could dark matter be nothing; literally?

[36grit]

Here lately I've grown quite fond of the idea, of the possibility that dark matter may be the quantum particle of nothing itself; existing within a sea of seething and expanding energies.

The energies would have to flow, or dialate around the nothing paricle and thus cause a surface tension effect. As with everything else the nothing particles would flow in the path of least resistance and eventually "pool" within the resevoirs of time dialations.

I could imagine an effect that would explain the entropy and structure of outerspace, The universal constant, and the "webb" like appearence that we see aound the galaxies.

I would imagine that vast amounts of energy moving through super large pools could cause enough entopy and radiation to forge hydrogen atoms.

Then again, I do have quite the vivid imagination.

[Ophiolite]

Indeed. The concatenation of phrases and words apparently pregnant with meaning, but ultimately devoid of sense likely would be more at home in a work of science fiction.

[Airbrush]

"nothing; literally" is an impossibility.

[michel123456]

"nothing; literally" is an impossibility.

 

Prove it.

[Airbrush]

Prove it.

 

Just because something may seem like nothing does not prove literal nothingness. Is outer space nothingness? No, there are atoms there, even in the middle of the great voids, there are atoms. There are also virtual particle pair popping in and out of empty space. Where do they come from? Prove literal nothingness.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Airbrush

[StringJunky]

Nothing is one of those words that needs pre-defining before a sensible discussion can ensue utilising it.

[Airbrush]

"Could dark matter be nothing; literally?"

 

Do you know the meaning of the word "literally"? My dictionary says "in a basic or strict sense". How can literally nothing have gravitational lensing and other effects?

 

The word "nothing" is often used loosely or figuratively in cosmological discussions. But literally nothing is a preposterous proposition. Where can this literal nothing exist? Between the singularity and event horizon of a black hole? Or when did it exist? Before the big bang? Please tell me more about this literal nothing.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Airbrush

[juanrga]

Here lately I've grown quite fond of the idea, of the possibility that dark matter may be the quantum particle of nothing itself; existing within a sea of seething and expanding energies.

The energies would have to flow, or dialate around the nothing paricle and thus cause a surface tension effect. As with everything else the nothing particles would flow in the path of least resistance and eventually "pool" within the resevoirs of time dialations.

I could imagine an effect that would explain the entropy and structure of outerspace, The universal constant, and the "webb" like appearence that we see aound the galaxies.

I would imagine that vast amounts of energy moving through super large pools could cause enough entopy and radiation to forge hydrogen atoms.

Then again, I do have quite the vivid imagination.

 

Is is likely that dark matter is nothing real, but not in the sense that you seem to imagine "the quantum particle of nothing itself". In alternatives to the dark matter 'paradigm', the astrophysical/cosmological observations are explained using the observed mass. In those models dark matter does not exist.

[36grit]

Many are lead to believe that everything was born out of nothing, what I am proposing is that nothing is a product of the energy that everything is made of. And a vital part of our modulation of reality.

In fact, I'd say that time would be imposible without it and that the higgs boson is a sustained algorythem flowing around a certain energy/nothing ratio. Todays understanding is that vacuum energy anihaltes but what I'm suggesting is that it creates a particle that is nothing more than space and that energy must flow around this space. The particle itself is nothing but energies flowing around it would create a suface tension and a dialation, or if you prefer, a gravitational effect.

 

Nothing does exist. It exists between the nucleous of an atom and the electron. It exists mathmaticaly. Absolute nothing is impossible, therefore it must always exist as a division of a larger whole. Therefore it must exist as quantum particle that lacks any energy on it's own. All things flow in the paths of least resistance.

 

 

 

 

[zapatos]

"nothing; literally" is an impossibility.

I'd kind of like to see you prove it too.

[Airbrush]

I'd kind of like to see you prove it too.

 

Ok, here is my proof. You cannot divide by zero. Just kidding.

 

Since "nothing" is such a loded term in this context, I'd like to see someone prove nothing.

 

"Nothing does exist. It exists between the nucleous of an atom and the electron."

 

I like this explanation. However, the deeper we probe matter, the more complicated it gets. Maybe there is something between a nucleus and the lowest energy electron shell, we just haven't discovered it yet.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Airbrush

[zapatos]

Ok, here is my proof. You cannot divide by zero. Just kidding.

 

Since "nothing" is such a loded term in this context, I'd like to see someone prove nothing.

Yeah, I'd be interested in seeing that proof too.

[michel123456]

Many are lead to believe that everything was born out of nothing, what I am proposing is that nothing is a product of the energy that everything is made of. And a vital part of our modulation of reality.

In fact, I'd say that time would be imposible without it and that the higgs boson is a sustained algorythem flowing around a certain energy/nothing ratio. Todays understanding is that vacuum energy anihaltes but what I'm suggesting is that it creates a particle that is nothing more than space and that energy must flow around this space. The particle itself is nothing but energies flowing around it would create a suface tension and a dialation, or if you prefer, a gravitational effect.

 

Nothing does exist. It exists between the nucleous of an atom and the electron. It exists mathmaticaly. Absolute nothing is impossible, therefore it must always exist as a division of a larger whole. Therefore it must exist as quantum particle that lacks any energy on it's own. All things flow in the paths of least resistance.

 

(bolded mine)

What "exists between the nucleous of an atom and the electron" is that we call "distance".

 

So, IMHO the question is "what is distance?"

[Airbrush]

(bolded mine)

What "exists between the nucleous of an atom and the electron" is that we call "distance".

 

So, IMHO the question is "what is distance?"

 

Distance is obviously a measurement between 2 different locations, which can be subatomic, as you proposed, but also between ANY 2 objects in different locations.

 

Yeah, I'd be interested in seeing that proof [of nothing] too.

 

Ok, here you go.....there.....you want to see me prove nothing again?

Edited November 17, 2012 by Airbrush

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

 

Distance is obviously a measurement between 2 different locations, which can be subatomic, as you proposed, but also between ANY 2 objects in different locations.

 

 

 

 

It can be the same object in the same time.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69831-could-particles-with-intrinsic-properties-explain-quantum-gravity/page__p__711731#entry711731

 

 

 

____________________________________________

 

Literally "nothing" can really mean "nothing". But "nothing" in the subatomic world mean "energie (invisible)".

____________________________________________

Edited November 18, 2012 by Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU

[John Cuthber]

"

'nothing; literally" is an impossibility.'

 

I'd kind of like to see you prove it too. "

 

The original meaning of literal was letter for letter, and "nothing" has no letters.

So the phrase means in the manner of the letters of something with no letters.

It might not be impossible, but it's damned hard to see it meaning anything.

In that regard, it's rather like the OP.

 

The answer to the title question is still no.

[Jdizz]

Based on this: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/11/particle-physicists-confirm-arrow-of-time-for-b-mesons.html

 

Does this mean that the symmetry hypothesis that Prof. Weinberg references

is starting to appear incorrect?

[36grit]

Based on this: http://blogs.nature....r-b-mesons.html

 

Does this mean that the symmetry hypothesis that Prof. Weinberg references

is starting to appear incorrect?

 

 

I don't know much about symetry but I things seem to follow fracitle patterns of algotrythems to me. If you know what I mean.

[alpha2cen]

Till now we do not know whether Dark Matter is or not around us.

If there were Dark Matter, could we find it easily?

Edited December 3, 2012 by alpha2cen