# Physics Question (I Think)

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

#### grmpysmrf

##### Guest
WHAT IF THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NOTHING? no matter how small you go you can always go smaller no matter how large you get you can always get larger? so even though it appears as though there is nothing, there is ALWAYS something it's just to small to see. I mean I am talking small building blocks that makes atoms look like boulders/mountains we just haven't the eye t see those things yet. Is this a possible theory? <br />Late, <br />grmpysmrf

B

#### bbrock

##### Guest
This is neither a Physics Question or a Theory. Just a number game. If you take the smallest object known to man, you can numerically state 1/2 the size. Then take 1/2 of that, then 1/2 of that -- on and on and on. Likewise, take the largest object known to man. Such as the Universe, then numerically double it. Then double it again. You only reach zero size when the object argument doesn't exist any longer, or you specify zero. Infinately large is beyond the comprehension of the human mind. I don't think it can ever be reached. <br /><br />Bill

V

#### vogon13

##### Guest
said to Carl Sagan by Hindu woman explaining creation of universe: <br />I know what you're getting at, but it's turtles all the way down. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

C

#### centsworth_II

##### Guest
<i>"WHAT IF THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NOTHING?"</i> -- grmpysmrf<br /><br />There really <b>is</b> no such thing as nothing according to quantum mechanics. There is always a <b>potential</b> (probability) for something -- even in nothing. But your question seems more like "is there really a 'smallest amount' of energy or matter?" According to quantum mechanics, I think, the answer is yes. But this 'smallest amount' can appear out of "nothing", so nothing is just a temporary condition at any particular point in space and time.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

G

#### grmpysmrf

##### Guest
"There really is no such thing as nothing according to quantum mechanics. There is always a potential (probability) for something -- even in nothing. But your question seems more like "is there really a 'smallest amount' of energy or matter?" According to quantum mechanics, I think, the answer is yes. But this 'smallest amount' can appear out of "nothing", so nothing is just a temporary condition at any particular point in space and time. "<br /><br /><br />Thank you that was a straight forward Answer to the question instead of all of these wanna-be philosophers answering in cryptic riddles.<br />Late,<br />grmpysmrf

N

#### newtonian

##### Guest
grmpysmrf - That is definitely a physics question, though it also involves astronomy and other sciences.<br /><br />Some believe that Planck length is the smallest possible length - as in quantum theory.<br /><br />I doubt it. Strings in String theory may be smaller. <br /><br />There are questions as to spins and other varying qualities of quarks that may indicate something smaller than a quark is involved in producing these properties.<br /><br />Our universe may have had its origin in a singularity whose radius was smaller than planck length.<br /><br />Your question definitely involves astrophysics.<br /><br />Consider the opposite: how large is the largest?<br /><br />As to large, one must first consider other possible dimensions, and other possible universes.<br /><br />For example, note this quote:<br /><br />(1 Kings 8:27) "But will God truly dwell upon the earth? Look! The heavens, yes, the heaven of the heavens, themselves cannot contain you;. . .<br /><br />For scientists, this would be theoretical astrophsics, since we cannot observe directly other universes.<br /><br />However, it is certainly possible that there is a much larger universe containing many other universes including our universe,<br /><br />The quote indicates God cannot be contained in such a heaven of the heavens (possible universe of multiverses), yet the Bible does indicate God dwell in another heaven (universe?). <br /><br />There are many astronomers who consider it likely our universe is not the only universe. <br /><br />Linde, in his theory on the origin of our universe from interactions in a pre-existing scaler field also postulates other universes - for one example.<br />

D

#### draklorza

##### Guest
I'm glad i found this thread.<br />I just posted elsewhere on a concept somewhat similar.<br />perhaps someone from this thread can offer their thoughts<br />on this phrase;<br />"NOTHING HAS A POINT OF ORIGIN."<br />

N

#### newtonian

##### Guest
Draklorza - It depends on your definition of nothing. <br /><br />When, in Job 26:7 Moses stated that earth is hung upon nothing, he meant no matter, no physical support.<br /><br />Newton discovered that nothing was gravity, and it may have a point of origin - scientists still do not precisely understand how gravity is propagated or carried. Is a graviton nothing? <br />Our universe started at a point of origin. Included as part of the origin of our universe is the origin of space, and also space-time. <br /><br />Space, and specifically the vacuum of space, might be considered nothing. <br /><br />However, observations by physicists have proven that space is not actually nothing in that it has potential energy that produces virtual particles which wink in and out of existence without violating the law of conservation of matter and energy.<br /><br />This is also not fully understood.<br /><br />Now, if you define nothing as zero energy and matter, such as may exist between universes or beyond our universes light cone until one reaches the next universe, then it may not have an origin.<br /><br />Since, in absolute sense, the lack of anything, including all forms of matter and energy, seen and unseen, dark energy and dark matter included, would not have an existence so as to have an origin.<br /><br />However, since God is the First Cause, in my own beliefs, there was never a time when energy did not exist.<br /><br />All existence stems from the scientific priniciple of cause and effect going all the way back to the first cause.<br />

