T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[Nobody]

There's a Zen expression "mu shin" (no mind), similar to the samadhic means leading to the Hindu Nirvanic state. It fits fairly well with the Taoist undefinable nothing, as the orgination of consciousness which goes hand in hand with the physical Universe according to Eastern mind-body unification.

Consciousness can be directly associated with the atomic scale, which naturally arises from and is governed by the subatomic and further the subquantum scale which is linked with the subconscious and beyond to the original universal state of mind and matter - the stillness of the void which is the only possible state with the capacity to differentiate all other states.

Then through imperfect replication, similar to DNA replication, information from all possible universal states would be recorded or encoded and the Universe itself could then be considered "all-knowing."

[Nobody]

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from.

The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking)

[Lloyd Gillespie]

You're headed in the right direction, Nobody. Keep up the great theorizing... Take a look at a void with the absolute lack of heat or matter___a possible thermodynamic self-creating universe. A void without heat has infinite energy of temperature heading to infinite sub-zero___no? And from infinite sub-zero, just one more step to infinite heat___the infinite sub-zero pressure would require it___no? Is it possible for such a state to produce the first light gasses, to create the first light star___all from the zero void...?

regards,
LG

[Nobody]

Yes to all, Lloyd.

Most folks underestimate the mathematical implications of the void, eventhough Einstein's theoretical physics wasn't confirmed until years later. That's what the whole debate is about regarding empirical proof of String Theory, based on unobservable data, and whether solid theory is enough to proclaim an accurate depiction of the Universe.

Aside from strings, though, it's very easy to break universal symmetry in order to create an infinite number of hydrogen atoms, when it is understood that symmetry produces an infinite amount of energy from only a few systems based on the Zeroth law. Sort of like x amount of energy which would normally be considered stored from a macroscopic framework, is essentially released and uniform from a zero-point view which serves as the basis for inertial mass.

So, I'd say it's possible, probable, and fairly certain that everything comes from nothing.

An alternative to having other scientists replicate your work and prove that you are right is to get the same result yourself using a completely different approach. I wrote a research proposal to NASA and Alfonso buried himself in new calculations. We got funding and we got results. In 1998, we published two new papers that again showed that the inertia of matter could be traced back to the zero-point field. And not only was the approach in those papers completely different than in the 1994 paper, but the mathematics was simpler while the physics was more complete: a most desireable combination. What’s more, the original analysis had used Newtonian classical physics; the new analysis used Einsteinian relativistic physics.

As encouraged as I am, it is still too early to say whether history will prove us right or wrong. But if we are right, then "Let there be light" is indeed a very profound statement, as one might expect of its purported author. The solid, stable world of matter appears to be sustained at every instant by an underlying sea of quantum light.

But let's take this even one step further. If it is the underlying realm of light that is the fundamental reality propping up our physical universe, let us ask ourselves how the universe of space and time would appear from the perspective of a beam of light. The laws of relativity are clear on this point. If you could ride a beam of light as an observer, all of space would shrink to a point, and all of time would collapse to an instant. In the reference frame of light, there is no space and time. If we look up at the Andromeda galaxy in the night sky, we see light that from our point of view took 2 million years to traverse that vast distance of space. But to a beam of light radiating from some star in the Andromeda galaxy, the transmission from its point of origin to our eye was instantaneous.

There must be a deeper meaning in these physical facts, a deeper truth about the simultaneous interconnection of all things. It beckons us forward in our search for a better, truer understanding of the nature of the universe, of the origins of space and time — those "illusions" that yet feel so real to us.

Bernhard Haisch, staff physicist at the Lockheed Martin Solar & Astrophysics Laboratory in Palo Alto, California, is a scientific editor of The Astrophysical Journal and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

http://www.science-spirit.org/articl...article_id=126



"We sent a pulse through an optical fiber, and before its peak even entered the fiber, it was exiting the other end. Through experiments we were able to see that the pulse inside the fiber was actually moving backward, linking the input and output pulses.

"The pulse of light is shaped like a hump with a peak and long leading and trailing edges. The leading edge carries with it all the information about the pulse and enters the fiber first. By the time the peak enters the fiber, the leading edge is already well ahead, exiting. From the information in that leading edge, the fiber essentially 'reconstructs' the pulse at the far end, sending one version out the fiber, and another backward toward the beginning of the fiber."

