Why is there something rather than nothing?

Somehow, time—a very short time, can be traded for energy, from which mass can become.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We may not yet know exactly what we mean by time and space, even though all entities seem to resolve their measurements as dimensional units into the time and distance of space-time.

Is space made by the wavelengths of the stuff in it? Could I stick my hand through the edge of space and thereby make more space by my own e/m waves?

Or is space absolutely fundamental, everything becoming of it by some curvatures? It would sure be nice if space were Totality, it readily qualifying by being infinite and eternal. Or is nothing absolute, space and nothing ever giving rise to the other as existence and non?

Yet, space is only 3D and space-time is 4D. So, is time a kind of a difference dimension, especially if seen as charge as well, time being a difference of space (or even a difference of 3D spaces)?

Time will tell, maybe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The cosmos’ size and conservation laws are important clues to something that we can only suspect. A thing exists if it has quantity of any type. The quantity of space is volume, maybe, and the presence of space allows for the distribution of energy; otherwise reality would be but a point of infinite energy density. The sum total of quantity is reality, of course.

(Mass may be something highly curved in time, and it is curious that its dimensional units often come out to be time^3, but 3 dimensions of time makes little sense and so I suspect that for some reason that using energy as an entity is more useful than using mass, for mass may have other things wrapped up into it.)

Anyway, to proceed, we must first determine how to get space from nothing, which may be tough, but let’s “make up” that it seems doable since space could be just an empty vacuum, and then bend space here and there to yield matter’s and energy’s geometric structure, just as Einstein hinted about mass curving space, but let us try to add more to it, which may be just word play, yet at least I admit it.

1. Existence is a state different from nonexistence.

2. Partial or incomplete nonexistence as a subset of complete nonexistence is different from complete nonexistence.

3. It follows that existence is the state of incomplete nonexistence, being the only different thing from it, as well as quite necessary since there is no other source for existence.

Electrons and positrons are always created together, and it has never been observed otherwise. The sum of all material existence, not just of some particles, is zero (nonexistence), which solves the prime paradox in principle, but not with a total explanation. Zero energy is required for the existence of the universe because nothingness is all there is to work with in the first place. Oppositely charged matter and antimatter sum to zero in the context of the entire cosmos, and energy must always be conserved in it to infinite precision.

Some might emotionally brush off the idea of nothing being able to be a distributed something, but, really, if it’s thought out, there is literally nothing else to make anything of, and there is no way around this, and, so, intuitive or not, it has to be true. There is no logical alternative. True?

“Nothing”—the lack of anything—cannot be a stable state, or else it would still be the state. The cosmos had no origin from nothingness; it is just another expression of it. The cosmos is infinite and eternal because nothing (or space) is infinite and eternal, it everywhere having to be something as a distribution of it. There is no other alternative to existence. The cosmos seems to be a perfect zero-sum equation.

Existence is a relationship, being that nonexistence can be a component of itself. Empty sets have a physical analog, and so could their relationship to each other.

Finiteness perhaps comes from a balance between infinite largeness and smallness. Infinity times zero = one (unity, in one-dimensional space).

For lack of anything else to say, I am proposing that 3D space is not a bounded interior region, but that it is a boundary surface of the finite 4D hypersphere (or hypercube), which is infinitely small, having a single added dimension only, but an important one, that of closure and unity. A finite, normal cube is the three-dimensional size of a plane just as a finite hypercube is the four-dimensional size of 3D space, and it defines an absolute size scale, which is why atoms behave differently than solar systems. Wish I could explain it better.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sciwriter:

. . . I also wish you could explain it better . . . interesting notions (Note: notions are perhaps the precursors to hypotheses).

 

I read this somewhere from Stenger and have summarized it.

Expansion Rate of the Universe

The expansion rate of the universe is not fine-tuned if the universe appeared from an earlier state of zero energy; thus, energy conservation would require the exact expansion rate that is observed. Same for the mass density of the universe. No choice. The universe has been found to be flat, rather than having curvature, and this is a prime example of zero, [which is ever the hero, it seems].

 

Particle Types

There are two and only two stable matter particles in free space, the electron(-) and the proton(+). (Note that a neutron is fine in a nucleus but in free space it decays in 10 minutes or so.)

It very curious that this number is limited to two. It’s as there are only two ways to make them or only two ways that are stable. Either way, it makes sense because [if] the 4th-dimensional axis that nullifies all of existence via opposite charge polarity has only two degrees of freedom.