D

#### draklorza

##### Guest
Newtonian,<br />You are the most intelligent and insightful person to have ever replied to one of my posts.<br />however, your line 4 of 9 is one that escapes my perceptions.<br />(perhaps i'm not as versed in this field).<br />can you elaborate on how physicsts have proven that the existence of virtual particles in space demonstrates it's own energy potential?<br />Can you explain what the law of conservation of matter and energy is?<br />What proof constitues a law?<br />7 of 9 I think you hit the nail on the head.<br />

M

#### mooware

##### Guest
Hey look, a white guy. I figured he'd be middle eastern. <br /><br />Silly me.<br /><br />

S

#### Saiph

##### Guest
Virtual particle pair production:<br /><br />1) Heisenberg's uncertainty principle basically requires that a vacuum have energy in and of itself. Because 0 energy is far to defined, heisenberg's principle broaden's it out and says that there is some energy there, but it's fleeting, random, and unusable in any productive sense.<br /><br />2) The virtual particles are created, and destroyed, very rapidly, and they have to come from somewhere (mass and energy conservation, next point). Matter can't just pop into being, it must come from someplace else, or take the place of an equivelant amount of energy.<br /><br />3) Mass and energy are equivelant. Or to split hairs, proportional. This is given by the ubiquitous e=mc^2 equation. It states that a little bit of mass can be transformed into a lot of energy. Various other properties of matter (including the fact that it can act like a wave, instead of a solid object under the right conditions) have lead the current models to think of matter as very condensed, very compact, energy. Energy and matter are two sides of the same coin. you can switch between the two, and you can convert from one to the next, but you can't can't change the total sum. It's like having a dollar. No matter how you split the change, no matter the coin combination you use, you'll always have a dollar. You aren't allowed to drop the coins, or spend them (even if you do, they're still there, just in someone elses pocket) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

N

#### newtonian

##### Guest
Draklorza- Thank you. There are other well informed posters here, notably Saiph who just gave a good response on the law of conservation of matter and energy.<br /><br />I'm not sure why you posted an artist's conception of the resurection of Jesus- however, I do believe in the resurrection of Jesus.<br /><br />The obvious connection is how God's dynamic energy has been used either to create or recreate as in resurrect. <br /><br />Segwaying back to the law of conservation of matter and energy, and including God as the original source of all energy, note this quote:<br /><br />"Another problem with Lavoisier's law on the conservation of matter arose in 1952 with the detonation of a thermonuclear device (hydrogen bomb). In that explosion, hydrogen atoms combined to form helium. The mass of the resulting helium, though, was less than that of the original hydrogen. A portion of the mass of the hydrogen was converted into explosive energy, an explosion far more devastating than the bomb released over Hiroshima.<br /><br />As these explosions proved, a small amount of matter represents an enormous quantity of energy. This link between matter and energy explains the power of the sun, which keeps us alive and well. What is the link? Well, some 40 years earlier, in 1905, Einstein had predicted a relationship between matter and energy. Many know of his equation E=mc2. Once Einstein formulated that relationship, other scientists could explain how the sun has kept shining for billions of years. Within the sun, there are continuous thermonuclear reactions. In this way, every second, the sun converts about 564 million tons of hydrogen into 560 million tons of helium. This means that some 4 million tons of matter are transformed into solar energy, a fraction of which reaches earth and sustains life.<br /><br />Significantly, the reverse process is also possible. "Energy changes into matter when subatomic particles collide at high speeds and create new, heavier particles," explains The Wor

N

#### newtonian

##### Guest
mooware - Yes, Jesus was a Jew- which can be close to white albeit actually on the semitic branch of genetic families.<br /><br />However, he was resurected with a different body which is why some of his friends did not recognize him from his outward appearance.<br /><br />BTW- this is way off thread theme!

C

#### centsworth_II

##### Guest
<font color="yellow">"BTW- this is way off thread theme!"</font><br /><br />Newtonian,<br /><br />Although your posts are knowlegeable and informative (and often over my head), you introduce off thread themes whenever you refer to the Bible. If you insist on using the Bible as a science text, you are going to invite biblical discussions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

M

#### mooware

##### Guest
Well, Newt didn't post the pic, and I did go off subject with my "Hey, he's a white guy" comment. So, bringing off topic in this instance is my fault.<br /><br />However you are right though, dern near every post of Newt's spouts a quote from the bible. Not knockin' you Newt, it's just an observation.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

T

#### travelintom

##### Guest
Poor grmypsmrf, all this bible spoutin' and high falutin' theory debate but nobody to address his musing. If there is no such published theory, he should get credit for it. I like the idea; that matter is built upon infinitely smaller blocks. Infinitely, and as infinite as the "outer" universe. Atoms from quarks from strings from.......... . Do the math.

D

#### daniko

##### Guest
I think we must look at the question<br /><font color="yellow">WHAT IF THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NOTHING?</font><br />from the semantic side.<br /><br />We must ask: What the word <font color="yellow">NOTHING</font>means anyway?<br /><br />As general the word <b>nothing</b> is a "place holder" for the white fields in the humans knowledge. In the context of the material physics this word represents the space areas for which we do not know nothing ( the space between protons for example).<br />So until there is something unexplored it'll be called <b>nothing</b> !<br /><br />In this line of thoughts - if we presume that GOD knows all - for him there is no <b>nothing</b><br /><br />hope not too boring <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

Status
Not open for further replies.