How can anything come from nothing

  • Thread starter wolram
  • Start date
In summary: I don't think it's contradictory, because it's just a lack of something. It's like saying "there's no air in a room". There's a lack of something that we can see and touch. Originally posted by Wolram In summary, the best explanation for creation I've heard is that there was something (possibly nothing) that created the universe, and that everything in it comes from something else. There was a force that existed before BB that caused things to happen, and our existence proves that absolute nothing is impossible.
  • #281
Saying that there was nothing before Big Bang is the same as saying that energy can be created(eventually out of nothing). According to the law of energy, energy can not be created, nor can it extinguish. In my opinion, that means that there was something before Big Bang.
More like energy can be created in nothing, and out of this creation - We have the energy of nothing as a conceptual thing. Saying that energy can not be created or destroyed is a correct statement if all you are working with is that which has already been created.

One must be in a state of Non-Existence to create that which does not exist. This is a bit of a loaded sentence. Easily understood though if you accept that you are the reality of Non-Existence.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #282
Originally posted by Thallium
Though I am a little late in this discussion I would like to add something.

Saying that there was nothing before Big Bang is the same as saying that energy can be created(eventually out of nothing). According to the law of energy, energy can not be created, nor can it extinguish. In my opinion, that means that there was something before Big Bang.

Energy CAN be created. Mass converts to energy readily in nuclear processes.

'Nothing' can be converted into countervalent properties just as Ø can be converted to (+1)+(-1).
 
  • #283
A point is something.
Yes ( A conceptual something ) And that something is nothing. This is a contradiction to you. I see a contradiction, but I accept it for what it is. I can't note a difference without this contradiction. How can I tell one nothing from another without the concept of one?
Indeed, but it's still something, isn't it?
Yep - It's nothing (one thing of nothing). One defines ... Nothing is being defined by one.
your sentence is equal to "Not discussing anything makes it a thing"
You twisted that sentence to fit your agenda.


Basically, if you are using the word "nothing", and then realize that you are referring to something, you should then abandon the use of the word "nothing" in that context, and find another word.
Perhaps I could use the word (VOID) to make you happy.
 
  • #284
Energy CAN be created. Mass converts to energy readily in nuclear processes.
Rather Mass is Energy. It's more like a redistribution than a conversion.

'Nothing' can be converted into countervalent properties just as Ø can be converted to (+1)+(-1).
I'm in a forest without a compass. Point me in the right direction so I can get somewhere in the direction of understanding.
 
  • #285
Originally posted by Messiah
You don't REALLY believe photons are elemental particles, do you? Where do they go when they 'die'?




Although this is not a reply to me. I can't help but declare that photons are fundamental, and they never die.
 
  • #286
'Nothing' can be converted into countervalent properties just as Ø can be converted to (+1)+(-1).

Actually, I don't think it can. (+1)+(-1)=0, not 'nothing'. Zero describes an absence of things, nothing describes an absence. Not an absence of any particular thing, simply an absence. Unlike zero, there is no value "less" than nothing, because nothing is NOT a value at all, but rather a lack of one.
 
  • #287
Ok, energy can be created. But out of nothing? Then what basic fundamentals is needed to create energy? There must be 'something', a source for the energy.

This brought another thought. A little digression from the energy-talk. We are all structured beings of chemicals and particles. Take the human embryo. Where do all the particles that make the embryo grow come from? Is everything from the mother?

The DNA creates new cells via mitose, but the particles in these cells, where do they come from? Are they created?

A mouthful of questions I know and to me it is very confusing.
 
  • #288
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Rather Mass is Energy. It's more like a redistribution than a conversion.

Kind of. It's like saying ice is water. Same basic material (existence) - two different conditions (rapidly changing vs relatively static).

Originally posted by UltraPi1
I'm in a forest without a compass. Point me in the right direction so I can get somewhere in the direction of understanding.

Elucidation at - Theory of Reciprocity

Originally posted by UltraPi1 Although this is not a reply to me. I can't help but declare that photons are fundamental, and they never die.

Where do they go when light is absorbed? They convert into heat/electricity/something else?? This shows that this is a condition - a chain reaction - which is propagated, not an 'entity' which moves very fast. Else we'd be knee deep in photon corpses.


