| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
09 Oct 2005 04:12:35 PM |
| Object: |
Why is there something instead of nothing? |
Why is there something instead of nothing? Can physics say anything
about this? Or does it assume there has always been something?
.
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
09 Oct 2005 11:42:54 PM |
|
|
<xyzer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128892355.787088.256830@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Why is there something instead of nothing? Can physics say anything
| about this? Or does it assume there has always been something?
The answer to your question is very simple;
Chicken pot pie; that is why. LOL!
Physics doesn't really care all that much. It deals with the fact that
there is "something".
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greysky" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
10 Oct 2005 11:32:17 AM |
|
|
<xyzer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128892355.787088.256830@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Why is there something instead of nothing? Can physics say anything
about this? Or does it assume there has always been something?
You are asking the wrong group of Chuckleheads. Science has absolutely
nothing to say on why there is something instead of nothing, or even if
something is nothing at all. Scientists make models based on
phenomenological, observational information, and presently, there is no area
of science that is resting on a solid foundation. There is no answer that
will put to rest all your questions concerning the nature of Nature. Think
differently? Lets see...
Cosmology: The universe is CRRRAAAZZZYYYY! Nothing adds up anymore. Rotation
rates for the observable matter in the universe doesn't match up with our
gravitational calculations, unless you throw in this mysterious stuff called
Dark Matter, and Dark Energy. The answer I have found decades ago to this
riddle is this: what we call motion is not caused only by force being
applied over distance. Galaxies rotate when the matter within them is under
the influence of other factors which cause motion but that we do not
recognize because we only admit to one explanation for what causes force. We
are crazy, not the universe.
Particle physics: The things that make up the matter in the universe are
crraazzyy! But, if we keep on slapping matter together at higher and higher
energies, we may just find the ultimate particles, which may alleviate the
insanity, and provide some explanations for how this crazy universe is put
together. This is actually a dangerous mind set. It actually has the
potential to kill you and destroy the entire planet. At higher energies,
more and more exotic particles are produced, at higher and higher densities.
These people eventually run the risk of entering us all into the twilight
zone of reality when one of the particles they create remains in the machine
after the experiment, and begins to eat the planet in an unstoppable chain
reaction that will leave nothing behind. And we will not have learned
anything valuable to take to eternity with us. Particle physicists are
stupid people who are blinded by their science from the simple truth that
accelerator experiments are trash collection romps- the particles they
collect are trash particles which Nature created only to dispose of energy
into more stable forms of longer lived particles. Until the next region of
stability is reached - then the trash particles will not go away but begin
to convert the particles making up the collider into new matter. Then the
bodies of the scientists will be consumed, then the earth and you and I will
be eaten in short order. There will be nothing left behind to even show we
chuckleheads had ever even existed unless some aliens take pity on us and
rescue a few of us off-planet in their flying saucers... probably so they
can cage us and laugh at us as an example of a stupid people who forgot that
you do not soil your own nest.
Theoretical physics: Ahh, these guys and gals are doubly screwed over. Once
by trying to make sense of what the cosmologists are telling them they see
through their telescopes, and then again by the particle physicists telling
them what particles they must work with to make any sense of what the cosmo
guys are seeing. But it is all wrong because its based on incomplete data,
so the theories they are coming up with are wrong from the start, and they
are getting wronger [ :-/ ] as they get more complicated.
You see, science stopped being useful 40 years ago when many wrong
assumptions were adopted as 'truth', and has been getting more and more
ridiculous as time goes by when scientists are being forced to make their
hypothesis more and more crazy in order for it to fit their deranged model,
instead of fitting reality. So, if you really want an answer to your
question, ask Bradd Pitt, or Brittany Spears, or the Hilton Sisters. At this
point in time they know more about what's real than most 'Csientists' do. A
truly sad state of affairs...
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Deco" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
10 Oct 2005 01:30:58 PM |
|
|
Greysky <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote:
<xyzer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128892355.787088.256830@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Why is there something instead of nothing? Can physics say anything
about this? Or does it assume there has always been something?
You are asking the wrong group of Chuckleheads. Science has absolutely
nothing to say on why there is something instead of nothing, or even if
something is nothing at all. Scientists make models based on
phenomenological, observational information, and presently, there is no area
of science that is resting on a solid foundation. There is no answer that
will put to rest all your questions concerning the nature of Nature. Think
differently? Lets see...
