It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# The Theory of NoThing

page: 1
6
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 08:45 AM
I posted this theory on another thread a few hours ago, and I don't usually like to make new threads about my other posts, but I spent a little bit of time extending the theory and I thought it deserved it's own thread because it's a very interesting theory that might spark some discussion.

I don't claim this is an original idea, although I did come up with it myself. I'm fairly certain there would already be some sort of complex scientific theory developed around this idea, it's unlikely that I'm the first person to think of this. Enough blabbering, time to get on with the theory.

The Theory of NoThing

How did everything in the Universe come from nothing? Good question. Put rather simply, the answer seems to be: the chances of absolutely nothing happening in an infinite amount of time is 0. But where did all this 'stuff' actually come from or how was it created?

In my opinion, this needs to be looked at from a purely abstract mathematical perspective. Lets say the state of 'nothing' is a neutral state, that would be best represented as 0. The state of 'something' would probably be best represented as the positive integer 1.

That's it right? Common sense would tell us we only have two possible states: 'something' and 'nothing'. However, if we are thinking about this mathematically, a neutral state (nothing) can't give rise to a positive state (something) unless something else changes.

You simply can't get 1 (something) from 0 (nothing). You need something to balance it out, to make it work from a logical mathematical perspective. So what is -1 plus 1? That's right, the answer is 0. There are 3 states. Not just 0 and 1. But -1, 0, and 1.

I hypothesize there is a negative state of reality which would perhaps be like a mirror image of this reality. The big bang was only one side of the actual explosion. In negative space there was a negative big bang creating an equilibrium.

A positive big bang plus a negative big bang equals no big bang. Of course when separated into their finite parts the Universe most definitely exists, but when you add the negative Universe the sum is nil. You can think about this in several ways:

-1 + 1 = 0

Positive Things + Negative Things = No[color=gray]thing

Sum total of all things = No[color=gray]thing

Thus the average state of reality is actually neutral/nothing. There is no logical contradiction, as this theory clearly shows things can come from nothing, assuming that negative-things also exist to provide a total sum of nothing.

Please do not confuse anti-matter with negative-matter. We probably wont be able to detect the negative-universe due to the nature of it. We can detect anti-matter, and if normal matter collides with anti-matter it will release 100% energy.

If negative-matter collided with normal matter, they would cancel each other out, leaving NOTHING - as I have been explaining. There would be no explosion, the positive state would cancel out the negative state and leave a neutral state.
edit on 1-11-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 08:52 AM

As I see it personally, nothing truely is nothing... it's nothing, I don't think we have the language to express it enough.
Anyhow, I also firmly believe you can't have "less" than nothing, so therefore negative anything to me is just a manmade equation and doesn't exist in reality.
If however negative numbers exist then that must be because it is "less than something" rather than "less than nothing"
i.e You could NEVER be able to give me -40 apples, it's physically impossible but in a manmade mathematical structure you could "owe" me 40 apples.

I think we need to separate the number zero from meaning NOTHING

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:00 AM

Anyhow, I also firmly believe you can't have "less" than nothing, so therefore negative anything to me is just a manmade equation and doesn't exist in reality.
If however negative numbers exist then that must be because it is "less than something" rather than "less than nothing"
i.e You could NEVER be able to give me -40 apples, it's physically impossible but in a manmade mathematical structure you could "owe" me 40 apples.
You bank account could go into a negative range, that's a real world concept, but again it's purely numbers. And that's why I said this needs to be examined from a mathematical perspective. You can't have "negative something" in the physical world because we are trapped in the positive world. To enter into the negative world would mean annihilation. We could be in the negative world actually - but that's irrelevant because the side opposite which ever side you're on is going to be the negative side from your perspective.

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:06 AM

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Anyhow, I also firmly believe you can't have "less" than nothing, so therefore negative anything to me is just a manmade equation and doesn't exist in reality.
If however negative numbers exist then that must be because it is "less than something" rather than "less than nothing"
i.e You could NEVER be able to give me -40 apples, it's physically impossible but in a manmade mathematical structure you could "owe" me 40 apples.
You bank account could go into a negative range, that's a real world concept, but again it's purely numbers. And that's why I said this needs to be examined from a mathematical perspective. You can't have "negative something" in the physical world because we are trapped in the positive world. To enter into the negative world would mean annihilation. We could be in the negative world actually - but that's irrelevant because the side opposite which ever side you're on is going to be the negative side from your perspective.

I tried to explain in my previous post... for my bank account to be in negative ranges is purely from the point of view of a manmade mathematical theory. In actual fact there is not negative 40 sitting in a vault waiting for me, every time I spend someone doesn't go into the vault and add more negative.

We need to look beyond "man's mathermatics" and look at it outside of that structure.

The best way I can think to explain where I am coming from is this...

A B C
0 1 2 3

They are just digits, scribbled patterns created for man.

Actual NOTHING is something outside of that concept.

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:06 AM

Uhm. I think there might be a problem with the concept. If you have a -1 or a + 1 you still have something since you are speaking in terms of an opposite or third state.. Saying -1 + 1 = 0 is the same as saying 1+ -1 = 0 correct? So either way you would have to have had something from nothing just to begin the formula? I am no Math wiz but reversing it says the same thing even if The primary -1. Maybe it wasn't created from Nothing. I mean like Gases when cooled can form a Liquid. I mean at one point in human history we didn't know anything about Gases. Energy exists in all things so maybe there is a form we just can't understand yet. Just my two cents.

Therian

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:08 AM

I think we need to separate the number zero from meaning NOTHING
Why is that? 0 represents a nil value. 1 has a measurable value, it represents a quantity of 'something'. The natural number set starts at 1 and goes to infinity (increasing by units of 1). The integer set includes 0 and the negative numbers (-∞ to 0 to ∞). 0 is the absolute neutral state, the "origin point" on the real number line, as I think they say in mathematics. It has not measurable value and represents a nil quantity.

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:11 AM

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

I think we need to separate the number zero from meaning NOTHING
Why is that? 0 represents a nil value. 1 has a measurable value, it represents a quantity of 'something'. The natural number set starts at 1 and goes to infinity (increasing by units of 1). The integer set includes 0 and the negative numbers (-∞ to 0 to ∞). 0 is the absolute neutral state, the "origin point" on the real number line, as I think they say in mathematics. It has not measurable value and represents a nil quantity.
That is human mathematics.

Going by that it is possible for me to add to nothing or subtract from nothing... nothing cannot be added or subtracted from, nothing is absolute.

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:11 AM
So if I get this right basically the Big Bang was more like the Big Split.
Where the negative and the positive ,which had been existing together, be came two separate entities (universes).
Which would inply that there is a Negative Universe. Not like we would be able to tell that as any interaction with it would be negated by the very nature of our two universes.
I only say this because if the Big Bang created this universe then that would imply that the positive universe (ours) split from the negative universe thereby creating both.
edit on 1/11/11 by Ark005 because: found an error

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:15 AM
Stephen Hawkins wrote a book about this, and dedicated the first episode of his show(Curiosity) on it. It's part of Quantum Field Theory.

And it's already been witnessed happening in quantum physics. Nothing, inevitably makes something, but the somethings total out to 0.

Of course, it'll sound ridiculous to those who believe in a different cause, such as a deity. Even though there's a big contradiction there. If something can't come from nothing, and can't exist without being first created, the universe can't exist without an outside cause. That cause is a god, who either came from nothing, or existed forever without ever being created.

The difference with believing that something can truly come from nothing, is that it has actually been witnessed, and it's not self contradicting. And yet it's that belief that's treated as ridiculous, instead of the self contradicting and far assuming other one.

~
In defense of the the deity argument, there is the final drawback claim of a theist who accepts that everything as is could of happened within the laws of physics. And that is that their deity had to write the laws of physics for them to be there.

That makes no sense to me. But, I'm throwing it out there as it's the only real counter argument(Besides "Science is a lying conspiracy!") to what you're calling 'The Theory of NoThing'.

Though, I'll also throw out that if the laws of physics need an explanation, an infinite amount of them exist besides certain deities writing them.

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:17 AM
I say something similar to your idea, but postulate it that way: There are always opposites and the thin fine line that welds both realities together, and that I call equilibrium.

It is like nothing, something, thing. I find it funny that we can naturally see matter in 3 states. Liquid, solid and gaseous. And the pattern we see is written everywhere; Up, middle, down. Left, middle, right. Negative, neutral, positive. Father, child, mother. Mineral, flora, fauna. The list goes on and on and on.

The universe didn't come from nothing. That would be miraculous, and science doesn't believe in that. What was before is a state we know nothing of. And something happened, giving birth to a thing... The universe we see and perceive, even the parts that we don't.

It is like a universal basic law. Unconscious, subconscious, conscious.
Bad, just, good. And from these three basics, whatever they are, are spawned the many degrees of possibilities, according to each "realm"...

That's my take on it.

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:18 AM

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Stephen Hawkins wrote a book about this, and dedicated the first episode of his show(Curiosity) on it. It's part of Quantum Field Theory.

And it's already been witnessed happening in quantum physics. Nothing, inevitably makes something, but the somethings total out to 0.

Of course, it'll sound ridiculous to those who believe in a different cause, such as a deity. Even though there's a big contradiction there. If something can't come from nothing, and can't exist without being first created, the universe can't exist without an outside cause. That cause is a god, who either came from nothing, or existed forever without ever being created.

The difference with believing that something can truly come from nothing, is that it has actually been witnessed, and it's not self contradicting. And yet it's that belief that's treated as ridiculous, instead of the self contradicting and far assuming other one.

~
In defense of the the deity argument, there is the final drawback claim of a theist who accepts that everything as is could of happened within the laws of physics. And that is that their deity had to write the laws of physics for them to be there.

That makes no sense to me. But, I'm throwing it out there as it's the only real counter argument(Besides "Science is a lying conspiracy!") to what you're calling 'The Theory of NoThing'.

Though, I'll also throw out that if the laws of physics need an explanation, an infinite amount of them exist besides certain deities writing them.
Interesting, but I'd argue that the "nothing" they witnessed was actually something we don't understand yet or can't quantify in our mathematical theory.

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:19 AM

In actual fact there is not negative 40 sitting in a vault waiting for me
Exactly. It 'isn't' there waiting for you. Not only is it not there, it is less than not there. That's why when you add something to the negative value it will climb back towards 0 until going back into the positive range.

We need to look beyond "man's mathermatics" and look at it outside of that structure.
Actually, I think you will find mathematics is much more than a simple man made structure. Sure, we may use man made symbol to represent the ideas of numbers, but the concepts behind those numbers are universal. The most fundamental aspects of nature can be explained with pure mathematics; to a precision which is astonishing. Numbers can explain how atoms functions up to how massive objects in the Universe function.
edit on 1-11-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:19 AM
Just sitting here thinking about it and a more reasonable explanation would be A + B = 0 zero being something and both A and B being comparable to nothing. Those two nothings would have to be in fact something but are termed such because they have no measurable worth. At least not in this day and age. Its like the rocket and the helicopter. On pushes and one pulls Most the time you would never put the two together but if you did imagine the chaos that would ensue.

Therian

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:23 AM

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

I think we need to separate the number zero from meaning NOTHING
Why is that? 0 represents a nil value. 1 has a measurable value, it represents a quantity of 'something'. The natural number set starts at 1 and goes to infinity (increasing by units of 1). The integer set includes 0 and the negative numbers (-∞ to 0 to ∞). 0 is the absolute neutral state, the "origin point" on the real number line, as I think they say in mathematics. It has not measurable value and represents a nil quantity.

0 and nil are very different. Nil is undefined, or lacking a number quality. 0 is a number quality, and has a certain value as far as quantity.

For example.

A
In this case; A = nil(undefined)
B = 0
In this case; B = 0
C = 1+1
In this case; C = 2
D = 10000000 + -10000000
In this case; D = 0 and D = B

Algebra is very interesting because it explains it well. You can add and remove numbers from one side as long as the total remains the same, and technically you created them out of nothing, but truthfully they still are nothing. Taking an empty universe(B), and making a full one(D), is easily done in an equation. Analogy, because it functions very similarly with the actual universe.

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:25 AM

0 and nil are very different. Nil is undefined, or lacking a number quality. 0 is a number quality, and has a certain value as far as quantity.
Oh well forgive me for using the term incorrectly. I don't know if you are technically correct, but I'll take your word for it.

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:26 AM

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

In actual fact there is not negative 40 sitting in a vault waiting for me
Exactly. It 'isn't' there waiting for you. Not only is it not there, is less than not there. That's why where you add something to the negative value it will climb back towards 0 until going back into the positive range.

We need to look beyond "man's mathermatics" and look at it outside of that structure.
Actually, I think you will find mathematics is much more than a simple man made structure. Sure, we may use man made symbol to represent the ideas of numbers, but the concepts behind those numbers are universal. The most fundamental aspects of nature can be explained with pure mathematics; to a precision which is astonishing. Numbers can explain how atoms functions up to how massive objects in the Universe function.

