What is nothing?

[southerncross]

There is nothing that is somewhere as in a space that contains nothing, but can there be nothing that is nowhere?

Ignoring the matter in the universe for the moment could the universe be a whole lot of nothing that is somewhere having originally come from a nothing that was nowhere?

[Tsadi]

The nothingness i think you are attempting to describe, is the ''outer regions'' of space and time itself. For instance, ask a physicist what is outside the universe, and he will reply, ''nothing.''

 

You might respond by saying, ''so its just a big space.''

 

The physicist will reply, ''Nope. There's not even that.''

[southerncross]

Extrapolating out or forward into the “outer regions” you have the universe expanding into nothing that is nowhere, but of interest here is extrapolating in or back which seems to lead to the same point: A universe that came from a point of nothing that is nowhere expanding into the same nothing that is nowhere. If space is nothing in three dimensions then by extrapolating back brings us to a nothing in 0 dimensions.

 

What I am trying to find out is this “nothing nowhere” concept what physicists’ consider to be where the universe came from and also what it is expanding into?

[Tsadi]

Extrapolating out or forward into the “outer regions” you have the universe expanding into nothing that is nowhere, but of interest here is extrapolating in or back which seems to lead to the same point: A universe that came from a point of nothing that is nowhere expanding into the same nothing that is nowhere. If space is nothing in three dimensions then by extrapolating back brings us to a nothing in 0 dimensions.

 

What I am trying to find out is this “nothing nowhere” concept what physicists’ consider to be where the universe came from and also what it is expanding into?

 

The universe expands in nothing. Therefore, it has nothing to expand into. If you mean, what is the state the universe is trying to reach, then that is not fully known. All i can tell you is that it is probable the universe just wanted a bit of life, for it makes sure it uses the least amount of energy possible.

 

As for where the universe came from, the answer is just as weak i am affraid. Physics deals with no actual pre-bang state. So in a sense, without any real mechanism, or cause, everything spewed into existence. In fact, you may as well say that everything came from nothing.

 

This is how bad it is.

[southerncross]

I think people find it hard to think of nothing without a place.

 

I don't think people can apply physics properly without realizing they will always assign a place even when there isn't one.

 

The big bang started the universe at a point somewhere and the universe expands into somewhere are both in my opinion not the proper (physics) way to think.

 

The big bang started the universe nowhere and expands nowhere would be more accurate yet still incomplete.

 

The bottom line here is a point is only a point because of it's relationship to other points and any point by itself has no place and is nowhere, the relationship between the points is what makes the universe, not the points themselves.

 

If you think of the points as the universe you are assigning a place even when there isn't one.

[Tsadi]

( I should have also said, the standard model does not deal with a pre-big bang. However, there is an existing model, the Ekpyrotic Theory which does, but is still highly speculative).

[southerncross]

Yeah, Brane cosmology, the universe INSIDE a higher dimensional space called the "bulk".

Like I said, people find it hard to not assign a place.

 

I personally am comfortable with the universe coming from nowhere and expanding into nowhere and I see no sense in complicating it further.

 

I do see that there must be an explanation as to why nowhere becomes somewhere and this leads people to think of highly speculative theories.

 

Maybe i will start a thread in speculations

[Tsadi]

Well, personly i hate brane theory.

[Imaginer1]

Nothing is more than likely somewhere, but it;s near impossible to make nothing. It would be an intense vacuum. INTENSE. like, man could never make it. ever.

[npts2020]

Never is a very long time. Remember Jules Verne, H. G. Wells and others wrote about "impossible" things that came to pass in less than a century.

[Quartile]

Nothing only exists when it remains undefined

[southerncross]

DEFINITION:

Nothing in 3 dimensions is space.

Nothing without dimensions is nowhere, it is not of a place.

 

You could not have a vacume without a place to have it no matter how intense.

 

Space is really space-time, the two cannot be seperated, space has to exist in a moment and a moment has to be relative to somewhere.

 

I am only speculating here, if there was only one moment would there only be one space, i mean if there was no next moment and space-time cannot be seperated, then there would be no next space.

[Gilded]

As I've probably said before, "nothingness" is more of a philosophical than a physical concept, and is (sort of) defined as such.

[Mr Skeptic]

Nothing doesn't exist, and I can prove it!

[hobz]

I agree with Gilded. Often when the term "nothing" is used, it refers to the absence of objects of a particular interest. A police investigator replying "nothing" to a question of what he found in a search did obviously not encounter nothing at all, just nothing of interest.

 

If he actually encountered nothing at all, it would be that he was faced with the absence of everything even nothing it self, since nothing, as a concept, word, sound or idea is something. One might argue that the philosophical "nothing" we use in word, sound and idea is just a placeholder for an absolute nothing that is not definable but all people have an intuitive idea about what it means in general.

 

Relating this to a philosophysical meaning, one might consider what a total absence of energy in some region of (timeless) space might be. Is it nothing? Well it is still a region of space, which certainly not is nothing. Does it contain anything? It does not contain any energy, but one might argue that it contains it self, i.e. the empty space we are looking at contains the empty space it self.

