Erik,

Perhaps a better way for me to state what I'm getting at would be to substitute the word 'matter' for 'atoms'. My thoughts wer that in the total absence of anything - atoms, particles, etc.. al of which 'exist' in a material universe. The notion I'm after here is the notion of 'nothingness'. I posted a link to Alex that discussed the notion that in 'empty' space there is actually a lot going on.

Under the title: THE ENERGY IN THE VACUUM

In order to appreciate the magnitude of the ZPE in each cubic centimetre of space, consider a conservative estimate of 1052 ergs/cc. Most people are familiar with the light bulbs with which we illuminate our houses. The one in my office is labelled as 150 watts. (A watt is defined as 107 ergs per second.) By comparison, our sun radiates energy at the rate of 3.8 x 1020 watts. In our galaxy there are in excess of 100 billion stars. If we assume they all radiate at about the same intensity as our sun, then the amount of energy expended by our entire galaxy of stars shining for one million years is roughly equivalent to the energy locked up in one cubic centimetre of space.

So that 'empty' space isn't so empty apparently. <g>

Best,

DD



>>If we were to imagine the total absence of all atoms I dare say that time and light wouldn't exist either.
>
>Yup.
>
>>So, are they the same in a fundamental sense? I think they are. Perhaps different formulations but they mudst have a commonality in order to be able to 'talk' in that energy can become matter and back again.
>
>That's what the GUT and the Higgs Boson hope to explain, but nobody has found one yet.
>
>>Light is nothing more than atoms of a certain type vibrating at a certain frequency (simply put) and we have indeed proven that light has mass.
>
>Uhh, no. Light is carried by a messenger particle called a photon which is NOT an atom, and not even matter. The Photon like its brothers (gluon, graviton, Z and Ws) is is massless, and carries one of the four forces (electromagnetism). You stated earlier that matter decays- this is incorrect. Atoms decay, but they do so by releasing particles. These particles go elsewhere, they do not disappear.
>
>> Timelessness, for example, is not past, or future. The "present" really wouldn't have much meaning since it derives a lot of its value from what it is not - past or future. <g> From a timelessness pov you could say that all time-based events are observable at the same ..er.. time. <g> It's tough to try and define, we're so stuck here in our thinking process.
>
>You might enjoy Hawking's book...