If there was ever Absolutely Nothing would there ever be....anything?

[cashflo2u2]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Picture the [/FONT]infinite [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]universe as containing nothing. It [/FONT]has no light, no dust, no particles of any kind, no air, no elements, no molecules[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif], no spirit, no force fields[/FONT]. It's absolute nothingness. In fact, we can call it Absolutely Nothing.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]


So here's the question: if originally -- bazillions of years ago -- there was Absolutely Nothing, [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]could there ever be....anything? What is your answer and what are the implications of your answer?

I need to know.
[/FONT]

 

[tightasadrum]

Will this affect the overall return of my retirement portfolio?

 

[Martha]

Until someone proves otherwise, the evidence is that the total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never more or less.

 

[Dudester]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Picture the [/FONT]infinite [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]universe as containing nothing. It [/FONT]has no light, no dust, no particles of any kind, no air, no elements, no molecules[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif], no spirit, no force fields[/FONT]. It's absolute nothingness. In fact, we can call it Absolutely Nothing.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]


So here's the question: if originally -- bazillions of years ago -- there was Absolutely Nothing, [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]could there ever be....anything? What is your answer and what are the implications of your answer?

I need to know.
[/FONT]

Here's my highly unscientific, highly un-mathematical explanation:

Note that 0 = 1 + (-1)

We may (without loss of generality) interpret this as saying that nothing (i.e., 0 in the above equation) is the combination of the universe (i.e., the "one"-verse, denoted by "1" in the above equation) and the negative universe (or anti-universe, denoted by "-1" in the above equation).

Also note that physicists have proven the existence of "anti-particles." For example the anti-particle of a proton is an anti-proton. The particles constitute the universe, the anti-particles, the anti-universe. Combine a particle with an anti-particle and you get a "nothing" particle as predicted by the above equation.

QED

 

[Khan]

Are you older than 21 and not using weed?

 

[Dudester]

Will this affect the overall return of my retirement portfolio?

If there's nothing, it's really hard to get much of a return on your investments.

 

[donheff]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Picture the [/FONT]infinite [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]universe as containing nothing. It [/FONT]has no light, no dust, no particles of any kind, no air, no elements, no molecules[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif], no spirit, no force fields[/FONT]. It's absolute nothingness. In fact, we can call it Absolutely Nothing.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

Sounds like there is no "there" there so it can't be pictured. Once you start to picture it you add spacial dimensions and then you no longer have nothing.

 

[Dudester]

Sounds like there is no "there" there so it can't be pictured. Once you start to picture it you add spacial dimensions and then you no longer have nothing.

Quote from Gertrude Stein: "There is no there there" [referring to Oakland, CA]

Sounds like you have just described Oakland.

 

[SteveR]

Einstein would say if there were no matter then the only thing there could be is pure energy if the Nothing become something. Matter and energy can and do change back and forth so if there is no matter but later there is then what was there has to be only energy.

 

[cashflo2u2]

Sounds like there is no "there" there so it can't be pictured. Once you start to picture it you add spacial dimensions and then you no longer have nothing.

Is that the same as saying that "Nothing" is a noun and therefore must refer to something? I hope not.

 

[cashflo2u2]

Look, the title to this board is "Life After Fire" so I thought this was an appropriate place to ask such a question. Plus, I find the denizens of these boards to be highly intelligent, humorous and knowledgeable on many issues.

 

[RetiredGypsy]

You can't imagine absolute nothingness. By imagining nothing you are, in fact, imagining something, and if you're imagining something then something has to be in that something that you're imagining. Kind of like when you're doing nothing (laying around the house, being lazy, etc) you're still doing something. You're forced to give nothingness somethingness.

What you then have is an infinite number, because even 0 is the absence of something, and you cannot go below a 0 sum of anything, at least in real world math. What you're suggesting is taking an infinite number (absolute nothingness) and seeing if something can be added to it. However, that's impossible, because if you can add something to infinity, you're not really at infinity because at that point nothing can be added; you'd always have one more thing that could be added.

So, maybe the better question is "imagine a tiny ball of something, outside of which no time or space exists or matter exists: could the universe have really come from that?" Was this originally supposed to be a kind of theological question?

 

[Lsbcal]

I got a real kick out of reading this thread -- very imaginative answers. The existence of this thread definitely proves that we can have nothingness.

 

[cashflo2u2]

You can't imagine absolute nothingness. By imagining nothing you are, in fact, imagining something, and if you're imagining something then something has to be in that something that you're imagining. Kind of like when you're doing nothing (laying around the house, being lazy, etc) you're still doing something. You're forced to give nothingness somethingness.

What you then have is an infinite number, because even 0 is the absence of something, and you cannot go below a 0 sum of anything, at least in real world math. What you're suggesting is taking an infinite number (absolute nothingness) and seeing if something can be added to it. However, that's impossible, because if you can add something to infinity, you're not really at infinity because at that point nothing can be added; you'd always have one more thing that could be added.

So, maybe the better question is "imagine a tiny ball of something, outside of which no time or space exists or matter exists: could the universe have really come from that?" Was this originally supposed to be a kind of theological question?

Maybe I made the question a little too theatrical with the imagining part. I am not sure what you are saying about the theory of absence. Basically, are you answering the question saying that if there is something now, then there never could have been nothing? No, it was not a theological question but it could have theologically implications. When you are retired you think about these things.

 

[youbet]

Sometimes it's most satisfying to just let the mystery be.......

 

[Average Joe]

Why “absolutely nothing” rather than just “nothing?”
The qualifier incorrectly waters down the definition of "nothing."
There is something or there is nothing. What’s in between?
The “absolutely” in your phrasing is as unnecessary as the “totally” in “totally unnecessary.”

 

[cashflo2u2]

Until someone proves otherwise, the evidence is that the total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never more or less.

Ok. I guess Martha is saying that matter and energy are self existent and there never was nothing. That's an an plausible answer imo.

 

[cashflo2u2]

Why “absolutely nothing” rather than just “nothing?”
The qualifier incorrectly waters down the definition of "nothing."
There is something or there is nothing. What’s in between?
The “absolutely” in your phrasing is as unnecessary as the “totally” in “totally unnecessary.”

You are absolutely right, oops, I mean you are right.

 

[Notmuchlonger]

Will this affect the overall return of my retirement portfolio?

This is the best answer that ever will be.

 

[RetiredGypsy]

The closest we've gotten to any kind of original nothingness is the "Big Bang" theory. I think another popular one that hasn't quite died out yet was Carl Sagan's oscillating universe theory, but from what I've come to understand of it, it contradicts itself. Bill Bryson had a little blurb about it in A Short History of Nearly Everything. Hugely entertaining read. Another fascinating book on "something from nothing" is Lee Strobel's The Case For A Creator.

I am suggesting that there is a lot of something now, and the best we can come up with that doesn't involve complete speculation without any convincing supporting evidence (such as some variations of string or superstring theory; 11 dimensions of dancing strings? Abandoning Occam's Razor, much?) suggests that there was a beginning that had something in it. However, no theory can be explained by the purely physical. For example, if there was this tiny ball of "comic beginning stuff: now in easy to explode package!" then how do we get from unexcited cosmic goop that so far has been perfectly content to stay in its tiny ball to an expanding universe? If it's always been in an excited state and it just took a while to hit some sort of critical junction that started the whole show, then energy has been created from nothing, and that would make the baby Einstein cry.

 

[cashflo2u2]

For example, if there was this tiny ball of "comic beginning stuff: now in easy to explode package!" then how do we get from unexcited cosmic goop that so far has been perfectly content to stay in its tiny ball to an expanding universe? If it's always been in an excited state and it just took a while to hit some sort of critical junction that started the whole show, then energy has been created from nothing, and that would make the baby Einstein cry.

OK, I see what you are saying but that sounds like time had something to do with making the tiny ball of or goop, poop or explode. But time itself is not a force and can't do anything, e.g., put cookie dough in the oven for 30 minutes and you have cookies but it is not the time that does it. Put the dough on the counter for 50 years or whatever and no cookies.

 

[RetiredGypsy]

No, time would be irrelevant. Time didn't exist yet. I'm talking about forces of physics. The hands had to apply the pressure and mix the ingredients to create the cookie dough in the first place, causing the original substances to change their properties to become a batch of chocolate chip goodness. Again, the hand had to apply compressive forces to mash a little bit of cookie dough, then move it to the oven, where heat was transferred into the cookie dough, causing more chemical reactions that even further change the properties of the substance, and when the hand removes the cookie dough, further heat transfer occurs in removing heat from the cookies into the atmosphere to make the cookies cool enough to eat.

What didn't happen was that the ingredients made it from their packages, to the mixing bowl, to the baking pan, to the oven and back out again from forces acting inside the ingredients. Forces independent of the ingredients caused a bunch of goop to become yummy delicious cookies, just as good as mom used to make. Mmmmm, cookies.

 

[HFWR]

Hell, I barely passed 101; whattaya askin' me for?

I'm satisfied that, for my purposes, Newtonian physics will do...

If there must be a Creator, who created the Creator?

And one more thing, e=mc^2, so a teensy-weensy bit of energy converts to a whole chitload of matter.

 

[Notmuchlonger]

I like the big bang theory. It just sounds good.

 

[Dudester]

Look, the title to this board is "Life After Fire" so I thought this was an appropriate place to ask such a question. Plus, I find the denizens of these boards to be highly intelligent, humorous and knowledgeable on many issues.

If you are interested in a serious answer to your question, I suggest you read the PDF file found at the following link:

http://tedsider.org/books/riddles/chapters_1_5.pdf

Note that this PDF consists of two chapters: chapter 1 and chapter 5 (This raises the question of why some chapters exist and others don't). You want to read chapter 5.