Originally posted by Sikz
Actually, I don't think it can. (+1)+(-1)=0, not 'nothing'. Zero describes an absence of things, nothing describes an absence. Not an absence of any particular thing, simply an absence. Unlike zero, there is no value "less" than nothing, because nothing is NOT a value at all, but rather a lack of one.

{Ø X Everything = Nothing} doesn't it??
 
  • #289
Where do they go when light is absorbed? They convert into heat/electricity/something else?? This shows that this is a condition - a chain reaction - which is propagated, not an 'entity' which moves very fast. Else we'd be knee deep in photon corpses.
In my opinion a photon is not absorbed. There is no conversion. It is my contention that all matter is made of photons, and that all photons propogate at C always. I even go as far as to say that a gravitational field is an extension of a photon. Essentially all there is ... is photons. Matter to me is localized photons. I.E They orbit at C. I say that a photon never dies partly because there are no collisions - There is nothing there to collide with.
 
  • #290
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Essentially all there is ... is photons. Matter to me is localized photons. I.E

Are YOU a photon?? Is your body comprised of photons??
Are you saying that the entire Universe is composed of a single species of homogeneous and structureless particles?
 
  • #291
Originally posted by Messiah
Energy CAN be created. Mass converts to energy readily in nuclear processes.

'Nothing' can be converted into countervalent properties just as Ø can be converted to (+1)+(-1).

It wouldn't be nothing, if "it" could be converted...there was something there and there wasn't (that's quantum reasoning for ya).
 
  • #292
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Yes ( A conceptual something ) And that something is nothing. This is a contradiction to you. I see a contradiction, but I accept it for what it is. I can't note a difference without this contradiction. How can I tell one nothing from another without the concept of one?

This contradiction is easily resolved by using another term. The word "nothing" cannot be (correctly) used to refer to a thing...thus, when I say that a fundamental entity is something, it doesn't make sense for you to say that "that something is nothing". That something is something. A very real something.

Yep - It's nothing (one thing of nothing). One defines ... Nothing is being defined by one.

If nothing is being defined then there is no definition...think about it: if I were to ask you, "what have you defined", and you were to answer, "nothing", then the semantics would dictate that you had just told me that you hadn't defined anything...that's why the E.I.N.S. works.

You twisted that sentence to fit your agenda.

I rephrased the sentence in terms that are semantically equal to your sentence, but which make the true non-sensicalness of the sentence more apparent.

Perhaps I could use the word (VOID) to make you happy.

Indeed you could. A void is something, and there can be one void, or there can be many voids. However, the word "nothing" is already taken, and it doesn't equal "void".
 
  • #293
Originally posted by Mentat
It wouldn't be nothing, if "it" could be converted...there was something there and there wasn't (that's quantum reasoning for ya).
That is the difference between 'non-existence' - which is abstract and Ø - which is not.

If you look in ANY Webster's dictionary, both the abstract of 'non-existence' and the mathematical term 'Zero' are listed as definitions. There are two official connotations. If you wish to recognize only one, that is your privilege, but in communicating with other individuals, it is often necessary to recognize both.
 
  • #294
Are YOU a photon?? Is your body comprised of photons??
Are you saying that the entire Universe is composed of a single species of homogeneous and structureless particles?
Yes, Yes, and Yes. This isn't much of a stretch - Al you got to do is look at the element chart and see how it is accepted that all those elements are made of the same stuff. Nobody seems to have much of a problem with that. Whats the difference? We can make mass with a whole lotta photons under the right conditions. We can make a whole lotta photons with mass under the right conditions. Seems to me the writing is on the wall in capital letters.
 
  • #295
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Yes, Yes, and Yes. This isn't much of a stretch - Al you got to do is look at the element chart and see how it is accepted that all those elements are made of the same stuff. Nobody seems to have much of a problem with that. Whats the difference? We can make mass with a whole lotta photons under the right conditions. We can make a whole lotta photons with mass under the right conditions. Seems to me the writing is on the wall in capital letters.

That is interesting. There is a certain symmetry that exists between matter\antimatter and photons. A particle antiparticle pair can annihilate with each other to form a photon pair of equivalent energy. Photon pairs can also produce a particle/antiparticle pair.

Consider a photon: It has no rest mass, no charge, and has a purely space-like motion. It's a very symmetrical particle.

Consider a electron: It has rest mass, it has charge, it has a purely time-like motion; that is from the perspective of four-dimensional space-time, a massive particle's velocity vector always points in the time direction in the frame of the particle itself.

A massive particle, such as an electron, is now imbued with all these characteristics that the original photon did not have. The symmetry is broken but is maintained between the particle/antiparticle pair.

Just as the speed of a photon is constant in space, an electron (or any fermion for that matter) has a constant speed in time.
 
  • #296
This contradiction is easily resolved by using another term. The word "nothing" cannot be (correctly) used to refer to a thing...thus, when I say that a fundamental entity is something, it doesn't make sense for you to say that "that something is nothing". That something is something. A very real something.
Been through this before with you. Nothing does not do the referring - The concept does.

If nothing is being defined then there is no definition...think about it: if I were to ask you, "what have you defined", and you were to answer, "nothing", then the semantics would dictate that you had just told me that you hadn't defined anything...that's why the E.I.N.S. works.
You're twisting this one too. If I say - (I defined nothing) I didn't say that I hadn't, but that I had, and if I replace hadn't with had as it should be. It would still read wrong, because now it would read ( I had defined anything). It should read by your standards {I had defined not anything as a thing}. I would personally rather just say ( I defined nothing as a thing). I'll buy both, but prefer to say nothing - It reads better.
You apparently say it's impossible have a thing of nothing. I say it is possible. I will agree to disagree. You should too, because this merry go round is making us dizzy.
 
  • #297
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Yes, Yes, and Yes. This isn't much of a stretch - Al you got to do is look at the element chart and see how it is accepted that all those elements are made of the same stuff. Nobody seems to have much of a problem with that. Whats the difference? We can make mass with a whole lotta photons under the right conditions. We can make a whole lotta photons with mass under the right conditions. Seems to me the writing is on the wall in capital letters.


Then why is it so that you contain other elements like carbon or H2O? These are not photons. Do I misunderstand?
 
  • #298
Then why is it so that you contain other elements like carbon or H2O? These are not photons. Do I misunderstand?
I would have to say yes - You do misunderstand. If we ask - What are we made out of? We could name off elements, and the percentage of each element that makes us up. We could go further and name off the particles that make up these elements. Such as protons, nuetrons, electrons. We could break this down further and name quarks, and such. I'm simply stating that in the end - Photons will be the last standing as the fundamental entity that makes up the entirety of Existence. This includes all matter, and the space around such matter.
I say if we attempt to break down a photon to other constituents - We will find nothing, and a photon is no more than a conceptual entity that follows physical laws as we know them to be. In effect - We are nothing but the thoughts of nothing.

http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum2.jpg [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #299
So you are implying that elementary particles, including fermions like electrons and quarks, are made of photons. What arguments or evidence can you offer for such a view?
 
  • #300
Originally posted by UltraPi1
I'm simply stating that in the end - Photons will be the last standing as the fundamental entity that makes up the entirety of Existence.

So you can divide an atom of a human body into other particles and them into other particles and so on until you reach a photon? Is that a hypothesis or can you prove it or prove against it?
 
  • #301
Originally posted by Messiah
That is the difference between 'non-existence' - which is abstract and Ø - which is not.

If you look in ANY Webster's dictionary, both the abstract of 'non-existence' and the mathematical term 'Zero' are listed as definitions. There are two official connotations. If you wish to recognize only one, that is your privilege, but in communicating with other individuals, it is often necessary to recognize both.

I do, of course, recognize that people commonly wish to refer to 0 or empty sets...even empty space, as though it were nothing. However, in philosophy, it is always best to have your semantics completely clear from the start, and the semantics of "nothing" (the word) are rather clear: If there is anything there, anything at all, it isn't nothing (which seems so obvious to me, but I have done the extra research to make sure, and semantics and etymology seem to agree with me).

Thus, if there is something there (be it an empty set (which is something), the word "nothing" (which is also something), or the number 0 (which is clearly something)), it becomes both incorrect and misleading to use the word "nothing" to refer to it...of course, if I were to ask you what was inside the empty set or the empty space, then "nothing" would be the correct answer, but if I can refer to the set or word as something then it is incorrect to also refer to them as "nothing".
 
  • #302
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Been through this before with you. Nothing does not do the referring - The concept does.

But the concept can't refer unless it has something (note: something) to refer to.

You're twisting this one too. If I say - (I defined nothing) I didn't say that I hadn't, but that I had, and if I replace hadn't with had as it should be. It would still read wrong, because now it would read ( I had defined anything). It should read by your standards {I had defined not anything as a thing}. I would personally rather just say ( I defined nothing as a thing). I'll buy both, but prefer to say nothing - It reads better.

You have mis-interpreted the E.i.N.S., if you were to say that you "have defined nothing", you are saying "I have defined not anything" which is semantically equal to saying "I have not defined anything". The dispersal of the "not" and the "anything" among the sentence are a matter of grammar and maintenance of meaning, you can't always put the two words right next to each other, but together they replace the use of the word "nothing" altogether.

You apparently say it's impossible have a thing of nothing. I say it is possible. I will agree to disagree. You should too, because this merry go round is making us dizzy.

Not just yet. What I'm asking you to be is reasonable. I'll break down the deductive reasoning on this particular issue (of a "thing of nothing") for you:

("P" stands for "proposition", "C" stands for "conclusion)

P1: The word "nothing" is a composite of the terms "no" and "thing".
P2: A person may either refer to a thing or refer to no thing at all, but cannot do both at the same time (this stands to reason, since, if you refer to one, you disqualify reference to the other).
C: Therefore there can be no "thing" of "nothing".
 
  • #303
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
So you are implying that elementary particles, including fermions like electrons and quarks, are made of photons. What arguments or evidence can you offer for such a view?
Yes that would be the implication. I offer no proof at this time other than to give details of the overall model - Such as what a photon is, how it propagates, how they interact.

Heres a photon at rest. Even though I know there is no such thing as a photon at rest. Nevertheless here it is. It is the simplest form there is. If you can think of something simpler - I'm all ears.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #304
Mentat

You offer a complete definition of nothing. From my standpoint - This is impossible to do in the absense of a concept. The best you can hope for is a quantative measure of nothing, and in doing so ,,, we find an infinity of measure is required for completion. I.E. The definition of nothing takes forever, for it is the definition that makes it real. I contend that we are all a part of that ongoing definition.

Nothing = Not any thing
You use the word thing in your definition of nothing - So does the dictionary. This is a contradiction. I have no problem with this if nothing is to exist or not exist. Existence requires this contradiction. Non-Existence requires this contradiction. I don't wish to discuss nothing on the Non-Existent level - What would be the point other than to point out nothing on the existent level.

You are here ,,,,, Not nowhere.
You are here as the result of the definition of nowhere.
You are nothing in a quantative measure.
You exist as one measure of nothing.

I am happy to discuss the existence of nothing through conceptual means.
I cannot and will not discuss that which does not exist by any means whatsoever in the context of existence.
 
Last edited:
  • #305
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Mentat

You offer a complete definition of nothing. From my standpoint - This is impossible to do in the absense of a concept.

Wrong. I do not offer a definition of nothing, but to the word "nothing".

Here's an exercise for you:

What is this: "cheese"

And what is this: {1, 2, 3, 4...}


Is the first one actually cheese? No. It is the word "cheese". In the second one, did I actually write every natural number? No. That's simply a set of all natural numbers.

Now, the word "cheese" is something, and so is that which it refers to (thus, two distinct entities). The set of all natural numbers is something, and so is each natural number (an infinite amount of disctinct entities).

So, if I say the word "nothing", I have said something...that word is something. And if I use symbol for the empty set, which doesn't seem to work on this computer, then I will have used something...the empty set is something.

The difference between this word and this set, is that the word doesn't refer to anything at all (by its very semantic nature) and the set doesn't contain anything. Thus, it is logical to say that the word refers to nothing, but it is equal in meaning and logic to say that it "doesn't refer to anything". That's why the E.i.N.S. works.

It is logical to say that the empty set "contains nothing", but it is equal in meaning and logic to say that it "doesn't contain anything". Just another example of the E.i.N.S.

Thus, every time you use the word "nothing", it should be OK for me to re-write the sentence, without changing the meaning, under the terms of the E.i.N.S.

And, as you can see, I have not defined "nothing", but simply given and understanding of the fact that that word doesn't refer to anything.

The best you can hope for is a quantative measure of nothing, and in doing so ,,, we find an infinity of measure is required for completion. I.E. The definition of nothing takes forever, for it is the definition that makes it real. I contend that we are all a part of that ongoing definition.

