Question about "nothing"

[nomnomnom]

Let me do a layman method

When i fail ,i try a new approach from beginning if it fails hard

 

Questions rise.....as

As i understand quantum applies to matter medium

As per symmetry, the following facts prove matter is very different from anti matter

 

1.. Anti matter found been very less in universe. I see if what in space ,what is dark matter - nothing

...is anti matter

2. Anti matter has to way farther from matter . Some thories say a magnetic field or atmosphere may behave as a membrane isolating matter- antimatter

 

3 .. As per c speed of light, some studies point when neutrinos from space hit at atmosphere c=2.5 c

So atmosphere-magnetic field act as a containing medium like a particle accelerator.

 

As my theory was beyond my feild of cse( i did basic quantum studies from feymann et al) and my professors dissuade modern thoertical new ideas, i am blind when it comes to explaining in minute detail.

 

As per feymann,, quantum says waves are sinusoidal when frequency is low

And digital when f is high.

 

My theory is like that.... meaning basic concepts when working with antimatter needs be reworked!

 

My theory say anti matter is interstatial space around planets we call nothing separated by magnetic fields from matter , and governed by complex undeterministic model .

 

Anti matter is all around people call nothing in space

Edited January 4, 2016 by nomnomnom

[Strange]

1.. Anti matter found been very less in universe.

 

So there are some asymmetries between matter and antimatter. These are not yet fully understood.

 

I see if what in space ,what is dark matter - nothing

...is mati matter

 

Dark matter is very obviously not nothing. And almost certainly not antimatter (if it were, why doesn't it annihilate with the matter).

 

2. Anti matter has to way farther from matter . Some thories say a magnetic field or atmosphere may behave as a membrane isolating matter- antimatter

 

Which theories are those? Can you provide a reference?

 

3 .. As per c speed of light, some studies point when neutrinos from space hit at atmosphere c=2.5 c

 

I find that very unlikely. Given the worldwide headlines when it was (mistakenly) thought that neutrinos had been measured travelling at a fraction aboce c, I think that travelling at 2.5c would have caused a storm of news.

 

Can you provide a reference to neutrinos travelling at more than twice the speed of light?

 

As per feymann,, quantum says waves are sinusoidal when frequency is low

And digital when f is high.

 

It doesn't really say anything like that. It seems you have a slightly jumbled understanding of quantum theory.

 

My theory say anti matter is interstatial space around planets we call nothing separated by magnetic fields from matter , and governed by complex undeterministic model .

 

As you do not have any mathematics or evidence to support this, you don't really have a "theory". What you have is a fertile imagination.

[nomnomnom]

as per say , there were some journals at engineeringvillage and ieeee about 2.5c neutrinos on bombarding

Earths atmosphere , as all are indeterministic and cannot be practically performed except in a non matter

Antimaterial model mathemathical model would be very inconclusive ,but facts found in journals meet the "imagination"

 

Have fun , finding out the "NOTHING#"

As per feymann wrote in wother words ...sinusoidal or digital , all depends on frequency of waves

And whether it is so small that it has to be quantumized by integrating

Digital waves in quanta

And analog as per string wave thory

Both are governed by different set of equations ,but at least feyman almost linked digital waves behavoiur to be as

A superstring analog wave.

 

Antimatter is almost in my " hypothesis" imagination model that solved my emc problems to an extent practically

But were not mathematically conclusive as per current rules of equations .

But at least my prototype worked and i am happy my concepts worked by forming a counter emc field to sort unwarranted interferences randomly

[Strange]

as per say , there were some journals at engineeringvillage and ieeee about 2.5c neutrinos on bombarding

 

I don't believe you.

[ajb]

as per say , there were some journals at engineeringvillage and ieeee about 2.5c neutrinos on bombarding

Can you point to the actual papers please.

 

I expect you have misinterpreted something.

[cjmg85]

Simple as this:

 

something can't be nothing

nothing can't be something

[TakenItSeriously]

If you believe that the universe is bounded by the Big Bang, as in nothing came before the Big Bang, then it seems to imply that you would believe in nothing as a state of nonexistance. I have trouble with such a concept myself.

 

This would seem to mean that everything came from nothing and nothing would include no matter, no space, no time, no forces, no information, no energy, no god?

 

In fact there would be nothing to induce the Big Bang either, so the Big Bang just happened for no reason.

 

Since I don't believe in such a concept, I don't believe in nothing as an absolute state of nonexistance.

[StringJunky]

If you believe that the universe is bounded by the Big Bang, as in nothing came before the Big Bang, then it seems to imply that you would believe in nothing as a state of nonexistance. I have trouble with such a concept myself.

 

This would seem to mean that everything came from nothing and nothing would include no matter, no space, no time, no forces, no information, no energy, no god?

 

In fact there would be nothing to induce the Big Bang either, so the Big Bang just happened for no reason.

 

Since I don't believe in such a concept, I don't believe in nothing as an absolute state of nonexistance.

It's better to view the BB as the limit of what we currently know with any confidence, that is supported by any evidence. Thinking passed that is just pure imagination at the moment.

[TakenItSeriously]

It's better to view the BB as the limit of what we currently know with any confidence, that is supported by any evidence. Thinking passed that is just pure imagination at the moment.

Well, I still believe in the BB, I just have my own ideas about what comes before the BB.

 

While I agree that we can only speculate about what occurs before the BB, to say that there is nothing before the BB is also speculation.

 

Therefore if speculation doesn't create an unphysical condition and is a more reasonable solution than nothing (IMO) I may as well use it until a better option comes along.

[Mordred]

Depends on your flavour. Cyclic, bounce or first universe. Evidence support is neither in any direction.

 

 

One of the reasons BB doesn't state how the universe began. It only covers 10^-43 seconds forward

[bay]

Nothing is no material, so no spacetime.

[studiot]

Welcome, bay, and thank you for your contribution.

 

Don't you think you are unecessarily and arbitrarily limiting the definition of nothing to the abscence of concrete nopuns?

 

What about all the abstract nouns like love, hate, tiredness, celerity, and so on?

[Strange]

Nothing is no material, so no spacetime.

 

As space-time is not material, the "so" seems incorrect. Maybe "and" would be better?

[Sorcerer]

I'm learning a little about set theory at the moment, particularly ZFC, but I just glanced at category theory too. Set theory shows how sets are the basis for numbers, and as the basis of all sets is the empty set, this seems to me to be a very good candidate for a definition of nothing.

 

Considering all physics used to model the universe requires math, and all math can be built from an empty set, then there is a logical progression from the empty set (nothing) to everything we have now. However this requires that we assume mathematics isn't an approximation of reality and rather that reality can be exactly described by mathematics. It also requires that there is at least one other abstract entity, some function.

 

The concept of a set and the addition of a function make it necessary to ask whether an abstract mathematical concept is something or nothing. This is dependent on whether you define something to be only measurable and tangible substances in the universe, or you extend the definition to include abstract mathematical concepts, or even further, everything. Paradoxically, extending the definition in either of these ways means that all the things you define as something would then include the concept of nothing, since nothing itself is an abstract mathematical concept. Nothing therefore becomes something, so the logical choice would be to define something as only measurable and tangible substances in the universe (I could probably find a more concise way to say that).

 

The prior assumption that maths and reality are one and the same also point to nothing being something. However it is possible to avoid this problem is we exclude nothing as a mathematical entity and instead only use 0. The problem arises then, how can we from processes which require the use of something come to perceive of a concept of nothing which could reasonably be assumed to be correct. Without our concept, does nothing still not exist - it seems we created it just to torture our heads.

 

 

Wiki goes over some of the philosophical problems with this idea here:

 

 

 

Philosophical issues[edit]

While the empty set is a standard and widely accepted mathematical concept, it remains an ontological curiosity, whose meaning and usefulness are debated by philosophers and logicians.

The empty set is not the same thing as nothing; rather, it is a set with nothing inside it and a set is always something. This issue can be overcome by viewing a set as a bag—an empty bag undoubtedly still exists. Darling (2004) explains that the empty set is not nothing, but rather "the set of all triangles with four sides, the set of all numbers that are bigger than nine but smaller than eight, and the set of all opening moves in chess that involve a king."^[4]

The popular syllogism

Nothing is better than eternal happiness; a ham sandwich is better than nothing; therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness

is often used to demonstrate the philosophical relation between the concept of nothing and the empty set. Darling writes that the contrast can be seen by rewriting the statements "Nothing is better than eternal happiness" and "[A] ham sandwich is better than nothing" in a mathematical tone. According to Darling, the former is equivalent to "The set of all things that are better than eternal happiness is " and the latter to "The set {ham sandwich} is better than the set ". It is noted that the first compares elements of sets, while the second compares the sets themselves.^[4]

Jonathan Lowe argues that while the empty set:

"...was undoubtedly an important landmark in the history of mathematics, … we should not assume that its utility in calculation is dependent upon its actually denoting some object."

it is also the case that:

"All that we are ever informed about the empty set is that it (1) is a set, (2) has no members, and (3) is unique amongst sets in having no members. However, there are very many things that 'have no members', in the set-theoretical sense—namely, all non-sets. It is perfectly clear why these things have no members, for they are not sets. What is unclear is how there can be, uniquely amongst sets, a set which has no members. We cannot conjure such an entity into existence by mere stipulation."^[5]

George Boolos argued that much of what has been heretofore obtained by set theory can just as easily be obtained by plural quantification over individuals, withoutreifying sets as singular entities having other entities as members.^[6]

 

We'll all have an opinion I guess, I'm not totally convinced myself.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Sorcerer

[studiot]

 

sorcerer

We'll all have an opinion I guess, I'm not totally convinced myself.

 

What are you not convinced about?

 

If you are not convinced, why did you quote these articles?

 

 

I agree the Wiki article contains some glaring inconsistencies.

 

 

Edit I have just seen this

 

You asked this in another thread

 

 

So I don't have a collection or a want. I'm just playing with ideas and learning. Actually this other thread, maybe you could show me how to use sets here, I guess it starts with the collection of every possible concept. http://www.sciencefo...thing/?p=905563

 

So here is a simple proof that there is only one null (empty) set.

 

By definition two sets are equal if both sets have exactly the same elements.

 

(Note in the context of sets this equality is an identity which means that they are the same)

 

But all the elements of all null sets must be the same

 

So all null sets are the same

 

Or there is only one null set.

 

Does this help?

Edited February 13, 2016 by studiot

[PeterJ]

Great post, Sorcerer.

 

You might like Spencer Brown's 'Laws of Form', in which he presents an ontology based on the same idea as Kant. Brown likens the original phenomenon to a blank piece of paper. Kant calls it 'not an instance of a category'. I think you are on exactly the right track. The empty set is a muddled idea imho, but very close to a good one. Kant's idea of a phenomenon that is beyond the categories of thought seems a better one, since it is the basis of the perennial philosophy.