Most of what I write about is a combination of both the natural world and the spiritual world and while I agree with most of modern science to date, I do think there is also a spiritual layer to reality.

Sift through the PAGES and POSTS for more interesting information guaranteed to make you think and question.


#1 Nothing is No Information

#2 Something is Some Information

#3 NoThing is Infinite/Unlimited information

Be careful how you understand NOTHING to be and how the word is used when you read my pages and articles on the web. I hold that the true vacuum energy of our universe and of in fact everything is from NOTHING of Infinite Information, is dynamic, and full --not empty, stagnate, and of zero information.

All the information collected from this process of existence and life is also retained inside of the Nothing. Who knows how many times existence and life have happened. I don't think information is lost or destroyed, and I don't think it returns into a zero-information kind of nothing.

Both understandings of nothing look very similar. They are both undefinable, unquantifiable, immeasurable...but they are opposites. The difference between zero and infinity.

FYI: There is One thing all of life wants, even human life and that is the effects of LOVE.



Nothing- Nothing and everything are but different forms of the same.

Nothing- Nothing and everything are but different forms of the same.
Nothing is everything, but everything is not nothing.

From Spirit to Nature

From Spirit to Nature

Friday, April 18, 2014

Conversations about Virtual Particles

Conversations of Virtual Particles

Person A:

I don’t think we know enough about this cutting edge topic yet to understand.
Is it really popping in and out of existence?
Is it really just a higher dimension particle passing into our three dimensional space?  (i.e. it was always present)
Are they actually just a new particle that we have not yet understood
Is it part of string theory manifestations

I still struggle to understand what it means for empty space to have mass….
Unless it is just a bias (or relative) for everything…  sort of like:

If you are on earth, and walking down the road you are moving at about 5 miles and hour
but actually the earth is rotating so you are really moving about 1000 miles per hour 
but the earth is orbiting the Sun so you are actually moving 67,000 miles per hour
but the earth is actually spinning around the galaxy so you are actually moving about 480,000 miles per hour

So how fast are you actually moving?

Similarly with the mass…. if everything in space has mass then perhaps it sort of cancels out and looses practicality?

All good questions. Yes, this is new in some respects, but there actually is a lot of information out there to learn on it as well. Scientists have done a lot of work in this area of dark energy, empty space and electrons. (Arguably empty space makes up the electron cloud and dark energy of outer space is empty space too...but we need to define what it is this exactly means otherwise details are lost in glossy language)

I do think it is really going in and out of existence...but I could be wrong. But it depends on how you define existence? To us existence is the physical. There are things. But is this true existence? True reality? or is true reality something else? And the physical is just the illusion?

For myself, from what little I know -lol- I imagine that ghosts have a similar problem, lol.

In a way it kinda sounds like when we say this is a species A and that is a species B, but where do we draw the lines and is anything really this or that, because in time it will all change. It seems like it is a photo of a particular time and The particle seems like this. Nothing is a solid A, but always becoming or decaying and transforming...  

I think though that HeisenBergs UP is based on emptiness of space though, so even if other dimensions existed (I'm pretty sure they'd have to be lower dimensions though not higher mathematically?) the empty space of those dimensions would demand virtual particles too. 

They are not a new particles, as far as my reading goes. They know what they are. They are a virtual photon, a gluon, etc....they are just not quite a photon yet or not quite a quark or not quite the particles we know just yet---they are unstable, they are becoming or going back into non-existence in a sense.

They are not even particles. This is a bad name. They are more like bubbling waves? Maybe not even that, I've heard them described more of as a wave function only. 

I'm pretty sure photons don't have mass. 

The way I see it is all space is really a field, a gravity field and then other like a big checkered patterned -but a lot of them. (This space came out of the void in the very beginning of Genesis--or the "singularity" of big bang) 

And virtual particles are like breathes coming from god...breathing into the space. ..This breath offers all kinds of potentiality or probability and it grows sometimes into our space and becomes a particle, but more often then not it returns .... 

And the fields allow these particles to have mass- or to be "seen" (light of genesis) and then the light separated in genesis from the darkness so that it remains in our "space"

Void/Vacuum of empty space is akin to the void/darkness of Genesis 1 line 2. 

The Higgs turned on is kinda like when God said let there be light, LOL and particles gained mass, because this gave them distinction/order and each there own kinda name.

And then particles were able to intermix and combine and build from there and separate from the empty space and occupy real space and this is kinda like when God says, lets separate the light from the darkness. 


But it isn't so much the space that has mass, but the particles or virtual particles that interact with the fields that show mass. But it is because the space is empty. So it is kinda like a chicken and egg problem maybe. Virtual particles are there because it is empty, and it is empty and so we will have virtual particles. 