Faster than light

Let's put that another way, verbatim from a statement issued by the University of Rochester:

"As the pulse enters the material, a second pulse appears on the far end of the fiber and flows backward. The reversed pulse not only propagates backward, but it releases a forward pulse out the far end of the fiber. In this way, the pulse that enters the front of the fiber appears out the end almost instantly, apparently traveling faster than the regular speed of light."

What about Einstein, who said nothing can exceed light-speed?

"Einstein said information can't travel faster than light, and in this case, as with all fast-light experiments, no information is truly moving faster than light," Boyd said.

A spokesperson at the university's communications department added this: "Everything that defines the pulse that enters, also defines the pulse that exits. But the energy of the light does not travel faster than light."

http://www.livescience.com/technology/060518_light_backward.html

There are only two constants: change and nonexistence. Once something is created it has to change because the effects required for it to be created as it is, creates other effects that destroy it. This is the basis for relativity and evolution - "reality" - because it has no choice but to function as it does when governed by natural rules. Absolute reality doesn't follow those rules.

All evolutionary effects of this world's procession can be realized instantaneously, anywhere.

I propose we could link large and small scale together by eliminating the concept of geometrical gravity, and consider galactic formation toward stability in a similar fashion as atomic formation toward stability.

I think the geometrical gravity was formulated based on a false premise, found in the following link, whereby the force of gravity is allegedly unable to be blocked out or absorbed. Geometrical gravity seems to satisfy observations, but it destroys the link between small and large scale interactions.

Alternatively, experiments on levitation render gravity like the other forces - blockable - and energy stored in massive objects, creating gravitational/inertial mass, render gravity absorbable. It's effect being the result of the strong small-scale centripetal force.

http://www.theoryofeverything.co.uk/

[gautam]

What I am a part of is infinite for me. I am not a part of whatever I can observe, calculate or realise. But of course I am by default a part of something which is beyond my comprehension and that is infinite for me. Absolute is nothing or its God if you are a believer.
Theory of nothing if it is really a theory then it will be nothing but the theory of everything.
regards
Gautam

[Mike 5]

Nobody knows the answer?

I like the ideas in this thread.

We cannot empirically observe either "nothing" or "everything". For us, as beings, as consciousness within material bioforms, sure we can make up ideas of zero and infinity, but these are in the class of ideas we can never verify.

The theory of Nothing seems to hit the same end buffer as the theory of everything... does "nothing" exist? Well, that is just how you define words, and then play with ideas. Clearly absence is not empirical.

I have a new solution I am trying to develop. If "everything" and "nothing" are both extremes that we cannot get to, because our minds are within bodies that only sense limited space and time, why not use where we are as the baseline, and extend outwards from here and now, step by step, refusing to be tempted to use non-empirical ideas such as "everything" or "nothing"...

These sweeping concepts have no reality for us in terms of sensual existence, they cannot be touched seen heard etc. So can we abandon them? Radical but possible I think.

Immediately you grasp the implications of abandoning "nothing" and "everthing", of removing "zero" and "infinity" from thinking about reality, there seem to be only one clear solution and that is very similar to Yin Yang theory.

- All is duality. Every thing or process has two contradictory aspects. In simple terms, and as viewed in space and time by us, something pushes and something else embraces.

- Each pushing or embracing aspect further divides into duality. All is recursive, as it appears to us in space and time as we experience and think about our bioform existence.

- pushing and embracing define each other

- pushing and embracing control each other

- pushing and embracing become each other

This is indeed impossible to grasp if you set up baselines of "nothing" over in one goal post and "everything" over some other goal post. Who can say these extremes exist or are relevent? In essence, Yin Yang theory, which I believe I have expressed more or less in the above 5 points, is INCOMPATIBLE with the concepts "everything" and "nothing".

It is indeed unfortunate that language itself makes us use "all" and "every" even to explain Yin Yang theory. I am sure that beyond these clumsy attempts to explain things, there is no "all" or "everything" and so then, I am not even sure how to express Yin Yang theory... but never mind. This is a start.

Nobody there?

[Nobody]

The Theory of Nothing is in direct opposition with the B-B Theory for a multitude of reasons, and eventhough it seems that people can't talk about the universe without mentioning the big bang, most still think it was an explosion.

Ironically, the idea was first proposed by a Christian scientist who perhaps interpreted the biblical accounts in a way that was consistent with the big bang, and people have been more than less brainwashed ever since.

Not that ideas aren't welcome, but blind acceptance of ideas is a faux pas imo.

"The big bang theory postulates that the entire universe originated in a cosmic explosion about 15 billion years ago. Such an idea had no serious constituency until Edwin Hubble discovered the redshift of galaxy light in the 1920s, which seemed to imply an expanding universe. However, our ability to test cosmological theories has vastly improved with modern telescopes covering all wavelengths, some of them in orbit. Despite the widespread acceptance of the big bang theory as a working model for interpreting new findings, not a single important prediction of the theory has yet been confirmed, and substantial evidence has accumulated against it. Here, we examine the evidence for the most fundamental postulate of the big bang, the expansion of the universe. We conclude that the evidence does not support the theory; and that it is time to stop patching up the theory to keep it viable, and to consider fundamentally new working models for the origin and nature of the universe in better agreement with the observations."

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp

After having a chat with Lloyd in another thread, reading the link he provided, along with others, I think a major problem in realizing a TOE, being a unified theory, is that the means of discerning its reality is based upon relative concepts. No matter which theory we consider, there is a fundamental unity lacking by which the theory crumbles.

Tesla brought up an interesting point concerning the spherical shapes found in nature, but it can be realized that these shapes are based upon spherical functioning of linear quantum interactions where collisions between virtual particles produce spherical fragments. It has been said that a singularity can turn time into space and vice-versa, and knowing that all spatial constructs can be created from time dilation whereby any concept of linear time is discerned by spherical rotation as an "outside of time" reference frame. Macroscopic views of large-scale objects through time, by necessity, extend from small-scale confinement in the form of neutrons which contain the above-mentioned spherical fragments in order to form protons through decay (which is the sole basis for time and space). This to propose shapes are what they are because they can be no other way and still function according to how we perceive them.

Aside from that, though, looking back to how things that were once considered to be opposite each other, have now been unified, the point I've reached in my studying these TOE endeavors has brought me to the realization that even if all fundamental forces are unified, there will still be a paradox remaining from the fundamental dichotomy created between something and nothing. Reverting to first philosophy, we can see that the science of relativity has replaced and understandably ignored first philosophy - the most-fundamental substance of nature.

So, the last frontier in unification would appear to be unifying something and nothing, which can be done via positing the nature and functioning of virtual particles that simultaneously exist and don't when we allow absolute values to increase to infinite proportions instead of renormalizing everything in order to make our relative calculations "fit the bill" of our theories. It will never completely unify, and if it doesn't fit we must admit that it can't be it.

Finally, it seems there is a great misunderstanding of what infinite means. Like a particle travelling around the world at infinite speed means it is at every point at the same time, basically because concepts of time cease to exist from that particle's perspective and, along with it, so does space and every other concept of existence. There is no longer a particle travelling around the world, and there is no longer a static particle. It is completely erased, just like our universe travelling at infinite speed.


A little thought experiment can go a long way in showing how observations can be misleading. For instance, if we observe a lit dot, say the size of a pea, that would break symmetry by remaining lit as far as we can tell, can be the result of oscillating virtual particles that are by definition half-existent. At unobservable scales, all of the points that make up the lit dot are virtual, but we can't detect when the lights go out. And the same applies for points that we don't observe, or call non-existent, at undetectable levels the inverse applies to them. Even if one point at a time, given a particular space, is to fluctuate out of unison with the others, the result will be the same - an extension of time in order to produce this reality.

Time can easily be stretched without a break, by the above example or even as a chain of effects from different angles of observers, if we take a chain of lit/unlit dots where preceding lit dots go out at the moment following dots come on. It works from any angle, simultaneously, and can even be used to simply explain observed redshifting through interference - even to the point where two (what would normally be considered very "distant") galaxies can exist at the same exact place in the "universe," but at different times.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...ck=1&cset=true


I think a theory of everything has to explain all sciences, and that the connection between the subconscious mind and subatomic particles can explain them.
We breathe subconsciously, but can consciously control breathing.

Yet, altering subconscious functioning doesn't change the world we live in because it conforms to the functioning of the natural laws of subatomic particles. Consciousness within this reality is obviously the result of a merging with the states required for our perception of observable reality.

The question is: if the subconscious mind governs conscious reality via its control over subatomic functioning, what prevents a new conscious reality from being created after you die?




