Nothing and The Creation

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Ant Sinclair said:

At the centre of our multiverse are 9 pairs of rings made of a “magnetic” material

I can't think of anything meaningful to say, either...

[Ant Sinclair]

Dim, a nothing-burger - well done 👏 

[MigL]

22 hours ago, exchemist said:

This is a misconception. Zero point energy does not contribute to temperature.

I don't recall saying temperature; just that absolute zero is not achievable.
But you do recall Heisenberg says that if you stop all motion of a quantum particle, its position is determined exactly, and therefore, its momentum, and energy, is indeterminate.

What exactly, am I misconceiving; please elaborate.

[exchemist]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

I don't recall saying temperature; just that absolute zero is not achievable.
But you do recall Heisenberg says that if you stop all motion of a quantum particle, its position is determined exactly, and therefore, its momentum, and energy, is indeterminate.

What exactly, am I misconceiving; please elaborate.

Absolute zero is a temperature. The reason it is unattainable is not because of zero point energy. 

Edited February 9 by exchemist

[MigL]

7 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Absolute zero is a temperature. 

And I maintain it is not achievable.
Temperature can be defined in two ways.
Chemists are fond of the 'molecular/atomic motion' description.
Physicists tend to use the 'energy of the system' description.

It allows us to assign a 'temperature' to a single particle.

Edited February 9 by MigL

[exchemist]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

And I maintain it is not achievable.
Temperature can be defined in two ways.
Chemists are fond of the 'molecular/atomic motion' description.
Physicists tend to use the 'energy of the system' description.

It allows us to assign a 'temperature' to a single particle.

You are violently agreeing with me😁. It is the reason why it is not achievable where we seem to be disagreeing.

The residual zero point energy of the ground state is by definition not extractable, hence is not capable of being exchanged among the members of an ensemble, and therefore cannot contribute to the temperature. So its presence is not an explanation for why absolute zero is, as we both agree, is unattainable. 

[MigL]

Ok; we agree.
My apologies for being violent 😄

[exchemist]

20 minutes ago, MigL said:

Ok; we agree.
My apologies for being violent 😄

😀

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, Ant Sinclair said:

I closed that thread as I was unhappy with how it was being received by members of staff here on SF and so never gave further information on those Rings.

Or, staff closed it because you rely on numerology for your arguments. If you want a different reception, use trusted science instead of this imagined pattern BS. You can persuade us, but NOT with numerology.

[Ant Sinclair]

Phi for All, it makes me laugh when you and other staff throw the "numerology" tag at folk. I posted well over a hundred frequencies that would be seen in the CMBR on my 2016 thread and not one of them were rebuffed, and most of them I calculated.

If the JWST can get a closer look at NGC922(Bullseye) than Hubble was able to I predict what many call a Dyson Sphere shall be present, but it won't be a Dyson Sphere. If this happens I'll let you know exactly what it is.

[swansont]

15 minutes ago, Ant Sinclair said:

Phi for All, it makes me laugh when you and other staff throw the "numerology" tag at folk.

Glad you get a laugh out of it, but when you throw around numbers and ratios without some kind of model to say why they should be meaningful, that’s what it is.

Quote

I posted well over a hundred frequencies that would be seen in the CMBR on my 2016 thread and not one of them were rebuffed

CMBR is a thermal spectrum, i.e. a continuum, so I’m not sure what significance individual values would have. Especially without a model (based in physics) for them to be based on

[Phi for All]

26 minutes ago, Ant Sinclair said:

Phi for All, it makes me laugh when you and other staff throw the "numerology" tag at folk.

I understand. You don't know enough real science, so you see patterns in the numbers and think you've made some kind of breakthrough that nobody else can see. I've seen this hundreds of times over the last 20 years here.

You laugh while the rest of us shake our heads at all the time you've wasted.

