The Structure of Nothing . Socratus., Has this EMPTINESS- NOTHING a border?

The Structure of Nothing . Socratus.
The Structure of Nothing . According to my peasant logic: 1 + 1 = 2.
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
(all elementary particles and all quarks and
their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks,
all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,
muons… gluons field ….. etc.) – was assembled in a “single point”.
It is interesting to think about what had surrounded the “single point”.
EMPTINESS- NOTHING….???
Ok!
But why does everyone speak about EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
common phrases rather than in specific, concrete terms?
I wonder why nobody has written down this EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
the form of a physical formula ? You see, every schoolboy knows that
is possible to express the EMPTINESS- NOTHING condition
by the formula T=0K.
* * *
Once there was a “Big Bang”.
But in what space had the Big Bang taken place
and in what space was the matter of the Big Bang distributed?
Not in T=0K?
It is clear, that there is only EMPTINESS, NOTHING, in T=0K.
Now consider that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference is
in a condition of T = 2,7K (rests in relic radiation of the Big Bang ).
But, the relic radiation is extended and in the future will change and decrease.
What temperature can this radiation reach?
Not T=0K?
Hence, if we go into the past or into the present or into the future,
we can not escape from EMPTINESS- NOTHING .
Everyone knows about the “singular point”, but nobody knows that it is
EMPTINESS- NOTHING! To understand it, it is necessary to ask a question:
What geometric and physical parameters can particles have in T=0K?
Can they have a volume?
No.
Then they must have the geometrical form of a flat circle: C/D =p= 3,14.
But what these particles do ?
Nothing.
They are in a condition of rest: h = 0. So, maybe they are dead?
In order to answer of this question, it is necessary to more clearly understand
EMPTINESS- NOTHING.
* * *
Has this EMPTINESS- NOTHING a border? No! It has no borders.
EMPTINESS- NOTHING is indefinite. Let's identify it by the formula: T=0K = ∞
And what about time in the EMPTINESS- NOTHING ?
Independent time is absent.
Time in EMPTINESS- NOTHING is indissolubly merged with infinite space.
Stop!
But you see, such space is described by Einstein in Special Relativity Theory.
In SRT, space also has a negative characteristic and there also,
time is indissolubly merged with space.
Only in SRT, this EMPTINESS- NOTHING has another name:
Negative four-dimensional (Minkowski) space.
Then it is possible to conclude that SRT describes the behaviour
of the circle-particles in T=0K.
* * *
In agreement with SRT, these circle-particles can be in two conditions of movement:
To fly rectilinearly with a speed of c =1.
In this kind of movement , it is named a “quantum of light”, ”photon”.
2) To rotate around its own diameter and then its form and
physical parameters will change according to the Lorentz transformation.
In this kind of movement, it is named the “electron”.
* * *
But what is the reason for the movement of circle-particles?
In the EMPTINESS- NOTHING, nothing can influence the condition of rest.
Quantum theory gives the answer to this question.
1) The rectilinear movement of the circle-particles depends
on Planck's spin :h = 1.
2) The rotary movement of the circle-particles depends on the spin
of Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck: ħ = h / 2p.
* * *
Very strange particles surround the "singular point ".
These circle-particles can be in three conditions:
1) h = 0 ,
2) h = 1,
3) ) ħ = h / 2p
And they can independently decide what action to take.
So it can work only with particles that have their own consciousness,
which is not static but can develop.
The development of consciousness scale goes " from vague wishes up to a clear thought ".
* * *
Best regards.
Socratus.
http://www.socratus.com
"If consciousness is in fact defined (and different) at every moment of time,
it should also be related to points in space:
the truly subjective observer system should be related to space-time points."
from "Quantum Theory and Time Asymmetry", Zeh (1979).

boaring

is boaring actually boring with horns!!

some peasant!!can you put it in peasant terms!!or ya just bein condescendin!

THere are two forms of nothingness that many people get confused with. The first one is nothingness in our space which isnt truly nothingness considering quantom mechanics and the uncertainty principle. The other nothingness is what is out of the limits of the universe. How I see it is every particle or any piece of anything caries with it the laws and rules of space therefor whereever it is, space is, so anything inside the nothingness would create space inside the nothingness.

I read an interesting book a while back by Brian Greene (the same guy that did Elegant Universe) called "The Fabric of the Cosmos". Although it's geared towards the layman, it is has a generous amount of endnotes that discuss the math, or point you to other books and publications that will go into more detail.

As the title implies, most of the book is devoted to discussions of what the structure of space is. I found it fascinating, because i had never read any good discussions about the fabric of spacetime at the very smallest possible scales.

Well worth reading, and it seems to be relevant to this topic...

I have red a lot of old phisics from around a 100 years ago and they belived nothing was full of Ether. It wories me that to meny of todays sientists do moor maths than exsperiments. If ther is an all permeating Ether and mater and subatomic particals are all some kind of vibration or swirl in the Ether them mater in theary could be created out of thin nothing as it were if the right stimulouse is provided. Then the question would be what could stimulate the Either???

[QUOTE=s0cratus,Aug 7 2005, 03:06 PM] The Structure of Nothing . Socratus.
The Structure of Nothing . According to my peasant logic: 1 + 1 = 2.
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, .....

EMPTINESS-NOTHING is that which is beyond human comprehension. That is why religion was invented.

Personally, I believe that because we live inside human bodies, we are "hung up" on cause-and-effect relationships and relativity between objects (possibly where Einstein got his deep thinking). So, we cannot comprehend the existence of absolute nothingness, that which logically never existed before anything ever existed. Only people totally lost in religion or madness seem to be able to truthfully say "I see the point"...

Nothingness is Liebestraume. Liebestraume is good. Man was made to fill the void. Without man, God and his Creation are empty.

Whom does the Grail serve?.... The Grail serves the one who serves.

As everyone knows, GOD has created ALL.
But to create this ALL – GOD could only working in an absolute reference system
and only under physical and mathematical laws.
Now let us consider that the absolute reference system is the cosmic
microwave background radiation T = 2,7K. What particles can be in this system?
Dirac said - "antiparticles".
Quantum physics - " virtual particles ".
Astrophysics - " latent, invisible particles ", “dark- mass”.
This “dark- mass” is supposed to comprise 90 % (and more) of the matter in the Universe.
Does anybody in the world know if the “dark- mass”," virtual particles ",
"antiparticles" have volume?
No, they do not.
Hence - they are flat, invisible ghosts.
How can these flat, virtual ghost can turn in real particles?
There are two points of view:
1) with the help of " Mechanism Higgsa ".
2) under influence of "spin".
There are two kinds of spin:
a) Spin of Planck h.
Spin of Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck ħ= h /2.
These two kinds of “spin” created two various kinds of movement.
Therefore, if we understand, it is the " Mechanism Higgsa ", that is the "spin",
we shall understand how GOD could create ALL.
We shall then understand the interrelation between the Science and Religion.
* * *
There cannot be a conflict between the science and religion.
Religion without the scientific proof - is not persuasive.
Science which does not take into account religious bases - is hasty.

I'm sorry socrates but if your adding god to ur massive amount of words it may be wise to put "I think" or "I believe" somewhere in there.

About Reference Systems: Vacuum and Space.

From times of Newton in classical physics the principle worked:
" Until the reference system is specified, any conversations on movement
are completely deprived the contents."
Newton, first of all physicists realized, what a main role a reference system has.
The choice of reference system is a central, basic question at the commencement of any task
But the founders of the “Big Bang” theory have forgotten this.
Nowhere do they write in what reference system the "Big Bang" took place,
and in what reference system the substance of the "single point " is distributed.
And consequently, the theory of the "Big Bang" is constructed on a sand.
* * *
The astronomers have established the fact of galaxy rotation
but nobody speaks of the reference system in which they rotate.
Without the inclusion of a reference system the rotation of galaxies
is deprived of any content. To avoid this problem, write:
Each Galaxy is surrounded by an "accompanying reference system",
and the "accompanying reference system" is extended.
/ The Physics of Space. is a small Soviet encyclopedia published in 1986./
This is a joke!
For example, I am at home and I am surrounded by an "accompanying reference system";
my house. Then I go to work surrounded by an "accompanying reference system";
And when I have arrived on the job, I am surrounded by an
"accompanying reference system", the university.
But if we do not understand that we work in the reference system of the Earth,
and the astronomers do not understand in what reference system
the billions of galaxies rotate, any statement is meaningless.
Only when the reference system is specified, then the words "galaxies rotate"
and "Big Bang" make sense.
The first problem in the discussion of the laws of motion is to answer the question,
"In what reference system does this motion occur?
In what reference system are the laws of motion formulated?"
This question is most unpleasant for the amateurs in abstract reasoning and conjecture.
God teaches man to think particularly and logically.
The Devil teaches man to speak with beautiful, general and abstract phrases.
By such method he easily hides the truth from the people.

I think he's read "The Field" too many times