E = mc 2

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I was going to try and say this in the other thread before you posted it:

Energy = matter. That's what E=MC2 is all about. The energy doesn't convert to matter, the energy IS matter. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form. This means that the energy should have always been there, in one form or another. I don't know what form it was prior to singularity, if any, but it certainly wasn't nothing. Based on those laws, the energy was not created, so it rules out creation. If there are multiple dimensions, the energy could have come from there, or from another universe.

I have a very loose theory (layman's theory) on it. The theme of dark vs light has been part of our cultures for a long time. Virtually every holy book or ancient text has references to light vs dark or positive vs negative. What if doesn't actually mean good and evil, it references the dark and the light, the 2 key components of the universe. I know it can't be as simple as this, but you have a dimension of pure energy, and a dimension of darkness (call it the void or whatever you'd like). Every now and then the light expands into the dark. God is the dimension of light to which we are all connected.

This is where all the talk of duality comes from.

The yin and yang
god vs devil
the balance of karma
Set vs Ra

Perhaps it is all just in the very fabric of our beings because that is how this universe exists. It is like the light dimension blowing a bubble into the dark. Eventually the bubble will push it all back into the light dimension and a new one forms somewhere else. Black holes are caused by the stress of the border between them from stretching. This is why supernovas have the power to break through and create them. Once they are there, they act like relief valves.

I know it's all just a big guess, but I can't think of any other way to explain how this could happen without breaking laws of physics or accounting for the concept of time before time existed.

you would think they might realize that darkness implies light, and the less shadow there is, the less light there is also.

but to answer the question posed in the op...it appears there is no official answer yet. the matter is still being investigated by our brightest minds and tools even as we have this exchange. so let the investigation finish. this kind of riddle deserves to be solved properly, not quickly.

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

In philosophy it's one of the big questions: Why is there something rather than nothing? But the more I thought about it the more that bothered me, how is NOTHING even a possibility. It's just an assumption humans tend to make that nothing could even exist and yet the statement "(a) nothing exists" makes no sense. In my opinion the question itself is silly, it's one of the fundamental questions of philosophy that remains unanswered because the question itself is malformed.

i was just in another thread about this very thing. it is impossible to have nothing because the concept of nothing requires something to compare it to. you cant have nothing without something, and that defeats it. so there was always something...unless theres an "outside"? outside the universe? but that would be pure guess work.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I think that was my thread and I agree with you!

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Titen-Sxull

In philosophy it's one of the big questions: Why is there something rather than nothing? But the more I thought about it the more that bothered me, how is NOTHING even a possibility. It's just an assumption humans tend to make that nothing could even exist and yet the statement "(a) nothing exists" makes no sense. In my opinion the question itself is silly, it's one of the fundamental questions of philosophy that remains unanswered because the question itself is malformed.

i was just in another thread about this very thing. it is impossible to have nothing because the concept of nothing requires something to compare it to. you cant have nothing without something, and that defeats it. so there was always something...unless theres an "outside"? outside the universe? but that would be pure guess work.

Is it really Guess work?

Our universe is 13.79 billion years old. Our universe didnt exist 20 billion years ago.

Our universe is not all there is. So there is something else. So we have something to compare Our universe With.

Our universe is expanding. In many ways that can be explained and can tell you something about what is beyond Our expanding universe.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
it is impossible to have nothing because the concept of nothing requires something to compare it to. you cant have nothing without something, and that defeats it. so there was always something...unless theres an "outside"? outside the universe? but that would be pure guess work.

Wait...I agree but I also disagree, it seems. But I do agree that Nothing is a concept/idea. Obviously it's nothing more than an idea because it is, har, har...Nothing.

So, I don't think it's a choice between one or the other -- Nothing or Something.

Nothing exists in the sense that it is an idea defined by what it is not. It's the idea that is important. Nothing exists as an idea at the very center of it all. It's impossible for the idea of Nothing to NOT exist -- even if humans are just realizing the idea exists.

And because the idea of Nothing is defined by Something...and vice versa...both exist in the forms necessary for them to exist.

Something has space, time, energy, and matter.

Nothing is an idea.

And that's all both need to be because neither has the qualities the other has.

Your question is the question and the answer is nobody knows because even the hypothetical singularity isn't mathematically possible.

You don't dispute the big bang but I think we will see even that questioned in coming decades as the microwave background isn't shaped correctly for a big bang event. Conversely WMAP provides strong evidence that the universe is flat, so from spinning atoms, to solar systems, to galaxies, to our observable universe, everything spins on a flat plane. Its not beyond probability that something even more grandeur than our observable universe exists far beyond the confines of our telescopes.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: TzarChasm
it is impossible to have nothing because the concept of nothing requires something to compare it to. you cant have nothing without something, and that defeats it. so there was always something...unless theres an "outside"? outside the universe? but that would be pure guess work.

Wait...I agree but I also disagree, it seems. But I do agree that Nothing is a concept/idea. Obviously it's nothing more than an idea because it is, har, har...Nothing.

So, I don't think it's a choice between one or the other -- Nothing or Something.

Nothing exists in the sense that it is an idea defined by what it is not. It's the idea that is important. Nothing exists as an idea at the very center of it all. It's impossible for the idea of Nothing to NOT exist -- even if humans are just realizing the idea exists.

And because the idea of Nothing is defined by Something...and vice versa...both exist in the forms necessary for them to exist.

Something has space, time, energy, and matter.

Nothing is an idea.

And that's all both need to be because neither has the qualities the other has.

indeed. its also funny because similarly, something alludes to nothing. presence implies absence. there must be something to be nothing, and there must be less if there is more.

having fun yet?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Something has space, time, energy, and matter.

Nothing is an idea.

And that's all both need to be because neither has the qualities the other has.

Actually I need to revise that...

"Nothing is just an idea.

Something has space, time, energy, matter....AND it's an idea, too."

The ideas are dependent on one another in the same sense that 0 is dependent on 1:

If the idea of 0 and 1 exist because they are necessary to define one another, then 2 must come into being because the idea of 1+1=2 comes into being de facto. Then 3 comes into being, de facto, because 1 and 2 exist (1+2=3), etc.

Math proves the universe is infinite and why it's contents are precisely what they need to be infinite...de facto.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

“You can divide infinity an infinite number of times, and the resulting pieces will still be infinitely large,” Uresh said in his odd Lenatti accent. “But if you divide a non-infinite number an infinite number of times the resulting pieces are non-infinitely small. Since they are non-infinitely small, but there are an infinite number of them, if you add them back together, their sum is infinite. This implies any number is, in fact, infinite.”

the wise mans fear, by patrick rothfuss. a most stimulating piece of literature.

a reply to: TzarChasm

It's delightfully fun to think about these things!

I sometimes think the answer is simple. Understanding that it is IMPOSSIBLE for NEITHER idea -- Something and Nothing -- to not exist is a simple start and it makes me happy.

Because we can define Something...we can also define Nothing.

That information ALONE should tell us EVERYTHING about Something.

If time has to pass so that the idea of the absence of Time can exist, then that begins to complicate things. Now we have Time moving in a direction. But how can we define that direction -- only by the idea of another direction of Time.

So there likely is Something (another Universe maybe) moving in another direction of Time and it's added into the mix of Something.

If the idea of Nothing is that it's colorless, then color must exist to define the absence of color.

So a single color was 'born.' But what color? Another color must exist to define the first one. Now the idea of those colors mixing is born, as well. So the colors mix to make a third color. And the third color mixes with the first two multiplying colors, etc. As many colors as are needed to define 'color' and 'colorlessness.'

So, I'm having fun, are you?

a reply to: FearYourMind

The energy is transferred to a different form. For example when you burn wood on a fire, the wood doesn't get destroyed, it is converted to ash, smoke, and other chemicals. When a person dies, their body decomposes and gets recycled back into the earth as dirt as it is consumed by maggots and other flesh eaters. The energy changes forms. I can't comment on what happens to the "soul" or spirit on death as such a thing has never been observed. We are more than flesh and bone. The iron in our blood shows that we are made of star stuff. We are the universe at the very essence of our beings. The soul or spirit could simply be our connection to the light.

a reply to: Barcs

I know what you are saying, but atomic matter can release energy, and energy can form atomic matter, my focus is on the latter. Where did all that energy come from to form the trillions of atomic particles at the point of singularity, or "big bang". Many are saying we don't know, if the void(matter-less pre-universe space) was even devoid of that massive energy. What caused that energy ?

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Barcs

I know what you are saying, but atomic matter can release energy, and energy can form atomic matter, my focus is on the latter. Where did all that energy come from to form the trillions of atomic particles at the point of singularity, or "big bang". Many are saying we don't know, if the void(matter-less pre-universe space) was even devoid of that massive energy. What caused that energy ?

Would you agree that a absolute infinite empty void of Space (absolute vacuum) is the moste powerfull energy Source there is?

There is actually nothing we know that can even come Close to it. It is the only energy Source that is absolute neutral.

a reply to: spy66

How is an absolute vacuum of nothing energy ?
Because energy is something.

a reply to: Barcs

Energy = matter. That's what E=MC2 is all about. The energy doesn't convert to matter, the energy IS matter.

No.
Energy is not matter. Matter can be converted to energy (quite a lot of energy) and energy (quite a lot of energy) can be converted to matter.

Energy can be transferred from one location to another (electromagnetic radiation). Matter cannot be transferred from one place to another without the application of energy. They are not the same thing. At all.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

What caused that energy ?

A meaningless question. Unless you are going all philosophical. In that case all bets are off.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I really think that one universe spawns another once it has reached a level of consciousness (from the sentient beings within) that overflows and somehow causes what we refer to as the big bang. I cannot say this is an original idea of mine but I would rather not say where this concept came from. Think of it as a mass exchange of information.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

in essence...you cannot have 1 without other.

And for zero to exist is dependant on 1. Which, in effect, means that zero is 1, and 1 is other (from the perspective of quanta)

Essentially, the basis of esoteric numerology.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Which, in effect, means that zero is 1

Nooooo.
In fact, it means the opposite.
If reality were actually binary, 0 would not be 1.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: spy66

How is an absolute vacuum of nothing energy ?
Because energy is something.

Yes, energy is "something", which is the basis of some laser experiments (attempting to create a black hole with a laser)