But definitions do not make something real. I can define a unicorn, but that doesn't make it real. Sure I will get a picture in my head of that which I've been taught to be a "unicorn", but there really is no such thing.

Nothing = Not any thing
You use the word thing in your definition of nothing - So does the dictionary.

No I don't. I didn't even define "nothing", I jus gave an alternate way of saying any sentence in which you would normally use the word "nothing", which offers insight into the fact that "nothing" doesn't refer to anything.

You are here ,,,,, Not nowhere.
You are here as the result of the definition of nowhere.

Where do you get this from? That seems like the largest non-sequiter you've made yet. If I am here, then by default I am not nowhere (since "nowhere" refers to the absence of place), but I would be here regardless of whether "nowhere" was defined or not.

You are nothing in a quantative measure.

I am not anything in a quantitative measure? That's not true, I am quarks, leptons, and spacetime in quantitative measure.

I am happy to discuss the existence of nothing through conceptual means.
I cannot and will not discuss that which does not exist by any means whatsoever in the context of existence.

But that which "nothing" refers to does not exist, and that is what you are choosing to discuss.
 
  • #306
Originally posted by Mentat
I do, of course, recognize that people commonly wish to refer to 0 or empty sets...even empty space, as though it were nothing. However, in philosophy, it is always best to have your semantics completely clear from the start, and the semantics of "nothing" (the word) are rather clear: If there is anything there, anything at all, it isn't nothing (which seems so obvious to me, but I have done the extra research to make sure, and semantics and etymology seem to agree with me).

Thus, if there is something there (be it an empty set (which is something), the word "nothing" (which is also something), or the number 0 (which is clearly something)), it becomes both incorrect and misleading to use the word "nothing" to refer to it...of course, if I were to ask you what was inside the empty set or the empty space, then "nothing" would be the correct answer, but if I can refer to the set or word as something then it is incorrect to also refer to them as "nothing".

APPLAUSE ! !

Then the correct word and definition for 'nothing' in its abstract and undefined connotation is - "                ".

I TOTALLY agree.
 
  • #307
Mentat
I'll repeat this - one last time.


I understand everything you are saying.

I will also say you will never understand what I am saying. Discussion with you regarding this subject is over.
 
  • #308
Messiah

APPLAUSE ! !

Trust me - he doesn't get it the way you just got it from his post.
 
  • #309
Originally posted by Messiah
APPLAUSE ! !

Then the correct word and definition for 'nothing' in its abstract and undefined connotation is - "                ".

I TOTALLY agree.

"Nothing" is the word, were you even paying attention to my post? "Nothing" is the word, and there is no definition, aside from "the absence of all things". Please try to understand what I post before responding.
 
  • #310
As I was saying.
 
  • #311
Originally posted by Mentat
"Nothing" is the word, were you even paying attention to my post? "Nothing" is the word, and there is no definition, aside from "the absence of all things". Please try to understand what I post before responding.

I think you are missing the point.
The phenomenon of existence did not 'begin' with Ø or 'nothing' - and then become 'something'. Existence is eternal. The nature of that existence is that for every logical value there is an opposite equivalent. Ø or 'nothing' never DID exist - only its logical equivalent

. . . of course UNLESS you want to consider it in the infinitive abstract, in which the size of any finite entity has a relative value of Ø (anything/infinity) and every position within an infinite Universe is its center (has a relative positional value of Ø), so since its qualitative value is also Ø relarive to infinity 'NOTHING' does exist.
 
  • #312
well, i think there is confusion on what nothing really is->

i think nothing should be used with this pseudo or not definition when used in this context-> nothing humans percieve as in no physical anything, no particles, no waves, and maybe now no energy. so truly nothing cannot be as far as human perception goes... therefore whatever was 'before' the bb couldn't have possibly been anything comprehensible to humans.

besides, time was created with the bb in the bb theory (hence space-time). this is how it works in-> you really cannot say 'before' the bb... because your ability to distinguish one event from the next is non existent...

so there is no movement of time, or atleast the necessity of it is absent.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
424
Replies
17
Views
872
Replies
5
Views
825
Replies
28
Views
3K
Replies
41
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
741
  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
17
Views
2K
Back
Top