>Crazy Physics Theory of Nothing

>I believe in nothing. But this isn’t an atheism post.

High level physics has this nice little attribute: we really really don’t understand it, nor do we have enough evidence to disprove most current theories

I hereby present my “Crazy Physics Theory of Nothing”:
Matter doesn’t exist. There are no “atoms” as in particles that can not be divided. As to the fundamental “atoms” or building blocks of the universe I foresee two possibilities:

  • Small Tears in Space-Time
  • Very small patterns in Space-Time that fit together with other very small patterns in space-time and maintain equilibrium

So, what about forces you ask?

  • Gravity seems well defined to me at least
  • Electromagnetism could just be similar to gravity but at some sort of special frequency that resonants with others that are the opposite of it.
  • The others.. similar idea as the above?

So, what do these ideas imply?

  • There might be more forces like electromagnetism that can pull different materials together
  • We will never discover an “atom” NOTE: “atom” refers to the original meaning of atom, basically, fundamental indivisible building block of the universe
  • I have too much time on my hands at 2am and should be sleeping

5 thoughts on “>Crazy Physics Theory of Nothing”

  1. >Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the difference between a “theory” and a “completely batshit crazy shot in the dark” ;D

  2. >Notice the heading:
    Currently unverifiable theories

    The term theory is occasionally stretched to refer to theoretical speculation which is currently unverifiable. Examples are string theory and various theories of everything. In the strict sense, the term theory should only be used when describing a model that is derived from experimental evidence and is provable (or disprovable).

    Mine is just as testable as string theory with current tech 😛

  3. >And how do you plan to test your theories? You DO plan to test them, right? I’d like to see you prove those bigwig scientists wrong. Because you’d be rich. And then you could BUY ME LOTS OF STUFF!

    Um… right. This is me procrastinating on my paper.

  4. >The theory of relativity hinges on the convertability of mater and energy. But there are two types of energy, Kinetic and potential. Relativity implies that mater is potential energy. But potential energy must sit on a hill. What is the hill that mater sits on? If mater is indeed concentrated around black holes, is it much of a stretch to assume that the hill upon which the potential energy of mater sits is the one between space and the black hole…between the dimension without substance, which is space, and substance without dimension of a black hole? How does this affect the way one sees atoms? The closer we look at it, the more ephemeral mater becomes. We break it into smaller and smaller particles, and we become unable to find anything better than a probable existence in a probable location. This makes sense if the nature of mater is an absence. That we can see, touch smell taste and hear mater gives us the illusion that it is a positive phenomenon. We are made of the stuff, so how can we not see it as “something?” It is potential energy.
    The key word here is potential. It is not actually energy, and it is not actually not energy. Mater then exists potentially as the stored energy of the stretch between the infinity of space and the nothing of the black hole.

    1. Just a random person hear,lol but if you follow the Christian beliefs, genesis I think says “in the beginning there was nothing. “then. The AO, spoke every thing into existence. If so. We are all made of nothing. Created from nothing. But on the flipped side of that coin, since we are made of nothing our possibilities are endless.?:0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *