The Conservative Cave
Interests => The Science Club => Topic started by: mrclose on June 24, 2015, 11:52:11 PM
-
Scientist once believed that atoms were the smallest part of matter .. until they found that they really weren't.
Science has since broken matter down to other, smaller particles like protons, neutrons and electrons.
Then there are these things called 'quarks' and 'charms' just to name a few!
My question: All of these 'particles' are in something .. aren't they?
What happens when the breakdown of particles reaches the very end?
They must exist .. somewhere, in something like space?
Like the planets and stars which exist in space, doesn't matter, no matter (play on words :-)) how small have to exist in a space of some kind?
Is there really such a thing as nothing or will we forever be discovering smaller and smaller particles?:confused:
I know that this question probably cannot be answered but I find it fun to ponder!
To confuse the issue even further ...
I 'stole' this from .. somewhere? :whistling:
Nothing either exists or it does not.
If it exists, it has the property of Existence, it is then something.
If it does not exist, well... it is only then that it is really nothing.
:lmao:
-
It's actually is at the point of breaking my 'willing suspension of disbelief,' thanks to the Higgs Boson. It seems the Standard Model of quantum mechanics breaks down unless you posit a super-particle and throw in many boards of calculation in order to match up and fit the rather elegantly-simple model of space-time on the macro level. The whole thing is starting to smell like just a kludge. Really what we call the macro level is more the meso level, I suspect there are effects we do not understand at work on the truly macro level, leading to kludges on the other end like string theory and dark matter that essentially boil down to magical incantations to make observed macro phenomena fit the model that works on the meso level.
-
What is "nothing"?
It is the amount of money left in your wallet after a Proglodyte gets his grubby hands on it.
Next question.
-
It's actually is at the point of breaking my 'willing suspension of disbelief,' thanks to the Higgs Boson. It seems the Standard Model of quantum mechanics breaks down unless you posit a super-particle and throw in many boards of calculation in order to match up and fit the rather elegantly-simple model of space-time on the macro level. The whole thing is starting to smell like just a kludge. Really what we call the macro level is more the meso level, I suspect there are effects we do not understand at work on the truly macro level, leading to kludges on the other end like string theory and dark matter that essentially boil down to magical incantations to make observed macro phenomena fit the model that works on the meso level.
So maybe there is a "magical sky being" that created everything and it is impossible to fully understand his creation. :-)
-
If nothing exists, its state of existence makes it something rather than nothing.
True nothing must have a state of nonexistence to exist, which, um, means it doesn't exist, doesn't it?
Or... I could just have a cup of tea, which does exist and seldom creates any philosophical issues, at least until the cup is empty, which then contains a full cup of non-tea, a total absence of tea, a nothing state of tea-ness... Sorry.
Off in tangent-land, there. :lmao:
-
If nothing exists, its state of existence makes it something rather than nothing.
True nothing must have a state of nonexistence to exist, which, um, means it doesn't exist, doesn't it?
Or... I could just have a cup of tea, which does exist and seldom creates any philosophical issues, at least until the cup is empty, which then contains a full cup of non-tea, a total absence of tea, a nothing state of tea-ness... Sorry.
Off in tangent-land, there. :lmao:
But when you drink half of the tea, is the cup half full of tea, half empty or half full of nothingness?
-
So maybe there is a "magical sky being" that created everything and it is impossible to fully understand his creation. :-)
Entirely possible, of course it could just be that all our sooper-jeenyuses aren't nearly as smart as they think they are and are simply doing a highly jargonistic and academicized bunch of 'Just making shit up.'
-
Let me take a swing at this curve ball.
"Nothing" is not a noun. It is a pronoun, an adjective, or an adverb, depending on how it's used. There is neither a thing called "nothing", nor is there a condition called "nothing".
"Space" is a noun. "Vacuum" is a noun. Between celestial bodies, and between subatomic particles, "space" and/or "vacuum" exist. Space and vacuum may contain no particles, but contain energy- gravity, magnetic, and ionic attraction; light; radiation; and probably things we have not yet discovered. So what you think of as "nothing", "space", and "vacuum" may be loaded with measurable non-material stuff.
Or, unicorn farts hold the universe together; and if the unicorns ever stop farting, we're screwed. The jury's still out on that one.
-
But when you drink half of the tea, is the cup half full of tea, half empty or half full of nothingness?
As someone much brighter than myself told me .. "There is always a residue or we wouldn't have a need to wash dishes". :rotf:
-
We know as much about nothing as we know about love.
After all, what is nothing ?
And, what is love...
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEXWRTEbj1I[/youtube]
-
We know as much about nothing as we know about love.
After all, what is nothing ?
And, what is love...
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEXWRTEbj1I[/youtube]
(https://38.media.tumblr.com/8e16772b41d0f25cc2daf7261564113c/tumblr_mwxis5Jhla1snk31to1_500.gif)
-
"Nothing" makes more sense in the set theory realm and by extension the relational theory.
An empty set (nothing) is a set devoid of instantiation. It is a universe (U^0) with no content.
This should NEVER be confused with nulls, which are instantiated members of a set having no value (if anyone wishes I am ready to discuss 2VL vs. 3VL).
Empty sets have great value in set theory since they are a "target" for set/relational operations where only one set is known. You can reference Chris Date in both the use of null sets and 2VL (no practical purpose) vs 3VL. Note any 2VL operation against a known null results in null (not nothing) which is by definition misleading.
Billy Preston did a much more comprehensive definition than I could:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_DV54ddNHE[/youtube]