Cosmology: The universe is CRRRAAAZZZYYYY! Nothing adds up anymore. Rotation
rates for the observable matter in the universe doesn't match up with our
gravitational calculations, unless you throw in this mysterious stuff called
Dark Matter, and Dark Energy. The answer I have found decades ago to this
riddle is this: what we call motion is not caused only by force being
applied over distance. Galaxies rotate when the matter within them is under
the influence of other factors which cause motion but that we do not
recognize because we only admit to one explanation for what causes force. We
are crazy, not the universe.
Particle physics: The things that make up the matter in the universe are
crraazzyy! But, if we keep on slapping matter together at higher and higher
energies, we may just find the ultimate particles, which may alleviate the
insanity, and provide some explanations for how this crazy universe is put
together. This is actually a dangerous mind set. It actually has the
potential to kill you and destroy the entire planet. At higher energies,
more and more exotic particles are produced, at higher and higher densities.
These people eventually run the risk of entering us all into the twilight
zone of reality when one of the particles they create remains in the machine
after the experiment, and begins to eat the planet in an unstoppable chain
reaction that will leave nothing behind. And we will not have learned
anything valuable to take to eternity with us. Particle physicists are
stupid people who are blinded by their science from the simple truth that
accelerator experiments are trash collection romps- the particles they
collect are trash particles which Nature created only to dispose of energy
into more stable forms of longer lived particles. Until the next region of
stability is reached - then the trash particles will not go away but begin
to convert the particles making up the collider into new matter. Then the
bodies of the scientists will be consumed, then the earth and you and I will
be eaten in short order. There will be nothing left behind to even show we
chuckleheads had ever even existed unless some aliens take pity on us and
rescue a few of us off-planet in their flying saucers... probably so they
can cage us and laugh at us as an example of a stupid people who forgot that
you do not soil your own nest.
Theoretical physics: Ahh, these guys and gals are doubly screwed over. Once
by trying to make sense of what the cosmologists are telling them they see
through their telescopes, and then again by the particle physicists telling
them what particles they must work with to make any sense of what the cosmo
guys are seeing. But it is all wrong because its based on incomplete data,
so the theories they are coming up with are wrong from the start, and they
are getting wronger [ :-/ ] as they get more complicated.
Nice rant, especially the "Particle physicists are stupid people who
are blinded by their science from the simple truth that accelerator
experiments are trash collection romps- the particles they collect are
trash particles which Nature created only to dispose of energy into
more stable forms of longer lived particles" part.
You see, science stopped being useful 40 years ago when many wrong
assumptions were adopted as 'truth', and has been getting more and more
ridiculous as time goes by when scientists are being forced to make their
hypothesis more and more crazy in order for it to fit their deranged model,
instead of fitting reality.
Like plate tectonics?
Like genetics?
Like semiconductor lasers?
So, if you really want an answer to your
question, ask Bradd Pitt, or Brittany Spears, or the Hilton Sisters.
You can also ask a saucerhead, they have lots of opinions.
At this
point in time they know more about what's real than most 'Csientists' do. A
truly sad state of affairs...
Any evidence for this assertion today?
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.
Nice kookshite.
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
"The original human being was a female hermaphrodite with
both male and female genitalia."
"Human beings CAN NOT live in a solar system without a sun
with a ferrite core and a planet without a solid iron core."
-- Alexa Cameron, Kook of the Year 2004
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
09 Oct 2005 04:51:53 PM |
|
|
<xyzer@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1128892355.787088.256830@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Why is there something instead of nothing? Can physics say anything
about this?
It's one of the questions we're completely, absolutely, and
totally clueless about. The idea that some entity or process
created us only begs the question.
Another thing we're completely, absolutely, and totally
clueless about is consciousness.
-- Bob Day
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
09 Oct 2005 10:52:06 PM |
|
|
Bob, great follow-up!
As a physicist, contemplating the origins of the universe is already so
much of a brain-strrain for me that I really don't want to enter any
discussion on the nature of "Consciosness" or "Sentience". It's a very
nasty an emotional issue that is best left untouched in a newsgroup
like sci.physics.
Harry C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dividby0" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
10 Oct 2005 02:28:25 AM |
|
|
Everything that "is" today has a reason for being. There must ba a
result of an event that led to the "everything" that "is" today. That
"result" must be the outcome of "something" which was there before
"everything" that "is" today.
