I know this is a physics question, but I felt it could benefit from a more unconventional way of thinking. Now, I have these 2 questions as follows:
Is it possible for matter to be completely destroyed at the atomic level so that it no longer exists at all?
For instance, if you exposed ashes to extremely high temperatures, such as those found in the Sun, could they be permanently eradicated? Or does matter always continue to exist in some form, simply changing into something else and being recycled over time? Can stuff turns into “Nothingness”?
I was wondering whether it’s really possible to keep cutting something in half forever. I know that, according to our current understanding of physics, there comes a point where you reach particles that can’t be divided any further. However, I’m not sure I fully understand what that means. as far as I know particles aren’t really there, they are just maths that describes our observations. And no one has seen a particle in the lab or a collider before, all are indirect observations that we then interpret as being a particle. So again, is it possible that it turned into “Nothingness”?
(Nothing, as in absense of stuff, not the non existence of time and space)
Since E=mc², and energy is conserved, no; although the whole of some mass could be turned into energy.
That’s assuming the conservation of energy, which is more an accounting principle than an observation.
Depends on what a “something” is; but again, we run up against the accountants, who may not be willing to allow us to use the continuum hypothesis.
so the present state of the art is that we can’t cut up quarks - but then, they are not quite particles anyway, since they are not independent: we can’t get one on its own.
And most importantly, you can’t do physics without the maths. Understanding this stuff is understanding the mathematics.
You can destroy stuff, but it won’t be destroyed into nothingness.
Space without stuff contains virtual particles. Space itself might be made of spin-networks of qubits. Qubits are more fundamental, like a brute fact from which space and time have always emerged. Under these conditions we can have material stuff in various constellations and their destruction (but never into nothingness).
*) edited part in italics. My speculation based on available pop-science for laymen.
Here what do you mean by “Nothing” or “Nothingness”?
Is it simply absence of stuff? Or is it something which is nothing? For instance, I have never seen God before, so God is absent in my experience. Does it mean God is nothing or nothingness?
Or even some material stuff, I have never seen a gold mountain. It is absent in my whole experience. Does it mean it is nothing?
If something had been destroyed into nothing, the destroyed object is still in the memory of the destroyer. Does it mean it still exists in the mind of the destroyer?
How can you conclude that something is nothing? If something was destroyed into nothing, then how can one tell it is nothing?
After reading physics books, I came to understand that they describe real phenomena rather than reality itself. Not sure what is real or not,that’s what led me to ask these questions. Sorry if I caused any confusion.
Regarding virtual particles in empty space, I’ve read a lot about them online, but I still can’t quite understand the concept. Couldn’t the same reasoning be used to argue that real particles aren’t actually there either, and are simply mathematical tools that describe what we observe?
Now I’m wondering whether there are multiple definitions of “nothingness.” I understand that the complete absence of space, time, and laws is impossible, but are there other concepts of nothingness/emptiness?
Well, there is a thing called antimatter, and when you have a collision between matter and antimatter, the mass completely disappears, and they turn into photons.
Technically, conservation of energy does not hold across our universe due to the expansion, so photons can be redshifted by the expansion and the energy doesn’t go anywhere.
Yes - good point. As I said, conservation is more about book keeping than about observations.
Now those who have a methodological adherence to conservation try to account for the loss of energy by inferring an increase elsewhere - in gravitational potential energy or in the observed increase in the expansion rate, for example. The question is, how effective such a move is, and the answer is, we don’t yet have a satisfactory account. We don’t know.
A wave in what? Is the wave function a physical thing, and not just a calculation? What counts as an observation? a conscious observer, a macroscopic apparatus, environmental decoherence? This remains undecided. What we have is a set of calculations that are remarkably useful. But they are not tied to any certain ontology.
What is the difference between “real phenomena” and “reality itself”?
I used to think “the universe” was surrounded by infinite nothingness. Now I understand that “the universe” is everything; there is no beyond. Space just gets bigger, and everything in space get’s spread out–the expanding universe. I don’t really like it, but (so I am told) that’s the way it is. I hear it cools as it expands. At some great distance in time, when the universe is unimaginably bigger than it is now, matter will be very, very cold–Absolute Zero?
So, to return to your question about nothingness: What happens to matter at absolute zero? it doesn’t disappear, but it doesn’t retain it’s features at the atomic level either. If there is no energy at absolute zero, hasn’t a great deal finally disappeared forever (all the matter that had become energy?
I’m with you on this. We have techniques that prove themselves in the lifeworld. As long as the technology keeps working, the ontological explications are “just poetry,” however personally important they may be in this or that poet’s life.
I suppose I was leaning into the way I understand existence. All that exists is a great conglomeration of colourless, waving frequencies of a very broad order, everything always moving, energetic, intertwined with one another, and do not take any form until they are observed, by a human, whether by using their senses or enhancing them with instruments.
Modern mathematics is very clearly tied to Platonism. This is obvious from set theory and the way it treats “empty set” and “infinity”. Set theory is Platonist.
I know you deny this, but that denial is the result of an unwillingness to admit that the logic you love is intrinsically dependent on the ontology you despise. To ignore this confliction you insist that logic is not tied to ontology.
Again, in what? A wave requires a medium. What is it that waves? Until this be explained, your explanation isn’t an explanation.
How could you possibly know that the unobserved rock is not a rock until it is observed? Your very framing undermines itself by claiming to know about stuff that it claims cannot be known. Much more coherent to just suppose that the unobserved rock is a rock.
Nothing in physics obligates the idealist ontology you espouse.
