Absolute emptiness

jan

i find this "from nothing"concept a little ridiculous myself,its like,if we don't see or feel it nothing is there,nothing is nothing is nothing!! just to add one more thought, how about a theory based on the math concept of "one dimension" this i found on another site,this one dimensional matter then condenses to become two!! and so on!!i asked how does one dimension exist in the first place,since it has no breadth and depth,no answer!! i don't know what they were thinking but there sure seems to be alot of confusion out there!!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[North]: i find this "from nothing"concept a little ridiculous myself
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

For a moment I thought that my mental health was seriously at stake, but it seems that "nothingness" is ridiculous for many of us. Perhaps it is better not to think about "nothingness", considering the fact that any comprehension of this construct is lacking "big time".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[North]: ... asked how does one dimension exist in the first place,since it has no breadth and depth,no answer!!
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
What strikes me is that all these theories play with "dimensions" as if they are physical "realities". First of all, don't you think that dimensions are nothing more than a set of variables showing the degrees of freedom we have to describe our mathematical problem? Just consider Differential Geometry, where we talk about "n-dimensional manifolds". These "manifolds" have not been defined to reflect any physical reality, yet enable us to get a rigorous framework to enlarge our notion of general "shapes", such as "spheres" for example. If a problem has 10 dimensions, then all I see is that we have 10 available variables that are likely to be constrained.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
What strikes me is that all these theories play with "dimensions" as if they are physical "realities". First of all, don't you think that dimensions are nothing more than a set of variables showing the degrees of freedom we have to describe our mathematical problem? Just consider Differential Geometry, where we talk about "n-dimensional manifolds". These "manifolds" have not been defined to reflect any physical reality, yet enable us to get a rigorous framework to enlarge our notion of general "shapes", such as "spheres" for example. If a problem has 10 dimensions, then all I see is that we have 10 available variables that are likely to be constrained.




<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

jan

if i understand thinking the way it is now,it seems to be largely built on math instead of observations.in my thinking observations are made first then use math to refine it(details),i also find that these extra dimensions(to the nth)seem to be a way to get there equations to work,and this is how we get these bizzare conclusions.the skill of observing,of looking deeply into a picture,screen or through a scope and analyzing without any preconceived ideas,to see what is really there and what it is doing and not doing seems to be a dying skill.
give Steven Rado a look he's at www.aethro-kinematics.com (i think i have the spelling right).he also thinks observation comes first,math later,although i have not finished his book(summer is not my best reading time of year)i find him one of the most complete theorist i have found (Tom as well but i have not finished his book either)

let me know what you think!

north,

---

[North]: i find this "from nothing"concept a little ridiculous myself

---

I find it odd that others have trouble conceiving of "nothingness". To me it is much more plausiable and understandable than the relavistically valued prize of "Infinity" which is genuinely ridiculus.

If one considers existance as requiring time-space then absence of time-space insure "Nothingness".

While it is a bit difficult for our minds to visualize, nothingness seems to be a state of singularity. It is easy to go off on symantics that "Nothingness" cannot have a state, etc., but that is due to our poorely formed vocabulary for such esoteric concepts and is not a physical problem in nature.

What becomes most interesting is the fact that "All" "nothingness" singularities seem to be or exist as one enity. that is they occupy the same locality in creation. This explains for example particle entanglement. If one assume the validity of the Big Bang in its most general form as having come from a singularity and that we see virtual particles coming into and going out of existance in the voids of space, it doesn't take a large leap of understanding to visualize nature as routinely doing what we have incorrectly said is not possible.

That is the ability to create and destroy energy without violating conservation. Anytime "Something" becomes "Nothing" it goes into this "Singularity". Electrons for example jumping orbit instantly and not existing inbetween orbits is nothing more than mass/energy going into a state of singularity (which is connected to all states of singularity throughout the universe) to re-form at a "Pauli Allowed" and needed void to maintain conservation in creation.

Since there is no dimension in singularities no time is required to traverse space and particle entanglement, etc is instantaneous to us where time-space has seperated the points of existance.

0

---

>(+n)+(-n) and (+n)+(-n)

---

>0 are natural functions of creation where +/- "Something" can be and is created from or goes to "Nothingness".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Since there is no dimension in singularities no time is required to traverse space and particle entanglement, etc is instantaneous to us where time-space has seperated the points of existance.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
But by your definition of nothingness,
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> then absence of time-space insure "Nothingness".<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
there is no space to traverse in your singularity.
Little bit inconsistent <img src=icon_smile_question.gif border=0 align=middle>

Mac,

The problem I have with the concept of "nothing" is that 20 people get on this board and all use the term with completely different meaning and assume that their definition is obvious and clear to everyone else. I tend towards the view that in physics a clearer concept is that of nothing being where there is a LACK OF SUBSTANCE. Substance is a tangible thing that we can measure and nothing is the lack of it. A lack of something cannot be a "singularity" nor can it be "multiples" because it is not a THING.