BUT in the early universe Higgs was off and so we didn't have particles with mass through Higgs. But I'm not sure if we still had the gravity field (I kinda think we did always but I need to look it up) and so some particles may have had mass through that field? But virtual particles may have not? That is interesting to find out. 

Currently, we have Higgs, so every particle and virtual particle (I think) will show mass...unless it is a special particle like a photon.  

But the physicist said in that long video --all particles are massless, but because of Higgs (think of your hand is a particle going through air, but now Higgs is like water and your hand has to travel through this same space, but it is effected now because of the interaction with the field).

So, you could say that space doesn't have mass --but that space doesn't exist just as space. It always exists with the water and filled with millions of hands moving through it. 

So, there is no such thing as empty space. 

Even without Higgs and in the early universe, virtual particles would still be doing their thing, we just wouldn't see any mass. So you could have massless space maybe, but not true empty space. ?

I'm just trying to work through all of it myself :)

BUT- it does seem to me that nothingness take a lot of energy and a lot of work to maintain. More so than something does. 

It seems like nature would have to work very hard to not have something pop out of it. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

What is God?

For myself, I view God as a Spirit. An infinite, illimitable, eternal Spirit. What is a Spirit? For myself, I view a Spirit as the most fundamental form, most simple form of energy.

I think to call the Spirit/God as intelligent or conscious, restricts and limits our own understanding of it. This is because we view life and nature through our own intelligence and consciousness. Ours evolved naturally from simple to complex and is restricted by body/space/time.

A God would not have these limits, would not have evolved and would not be complex. Therefore its "intelligence" and "conscious" would be nothing like we understand.

God is not a consciousness inside a brain or an intelligence inside a brain or even a mind inside a brain. Though a mind might be the closest we can think of it. God would exist outside of space and time and inside of it; therefore, its "consciousness" would encompass past-present-future and even before time. Its intelligence could be much like a mathematical genius quantum computer. Perhaps an Awakened Energy-Spirit- would be a better definition.

There are two kinds of energy in my view. Spiritual and Physical. When we understand virtual particles and fundamental particles better, I think we come closer to understanding what Spiritual Energy can do as well.

Spiritual Energy >>Withdrawal>>Space Forms>>Physical Energy Emerges>>Fields> Virtual Particles> Forces>Fundamental Particles>Everything Physical Forms.

Science examines the natural/the physical, not the spiritual.

I agree with everything from science, except when biologists (not mathematicians) use words like purposeless, without guide, directionless, without goals.

I agree with mathematicians assessment of randomness.

The reason is because in biology, we are talking about things without a consciousness -processes and mechanisms are non living things and can't have a purpose in the sense that they are using the word. They don't have a consciousness. They are not aware.

We are examining processes and mechanisms, but what is this substance (energy) that these processes and mechanisms are using. From where does this substance (energy) come?

Those are essentially the questions at the crust of the real inquiry into what is reality.

Simply because the process or mechanism is not conscious itself, does not mean they were not structured deliberately or without intent or thought, or that a spiritual energy does not exist.

This simply means that physical things and processes and mechanisms without a consciousness don't have a conscious purpose/goal.

Well, Duh.

So, I agree biological evolution doesn't have a conscious purpose/goal in and of itself -because we are examining only the physical Things, the physical processes and physical mechanisms.

This says nothing about the spiritual significance.

However, they do have a natural purpose/goal.

All energy persists toward entropy =Death.
All life persists to survival =Life

Further, all energy follows a pattern from simple>complex, chaos>order, from heterogenous>homogenous, from random>non random, from death>life>death.

These patterns are reflected in our natural laws.

So, all of energy does follow a guide or a direction. It is the direction or reflection of the natural laws.

is Nothing all there is?

Science seems to be going in the direction that true nothingness does not exist. This is because whenever you find nothing, you find virtual particles.

I would have to agree not just with the science, but with that concept in my view of life and reality.

Nothing does not exist, because whenever you find nothing--you actually find everything just in its most simple and fundamental form. Nothing is NoThing, not the non-existence of everything.

The most simple and fundamental form of reality is NoThing and this is why this happens in my opinion.

The real question for me is, how much of life experience and memories is retained in this simple fundamental form that makes up our universe and our everything?

How is it retained?

We can see cells seem to have a sense of memory and experience, but do virtual particles too?

Do all our memories and life experiences retain themselves in some fundamental form of energy?

Could what we call the soul or spirit be an echo of nature itself?

It does seem that virtual particles have to behave certain ways. It pops as a gluon only to become a photon or such...because it seemingly has to conform to the existence it pops into. Some virtual particles might pop into our existence as anti-quarks, but most have to conform and so we see the photon it is supposed to be.

Why do virtual particles conform? What rules are they following? It seems they are somehow aware of what is around them if they are conforming. (Not to imply this awareness has to be conscious.)