KittyBeRich

There isn't nothing. Inside of an atmosphere, there is air where we think of nothing. On a atomic level there are (Sometimes) virtual particles when we think of nothing. And in spacetime... there isn't mass (Or space) but time is there. Basically, no thing is nothing Sorry for starting a philosophy/physics debate... they tend to go nowhere.

THe way I thought of an Impenetrable box was a box where nothing could effect the inside from the outside. Also, I completely forgot about virtual particles so... 😿

Ok, you are correct, major oversight about the mass->mass statement, but how do we define liquids? As a bottle of water. Therefore I define this nothing as a box of nothing. Also, an object has a size. If we take away that object, there is a hole of that size in the place of that object. So, it's a inside of box sized nothing.

I say this is horrible. We're playing God in a horrible way. I think as long as it doesn't get to the point where it's brain is advanced enough to become conscious I'm not gonna destroy whoever did it. This also brings up the question of whether or not the result of this be conscious, but that just hurts my brain so I wont think about that.

So, you have a completely solid, impenetrable box with nothing in it. Not a single atom. Not a quark. Not a string. If I move that box a meter, does the nothing move with it? Logically, yes, as there is nothing in and it is impossible for anything to get inside, but what about any-nothing? Physically, something must have mass to interact with other particles so the nothing just sits there and is replaced by more nothing when I move the box. I'm confused, please help. P.S: This is coming from an ameteur physicist who overthinks stuff a lot, so tell me if this is a dumb question.