To talk of our universe, what was there before the birth of our
universe?
or more precisely "what was there before the big bang?"
"Everything" is an outcome of "something" that was before "eveything".
Thus the big bang might be a result of an event that involved
"something" that existed before the "birth of the universe". But what
was there before the "everything" that "now" exists in the contemporary
"universe" is still intricate.
Maybe we have a series of universes, one crunches and leaves behind
enough energy/matter to cause a "big bang" to raise another.
There is no thing as "nothing".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
09 Oct 2005 05:07:46 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Why is there something instead of nothing? Can physics say anything
about this? Or does it assume there has always been something?
<http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html>
Carroll on what it all means.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
09 Oct 2005 05:57:01 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
xyzer@hotmail.com wrote:
Why is there something instead of nothing? Can physics say anything
about this? Or does it assume there has always been something?
<http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html>
Carroll on what it all means.
Thanks for this link!
Good Read!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
12 Oct 2005 01:45:43 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Why is there something instead of nothing?
Somewhere, there *is* nothing. We just can't know about it. Nobody
can get there to report about it because nobody knows where 'nothing'
is.
Can physics say anything
about this?
I am sure we can *say* something about nothing. People have been
saying something about nothing for many years. Just read a few random
posts in this forum.
Just because we can *say* something doesn't mean that something *means*
something. Something usually means nothing, especially when it is about
nothing.
Nothing is the most heavily advertised thing in the world. It cleans
better than any detergent you can name, it kills more germs than any
disinfectant, it gets better gas mileage than any car, it tastes
better, it's less filling, it's better for your health, it looks better
on your girlfriend than diamonds (*WOW*), ... the list goes on.
Or does it assume there has always been something?
Since when? Sometime? Then? How about now? Or later? Or never?
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
12 Oct 2005 03:22:49 PM |
|
|
".....nobody knows where 'nothing' is."
*********************
How true.
"Darlene, where is that pecan fudge sundae you made last November?"
"I dunno."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
10 Oct 2005 05:29:06 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Why is there something instead of nothing?
That is one of the Great Unanswered Questions. For a list of the others,
consult the Guide.
-- Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
10 Oct 2005 06:28:30 AM |
|
|
In article <didfpk$1ki$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
Ben Rudiak-Gould <br276deleteme@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
xyzer@hotmail.com wrote:
Why is there something instead of nothing?
That is one of the Great Unanswered Questions. For a list of the others,
consult the Guide.
It's an easy answer. Boredom. Look at all the <ahem>
creative problems people think of and insist others solve
them.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
10 Oct 2005 01:43:29 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Why is there something instead of nothing?
You jumped the gun. First questions first: IS there anything?
Can physics say anything about this?
The question of existence comes entirely down to the question of
logical consistency. If the facts true of the world are logically
consistent and entail two statements of the forms A and (not A), then
the underlying premise (that the world exists) is false.
If the facts true of the world are free of self-contradiction, then the
world exists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
10 Oct 2005 03:05:20 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Why is there something instead of nothing?
You jumped the gun. First questions first: IS there anything?
Can physics say anything about this?
The question of existence comes entirely down to the question of
logical consistency. If the facts true of the world are logically
consistent and entail two statements of the forms A and (not A), then
the underlying premise (that the world exists) is false.
If the facts true of the world are free of self-contradiction, then the
world exists.
*************************
One may have facts true of the world or false of the world or
consistent or not consistent - that does not prove anything about the
existence of the world itself. That you are able to post your message
and communicate in a semi-cogent manner proves the world esixsts.
Darlene, another pecan, please.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
10 Oct 2005 05:47:05 PM |
|
|
wrote:
You jumped the gun. First questions first: IS there anything?
Don't be silly. We exist by definition.
The question of existence comes entirely down to the question of
logical consistency. If the facts true of the world are logically
consistent and entail two statements of the forms A and (not A), then
the underlying premise (that the world exists) is false.
If the facts true of the world are free of self-contradiction, then the
world exists.
Why should the world be logically consistent? In my research at the moment
I'm working with a paraconsistent logic, and it's surprisingly elegant.
Maybe the universe is paraconsistent. Maybe it's trivial. I'm not exactly
sure what that would mean, but the requirement of classical consistency
seems so 19th century. Maybe we're wrong that the universe has a
mathematical description at all.
And coming from the other side, what about the anthropic objection? Granted,
there's obviously something wrong with anthropic reasoning, but the question
of what's wrong with it is just as hard as the question of why anything exists.
-- Ben
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fergerson" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
11 Oct 2005 10:32:26 AM |
|
|
wrote:
xyzer@hotmail.com wrote:
Why is there something instead of nothing?
You jumped the gun. First questions first: IS there anything?
Yep.
Can physics say anything about this?
The question of existence comes entirely down to the question of
logical consistency. If the facts true of the world are logically
consistent and entail two statements of the forms A and (not A), then
the underlying premise (that the world exists) is false.
If the facts true of the world are free of self-contradiction, then the
world exists.
But they can't be according to Kurt Godel. Ergo, the Universe
doesn't exist.
Well, I'm glad that's settled.
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
11 Oct 2005 11:12:22 AM |
|
|
Mark Fergerson wrote:
markwh04@yahoo.com wrote:
The question of existence comes entirely down to the question
of logical consistency. If the facts true of the world are
logically consistent and entail two statements of the forms
A and (not A), then the underlying premise (that the world
exists) is false.
If the facts true of the world are free of self-contradiction,
then the world exists.
But they can't be according to Kurt Godel. Ergo, the Universe
doesn't exist.
Well, I'm glad that's settled.
Mark L. Fergerson
Huh?! Godel never showed anything like that. He proved that given
a system with a finite number of non-contradictory axioms, and
including a few counting/indexing axioms, there exist statements
expressable entirely in terms of elements defined by the system
but which are not provable by any finite number of applications
of the axioms.
Any such so-called "undecidable" statement is then a "take it
or leave it" proposition, which in being accepted or rejected
becomes just another choice of axiom giving a distinct pair of
more refined theories each including the starting one.
Since Godel, several examples of statements have been proved
to be undecidable, such as the word problem for groups: If an
infinite group is defined by identities that hold among its
elements, e.g. a^2 = b^3, a.b = c^2.a, etc, the problem asks
for a finite algorithm to decide whether any given two words
such as b^5.a.b.a^2 and a.b^2.c.b^4 are equal, i.e. can be
reduced to each other by a finite number of applications
of the identities, and it can be proved that for most
groups there is no such algorithm.
(This is sort of analogous to deciding whether two Rubik's cube
arrangements can be turned into each other, although of course
in principle there's no difficulty in a situation like that
where the number of possible combinations is finite.)
I think it has been suggested that the Universe is simply a
giant computer, exploring every possible axiom system and
constantly adjoining new ones. Doesn't sound very convincing
to me, but who knows?
Cheers
John R Ramsden (jhnrmsdn@yahoo.com.uk)
* remove m from com to reply
* From address is defunct
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fergerson" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
12 Oct 2005 06:48:21 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Mark Fergerson wrote:
markwh04@yahoo.com wrote:
The question of existence comes entirely down to the question
of logical consistency. If the facts true of the world are
logically consistent and entail two statements of the forms
A and (not A), then the underlying premise (that the world
exists) is false.
If the facts true of the world are free of self-contradiction,
then the world exists.
But they can't be according to Kurt Godel. Ergo, the Universe
doesn't exist.
Well, I'm glad that's settled.
Huh?! Godel never showed anything like that. He proved that given
a system with a finite number of non-contradictory axioms, and
including a few counting/indexing axioms, there exist statements
expressable entirely in terms of elements defined by the system
but which are not provable by any finite number of applications
of the axioms.
Yep. Now please show how a mathematically-based TOE can describe
reality, given that it is guaranteed to produce predictions that
cannot happen.
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ross A. Finlayson" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
12 Oct 2005 12:56:17 PM |
|
|
Mark Fergerson wrote:
john_ramsden@sagitta-ps.com wrote:
Mark Fergerson wrote:
markwh04@yahoo.com wrote:
The question of existence comes entirely down to the question
of logical consistency. If the facts true of the world are
logically consistent and entail two statements of the forms
A and (not A), then the underlying premise (that the world
exists) is false.
If the facts true of the world are free of self-contradiction,
then the world exists.
But they can't be according to Kurt Godel. Ergo, the Universe
doesn't exist.
