View Full Version : ? of all ?'s
I was watching the the daily show and a theoretical physicist was on promoting a book. Her and Jon Stewart went through the usual banter. Then Jon Stewart asked this person "what question could possibly stump a theoretical physicist? and she said "well you could ask Why is there something instead of nothing"? so Jon Stewart asked the question "why is there something instead of nothing" and she replied "we don't know."
There was a great laugh by everyone and the show ended on that note.
As I thought about, it this is the most fascinating ,intriquing question there is. More important than is there or is there not a god.
I was wondering if you Dr. Young or any of your string theory friends at rutgers care to comment.
"why is there something instead of nothing'
would'nt this be a great final exam question for physics students to mess with ther minds? lol
John
Wise Young
10-27-2006, 03:16 PM
I was watching the the daily show and a theoretical physicist was on promoting a book. Her and Jon Stewart went through the usual banter. Then Jon Stewart asked this person "what question could possibly stump a theoretical physicist? and she said "well you could ask Why is there something instead of nothing"? so Jon Stewart asked the question "why is there something instead of nothing" and she replied "we don't know."
There was a great laugh by everyone and the show ended on that note.
As I thought about, it this is the most fascinating ,intriquing question there is. More important than is there or is there not a god.
I was wondering if you Dr. Young or any of your string theory friends at rutgers care to comment.
"why is there something instead of nothing'
would'nt this be a great final exam question for physics students to mess with ther minds? lol
John
John,
I don't know :).
This is something that Pascal addressed in some detail. He concluded of course with his famous quip, "I think, therefore I am". Perhaps there are many universes where there is "nothing" instead of "something". But, those universes would not contain anybody or anything to contemplate "nothing".
In mathematics, the concept of "nothing" or zero took a long time to come about. But, as we all know, zero is not "nothing". Zero is something, especially if it is associated with something... it actually makes that something bigger.
The first law of thermodynamics addresses one of the corollaries of "something". It is the application of the principle of energy conservation. In other words, if there is "something", it is conserved. It may take different forms but it does not become "nothing".
Now that we have settled the question that something cannot become nothing, at least not normally, it still leaves the question whether nothing can become something. This is where the Big Bang theory comes in and why many people still have difficulty with it.
The premise of the Big Bang Theory is that we can get something from nothing (Source (http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//Maritain/ti/carroll.htm)). That is a premise that some theologians have used to argue for the existence of God.
Wise.
Well if you take the opposite approach, then if there is something then there also is nothing. We just don't see it or don't know how to see it. Yet?!
Lindox
10-28-2006, 03:46 PM
Well if you take the opposite approach, then if there is something then there also is nothing. We just don't see it or don't know how to see it. Yet?!
How would you see nothing?
I think there is no such thing as nothing.
Even when a vacuum is formed..which is the closest thing we realize as nothing..the debris of the removal from forming the vacuum is someplace..thus is a vacuum really nothing.
And how can you name something if it's nothing?
I think what we don't see is something. More something maybe then what we do see.
Perhaps if and when the concept of sparticles which I highly think exists is proven beyond a doubt a whole huge universe of unknowns will be shown. And those unknown somethings will fill universe after universe.
JMHO
Juke_spin
06-19-2008, 10:17 AM
Wise, as I understand it, that the Big Bang took place isn't a demonstration of 'something' coming from 'nothing'. If, as is hypothesized, all the mass of the cosmos was contained in that "softball sized" beginning sphere, then that was all the something that eventually rearranged itself to be the past and current universe. That first occurring something just evolved into a bigger something.
NorthQuad
06-19-2008, 11:11 AM
How did God become if God became? How did God create if God created? Are we inside of something living? Are we outside of something living? Does something begin and end? Did something die before we lived? If we are in something living and it dies, will we die?
good questions North , can't wait to see who has the answers. :)
Juke_spin
06-19-2008, 11:29 AM
The OP and relevant replies are valid and sincere. The rest is fluff, intentional or not.
NorthQuad and Kenf, are you supposing yourselves to be on the level?
Mike C
06-20-2008, 06:38 PM
One thing is for sure, we all get to find out the answer eventually.
Lazlo
06-20-2008, 06:54 PM
This is something that Pascal addressed in some detail. He concluded of course with his famous quip, "I think, therefore I am". Perhaps there are many universes where there is "nothing" instead of "something". But, those universes would not contain anybody or anything to contemplate "nothing".
The anthropic principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) turns up more and more often in physics and cosmology, even though it sounds more like Zen than science.
In mathematics, the concept of "nothing" or zero took a long time to come about. But, as we all know, zero is not "nothing". Zero is something, especially if it is associated with something... it actually makes that something bigger.
Thank God, I'm finally getting the recognition I deserve!
Z
knowthill
06-20-2008, 07:54 PM
John,
I don't know :).
This is something that Pascal addressed in some detail. He concluded of course with his famous quip, "I think, therefore I am". Perhaps there are many universes where there is "nothing" instead of "something". But, those universes would not contain anybody or anything to contemplate "nothing".
In mathematics, the concept of "nothing" or zero took a long time to come about. But, as we all know, zero is not "nothing". Zero is something, especially if it is associated with something... it actually makes that something bigger.
The first law of thermodynamics addresses one of the corollaries of "something". It is the application of the principle of energy conservation. In other words, if there is "something", it is conserved. It may take different forms but it does not become "nothing".
Now that we have settled the question that something cannot become nothing, at least not normally, it still leaves the question whether nothing can become something. This is where the Big Bang theory comes in and why many people still have difficulty with it.
The premise of the Big Bang Theory is that we can get something from nothing (Source (http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//Maritain/ti/carroll.htm)). That is a premise that some theologians have used to argue for the existence of God.
Wise.
Read about Rene Descartes: 'I think therefore I am' (http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Outline_of_Great_Books_Volume_I/ithinkth_bga.html) and others at
Outline of Great Books Volume I (http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Outline_of_Great_Books_Volume_I/)
I am not spamming this site I use it a lot in my research. The question still demonstrates the meaning of infinity where do we begin and do we ever end. I believe because there is no disproof it must have always existed. It is easier to disprove something then to prove it. So until I find the proof of nonexistence matter and super matter had to exist. So this concludes I don’t know.
The OP and relevant replies are valid and sincere. The rest is fluff, intentional or not.
NorthQuad and Kenf, are you supposing yourselves to be on the level?
Perhaps it is “fluff” to a hardened physicist but not to a philosopher.
It may seem like fluff to you and a number of theoretical physicists, but keep in mind that many of the theories currently being embraced by scientists may someday belong to the nebulous domain of fanciful postulation—just stuff and nonsense.
Valid and sincere is a long way from absolute truth my friend.
.
if you were sitting around and there was nothing you'd get something happening pretty quick . its just more fun .