 

By shrinking this region of space to zero (multiply all sides of the space by 0). The total volume is now 0. In other words there is no space. This kind of nothing-space might be the closest to an absolute nothing that I can imagine. The nothing-space is however inherently boring, as nothing(!) can exist within it...

[I_Pwn_Crackpots]

By shrinking this region of space to zero (multiply all sides of the space by 0). The total volume is now 0. In other words there is no space. This kind of nothing-space might be the closest to an absolute nothing that I can imagine. The nothing-space is however inherently boring, as nothing(!) can exist within it...

 

But that is something, isn't it? Which negates the notion that nothingness exists.

 

HA! I win!

[hobz]

True. Anything can be perceived as something. Even nothing. The "true" nothing must not exibit such categorization, and thus it cannot exist in any form that we can comprehend.

I guess.

[southerncross]

Hi hobz

Very much what I was thinking, "nothing-space" that is. I may have changed my mind.

I have learnt a lesson hear at SFN, that is there should be a reason why you believe something or you are just guessing and for some personal reason you are choosing to believe that guess is a fact. That said a best guess with supporting reasons is a good place to start any investigation.

 

I would think these are all the options

 

1. Nothing does not exist

2. Nothing does exist

3. Nothing does not exist but something can be totally indiscernible

4. Nothing is a flawed concept

 

I choose 3. Mainly because something would include both space and time and they seem inseparable. If you can divide any moment infinitely then you should be able divide any space infinitely. Nothing may have never existed it may only approach zero without ever reaching it. This is my best guess.

Edited October 23, 2008 by southerncross

[YT2095]

"Nothing" is simply the absence of Anything.

 

Not to be confused with Zero which is merely a placeholder.

[hobz]

Hi hobz

Very much what I was thinking, "nothing-space" that is. I may have changed my mind.

I have learnt a lesson hear at SFN, that is there should be a reason why you believe something or you are just guessing and for some personal reason you are choosing to believe that guess is a fact. That said a best guess with supporting reasons is a good place to start any investigation.

 

I would think these are all the options

 

1. Nothing does not exist

2. Nothing does exist

3. Nothing does not exist but something can be totally indiscernible

4. Nothing is a flawed concept

 

I choose 3. Mainly because something would include both space and time and they seem inseparable. If you can divide any moment infinitely then you should be able divide any space infinitely. Nothing may have never existed it may only approach zero without ever reaching it. This is my best guess.

 

I guess of course and have never postulated my guess to be truth. If I had to choose from your list it would be a superposition of the first three

[throng]

Nothing doesn't exist, and I can prove it!

 

That would be great I'd like to see proof there's not nothing.

 

I think southerncross was adequately describing nothing in zero dimensions, or a point.

 

A point can't expand but it ever contracts. A point doesn't exist for it has no dimensions, yet ever can it be halved in size.

 

So in zero dimensions nothing is defined as ever less, which implies an infinite ammount.

 

Therefore, there is an infinite ammount of nothing lessening at an infinite rate. In zero dimensions where only nothing exists.

[Martin]

This is a topnotch speculation thread!

I like the different logical possibilities which have been laid out.

It is interesting that one of them is

 

Nothing is a flawed concept.

 

I think the discussion gets into philosophy and semantics here: what are the various ways the word "nothing" is used?

 

Usually an abstract word will be a tag for several different concepts and be used in various ways. So what is seen as a flaw could actually simply be a sign that there are several (overlapping but not entirely consistent) meanings.

 

I would like to propose a definition and see how y'all like it. It may not work, but let's see:

 

Nothing is, by definition, that which does not exist.

 

==========================================

 

Incidentally this has no connection with physics. Popular writing has given some nonphysicists the impression that physics say that the universe arose from nothing. This is not true. Physics does not "say" that. It is not an assertion supported by scientific evidence and there is no scientific reason for anyone to assert that "the universe came from nothing" or anything like that. The moment you say something like that you are launching into speculation.

 

However that is not necessarilly a bad thing! Speculation can be fun and stimulating.

Edited October 24, 2008 by Martin

[Mr Skeptic]

I would like to propose a definition and see how y'all like it. It may not work, but let's see:

 

Nothing is, by definition, that which does not exist.

 

That's all well and good, until iNow comes along and says "Therefore God is nothing" It is very easy to describe things that do not exist, but that nobody would consider to be nothing, like invisible pink unicorns with two horns.

 

I could say,

Nothing is the absence of something. However, that is meaningless unless one knows what something is.

 

I propose,

Nothing is that which has no properties.

[iNow]

That's all well and good, until iNow comes along and says "Therefore God is nothing" It is very easy to describe things that do not exist, but that nobody would consider to be nothing, like invisible pink unicorns with two horns.

 

I'd actually say that god is nothing more than a human created concept (which itself IS something), but I truly appreciate the effort.

 

 

Also, purple unicorns "don't exist," but they are still not nothing.

[hobz]

I propose,

Nothing is that which has no properties.

 

Isn't it a property to have no properties?