Well, I'm glad that's settled.
Huh?! Godel never showed anything like that. He proved that given
a system with a finite number of non-contradictory axioms, and
including a few counting/indexing axioms, there exist statements
expressable entirely in terms of elements defined by the system
but which are not provable by any finite number of applications
of the axioms.
Yep. Now please show how a mathematically-based TOE can describe
reality, given that it is guaranteed to produce predictions that
cannot happen.
Mark L. Fergerson
For there to be a Theory of Everything, it would have to be complete.
Otherwise it would not be a theory of everything, that's pretty clear.
One motion in constructivist mathematics is the "excluded middle", for
a proposition P either "P" or "not P", and not both. Then there's
that, or not, or that, or not, or not, ad infinitum, or not.
In set theory, for example ZF set theory, the original set is the empty
set, it contains nothing. Then, the set containing that is a different
set. There are theories with sets and objects besides sets, "set and
other object" theories.
Then, select anything that you agree to be true, everything consistent
with that forms the set of all truths. Then, there still is the
opposite of all those things, but it's so totally opposite that it's
true, because everything is reversed. Even reversal is reversed.
Could you tell if time started going backwards?
Does it matter if you have free will if you think you do?
Down deep, there's probably something like the root probabilistic flaw.
Flipping a coin accurately models a random event.
The null axiom theory doesn't have a finite number of (non-logical or
proper) axioms, it has none. The point is that is also the universal
axiom theory, where every truth is self-evident.
The philosophers have a bit to say about this kind of thing when they
aren't moralizing, which is basically pulp. Hegel's descriptions of
Being and Nothing are very clear and even intuitive. They're the same
thing.
One notion from physics is that nature can't stand a vacuum. By the
same token, the components do fill the medium.
The universe is infinite.
There are solutions to the general three body problem, even if they
aren't tractable to known mathematical methods, do you agree? Then,
there's a solution to the everything problem, including itself, no?
Otherwise it would not be subject to reason and the question would be
moot. So, if it's a meaningful question, is that because you think it
is?
Ross
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
09 Oct 2005 04:16:27 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Why is there something instead of nothing? Can physics say anything
about this? Or does it assume there has always been something?
If you can measure stuff, there has to be something.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
09 Oct 2005 04:40:05 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
xyzer@hotmail.com wrote:
Why is there something instead of nothing? Can physics say
anything about this? Or does it assume there has always
been something?
If you can measure stuff, there has to be something.
That's not a very satisfactory reply.
(Not saying I could do better though!)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
10 Oct 2005 07:35:50 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Why is there something instead of nothing? Can physics say anything
about this? Or does it assume there has always been something?
If there was nothing, you wouldn't be here to ask such a question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
10 Oct 2005 08:02:08 PM |
|
|
Igor wrote:
xyzer@hotmail.com wrote:
Why is there something instead of nothing? Can physics say anything
about this? Or does it assume there has always been something?
If there was nothing, you wouldn't be here to ask such a question.
Are you invoking The Lame Anthropic Principle?
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
11 Oct 2005 10:29:14 AM |
|
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Igor wrote:
xyzer@hotmail.com wrote:
Why is there something instead of nothing? Can physics say anything
about this? Or does it assume there has always been something?
If there was nothing, you wouldn't be here to ask such a question.
Are you invoking The Lame Anthropic Principle?
Bob Kolker
Yes, it is pretty lame, but it's the only way I know to avoid long and
practically meaningless philosophical discussions over such questions.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
10 Oct 2005 12:13:40 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Why is there something instead of nothing? Can physics say anything
about this? Or does it assume there has always been something?
Lenny Susskind et al would tell you that sometimes there is not
something instead of nothing. Or rather, that it's entirely possible
that there is a universe in the multiverse where there is not a
matter/antimatter imbalance and that universe is radiation-dominated,
or that there is a universe where the solution to symmetric physical
laws does not feature spontaneous symmetry breaking and therefore all
particles are massless, or any number of other circumstances.
The weak version of the anthropomorphic principle says that there is
something rather than nothing in *this* universe, because otherwise we
wouldn't be around to ask why there is something other than nothing.
This question then becomes akin to the pond asking why the shore always
meets up to the edge of the pond.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
09 Oct 2005 06:03:20 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Why is there something instead of nothing? Can physics say anything
about this? Or does it assume there has always been something?