So, there can be no stable neutral matter particle and there can be no other stable charged matter particles beyond the electron and the proton (we always include antimatter) since it seems the Cosmos can be no other way than this in this regard. Presumably, a neutral matter particle could not sum to nonexistence, as it could not be part of unit polar volume (which is half of unit hypervolume).

There is only one ‘stable’ neutral energy particle, the photon, and, again, this seems as if it could be no other way. Nor can it have an antiparticle at all, being its own antiparticle, so to speak. There can be no charged energy particles. A photon represents unit hypervolume and so it cannot be a part of unit polar volume like matter particles are.

No other kinds of particles can be stable. How come?

 

Perhaps . . . . just cogitating here . . . . the "earlier state" was/is one of infinitely high-energy . . . . and the current stage of the universe is that of the energy (nondetectable subquantum universe?) converting to mass (i.e., the detectable, material universe).

 

Unit hypervolume is hc / 2pi, whereas unit polarvolume is hc / 4pi. (The 2pi part comes from the trigonometry of the sinusoidal wave of the photon, having to do with the photon scaling factor)

It’s really electrons and protons versus their 4D antimatter twins of opposite charge that must nullify all of existence in the overview, which in reality can’t happen in actuality because a lack of anything—nothing—could be a perfectly unstable state.

This simplest state is what indeed is expected as the TOE, as all the ever simpler and simpler beneath higher reality points the way to it. Boring answer? Somewhat, but nope, for an ultimate answer can never be boring. It’s just that some really complicated answer was expected; but complexities and complications only seem to happen way at the other end of the spectrum.

Yes, I am kind of repeating, but hopefully adding something new, too.

It's not like 'nothing' or space has any other options, for all it can do is to jiggle as loose change and balance to zero overall, and this is what makes the universe a perfect equation. After all, cause and effect cannot go on forever beneath, and so it has to be replaced by a zero-sum equation; no choice. ???

 

I think science has given up on singularities of infinite energy being so from particles being considered only as points, for energy going infinite seems to be a seen as a failure for an equation.

 

. . . . I'm not thinking in the context of a 'singularity' . . . but rather as an extremely high-energy subquanum "flux" pervading the entire universe . . . such would not "require" singularities, but would permit them. This supposed 'flux' somehow got too energetic . . .and began 'oozing' (for want of a better term!) the matter universe (portion) via E=mc^2 (or a similar relationship) in a process where subquantum energy flux --> virtual particles --> mass (plus, CMB and continuing 'expansion', of course!). The subquantal flux would be something like the Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) of others' hypotheses. Your thoughts greatly appreciated.

wlminex

 

As doing nothing, or working on it, can be tiring, it is good to rest up afterwards, or even take a nap—or talk about something else in the meanwhile…


Action at a Distance

Matter and its fields form a continuum and cannot be separated. There is no exchange of intermediate virtual carriers, for these agents appear to be inscrutable.

The only energy going into reactions is what was present in the particles in the first place—the rest energy. This is an inevitable consequence of energy conservation. The is why a hydrogen atom’s mass is sightly less than the sum of the masses of an isolated electron and proton. There is then no electrostatic potential energy involved.

Matter is not distinct from the fields it generates. The energy of a particle’s rest mass is distributed though space. When two particles interact at a distance it is because bits of energy of the energy density of the respective rest masses coexist there.

The wave functions used to describe atomic energy levels in quantum physics are a glimpse of energy’s distributed composition. It is coming full circle that physicists wish to reduce particles to points and then try to recombine the pieces into a unified field theory.

It is the single distributes substructure that generates the particle’s properties such as mass, charge, and spin, not their being separately compartmentalized.

And as for gravity as an actions at a distance, there are presumably no gravitons involved. Even Einstein has the gravitational field as a spacetime distortion.

So it is too that matter particles lose but one rest mass of kinetic energy when they escape a black hole, this maximum escape velocity being .86c for them and ‘c’ for photons. At a gravitational potential of -99c, for example, photons lose 99% of their energy. Black holes perhaps separate matter from light.



Now, what is consciousness? Ah, it's that annoying time between naps.

 

Yes, I guess some low probability event of a chain reaction began and kept on going, producing a kazillion tons of stuff that made a universe. It has to happen sometime, even if it is a rare thing.

