from energy. Matter exhibits gravity because it is made of energy trapped in a localized area. So I think we agree up to there. I don't know if there needs to be a medium to convey the electromagnetic waves through space. I don't know if it is important to know that. We do know that when an electron moves at one place, it affects electrons in other places so that they may move in response. We know that there is a speed-of-light delay between the first movement and the second movement.
« Last Edit: 11/05/2009 02:08:27 by Vern »
 

Ethos

  • Guest
Nothingness does not exist?
« Reply #14 on: 11/05/2009 03:06:27 »
I have things pretty solid in my mind about how energy, matter, and gravity interact. That does not mean that they do interact that way. It is just a consistent concept that works for me. :)

Fair enough my friend. But consider this once if you will. I think we both can agree that energy is the first stage in this creational event. Ask yourself this; What is it that causes the energy to change character and convert to matter? What ever this stimulus is, I don't believe it has been identified yet. One might surmise that because gravity is associated with both energy and matter, it could be the culprit. Just because we find larger assemblages of matter in association with larger values of gravity does not positively identify matter as the causal agent. It could be just as true that gravity is the cause instead of matter. This would also satisfy the question about; What caused energy to transmute into matter shortly after the Big Bang. It would also explain how the universe converts energy into the necessary matter to sustain the Steady State model.

It's just a thought my friend, but somethimes we need to think like Copernicus about how the planets move. Once upon a time, we thought the Sun revolved around the Earth. It took a man with vision to think about it in completely opposite terms to find the truth. Nevertheless, I fear it's going to be very difficult to persuade anyone that instead of matter being responsible for gravity, it might be the other way around. And as I'm perfectly aware, this approach may not be valid. I just had to ask myself; Does matter give rise to gravity or, is it the other way around?

............................Ethos
« Last Edit: 11/05/2009 04:42:13 by Ethos »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Nothingness does not exist?
« Reply #15 on: 11/05/2009 13:48:09 »
Quote from: Ethos
What is it that causes the energy to change character and convert to matter?
When we consider a universe where the only thing that exists is electric and magnetic fields, the answer is easy. Any change in electric and magnetic amplitude at one point in space affects all adjacent points, tending them toward the same direction of change. The change continues until the point of greatest amplitude reaches saturation. Upon reaching saturation, the point reverses direction of change. This affects all adjacent points, so that they don't reach saturation, but immediately follow the change in amplitude of the first point. Thus we have a quantum of electromagnetic change moving through space.

The result of this action is ripples in space that move as points of saturation surrounded by electric and magnetic fields diminishing in amplitude away from the points. When these moving points pass very close to each other, the above-described action can change the direction of travel of each. Any change in direction produces a residual electric charge because the surrounding fields can not be symmetrical in the curve of the path of the points. The residual electric charge acts upon the points as positive feedback that tends to decrease the turn radius.

The Fine Structure Constant is the ratio of the bend radius to the charge amplitude. When the bend radius is such that a complete circle is formed within one wave length, self resonance and positive feedback can hold the pattern in a local area. This is how I see the formation of an electron from electromagnetic fields.
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Nothingness does not exist?
« Reply #16 on: 05/06/2009 23:46:33 »
speaking of particles...............Who could ever imagine particles as large as galaxies, stretching and stretching with the expansion of the universe. Particles that can only be detected when they react with an atom.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Nothingness does not exist?
« Reply #17 on: 06/06/2009 13:31:06 »
speaking of particles...............Who could ever imagine particles as large as galaxies, stretching and stretching with the expansion of the universe. Particles that can only be detected when they react with an atom.

Well, I can imagine it. But the image doesn't have real form until we can detect some evidence that such a thing might exist.
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Nothingness does not exist?
« Reply #18 on: 07/06/2009 00:32:58 »
"Dark matter, for example, has never been directly observed. But astrophysicists have found proof that dark matter exists based on its effect on colliding galaxies."

"While trying to calculate masses for neutrinos, Fuller and his student Chad Kishimoto found that, as the universe has expanded, the fabric of space-time has been tugging at ancient neutrinos, stretching the particles' ranges over vast distances."


Just amazing............. read this http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090602-particles-larger-than-galaxies.html
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Nothingness does not exist?
« Reply #19 on: 07/06/2009 00:43:49 »
The more amazing part to me is that they managed to get it published in a peer reviewed journal. :)

Edit: The paper suggests that neutrinos would be stretched by the expanding universe just as light is stretched. You would think that if light is stretched other massless entities could be stretched as well. And so the reasoning went. I'm still waiting for a description of the spacial property of space that accommodates the expansion. It seems that we're back to aether, this time on steroids.
« Last Edit: 07/06/2009 12:58:33 by Vern »
 

Offline Raghavendra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 835
  • Quantum
    • View Profile
    • Raghavendra
Nothingness does not exist?
« Reply #20 on: 08/06/2009 08:36:44 »
 On my point of view...,  Electromagnetic & gravitation exists by some energy which has been converted/ nature, depending upon how we understand....
  Hardy einstein couldn't explain in his theory of every thing
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Nothingness does not exist?
« Reply #21 on: 08/06/2009 12:29:52 »
I suspect that Einstein could not complete his unification theory because he was heavily invested in the notion of variable space-time. A logical trail to unification comes from the notion of flat space-time. The logic is simple. Matter must be composed of a fundamental constituent that must always move at the invariant speed of light; this forces matter to distort when in motion; we see this distortion of matter as relativity phenomena.
 

Offline Fluid_thinker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Nothingness does not exist?
« Reply #22 on: 09/06/2009 10:22:09 »
Some really good discussion in here. Ty.

If you think that our universe may be inside something bigger then gravity can exist outside. Dark energy, is external Gravity as the 'great attractor'

Energy in our universe may have been first, but gravity was already in the 'thing' that is the home to our universe. Therefore Vern's thoughts are interesting.

As Ethos says, let the mind go!!

Just because we understand our universe immense range of scale, limits our thinking to believe there is a bigger possibility.

Maybe this is what we consider other dimensions, the influence of our universe inside something else. The concept that nothing existed before our universe is 'nothing existed in our universe'

that does not preclude the possibility that it was created in 'something' already existing.

 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Nothingness does not exist?
« Reply #23 on: 09/06/2009 12:02:42 »
The idea that our universe is unique and was created together with space and time from a Primevial Atom seems to me simply a creationist theory. We always tended to place humanity on top of the ladder of existence. Even in QM theory, we tend to say that wave-function collapse occurs due to observation.

I suspect that there is a deeper underlying reality to nature and that this little chunk of it that we experience is no different than any other. Speculation can run rampant. We can imagine multiple universes popping into existence side by side or in a series of expanding and collapsing universes.

IMHO we can never know how we came into existence with any amount of certainty. But we may be able to place limits on some possibilities. For example, we already know the universe is larger than it could possibly get given the present laws of nature and the time constraints of the big bang scenario. So, until we realize how utterly ridiculous it is, we just say that natures laws were different in the past.

« Last Edit: 09/06/2009 13:13:30 by Vern »
 

lyner

  • Guest
Nothingness does not exist?
« Reply #24 on: 09/06/2009 14:09:10 »
I agree with you Vern.
The nonsensical thing about "where we came from" implies there is a before, a beginning an after and a direction to the time. That is so limited.
All we can say is that we are aware of existence in a subset of a larger system.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Nothingness does not exist?
« Reply #24 on: 09/06/2009 14:09:10 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums