Discussion Forum

---

Quote: Erskin Quint

What's a particle then?

---

Ha ha!

Lynton, are you sure we haven't met. That description fits me almost to a 't' (whatever that means) and I was equally depressed after reading it.

As to the discussions on 'nothing'. Here's MY contribution to that discussion:

---

Quote: Erskin Quint

What's a particle then?

---

It's the opposite of an anti-particle.

Haven't you been paying attention?



Actually, the universe itself is a particle. It is a graviton. Detecting this graviton is as easy as listening to the background noise of the universe discovered by Bell Labs technicians in the 60's.

The universe/graviton is torus-shaped, a remnant of a topological change that occurred when centrifugal force and conservation of angular momentum flattened a tremendous black hole in its continued Big Crunch, eventually punching a hole centered around the axis of rotation, rupturing space and setting off the Big Bang.

That's my Grand Unified Theory of Everything in an Onion skin.

The universe is a graviton, which is shaped like a donut.

You heard it here first, folks.

Don't tell Brian Greene.

What about anti-matter then?

That's less than nothing.

And black holes are nothing turned inside out.

So if you can have less than nothing, and nothing turned inside out, you must have nothing to begin with to either have less than it, or to turn it inside out.

Then we have worm holes...are there worms roaming about in space eating nothing and leaving big holes everywhere?

How can there be more than one universe?

If the universe is everything, how can you have multiple everythings?

Which brings me back to the reality that if you have everything, then you must also have nothing.

I get depressed when I have nothing in my wallet, or my bank account, but then I get depressed when everything goes wrong too.

I'm tired now.

All this thinking in my empty head filled with nothingness and anti-matter makes my brain hurt.

Regards

Skoob

Bloody hell Skoob..

Don't do that!

I've just faced Nothingness..

Doing nothing

Being nothing

It's exhausting!

I shall now write a Spoof..

I know it's not a lot.

But it's a start..

It's something.

Or I'll make a cup of tea..

In this black hole of my empty existence..

(wiping eyes)

(sniffing)

See! See what you've done!

Oh I'm sorry CJ

Really, I am.

I'm also surprised that nobody has even mentioned Weiss's theory of open ended insubstantiality. (The inverted Swiss roll lightspeed rollover carbuncle absolute zero theory as it is also known.)

The mind boggles.

Regards

Skoob.

Look at me skoob I'm a scientist and I don't understand ANY of it!

---

Quote: Skoob1999

What about anti-matter then?

---

Nevermind. It doesn't matter.

I enjoyed your post.

Like a Spoof quote from Alice's Scientific Adventures in Wonderland it was.

Curiouser and curiouser!

I tried that word out yesterday 'curiouser' and figured it looked wrong - and it should be 'more curious and more curious' but that doesn't seem right either.

What the hell! I know nossing. I'm from Barcelona!

Regarding this
I remain,

Lady Godiva (BAV)

---

Quote: Skoob1999

What about anti-matter then?

---

Try thinking of matter and anti-matter in terms of sound waves.

If you make one sound wave that's the opposite of the other, they cancel each other out to make silence, or nothing.

Matter and antimatter similarly combine to make "nothing."

I used quotation marks because there is always something, just like there are still a pair of opposite sound waves creating that sound you can't hear.

SFO, there's no such thing as anti-matter OR matter.

I can't see it, so obviously it doesn't exist.
It's logic, Budda-style.

Nothing exists. It's all an illusion. And even the Illusion doesn't exist. Thats pretend.

This comment doesn't exist either.

---

Quote: Jesus Budda

SFO, there's no such thing as anti-matter OR matter.

I can't see it, so obviously it doesn't exist.
It's logic, Budda-style.

Nothing exists. It's all an illusion. And even the Illusion doesn't exist. Thats pretend.

This comment doesn't exist either.

---

Well, I'm from the Einstein camp, Heisenberg be damned.

I do not believe God plays dice. Either something is there, or it isn't.

I just read your comment. Are you just a figment of my imagination? If so, quit posting.

If not, please continue.

And I don't believe particles and stuff pop in and out of existence, either, so don't try to pull a fast one. I've got my eye on you, you shifty little bugger!

If a thing pops in or out of the reality of what we call existence, when do we really know when it is real?

Do we see it, when it is here in reality, or do we see it, when it is a figment of imagination and conjecture?

Why do the dead only talk to camp men and old women?
If one can communicate with the dead, the never ending voices and demands would send one mad?

If God intended for the dead to communicate with the living, why did he not give that wisdom in the bible?

Or did he?

I'm all in favour of recycling, but the dead being recycled to talk to Derek Acorah is just bollocks. Ask Iain B.

Regards

Skoob.

---

Quote: The San Francisco Onion

---

Quote: Skoob1999

What about anti-matter then?

---

Try thinking of matter and anti-matter in terms of sound waves.

If you make one sound wave that's the opposite of the other, they cancel each other out to make silence, or nothing.

Matter and antimatter similarly combine to make "nothing."

I used quotation marks because there is always something, just like there are still a pair of opposite sound waves creating that sound you can't hear.

---

There IS a subtle difference - when sound waves cancel silence is the result - however, since matter can neither be created nor destroyed what happens whe anti-m and m come together is a release of energy is it not? Correct me if I'm wrong. Einstein did prove E=mc2 did he not? Energy is energy it is not negative or positive it just is and doesn't cancel out like sound waves - that's why anti-m and m would make the most efficient bomb because all the enrgy in the matter would be released. Luckily this is all theoretical since antimatter storage would be something of a problem.

Strictly speaking an objective nothing cannot now exist in our universe ruled by its physical laws. Everything has to be energy even what we perceive to be the space between all these particles. It may be very low energy that adds up to only a minuscule fraction of the total. The total energy we have still to calculate and to help do this the idea of dark matter and dark energy has been postulated to balance up the physicists' equations.

Antimatter does exist the simplest example being the positron which is the anti-particle of the electron. First observed in a cloud chamber in 1933 and for which Anderson got the 1936 Nobel in physics. The amounts of energy released when a positron and electron collide are not that high which is the fortunate reason he was able to collect his prize.

Luckily too matter rather than antimatter dominates our universe because of some strange properties of the big bang that gave rise to this fortunate asymmetry.

The big questions as I understand them rest in the singularity that gave rise to everything that exists and what will happen once the apparent expansion of the universe stops (indeed whether or not it is actually accelerating or decelerating is not really cut and dried). We know nothing much except that it has been hypothesised that all the energy in the universe was concentrated into an infinitessimally small volume and depending on who is talking the universe will undergo heat death or start to contract.

As with idea of God the closer one comes to the beginning or the end of things in physics the more imponderable it becomes since we have no language, not even mathematics, that can adequately describe a phenomenon the nature of which we actually have enormous difficulty to conceive.

We perhaps cannot ever know these answers because any system can never contain enough information to describe itself, at least that's something like what I understand Information scientists and engineers and physicists are currently saying.

It seems to me that something that all spoofers seem to have in common is a desire to make sense of what the hell is going on around them. Spoofing is a great relaxation and a way of keeping almost sane in the face of the absurdity of reality and the present and the imponderability and inconceivability of beginnings and ends.

Above all fellow spoofers keep asking the important questions

Hi all..

I'm tied up tonight (and gagged)..

But I do remember looking into the detailed SCIENCE of nothingness for a couple of hours this afternoon.

In the Mag Section..

CJ

---

Quote: Lynton

There IS a subtle difference - when sound waves cancel silence is the result - however, since matter can neither be created nor destroyed what happens when anti-m and m come together is a release of energy is it not?

Yes.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Einstein did prove E=mc2 did he not?

Yes.

Energy is energy it is not negative or positive it just is and doesn't cancel out like sound waves - that's why anti-m and m would make the most efficient bomb because all the enrgy in the matter would be released.

True, but think of how much energy went in before it was released. Any idea how much energy the Hadron Collider uses just for one subatomic particle collision?

The energy released equals the energy put in, so despite the "loud explosion" involved - for lack of a better description - the equation is still as balanced as one that produces a flat sound wave.

The big questions as I understand them rest in the singularity that gave rise to everything that exists and what will happen once the apparent expansion of the universe stops (indeed whether or not it is actually accelerating or decelerating is not really cut and dried). We know nothing much except that it has been hypothesised that all the energy in the universe was concentrated into an infinitessimally small volume and depending on who is talking the universe will undergo heat death or start to contract.