 

Truly appreciate your cognitive discussions . . . I automatically attached to your immediately-previous post, however, and I think I'm due for a nap! Tee Hee

 

It keeps our brains active, so then we can't get Old Timer's disease.

Then energy runs out and a long sleep calls.

 

. . .I'm getting there . . . .still vertical, but gravity is winning!

 

Bed gravity greatly increases near morning. (woo-woo)

 

Quanta Size is Fixed

The product of a photon’s energy and wavelength (E*Lambda) is proportional to Planck’s constant times the speed of light (hc), and either side of this equation divided by average energy density serves to define the cosmos’ four-dimensional size, which is distance^4 of unit hypervolume, and so quantal size would be caused by it, there again being no other option for quantization size. The cosmos is granular at a certain scale midway between infinite largeness and infinite smallness.

(Maybe)

 

I am still working hard on nothing…

The QM realm has proved to be a fundamentally fuzzy state, virtual pluses and minuses popping out of it; that is, there is no cause, no hidden variables. This is not quite a ‘nothing’ perhaps, or at least it is a nothing doing something. Virtual particles may cancel, but they go back into the QM realm. If ‘nothing’ were exactly zero, then this ‘vacuum’ would not be vague and fuzzy. Thus, an absolute Nothing cannot stay as itself. Its very definition means that it is not to be, that it, it is not even there at all in any way.

Often, the virtual particles spring into existence and vanish quickly, although they can interact and stay real. If not, they have to vanish so quickly that we cannot directly see them. If we could see them, then the QM realm would not be a vacuum, but if they were not there the vacuum would be exactly ‘nothing’ and so it would violate the vague and fuzzy rule.

None of these happenings are truly invisible, like the supernatural claims, for the fuzzy ‘nothing’ has effects that we can compute and measure.

So, no cause, no purpose! And no predetermination. Does this make us go into a funk? No, for it is our glory that we are free to be. Our responsibility is our own doing.

We have learned that galaxies owe their origin to quantum jitters suffusing space enlarged. Galaxies are nothing but quantum mechanics WRIT LARGE across the sky. It gives me shivers, butterflies, the willies, the creeps, collywobbles, the heebie-jeebies, jitteriness, and the jim-jams to think about it.

 

BENEATH, BELOW, AND FURTHER In succession due does the large give way and rule to the ever smaller, the tiny, the minuscule, and onto the negligibly insufficient ‘AWOL’ of not really much of anything there at all. Yet, it is at this bottom herefrom that the all of the upward progression begins its call, and so here the answer lies, to the sprawl, at the boundary where nature wrote its scrawl of existence upon the non, and back and forth, a place not necessarily like that we think it is, a lawless, formless realm that’s ever been the quiz.

Stability, too, does decrease, downward, woefully, melting within our descending journey, and so we must meet the perfect instability of the potentially perfect symmetry that cannot be, for, not only is it that everything must leak but that there can be not even one more antique of a controlling factor lurking about, for of anything else we’ve totally run out.

Here, then, the pulsations and the throbbings of the energetic vacuum that must ever swing between being and not, ever averaging to nothing in their rise and fall, alternating here-there, varying.

Eternity and his elemental fellow rhymes of anything and everything bide their times, of which they have and always had continually all of the time of everlasting perpetuity, and, so, then, if one waits long enough, which is but an instant in forever’s trough, say, for a month of Sundays in donkey’s years, then not only do the rarest of events come to pass, but, eventually, so do all things possible that last.

(The last portion is in case big bangs, or any size bangs, are within a larger Totality than just our big bang and its local results.)

 

Because of discourse.

As you mentioned, a complete definition would definitely help the things to exist. If their existence depends on the stability of the defined boundaries, then they definitely depend on the stability of what is outside of it. Something is there because of nothing.

There is no dark matter or dark energy until you make the calculations about the mass of universe. The new definition suddenly makes the existence of observable universe incomplete without dark matter, or previously known as, nothingness.

Here is another existential problem. Dark matter and dark energy are not completely defined, yet they exist. Because, the scientific discourse, i.e. physics and math, calculates that the universe as we know it cannot exist without them. As soon as our definition of something shifts, its boundary and the status of nothing also destabilize.

If one day the multiverse theories can be confidently defined, then our understanding of something and nothing will move to the next level.

Therefore, I say, something is there with nothing, not rather than.

I know this topic is under "physics and math", but the question "why?" attracts all sorts of people.