Phantasm's Question

[phantasm]

1. In the beginning there was nothing, in the end there will be nothing. What lies in the middle?

Mur: assuming your saying is correct, then obviously in the middle would be everything. My version is that this should not be seen as a linear thing, such as then now in the future...and to support this afirmation i ask you something ...if "in the middle" is everything, wouldnt that means that everything includes also "nothing", its "everything" afterall. ..so if it does, wouldnt that be a paradox? Its hard to understand time staticaly, i tried to do that with the shades but ...


but what if "in the middle" wasn't everything but only part of something? This goes into the whole if it the beginning and ending of all things or just certain things. Before you are born you are nothing. After you are long dead and decomposed you are nothing. So therefore is it the end and the beginning of everything? If so then when each individual dies does everything become something less?

Thats more what I meant when I ask this question. So if "In the Middle" is everything...when something is lost does it become nothing or just less of something? If it becomes nothing then I agree it would become a paradox in itself.

[Grido]

the beginning cannot be nothing, if it was nothing then nothing can come of it

i prefer to believe that in the beginning was chaos, a disorder of things, so in the middle would be an order to things, and the end would revert back to chaos

[Gauge]

But, doesnt chaos itself have order to it?

[Burns]

i might be wrong with that, but chaos is [i]per definitionem[/i] not ordered, if i understand the idea of it correctly...

chaos does necessarily mean that there is no order you could find, all you could see is the opposite/abscence of order

[Kafuuka]

[quote name='Burns' date='06 July 2009 - 07:40 AM' timestamp='1246858803' post='36262']
i might be wrong with that, but chaos is [i]per definitionem[/i] not ordered, if i understand the idea of it correctly...

chaos does necessarily mean that there is no order you could find, all you could see is the opposite/abscence of order
[/quote]
In maths, chaos does contain some form of order. Here's a fragment from a syllabus on dynamical systems, about the definition of a chaotic function:
"And finally, perhaps somewhat paradoxical, we want there to be a form of regularity hidden behind the chaos"
This leads to some weird form of deterministic chaos and nice fractal images. You might argue this is not true chaos, but then what is? Brownian motion is a stochastic process, but given enough molecules, it results in order. The digits of pi are chaotic (afaik) yet we have algorithms to calculate them. If it is possible for a human to see some very complicated order in what originally appeared as chaotic, does it loose its status as being chaotic? Given enough time, is there anything that humans will not be able to make up a system for it?


In the beginning there was nothing, in the end there will be nothing. What lies in the middle?
These are bold assumptions and the words are ambiguous as mentioned: the beginning of the universe or the beginning of a person?
In the beginning of x there was nothing, in the end of x there will be nothing. What lies in the middle? x. In order to talk about x, it has to be somewhere: at the beginning, the middle or the end. Unless x equals nothing, it doesn't exist at the beginning or the end, so it must be in the middle. You can then substitute random words for x, thus mixing logic and ambiguous words. (which is a bad idea of course)

It's easy to assume x is the universe: the beginning of the universe, of everything. Then in the middle is the universe, in the middle is everything. But words being words, you could say if everything exists, then things that I can imagine, but are not real, should exist too.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Kafuuka

[Guybrush Threepwood]

One could also argue that everything is simply EVERY THING. If that's the case then in the middle is every thing, which makes sense. Every thing is simply all things in existence. So, if at first there is nothing, then at the end (We'll assume there's an end, why not) there is also nothing, then in between those to must have been everything in existence at any point.

Of course Grido makes a good point that something can't come from nothing. Is that really the case? Seems logical because we haven't experienced it, and we have all these physical laws. Of course if we are going by experience and physical laws we will also arrive at the conclusion that chaos was not the beginning, because order can not come from total chaos. To our knowledge it never has, and the second law of thermodynamics says that chaos can not be made ordered without causing even more chaos.

Pi is not random, it is the relation between the diameter and circumference of a circle, or radii and volume of a sphere, whatever. Of course it can be predicted.

[Burns]

i've never been that good in physics, but i think to remember that i once heard that mass is energy and vice-versa, so the energy of the chaos could create mass, right?
like in that CERN-collision thingie where huge energy and very little mass creates a lot more mass and less energy, if i understood that so far...

so i guess Kafuuka is right, as he usually is, but nonetheless nothing (waves, or example) can contain energy, and if energy is there, mass can be created, correct? :/

have fun with my random thoughts based on half-knowledge and wikipedia XD

[Guybrush Threepwood]

E=MC^2. Einstein was showing that mass and energy are indeed convertible, as you've said. However, though I've never heard this mentioned in any class, I don't believe it's possible to have energy without mass. Those particles you mentioned have kinetic energy because it is mass moving. Also, chaos (entropy if you will) is defined as usable energy being lost to chaos. If it were total chaos, there would be know energy capable of doing work.

@I'm really confused. Are you saying that something can come from nothing? Or that order can come from disorder? I would argue that waves (or anything with energy, even if it is "pure energy" [which to my knowledge does not exist]) is not nothing, it is something, therefor even assuming it could create mass it would not be something from nothing.

[Grido]

actually just remembered something, and i'm skipping over most of the points here, because well my head is being lazy atm, and my typing fingers hurt.

In a complete vacuum, some particle which i cant remember the name of, and it's anti-self appear and then destroy each other, meaning that something can come out of nothing, but just to clarify, and i'm not sure how this works, but the particle can ONLY appear on the condition that it will be annihilated momentarily later, so cant be sustained.

[Thomas Riddle]

You should have asked yourself first; what is in the middle of what?

The Universe is a vast space as we know it, scientists believe that the universe started with nothing, then came a single tiny thing that evloved into different things we now called planets, stars etc., this idea is being tested at CERN with their LHC (Large Hadron Collider). But I believe this is not the answer we seek, the question that Phantasm asked was, "what is in the middle between the beginning and the end where both have nothingness?", in my own thought, my answer is there was also nothing in the middle because nothing existed in the beginning and nothing will exist in the end. And if the question is about the universe and all of its components, the middle of the beginning and the end is the present itself.

[Kafuuka]

[quote name='Guybrush Threepwood' date='06 July 2009 - 07:05 PM' timestamp='1246899905' post='36336']
E=MC^2. Einstein was showing that mass and energy are indeed convertible, as you've said. However, though I've never heard this mentioned in any class, I don't believe it's possible to have energy without mass. Those particles you mentioned have kinetic energy because it is mass moving.[/quote]
It is possible to have energy without invariant mass: electromagnetic waves have zero invariant mass. (Visible light is nothing but electromagnetic waves with wavelengths within the range we call the visual spectrum.) The way relativity works anything that moves at light speed must have zero invariant mass and cannot be slowed down (in vacuum), while nothing that has an invariant mass greater than zero can be accelerated to the speed of light.


[quote name='Grido' date='06 July 2009 - 09:02 PM' timestamp='1246906920' post='36356']
actually just remembered something, and i'm skipping over most of the points here, because well my head is being lazy atm, and my typing fingers hurt.
In a complete vacuum, some particle which i cant remember the name of, and it's anti-self appear and then destroy each other, meaning that something can come out of nothing, but just to clarify, and i'm not sure how this works, but the particle can ONLY appear on the condition that it will be annihilated momentarily later, so cant be sustained.
[/quote]
Quantum mechanics allow the laws of physics to be ignored for times that are smaller than can be detected. (Heisenberg uncertainty formula, which is of the form: delta E * delta t <= Planck's constant)
A practical use of this is scanning tunneling microscopy.

Subatomic particle physics allows certain conversions of energy into matter and matter into other forms of matter. There a couple of invariants like in chemistry: energy (or mass, using E=mc²), momentum, angular momentum, baryon number, charge, color charge... Using those rules it is possible to list a number of decays that happen in the universe.
As an example: a photon (pure energy) of 1,02 MeV can decay into a positron and an electron, which each have an invariant mass of 0,51 MeV. The positron is the anti particle of an electron and has the same amount of electrical charge, yet the opposite polarity. If a positron and an electron meet, they will annihilate and the resulting energy will be converted into photons.
At CERN they accelerate positrons and electrons to high velocities, giving them a lot of energy, and then let them collide. If the total of their kinetic energy and the energy from their invariant masses is large enough, particles with higher invariant mass may be created.

If you combine both of the above, then it is possible, for a very short time, that invariance of energy is ignored and a positron electron pair is created. Normally both particles are attracted to one another, meet and annihilate again within that short time ( about 4 * 10^-21 s). Such particles are called virtual particles, because they do not exist long enough for anyone to notice.
In the vicinity of a black hole, it is possible for one virtual particle to fall into the black hole and the other to continue its existence outside of it, thus becoming a 'real' particle. The black hole can loose mass when anti matter that is created in such a process enters the black hole, and the equivalent mass in matter escapes from its gravitational pull. For an observer it appears as if the black hole is emitting electrons and slowly loosing mass, without any violation of energy/mass conservation. This is Hawkins' Radiation.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Photons do not have a rest mass, but do have a mass.

Relativistically mass is defined as m=(mass at speed=0)/((1-v^2/c^2)^.5) We'll note that photons are always moving the speed c. (C as defined as the speed of light, not necessarily constant through all mediums) Since it's always moving it doesn't really have a rest speed. The difficulty of this equation is that it clearly cannot be applied to something moving the speed C as m=0/0---->Undefined.

Photons behave like both particles and waves. It acts like it has mass in other words. Light exhibits all known behaviors associated with mass. Now, one could exclude a photon of "pure energy" from being mass depending on the definition, however you'll get conflicting accounts from scientists. The mass-energy equivalence comes with the result that energy has mass. E=mc^2 is not so much that you can change mass into energy and vice versa, but that they are in fact the same thing except by human placed concepts.

Edit: You can use other equations to imply that light has mass, but they all fall from the fact that you treat E=mc^2 as just that. Energy is equivalent to mass. It's not some sort of chemical reaction like E<---->mc^2.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Guybrush Threepwood

[aero]

What could possibly cause the universe to end? There is no end, only a beginning. And what the beginning was or what came after is all speculation at this point. You can debate it all you want but you're not goint to figure it out.

[Watcher]

[quote name='aero' date='24 August 2009 - 02:15 AM' timestamp='1251094514' post='40145']
What could possibly cause the universe to end? There is no end, only a beginning. And what the beginning was or what came after is all speculation at this point. You can debate it all you want but you're not goint to figure it out.
[/quote]
Research subjects thoroughly before you spout off nonsense.

There are several theoretical ends to the universe.
The first that comes to mind is a concept referred to as the "heat death of the universe," where the universe reaches a maximum state of entropy. There is no movement. There is no altering from one state to another. Without the movement or exchanging of energy, or "work," in another word, life is impossible. That is but one end to the universe.

You would do well to think more before you speak at all.

[Firsanthalas]

Personally, I find questions like 'Whats for lunch?' to be much more pressing. I can't do anything about what happening in the beginning and when the end of the universe comes, I probably won't be around. If I am, well I won't have to worry about it then either will I?
But what I'm having for lunch could determine many things.

Ohh and Einstein was wrong, see signature below

[Grido]

There is also the cyclic theory of the universe, the universe is expanding and will at a point stop expanding and start to shrink again(The Big Crunch), ending the current universe, when the universe has shrunk to a point The Big Bang will happen again and a new one will be created.

I could go on about the other ~7 but it's easier just to direct you [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe#Theories_about_the_end_of_universe"]here[/url].

[aero]

[quote name='Watcher' date='24 August 2009 - 04:09 AM' timestamp='1251101392' post='40148']
Research subjects thoroughly before you spout off nonsense.

There are several theoretical ends to the universe.
The first that comes to mind is a concept referred to as the "heat death of the universe," where the universe reaches a maximum state of entropy. There is no movement. There is no altering from one state to another. Without the movement or exchanging of energy, or "work," in another word, life is impossible. That is but one end to the universe.

You would do well to think more before you speak at all.
[/quote]

Watcher, I know all of the major theories, big crunch, big rip, that heat death one you mentioned, etc. I was referring to matter. What could destroy the matter in the universe. It is considered impossible after all. In all of those theories matter remains, so how could one determine the the universe actually ends with these things. There probably wouldn't be any life, but there would be other things. And what of other universes? There must be one that is still "cosmos like" as we would define, or maybe even have a completely unique structure. And maybe the "end" is just part of an elaborate cycle of birth and death.

You would do well not to judge someone's post before you grasp how much they know...

[Grido]

you'll forgive Watcher for not knowing that seeing as you in no way clarified that in your post

"matter is anything that has both mass and volume"
by that def, matter can be destroyed, energy however, cannot.*




*check disclaimer in sig

[phantasm]

so then do you believe that if it were destroyed but energy remained that it would not be the "end"??
If so then in all its basic glory is energy what lies in the middle?

[Grido]

define end....it would not be the end of everything as energy would still exist, in whatever form, as such something would be present, so no ''nothing''
If end indicates the end of life...well life didnt start, on earth at least, for many years after the big bang, so perhaps it would be a pause, rather than an end, there is no way of knowing

energy is everything, it cannot be created, nor can it be destoyed(just change state), it has always been present, and always will be, it is the past, the present and the future, the beginning, middle and end, the core of all things that ever have or ever will exist

[phantasm]

[quote name='Grido' date='27 August 2009 - 02:00 PM' timestamp='1251396010' post='40338']


energy is everything, it cannot be created, nor can it be destoyed(just change state), it has always been present, and always will be, it is the past, the present and the future, the beginning, middle and end, the core of all things that ever have or ever will exist
[/quote]

BEST answer I have heard...very nice Grido...simple...to the point..and very true

[Shadowseeker]

Close due to inactivity.