Let's assume at one time there was nothing. But then, "something"
happened and there is something instead of nothing. Therefore, there
was always something and the assumption is false.
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
09 Oct 2005 05:43:51 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Why is there something instead of nothing? Can physics say anything
about this? Or does it assume there has always been something?
Perhaps it would help if you could say more precisely what you mean by
"something." If I understand you correctly, though, I would suggest
that your question is more related to philosophy than to physics.
Physics, like any system of describing/predicting/understanding
"something", must reply on the assumption that there is "something" to
describe/predict/understand.
My training is mainly in mathematics, where we often must be aware of
the assumptions on which our "proofs" rely. We must always assume
something. Or, to quote C.S. Lewis, "To 'see through' all things is the
same as not to see." Again, I think it's really an epistemological
question.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
09 Oct 2005 10:40:11 PM |
|
|
Actually you raise an excellent question that is frequently asked or
answered (actually responded to is a better description) to aspiring
physics undergraduate students.
The answer that was provided to our class by Dr. Wehr at Drexel was
very simple and to me made only common sense.
As closely as I can phrase it, his statement was that: "Physics attempt
to explain HOW matter and energy interact, but nevery why they
interact".
"If you want to hear conjecture on WHY they interact, then your chosen
field of study should be Theology, not physics. Physics at this time
cannot provide it."
Physics doesn't ask WHY something is, only HOW nature operates. Physics
also makes observations and measurements, and after carefuly
observation and formulation of first conjectures and theories, attempt
to predict the correctness of these predictions of these theories based
on the results of carefully conducted experimental observation and
careful measurement, formulates experiments intended to invalidate the
theory, but if the thory fails to make
Cosmoligists, for example, explore ramifications of known physics to
speculate on the possibilities of what might be. The conjectures of
these guys are not physics, not are most Cosmoligists physicists of
demonstrated expertise or knowledge of the subject. Sadly their
frequent publicaton of coffee table level books causes the public to
believe that these guys are actually writing about physics, which most
are not.
Physicist don't obsess on what the nature of the electric or magnetic
fields are, simply refine our knowledge of descriptions of how they
behave. Also, there is very little speculation in physice about how the
basic components of the physical universe emerged from what was once an
energy filled vacuum. Sure, the Big Bang, but how and why did the
energy required to produce the Big Bang originate?
To date the best speculation on the subject that I have heard, and tend
to agree with, was that forces yet unknow to man are at work, but man
has yet to discover them (realize that civilize man was totally unaware
of the existance of electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields
until starting roughly about 300 years ago. The observation of nuclear
fission was and its energy yield was, to my knowledge, never observed
prior to the 1930s, and Einsteins predictions of this phenomnon only
around 20 years earlier.
Man has much more to learn about the meachanisms present in the
universe's behavior or functioning.
Perhaps in another 100 years or so, we will understand more deeply how
Nature function at the atomic or sub-atomic level, because the profound
evidence that provides insight into the nature of the universe is still
lacking. Perhaps anouther genius the likes Newton, Maxell, or Einstein
will lead the way. Only time will tell.
Still, I'd strongly predict that Astrophysics and Sub-atomic research
will lead the way in providing a bit of insight and experimental
measurements to some great thinker who will not like live in our
lifetimes, but maybe 100 or even 200 years downstream from all of us.
That tends to be the way it works in the physical science.
Harry C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
09 Oct 2005 10:44:31 PM |
|
|
Still, I'd strongly predict that Astrophysics and Sub-atomic research
will lead the way in providing a bit of insight and experimental
measurements to some great thinker who will not like live in our
lifetimes, but maybe 100 or even 200 years downstream from all of us.
That tends to be the way it works in the physical science.
***************
Wy all these far off times when the Global Brain is locking-in
explosively?????????
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
09 Oct 2005 10:46:12 PM |
|
|
cs/Wy/Why/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? |
02 Nov 2005 04:24:19 PM |
|
|
God's physics.
The atheist scietists need to put the universe
into something bigger: the multiverse
But if the universe is going to expand forever;
which is now the evidence; its future is an
infinite one. Because of this ifninity you can't fit our universe into
a multiverse especially because it is closed as the surface of a
hypersphere.
I say this is the only universe and we are all
the meaning.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