Nothing is just that... nothing lol

How can I explain this...

You cannot have negative anything or nothing... you may have zero but you can't have nothing

Nothing is absolute, cannot be added to or subtracted from but you can with zero

Zero is quantifyible as less than 1
Nothing is just that

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:30 AM

So if I get this right basically the Big Bang was more like the Big Split.
Where the negative and the positive ,which had been existing together, be came two separate entities (universes).
No not quite. My theory is trying to rationalize how the Big Bang can simply happen without explaining where all the energy came from. It's trying to answer the question: how can everything in the Universe come from nothing as claimed in Big Bang theory? My answer is quite simple: you need negative things to balance out the positive things. So as the Big Bang was exploding and releasing stuff, in the alternate negative Universe, there was a negative Big Bang releasing an equal amount of negative-stuff, perhaps in a perfect mirror-image type way. But you started off with 'nothing'.
edit on 1-11-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Mister_Bit
Interesting, but I'd argue that the "nothing" they witnessed was actually something we don't understand yet or can't quantify in our mathematical theory.

While, they are serious about not making miscalculations. But, every witnessed event has the slight possibility of being wrong. Failed understanding can mess things up.

However, that same logic easily applies to anything anyone else could propose as the origin of the universe. You don't just assume something's wrong from the onset.

Because of margin of error, I don't believe in anything 100%, not even that I'm typing this message in reply to you right now. However, both typing this message and the quantum phenomenon, I have no real reason to assume there's more than what's known. Yes, there's a slight possibility they are wrong, but it's far more likely they are right. And any other theory that was proposed, would have to have a chance of being wrong on the same principle. Though, all the other theories I've seen, they seem very much higher in the likely to be wrong area, and much lower in chance of being correct.

Like the Matrix. Assuming that's scientists aren't getting a key part of it, without evidence, is like assuming we're in the Matrix without any evidence. Very possible, but not a smart assumption when there's nothing to indicate it.

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:34 AM

Interesting theory. I have a similar one, but again it's not my own, I didn't invent it, i just came to the same conclusion.

In physics something can't come from nothing, the only exception is the big bang.

But one of the theories states that the universe is expanding, something we can demonstrate to be true. Part of this theory states that a possible outcome is that the universe slows runs out of steam, cools, and the gravitational force pulls it back in on itself, causing a collapse.

In my opinion, this explains the big bang and where everything came from. All the matter that "appeared out of the ether" in our universe is merely the reorganized matter left over from a previous universe as it imploded and collapsed into a singularity that our current universe was born from.

Because we live within the system (universe) we simply aren't equipped to understand what lies outside of this system. therefore to us, before the bang there was nothing, but if we were able to stand outside the system we'd see that our "nothing" was, in fact, an infinite "something".

Throw some quantum theory and string theory in there and you have every reason to speculate that a big bang in our universe is the "positive" side of the event while a parallel universe would experience the other side of that.

both sides seeing only half of the equation

===ETA===

After proof reading this I came to another thought that I'm sure has been mentioned on ATs before. What if the matter that sprang from nothing in our big bang, is actually matter removed from another universe via a black hole? At the center of the black hole is a singularity no? could this be the universe birth cycle right there?
edit on 1-11-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:35 AM

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx

Originally posted by Mister_Bit
Interesting, but I'd argue that the "nothing" they witnessed was actually something we don't understand yet or can't quantify in our mathematical theory.

While, they are serious about not making miscalculations. But, every witnessed event has the slight possibility of being wrong. Failed understanding can mess things up.

However, that same logic easily applies to anything anyone else could propose as the origin of the universe. You don't just assume something's wrong from the onset.

Because of margin of error, I don't believe in anything 100%, not even that I'm typing this message in reply to you right now. However, both typing this message and the quantum phenomenon, I have no real reason to assume there's more than what's known. Yes, there's a slight possibility they are wrong, but it's far more likely they are right. And any other theory that was proposed, would have to have a chance of being wrong on the same principle. Though, all the other theories I've seen, they seem very much higher in the likely to be wrong area, and much lower in chance of being correct.

Like the Matrix. Assuming that's scientists aren't getting a key part of it, without evidence, is like assuming we're in the Matrix without any evidence. Very possible, but not a smart assumption when there's nothing to indicate it.
Well in layman's term....

If I write the game rules I win the game. Simple really.

What we know to be correct or incorrect is only decided by those rules (mathematics,physics etc) that mankind has created.

new topics

top topics

6