There's another option. Just as the expanding shell of gases blown off a supernova compresses gas clouds ahead of it to hasten the formation of new stars, the boundaries of our expanding universe push outward, hastening the formation of other universes much like ours that we cannot see because of, among other things, gravitational lensing.

As with idea of God the closer one comes to the beginning or the end of things in physics the more imponderable it becomes since we have no language, not even mathematics, that can adequately describe a phenomenon the nature of which we actually have enormous difficulty to conceive.

That's easy for you to say.

We perhaps cannot ever know these answers because any system can never contain enough information to describe itself.

And yet you managed to sum up the entire situation in just eighteen words!

Are you God?

---

I don't think he is, but he does know what he's talking about.

Which is more than I can say about myself.

I just tried to explain black hole theory to the Mrs. She looked at me like I'd gone out.

Lynton's absolutely correct in his assertion that the deeper we dig into physics and the nature of the universe, the less we understand it.

We can only observe and relate to our own experience by comparison. Ergo, even the most brilliant minds (such as Einstein, Hawking, Herschel etc,) are limited regarding what they can comprehend because our brains struggle to comprehend concepts like infinity, perpetuity, divinity etc because it's beyond our experience as a species.

I think it's good that we try, I think it says a great deal about us as a species that we reach out and crave knowledge and understanding.

I also think that Lynton's assertion that every answer throws up a whole new range of questions, is a fact.

We should strive for answers as far as where we fit in the great scheme of things. But I don't think we'd comprehend the reality, no matter how far we extend our capacity.

As a species, we're just not sufficiently developed.

Fucking hell...this is giving me a headache. I need a lie down.

Regards

Skoob.

---

Quote: The San Francisco Onion

---

Quote: Lynton

There IS a subtle difference - when sound waves cancel silence is the result - however, since matter can neither be created nor destroyed what happens when anti-m and m come together is a release of energy is it not?

Yes.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Einstein did prove E=mc2 did he not?

Yes.

Energy is energy it is not negative or positive it just is and doesn't cancel out like sound waves - that's why anti-m and m would make the most efficient bomb because all the enrgy in the matter would be released.

True, but think of how much energy went in before it was released. Any idea how much energy the Hadron Collider uses just for one subatomic particle collision?

The energy released equals the energy put in, so despite the "loud explosion" involved - for lack of a better description - the equation is still as balanced as one that produces a flat sound wave.

The big questions as I understand them rest in the singularity that gave rise to everything that exists and what will happen once the apparent expansion of the universe stops (indeed whether or not it is actually accelerating or decelerating is not really cut and dried). We know nothing much except that it has been hypothesised that all the energy in the universe was concentrated into an infinitessimally small volume and depending on who is talking the universe will undergo heat death or start to contract.

There's another option. Just as the expanding shell of gases blown off a supernova compresses gas clouds ahead of it to hasten the formation of new stars, the boundaries of our expanding universe push outward, hastening the formation of other universes much like ours that we cannot see because of, among other things, gravitational lensing.

As with idea of God the closer one comes to the beginning or the end of things in physics the more imponderable it becomes since we have no language, not even mathematics, that can adequately describe a phenomenon the nature of which we actually have enormous difficulty to conceive.

That's easy for you to say.

We perhaps cannot ever know these answers because any system can never contain enough information to describe itself.

And yet you managed to sum up the entire situation in just eighteen words!

Are you God?

---

It is irrelevant that energy was put into making the antimatter it just shows that to transform energy in our universe into just one antiparticle is an extremely inefficent process in which most of the energy is actually dissipated as other forms of energy and not directly transformed into the antiparticle. The positron formed contains only the energy that it can contain which comparatively is very small.

the mass of an positron is around .(33zeros)1, grams
multiply it by the speed of light squared what does it amount to in joules? You do the sums Onion. Compare that to what happened in the atom bomb. It amounts to a minute fraction of that energy when considering a single particle. Compare it to the energy used to boil a litre of water.

But it is all theoretical the question of antimatter - the experiment proved the postulate that it could exist it just exists in insignificantly small quantities when it exist and is immediately annihilated.

Other options for the Univers are no more than other hypotheses - I mentioned two that I know about - not much more to be said until evidence is gathered to support one or the other.


Yes Onion what I say about God and physical beginnings and ends may be easy to say - but it is ALL that we can say until and unless we get a radical change in our current paradigms and a adequate language to describe things.And by the way it is much better informed and qualified people than me who have said it - I just summed up their ideas -I just reported what I have ascertained from my study of the matter. I don't pretend to know anything and I am very aware of what I do not know as any scientist of integrity should. I feel my way forward in the dark like most people trying to make sense of this existence.


I have no pretentions to deity and see no reason why you should pose the question since there was nothing but uncertainty in everything I wrote. As far as life the universe and everything is concerned the answer could still turn out to be 42.5 as Douglas Adams suggested.

One thing that is certain is that humans in general and a lot of scientists in particular find it hard to resist the temptation of hubris and forget humility faced with the mystery of it all.

One thing that emerges from this bag of chemicals that we are is that we are sentient and able to experience and feel that some things are mysterious and transcendent, particularly if they defy our abilities to link cause and effect ie. if we see effects without apparent cause. Personally I've never had a religious experience - others have and it is inevitable that my perception of how things might be will be different to theirs.

I can accept that the rational and (apparently) irrational can exist side by side in the human psyche and I think that science might find an explanation for it but it won't make much difference. I have no faith whatsoever that science will answer the two great questions we are talking about

Had I been God I would also have said to living things to go forth be fruitful and multiply - and I would have told Adam the same and I would have warned him about the tree of knowledge and how it can fuck you up unless you learn to stop worrying too much about the answers to the the most difficult questions and that if he did start getting uneasy about the meaning of it all then he should join the spoof, it's a great help.

---

Quote: Lynton

---

Quote: The San Francisco Onion

---

Quote: Lynton

There IS a subtle difference - when sound waves cancel silence is the result - however, since matter can neither be created nor destroyed what happens when anti-m and m come together is a release of energy is it not?

Yes.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Einstein did prove E=mc2 did he not?

Yes.

Energy is energy it is not negative or positive it just is and doesn't cancel out like sound waves - that's why anti-m and m would make the most efficient bomb because all the enrgy in the matter would be released.

True, but think of how much energy went in before it was released. Any idea how much energy the Hadron Collider uses just for one subatomic particle collision?

The energy released equals the energy put in, so despite the "loud explosion" involved - for lack of a better description - the equation is still as balanced as one that produces a flat sound wave.

The big questions as I understand them rest in the singularity that gave rise to everything that exists and what will happen once the apparent expansion of the universe stops (indeed whether or not it is actually accelerating or decelerating is not really cut and dried). We know nothing much except that it has been hypothesised that all the energy in the universe was concentrated into an infinitessimally small volume and depending on who is talking the universe will undergo heat death or start to contract.

There's another option. Just as the expanding shell of gases blown off a supernova compresses gas clouds ahead of it to hasten the formation of new stars, the boundaries of our expanding universe push outward, hastening the formation of other universes much like ours that we cannot see because of, among other things, gravitational lensing.

As with idea of God the closer one comes to the beginning or the end of things in physics the more imponderable it becomes since we have no language, not even mathematics, that can adequately describe a phenomenon the nature of which we actually have enormous difficulty to conceive.

That's easy for you to say.

We perhaps cannot ever know these answers because any system can never contain enough information to describe itself.

And yet you managed to sum up the entire situation in just eighteen words!

Are you God?

---

It is irrelevant that energy was put into making the antimatter it just shows that to transform energy in our universe into just one antiparticle is an extremely inefficent process in which most of the energy is actually dissipated as other forms of energy and not directly transformed into the antiparticle. The positron formed contains only the energy that it can contain which comparatively is very small.

the mass of an positron is around .(33zeros)1, grams
multiply it by the speed of light squared what does it amount to in joules? You do the sums Onion. Compare that to what happened in the atom bomb. It amounts to a minute fraction of that energy when considering a single particle. Compare it to the energy used to boil a litre of water.

But it is all theoretical the question of antimatter - the experiment proved the postulate that it could exist it just exists in insignificantly small quantities when it exist and is immediately annihilated.

Other options for the Univers are no more than other hypotheses - I mentioned two that I know about - not much more to be said until evidence is gathered to support one or the other.


Yes Onion what I say about God and physical beginnings and ends may be easy to say - but it is ALL that we can say until and unless we get a radical change in our current paradigms and a adequate language to describe things.And by the way it is much better informed and qualified people than me who have said it - I just summed up their ideas -I just reported what I have ascertained from my study of the matter. I don't pretend to know anything and I am very aware of what I do not know as any scientist of integrity should. I feel my way forward in the dark like most people trying to make sense of this existence.


I have no pretentions to deity and see no reason why you should pose the question since there was nothing but uncertainty in everything I wrote. As far as life the universe and everything is concerned the answer could still turn out to be 42.5 as Douglas Adams suggested.

One thing that is certain is that humans in general and a lot of scientists in particular find it hard to resist the temptation of hubris and forget humility faced with the mystery of it all.

One thing that emerges from this bag of chemicals that we are is that we are sentient and able to experience and feel that some things are mysterious and transcendent, particularly if they defy our abilities to link cause and effect ie. if we see effects without apparent cause. Personally I've never had a religious experience - others have and it is inevitable that my perception of how things might be will be different to theirs.

I can accept that the rational and (apparently) irrational can exist side by side in the human psyche and I think that science might find an explanation for it but it won't make much difference. I have no faith whatsoever that science will answer the two great questions we are talking about

Had I been God I would also have said to living things to go forth be fruitful and multiply - and I would have told Adam the same and I would have warned him about the tree of knowledge and how it can fuck you up unless you learn to stop worrying too much about the answers to the the most difficult questions and that if he did start getting uneasy about the meaning of it all then he should join the spoof, it's a great help.

---

Wow!!

Look how long this thread is when I quote everything.

Does anybody here know how they make creamsicles?

Shame on you Vic!!!!

Oh alright!!

1

First start by putting a handful of ice into the large hadron collider to chill the drink while mixing it.

2

Next add an ounce of cream to the LHC followed by an ounce of orange juice.

Step 3

Now add one half to one full ounce of finest vodka, according to taste, to the drink mixture.

4
Then add one-half an ounce of Triple Sec to the LHC

5
Finally close the LHC and mix all ingredients well by bringing the particles up to light speed. Pour the drink through a cocktail strainer into a cocktail glass. The glass can be garnished as you wish but I prefer Orange peel.


Do not forget to wash the LHC in clean water and a little detegent immediately after use since the dried on cream can really fuck up other people's experiments and it is very costly to buy a new one ($69.99 of Price drop TV).

An inferior version can be made with a cocktail shaker if you are not fortunate enough to have an LHC. However there is not the added satisfaction involved of the short walk ad chance to admire the snow-capped Jura from where the incredients are put in to the LHC to the spout over the border in Switzerland where the finished Creamsicle appears.

Dod you know?

The Creamsicle is the only cocktail for which a passport is required.

Probably Vic.

But don't quote me on that.

We can start with fudgsicles.

I do know the secret of the Caramilk bar because my hubby works in a chocolate factory now and again.

Oh hell's bells, what did just type? Knowing you rotten sods you'll twist that in twisted minds.

Creamsicle? No..you've got me on that one. No you haven't but I refuse to be drawn into such disgusting conversations. I have my reputation to keep.

You lot are so 'clever'. I can't compete with that 'depth' of discussion on the 'universe etc.' I mean.


All I know is that I ONCE voted in England. What a bloody waste of time that was - coz my hubby voted for someone else - SO WE CANCELLED EACH OTHER OUT.

I've never voted since. All politicians are bleeding liars anyway.

Sorry about that little rant!

Yes...who made God?

Also, if the Christians are awaiting a Second Coming of their Saviour - why the hell do they keep locking him up in an asylum whenever he comes to Earth and identifies himself? He's going to give up one day - if he hasn't done so already.

Hypocrites! Their Saviour makes an appearance and they don't bloody well believe him. I just don't get it at all!

So if God doesn't exist - then who made man? God knows!

NO! NO! STOP THINKING ABOUT IT ELSE YOU'LL END UP BACK IN THAT RUBBER ROOM. LOOK! YOU ARE TALKING TO YOURSELF AGAIN.

Is that HAIR growing on the palms of my hands (question mark buggered up again). Back to reality...