https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regressInfinite regress:

If proposition 1 = that nothing is a reality. Proposition 1 relies on proposition 2 = everything is a reality. Proposition 3 relies on proposition 2 = in that proposition 2 minus proposition 2 = proposition 1... Proposition 4 = a progression from proposition 1 into proposition 2 (this relies on propositions 1, 2 and 3 and is yet to be defined). Proposition n - 1 = a progression of everything minus the reality of nothing (infinite nothing perhaps, but not nothing infinitely due to no time scale) and proposition n = everything progressing infinitely.

Is this an infinite regress? (Not sure if I am applying the symbols correctly). A virtuous circle perhaps? ... I personally do not view this as an illogical concept. It reads more like an algebraic equation in my eyes, but perhaps it's just me.

In any case I am certainly not the first person in the world to consider nothing as a potential reality that everything else can emerge from. It really does surprise me that we are having such trouble getting past first base here! I would have thought that the attempts that quantum physicists have made in their explorations into a vacuum state speak clearly of this type of investigation being oriented to a creation moment as well as searching for a quantum unification with gravity.

Truly, I think its time I stopped beating around the bush and give it to you straight.

Purely from the information given in the following 3 links, by adding one additional concept I am going to tell you a possibility that I think 'may' have the potential to lead to 'the' theory of everything mentioned in these links.

If you both read these inks in full, please note direct evidence of physicist considering nothing to be something.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_statehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constanthttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particleQuote:

"According to Astrid Lambrecht (2002): "When one empties out a space of all matter and lowers the temperature to absolute zero, one produces in a Gedankenexperiment the quantum vacuum state."[1]"

Unquote

Quote:

"According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.[3][4][5]"

Unquote

Quote:

"In many situations, the vacuum state can be defined to have zero energy, although the actual situation is considerably more subtle. The vacuum state is associated with a zero-point energy, and this zero-point energy has measurable effects. In the laboratory, it may be detected as the Casimir effect. In physical cosmology, the energy of the cosmological vacuum appears as the cosmological constant. In fact, the energy of a cubic centimeter of empty space has been calculated figuratively to be one trillionth of an erg (or 0.6 eV).[8] An outstanding requirement imposed on a potential Theory of Everything is that the energy of the quantum vacuum state must explain the physically observed cosmological constant."

Unquote:

Quote:

"The presence of virtual particles can be rigorously based upon the non-commutation of the quantized electromagnetic fields. Non-commutation means that although the average values of the fields vanish in a quantum vacuum, their variances do not.[15] The term "vacuum fluctuations" refers to the variance of the field strength in the minimal energy state,[16] and is described picturesquely as evidence of "virtual particles".[17]

It is sometimes attempted to provide an intuitive picture of virtual particles based upon the Heisenberg energy-time uncertainty principle:

(with ΔE and Δt being the energy and time variations respectively; ΔE is the accuracy in the measurement of energy and Δt is the time taken in the measurement, and ħ is the Planck constant divided by 2π) arguing along the lines that the short lifetime of virtual particles allows the "borrowing" of large energies from the vacuum and thus permits particle generation for short times.[18]

Although the phenomenon of virtual particles is accepted, this interpretation of the energy-time uncertainty relation is not universal.[19][20] One issue is the use of an uncertainty relation limiting measurement accuracy as though a time uncertainty Δt determines a "budget" for borrowing energy ΔE. Another issue is the meaning of "time" in this relation, because energy and time (unlike position q and momentum p, for example) do not satisfy a canonical commutation relation (such as [q, p] = i ħ).[21] Various schemes have been advanced to construct an observable that has some kind of time interpretation, and yet does satisfy a canonical commutation relation with energy.[22][23] The very many approaches to the energy-time uncertainty principle are a long and continuing subject.[23]"

Unquote

Quote:

"A virtual particle does not necessarily appear to carry the same mass as the corresponding real particle. This is because it appears as "short-lived" and "transient", so that the uncertainty principle allows it to appear not to conserve energy and momentum. The longer a virtual particle appears to "live", the closer its characteristics come to those of an actual particle.

Virtual particles appear in many processes, including particle scattering and Casimir forces. "

Unquote:

Quote:

"Many physicists believe that, because of its intrinsically perturbative character, the concept of virtual particles is often confusing and misleading, and is thus best avoided.[4][5]"

Unquote:

Physicists have been juggling these concepts around for years. The suggestion I make has never been made before by anyone else. It has not been considered.

GR describes time dilation perfectly. We can run GPS, mobile phones, set your clock by it. There is no disputing this... But what sort of time dilation is GR describing?

I propose that GR is describing a mass near mass time dilation effect, and that proper locational gravitational time dilation has been completely overlooked as a result of GR's assertions.

I propose that locational gravitational time dilation is as widely variant in its scale as the strength of a gravity field is. (I can explain this further but for now if you will accept this experimentally as the premiss)

Any mathematical structure that is based on a time measurement in relation to a momentum or a length needs to take into account the rate time is occurring at for the subject matter being measured.

In the case of a "perfect" vacuum state, (this being a one time occurrence) time would be set at zero. For 'whatever reason' it may have cause to occur, a quantum fluctuation (Casimir effect) would have to initiate time as it emerges. Time is now set at notch 1. It is occurring really very slowly indeed. Therefore giving rise to more potential for other quantum fluctuations to occur, producing virtual particles that will, in this rate of slow time, not be "fleeting"!

Quote:

"Quantum field theory Edit

See also: Vacuum catastrophe

List of unsolved problems in physics

Why can't the zero-point energy of the vacuum be interpreted as a cosmological constant? What causes the discrepancies?

A major outstanding problem is that most quantum field theories predict a huge value for the quantum vacuum. A common assumption is that the quantum vacuum is equivalent to the cosmological constant. Although no theory exists that supports this assumption, arguments can be made in its favor.[14]

Such arguments are usually based on dimensional analysis and effective field theory. If the universe is described by an effective local quantum field theory down to the Planck scale, then we would expect a cosmological constant of the order of (it didn't print the maths here). As noted above, the measured cosmological constant is smaller than this by a factor of 10−120. This discrepancy has been called "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics!".[15]"

Unquote

Wouldn't this problem be helped by the fact of an early universe that occurred in much 'slower time'?

Wouldn't this problem be exaggerated by a mathematically flawed Planck scale?

Wouldn't the concept of quantum physics be adversely affected by a mathematically flawed Planck's h constant?

Taking this to the other extreme, we can now have a cause for the Hawking's temperature quandary.

Now, I 'may well' not be right (chuckle), but what I am suggesting presents a very simple idea as a solution to some long standing physics problems, and this idea 'is' based in logic.