[Gian]

On 1/18/2024 at 11:37 PM, Ant Sinclair said:

I agree there has to be "something" and it is impossible for "something" never to have existed, but, I also believe "nothing" has existed. Something came from Nothing, but how?

Not quite sure if this is relevant, but St Thomas Aquinas described God not as the creator but actus essendi ; which (I think) translates not as "a being" but "the act of being" or "the act of existence"

If so then this is an abstract and I guess doesn't need to be created. It just is.

[Gees]

1 hour ago, Gian said:

Not quite sure if this is relevant, but St Thomas Aquinas described God not as the creator but actus essendi ; which (I think) translates not as "a being" but "the act of being" or "the act of existence"

If so then this is an abstract and I guess doesn't need to be created. It just is.

Thank you for remembering this. I know Aquinas was instrumental in helping to end the Dark Ages and throw open the doors to the enlightenment and science, but I have never read his work directly. To me it is relevant that he described "God" as an act rather than a being. Some of those old scholars were a lot brighter than people give them credit for.

For myself, I study consciousness and long ago broke it up into the rational mind and digital thought that we call consciousness; and the unconscious aspect of mind, analogue emotion, that we think of as an after affect of consciousness. I don't agree with that assessment. I think that conscious digital thought is like a "noun" in a sentence as it gives the idea structure and identity; whereas the unconscious analogue emotion is more like a "verb" in the sentence and gives it action and state of being. So I see the "verb" as essential to being and to creation.

I doubt that consciousness or anything else could exist without the "verb", emotion.

Gee

[CharonY]

1 minute ago, Gees said:

Thank you for remembering this. I know Aquinas was instrumental in helping to end the Dark Ages and throw open the doors to the enlightenment and science, but I have never read his work directly. To me it is relevant that he described "God" as an act rather than a being. Some of those old scholars were a lot brighter than people give them credit for.

I will just throw in here that Dark Ages is misleading misnomer for a variety of reasons and especially the contrast to enlightenment (which was developed yet later than the first mentioning of the dark ages) is more of a pop narrative rather than something that is  supported by historians. A good overview regarding the early Middle Ages that is very accessible (I am told)  is Powers and Thrones by Dan Jones.

[exchemist]

12 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I will just throw in here that Dark Ages is misleading misnomer for a variety of reasons and especially the contrast to enlightenment (which was developed yet later than the first mentioning of the dark ages) is more of a pop narrative rather than something that is  supported by historians. A good overview regarding the early Middle Ages that is very accessible (I am told)  is Powers and Thrones by Dan Jones.

Quite. Anyone who has visited Charlemagne’s octagonal chapel at Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle), built in 800AD, will find “Dark Ages” a suspect term. 

[Gees]

6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I will just throw in here that Dark Ages is misleading misnomer for a variety of reasons and especially the contrast to enlightenment (which was developed yet later than the first mentioning of the dark ages) is more of a pop narrative rather than something that is  supported by historians. A good overview regarding the early Middle Ages that is very accessible (I am told)  is Powers and Thrones by Dan Jones.

I don't see where any of this denies the idea that Aquinas was instrumental in changing church doctrine that eventually opened the doors to science and learning. Augustine was first to create extensive church doctrine around 400-500 AD. He was a prolific writer. His writings shut down learning -- outside of the church. He had no love for Aristotle. He believed and taught that truth and knowledge could only come from "God", which ended up giving the church way too much power. This went on for hundreds of years and we call that time the Dark Ages. Aquinas, et al, introduced new ideas, rewrote and submitted new church doctrine that changed policy and actually threw open the doors to new ideas. Between the time of Augustine and Aquinas all knowledge was acceptable only if it came from the church -- hence the Dark Ages tag.

It would be silly to assume that the above paragraph could give an accurate reflection of hundreds of years of history. So many things affect history like the plague, the industrial revolution, wars and natural disasters. I was not giving a history lesson. 

So what relevance does your post have to the subject of this thread; namely, Nothing v Creation?

Gee