Marking the century anniversary of Einstein’s first major contributions, an article in Nature (433, 257 – 259, January 2005) surveyed some of the world’s top physicists on the current status of a “Theory of everything”. Roger Penrose remarked that such a theory must include consciousness. Here is his statement:

The terminology 'theory of everything' has always worried me. There is a certain physicist's arrogance about it that suggests that knowing all the physical laws would tell us everything about the world, at least in principle. Does a physical theory of 'everything' include a theory of consciousness? Does it include a theory of morality, or of human behaviour, or of aesthetics? Even if our idea of science could be expanded to incorporate these things, would we still think of it as 'physics', or would it even be reducible to physics?

As for myself, I perhaps have enough of the physicist's arrogance about me to believe that a physical 'theory of everything' should at least contain the seeds of an explanation of the phenomenon of consciousness. It seems to me that this phenomenon is such a fundamental one that it cannot be simply an accidental concomitant of the complexity of brain action. It must be of such sophistication that the brain is enabled to dig more deeply into the fundamental workings of the Universe than are more commonplace physical systems. And if this is so, then we are very much farther from a proper understanding of the laws of nature than most physicists seem to believe.

Indeed, irrespective of the consciousness issue, in my opinion, we are nowhere close to an accurate, purely physical theory of everything. I find it remarkable how many physicists will express the view that, despite some missing details and unifying concepts, we know virtually all we need to know to describe the fully detailed physical behaviour of systems — at least in principle. Yet, there is at least one glaring omission in present physical theory.

This is how small-scale quantum processes can add up, for large and complicated systems, to the almost classical behaviour of macroscopic bodies. Indeed, it is not just an omission but an actual fundamental inconsistency, sometimes referred to as the measurement paradox (or Schrödinger's cat). In my view, until this paradox is resolved we must necessarily remain very far from a physical theory of everything — whether or not such a theory exists.

Roger Penrose

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/TOE.htm

[lodestar]

I agree that nothing exists apart from everything. In fact, you could even say that nothing is bigger than everything, and nothing is smaller than everything. Think about it for a moment and you will see.

[Nobody]

If we use your logic for a minute, lode, we would conclude that your whole body could exist in a place that isn't there. Not too logical, imo, but that is precisely what all theories of relativity imply.

When we propose a model, any model, that functions from the start from a relative "one" or within the framework of "one" literal universe, it requires a spatial construct for it to exist in. The dichotomy paradox lies in the fact that there is no space, we've both agreed to that above, and for that very simple elementary-school reason all relative theories fail and will forever fail in describing an accurate account of universal functioning - a "Theory of Everything."

So 1/0 can come close to what is required to fundamentally explain universal phenomena, but obviously 1/0 presupposes the "1" to be divided, but for the above reasons the "1" can't work. Alternatively, I proposed 0/0 to someone who was hooked on 1/0, in order to not only solve all paradoxes, but to create relative functioning from absolutely nothing. Which I figured works fairly well, and simple enough for anyone to understand, when we equate 0 with 1-1 - nothing is exactly equal to the sum total of matter and antimatter, of which the universe consists of.

As strange as it may seem to most folks, I conclude that relatively the universe exists, but absolutely it doesn't.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hey guys, just a hint. If we accept the laws of physics as fundamentally sound, which most true scientists do, myself included, then what about the conservation of energy and matter law. The law, as you probably know, states that neither matter or energy can be destroyed or created, only converted, one into the other... Then I ask, how could there ever be any such foolish idea as nothing? This applies to any model, absolute, relative, solid, squishy, finite or infinite. If the laws of physics are true and fundamentally sound, under all these models, then energy/matter is the infinite and eternal substance, period. I would suggest basing your findings on sound and absolute facts and laws, please... Theorizing, as a thought experiment, is fine, but it should not be carried into our scientific conclusions. I suggest getting the absolute fundamentals down first. Instead of all this mythical nothing talk, why not look at the infinite absolute and eternal thermodynamic energy/matter cold imploding void, before the finite relative space-time exploding heat engine of our present finite/infinite universe of stars and planets, etc., residing inside its original cacoon of the infinite, eternal, absolute thermo-hydro-dynamic energy/matter void/space. Just as Einstein stated, we can logically know it's all thermodynamics, it's just a question of how it all works...

I simply say it's all thermodynamic motion... Infinitely, eternally, absolutely!!! And, BTW, thermodynamics is the only self-creating force!!! Just as Ol' Uncle Einstein long ago said, "Matter is condensed energy," or the other way around energy is condensed matter, or so so.

regards,