## View Poll Results: Dotleak, plausible?

Voters
6. You may not vote on this poll
• Plausible

1 16.67%
• Not Plausible

4 66.67%

1 16.67%

1. Imagine that in the beginning there was nothing, A nothing that did not even have bounds. Given that whatever coordinate you are looking along on the small little nothing (a thought coordinate, they dont exist yet) all you see is nothing, nothing at all. So no matter from where you look, there is nothing there, hence it has the extension zero along every coordinate. But still, zero is relative to the length of itself, nothing.

Since nothing in this form is a dot, we can call it a such.

As you may know, an n-dimensional object, whether it is a dot or not have n+1 dots (one in every direction) at the least, no matter how far they are from eachother. In this case, the distance is zero, and their size is zero, but since their size is zero, they could to be next to eachother without becoming something. And they had to be next to eachother, else the dot would not have dimensions, even though the dot distance was zero. And even if this can be interpreted as the dots are on eachother, that doesn't matter. What matters is this:

The intersection of the dots, define the collected dimensions. Since they are in the same place, they may be along the same coordinate. we can show how this develops mathematically:

If there are 2 dots along every dimension, then the number of dots are 2^n. That would also be a good reason why a dimension can leak into another, that the dots can collide along their only initial direction and change into a horizontal direction since they don't collide right on. Eventually, the space would get less dimensions, and space that is 3D, along with matter, that is more then 3D, will be created. Exactly how, is hard to derive.

If speed is not infinit, I don't see how the universe could loose more dimensions. But just because I don't see it, doesn't mean it can't happen.

Given that all dots becomes nothing when they loose all dimensions, the bounded leftover without dimensions will not be the nothing that the particles become, so my guess is that the universe would be repeating.

You may delete the old closed thread.

I appologise if all this is to unthinkeable and beyond logic. You may point it out if it is.

2. ### Related Discussions:

3. Sorry, I'm not a dot person. I don't believe there was ever such a thing as truly nothing. Our universe came into existance as a result of something already there no matter what or how small it was.

True nothing is not an n-dimensional object for then it would be a something. Nothing is just that.... nothing... and nothing would equal no big bangs.

Bettina

4. Yes, that also sounds thinkeable ie. you could think so without noticing the paradoxes. So you think there always was something? Always time and room, or do your thinking has limits from a theory of some kind? You make the conclusion that nothing has the property of bound. But it can't, that's why all I mentioned could happen.

5. Sorry, I'm not a dot person. I don't believe there was ever such a thing as truly nothing. Our universe came into existance as a result of something already there no matter what or how small it was.
If negative/posetive energy is something, and 0 energy is nothing then there is nothing now and was nothing before bigbang. The gravitational energy gives a negative energy while matter represent a posetive energy both are equally much in the whole picture

6. Yes, I have also heard such things and thought they were maybe true. Gravity might be a counterstrike of energy and stuff. But then again, these thoughts of mine are without the most complete of logical basis, so I don't know and I wonder if you could tell me with mathematical logic the basis of such a statement derived from axioms. Until that, it is just like any other temporal thought, that is teeny in my mind, even though it sounds right, like alot of things do.

'Till i know what you meant, I will just claim that the vektorsum is zero. Since I know that a vektor can have negative value.

7. as i remember it its normal energy calculations containing relativistic and quantum mechanical math wich in the end gives a result that is 0. would most likly be quite complicated :S

8. Once again you're right Zelos. Complex beyond level of comprehention possibly. Unless you find a wormhole, once again. But the movement of every particle be rather more complex then what you can right down, not to say ever figure out. Unless you are the thing itself.

9. Originally Posted by Zelos
If negative/posetive energy is something, and 0 energy is nothing then there is nothing now and was nothing before bigbang. The gravitational energy gives a negative energy while matter represent a posetive energy both are equally much in the whole picture
Thats my point. If you want to say that zero energy equals nothing then there could not have been a big bang. Unless your speaking of Genesis.

Bettina

10. The property of energy does not have to equal the property of nothing unless it's the same thing. The universe does not have to be only energy, as stated in another post (not in this thread), movement does not equal dimensions.

11. Originally Posted by Bettina
Originally Posted by Zelos
If negative/posetive energy is something, and 0 energy is nothing then there is nothing now and was nothing before bigbang. The gravitational energy gives a negative energy while matter represent a posetive energy both are equally much in the whole picture
Thats my point. If you want to say that zero energy equals nothing then there could not have been a big bang. Unless your speaking of Genesis.

Bettina
Im not speaking of genesis, anyone got something to lighten it? , but if we assume now there werent anything before bigbang, nada existed
Then big bang happens
Alot of posetive energy is created, but a equal amount of negative energy is created, then we got equally much before and after the big bang and the law of energy conservation and momentum is applied and nothing is violated.

12. If the 'classical' argument is that something existed before the big bang, then where did that come from?

Let's just keep quiet about the fact that we have a 'free universe' otherwise someone might realise it was a mistake and shut it down! 8)

13. If the 'classical' argument is that something existed before the big bang, then where did that come from?
as for the energy part we aint really here since there is nothing here since there isnt any energy

14. Originally Posted by Megabrain
If the 'classical' argument is that something existed before the big bang, then where did that come from?

Let's just keep quiet about the fact that we have a 'free universe' otherwise someone might realise it was a mistake and shut it down! 8)
My guess is that it has all to do with bounds and dimensions.

For instance:

If it has bounds, then it is not nothing. If it is not nothing, then it has dimensions.

If it has no bounds, then it has zero extent in all dimensions. But if a dot has zero length, then even zero extent means extent in form of dots, that has no extent.

15. I understand everything that you guys are talking about except what followed this statement in the OP.

"Imagine that in the beginning there was nothing".

I imagined it fine. But as long as I keep imagining it, it remained nothing. It goes no further than that and never will.

A book that contains a million blank pages will always contain a million blank pages and no words will ever appear. For any big bang or expansion to have ocurred there would have to have been something, somewhere, in that nothing. And, because the big bang did occur, one of those million pages had to have had a letter somewhere in it. Thats basically it.

Bee

16. I imagined it fine. But as long as I keep imagining it, it remained nothing. It goes no further than that and never will.
Not to be rude but if it stays nothing or not in your head is off absolutly no relevans.

A book that contains a million blank pages will always contain a million blank pages and no words will ever appear. For any big bang or expansion to have ocurred there would have to have been something, somewhere, in that nothing. And, because the big bang did occur, one of those million pages had to have had a letter somewhere in it. Thats basically it.
well listen to me, as for the idea of there existing equally much before and after big bang, are you familiar with the law of electric charge conservation? when ever you smash a proton and anti-proton a huge amount of particles are created, but there is still the same total charge of 0. since proton + anti proton equals no charge
The idea here is the same
We got nothing before big bang, no energy nothing
Then Energy and anti-energy (negative energy) is created in equal amount and we got no energy after big bang. There is then equally much before and after big bang.
Case closed

17. Most likely, every day exist in the infinity-dimensional world, no matter how many dots along every dimension that is higher then one. Would someone think in my terms so that we could compare what we get?

There should be infinit versions of the change under the n first dimensions, along the rest of the dimensions. I would like to compare the universe with the intersection of an infinit directional dot. Doing so, gives me alot of spooky angles that might create space. Still, given that dots can move freely, it would be alot like an infinit dimensional whirlwind. I can't say that I can see how that could ever end. Nah, i really can't. That would be like saying that I have solved it. Can anyone solve that, like for reall?

The way I see it, it would be like saying that the infinit dimensional dot has a 0 dimensional solution. Atleast I can't see how it can.

Heolp. Give me heolllp.

18. Originally Posted by Zelos
I imagined it fine. But as long as I keep imagining it, it remained nothing. It goes no further than that and never will.
Not to be rude but if it stays nothing or not in your head is off absolutly no relevans.

A book that contains a million blank pages will always contain a million blank pages and no words will ever appear. For any big bang or expansion to have ocurred there would have to have been something, somewhere, in that nothing. And, because the big bang did occur, one of those million pages had to have had a letter somewhere in it. Thats basically it.
well listen to me, as for the idea of there existing equally much before and after big bang, are you familiar with the law of electric charge conservation? when ever you smash a proton and anti-proton a huge amount of particles are created, but there is still the same total charge of 0. since proton + anti proton equals no charge
The idea here is the same
We got nothing before big bang, no energy nothing
Then Energy and anti-energy (negative energy) is created in equal amount and we got no energy after big bang. There is then equally much before and after big bang.
Case closed
The case is never closed.

What I said is that our Universe did not suddenly spring into existance out of nothing.

Bettina

19. Originally Posted by Bettina
What I said is that our Universe did not suddenly spring into existance out of nothing.

Bettina
Well it's nice to see somebody knows what was 'before' the universe!

Now come on Bettina, you know better than to state an opinion as fact.

20. Originally Posted by Megabrain
Originally Posted by Bettina
What I said is that our Universe did not suddenly spring into existance out of nothing.

Bettina
Well it's nice to see somebody knows what was 'before' the universe!

Now come on Bettina, you know better than to state an opinion as fact.
I didn't mean to. Everything I say here is my own opinion. :wink:

I just have a different perception of nothing. To me, nothing is really that, so if the universe truly sprang into existance at the big bang, it came because something else caused it to happen.

If there is true nothingness, then nothing is what you will always have.

Bettina

21. What I said is that our Universe did not suddenly spring into existance out of nothing.
Particles spring from nothing why cant the universe then?

I didn't mean to. Everything I say here is my own opinion.

I just have a different perception of nothing. To me, nothing is really that, so if the universe truly sprang into existance at the big bang, it came because something else caused it to happen.

If there is true nothingness, then nothing is what you will always have.

Bettina
this is called common sense
since we are talking about the fundamental of the universe and there common sense has nothing to do there.

22. Originally Posted by Zelos
What I said is that our Universe did not suddenly spring into existance out of nothing.
Particles spring from nothing why cant the universe then?

I didn't mean to. Everything I say here is my own opinion.

I just have a different perception of nothing. To me, nothing is really that, so if the universe truly sprang into existance at the big bang, it came because something else caused it to happen.

If there is true nothingness, then nothing is what you will always have.

Bettina
this is called common sense
since we are talking about the fundamental of the universe and there common sense has nothing to do there.

Good suggestion. Just a small input, you may continue the conversation.
Also, it should be replaced by logic that you can handle.

It might be much like becoming a borg?

23. Zelos and LeavingQuietly.

I don't believe in ex nihilo, God, or creation of any type. I have read articles from scientists who feel the same way as I do and articles from scientists who don't. I can supply the links if you wish. Just supply me with the links proving that particles spring into existense from absolutely nothing.

We all have opinions and I don't feel I should bury mine in my closet because you don't like them. So, rather than make you both angry I will just bail out of this thread for now. There are lots of others that interest me. :wink:

No offense intended...

Bettina

24. Ever heard of hawking radiation?
Thats where particles appear and aint destroyed from nothingness

Particles are created all the time but is rapidly after destroyed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

25. Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
Originally Posted by Zelos
What I said is that our Universe did not suddenly spring into existance out of nothing.
Particles spring from nothing why cant the universe then?

I didn't mean to. Everything I say here is my own opinion.

I just have a different perception of nothing. To me, nothing is really that, so if the universe truly sprang into existance at the big bang, it came because something else caused it to happen.

If there is true nothingness, then nothing is what you will always have.

Bettina
this is called common sense
since we are talking about the fundamental of the universe and there common sense has nothing to do there.

It might be much like becoming a borg?
BTW. that was just a joke.

26. Originally Posted by Zelos
this is called common sense
since we are talking about the fundamental of the universe and there common sense has nothing to do there.

I find myself agreeing with Zelos again. When discussing the extreme conditions in the universe, common sense will lead you astray more often than not. Those places and situations are NOT common and there's no reason to think our intuition has any relevence. "Prior to" the Big Bang, there was no time so discussions about causality, which is possibly the most crucial component to common sense, don't apply.

27. Originally Posted by Neutrino
Originally Posted by Zelos
this is called common sense
since we are talking about the fundamental of the universe and there common sense has nothing to do there.

I find myself agreeing with Zelos again. When discussing the extreme conditions in the universe, common sense will lead you astray more often than not. Those places and situations are NOT common and there's no reason to think our intuition has any relevence. "Prior to" the Big Bang, there was no time so discussions about causality, which is possibly the most crucial component to common sense, don't apply.
when talking about this there is no reason to not agree with me. if you disagree keep away from this discussion

28. Boy, did that leave the room quiet.
I guess most use their common sense. Good

29. good in normal day life yeah
good in funndamental phsyics and extreme stuff, absolutly NOT!

30. I've read this thread through twice now, would anybody like me to give it a more apt title? - I was thinking of 'brainleak' - :wink:

31. how about leaving it as it is?

32. Was there perhaps a few that were inspired of my theory?

33. Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
Was there perhaps a few that were inspired of my theory?
Since I haven't changed my common sense approach, then no. It seems too creationist for me. :wink:

Bee

34. Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
Was there perhaps a few that were inspired of my theory?
nope, thought of this a long time ago

Since I haven't changed my common sense approach, then no. It seems too creationist for me.

Bee
well i havent read the theory so i cant really say if its creationist or not.

But about the common sense things, leave it or leave all discussions of extreme/fundmental physics alone and dont say anything there

35. Sure you did. I'll just post this signature here and I'll change it again:

In the beginning, nothing existed since elseways we would not yet be since no thing came first. Fortunately, nothing had no bounds along any coordinate, since bounds are something. But then nothing was "infinit-dimensional" and any such thing is made of atleast (infinity + 1) zerodimensional dots and a high number of n-dimensional dots made of them. These dots may leak into eachothers dimensions thus creating the universe, ie. The Dotleak.