<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Take for example the set { "me", "you" } What is the sum?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
The set is NOT energy <b>AND</b> mass, it IS Energy <b>=</b> mass.
The <b>SUM</b> of all the Energy is equal to the <b>SUM</b> of all the Mass. The set which holds ALL energy and ALL mass, "everything", is equal to "0".
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I was talking about a sommation over set members. Such an operation is not defined.
Something else is your hypothese or assumption that all energy and all mass taken together equal 0 (with the appropriate sign of course).
That could in principle be true.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Perhaps you can say that the sommation of all matter and all energy equals 0, that could in principle be true, <b>yet this is not "nothing"</b>.
For instance the negative gravity potential energy of the univer in total could balance all positive energy and matter in existence.
If that is the case, I don't know, but in principle it could be.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
<b>I'm not sure, but I think you may have it!</b>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Yes. But the question is, if this is true, if there realy was a state in which there was no energy or mass at all.
But you need to take a different approach on this.
Let's start with matter. What is it realy? We know of mass having matter and energy as a form of matter. But there is an even more elementary form of matter, which is a field.
You know that a field has no absolute value? Like the electrostatic field. We learn to think about a negative and positive potential, and just assume that the universe as a whole has 0 potential.
But that is something arbitrary, cause you can't compare the potential of the universe with something else.
It could as well be 110 Volt or -340 Volt, or whatever value.
Same for a scalar field. If all scalar values are equal, it could be said it is a 0 field. Or plain nothing. But we know, "nothing" cannot exist. So in different parts of the universe the field has different values.
The theory of inflation is built precisely on this facts.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Heheheh..
You still try to convince me on this, don't you?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
<b>No, I'm not trying to convince you of anything.</b> I'm am simply trying to help you learn something new and help you understand that if you have "something" then you can never have "nothing".
[/quote]
Well you don't need to learn me *that* as that is what I already stated!
