what is nothing

[dmaiski]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

wikipedia definition of nothing for the linguistically impaired

 

I have been thinking (yes, I know its not a good idea)

and I came up with this

 

1. currently there is a universe

2. it started at the big bang (or something along the lines)

3. it had to start from something

4. that something had to come from something

5. that something had to come from something

6. that something had to come from something

7. that something had to come from something

8. (infinite regression)

9. that something had to come from nothing

 

so the million dollar question is what is nothing

 

*I just thought this was a valid thing to post here since no one has asked this simple question

**I know it is by no means a simple question to answer, prior apologies to anyone who has their mind bent into a pretzel due to this

***yes, I know this is a current question in physics that has yet to be properly answered

 

 

[JohnStu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

wikipedia definition of nothing for the linguistically impaired

 

I have been thinking (yes, I know its not a good idea)

and I came up with this

 

1. currently there is a universe

2. it started at the big bang (or something along the lines)

3. it had to start from something

4. that something had to come from something

5. that something had to come from something

6. that something had to come from something

7. that something had to come from something

8. (infinite regression)

9. that something had to come from nothing

 

so the million dollar question is what is nothing

 

*I just thought this was a valid thing to post here since no one has asked this simple question

**I know it is by no means a simple question to answer, prior apologies to anyone who has their mind bent into a pretzel due to this

***yes, I know this is a current question in physics that has yet to be properly answered

 

 

 

 

 

Good thoughts there; crispy and clear.

 

 

 

If in order for nothing to be defined, one must use something, then nothing is also something; a form of something.

 

In further detail, nothing is void of something.

 

 

In order to truly define it, meaning to not use something to define it, I do not think it is possible.

[granpa]

everything didnt come from nothing.

everything came from everything.

 

at the beginning "everything" was a single singularity.

at that point one simply cant go back in time any further.

there was no before the beginning.

[moth]

Nothing is incomprehensible.

[Ben Banana]

Nothing is incomprehensible.

I'd say nothing is nothing but a conceivable association. Now suck that self-reflexive masterpiece.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Ben Bowen

[moth]

I'd say nothing is nothing but a conceivable association. Now suck that self-reflexive masterpiece.

 

Are you saying you understand nothing?

[pantheory]

dmaiski,

 

.........9. that something had to come from nothing

Your first statement is not necessarily true according to the consensus version of the standard Big Bang model. According to the standard model, the universe started as a Big Bang entity, from a point or volume of some size. Many or most theorists believe this volume had the potential energy within it to change into the universe we now see. Many or most theorists also believe there was no such thing as a time before the Big Bang which itself was accordingly the beginning of the universe. The first interval of change can be used to define the word "time" thereafter, and the first volume which matter/ energy occupied, can be used to define volumes of space. Matter/energy were at the beginning without the possibility of time or change before the first change. This is not just semantics but the foundations for the definitions of both words "time" and "space."

 

...so the million dollar question is what is nothing

The word "nothing," like time and space, is based upon a definition as it relates to the universe. The word "nothing" itself is a combination of two roots, "no" and "thing." For the word "thing" we may refer to something made of matter or comprised of energy. Now we can define space as the distance between matter and the volume both matter and energy encompasses. The universe is generally considered to be finite in volume concerning the extent of its matter and energy, therefore NOTHING could exist outside these confines, which therefore could be used to define the word "nothing" as it relates to the universe. Semantically speaking, there would accordingly be no such thing as "nothing" inside the confines of the universe. Within the volume of the universe the absence of something would be called space.

 

Although there are many other ideas concerning the beginning of the universe, I believe this is the current consensus opinion concerning the beginning of the universe which can be used to define the word "nothing" as it relates to the universe.

//

Edited September 30, 2012 by pantheory

[Ben Banana]

Are you saying you understand nothing?

No. I'm saying you understand nothing. (i.e. Clueless. Puns are great.) Seriously though, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying... what pantheory said.

[moth]

Is nothing symmetrical?

If nothing had no symmetry it would have distinctions

If there are distinctions between parts wouldn't that make it something?

 

maybe nothing is perfect symmetry.

[Ben Banana]

1 = 1. 1 - 1 = 0.

 

There's no clear bridge between "nothing" and equality. Define it. Regardless, that's arbitrary... so have fun making bridges out of thin air.

[moth]

There's no clear bridge between "nothing" and equality.

 

 

But there is a clear bridge between nothing and inequality.

If some part of nothing is not equivalent to the rest of nothing then it's something.

[michel123456]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

wikipedia definition of nothing for the linguistically impaired

 

I have been thinking (yes, I know its not a good idea)

and I came up with this

 

1. currently there is a universe

2. it started at the big bang (or something along the lines)

3. it had to start from something

4. that something had to come from something

5. that something had to come from something

6. that something had to come from something

7. that something had to come from something

8. (infinite regression)

9. that something had to come from nothing

 

so the million dollar question is what is nothing

 

*I just thought this was a valid thing to post here since no one has asked this simple question

**I know it is by no means a simple question to answer, prior apologies to anyone who has their mind bent into a pretzel due to this

***yes, I know this is a current question in physics that has yet to be properly answered

 

Wrong question.

 

In this case the Columbus egg is:

 

it started at (...)

 

What makes you think it started? (except thousands of books, scientists, cosmologists, millions Christian believers, billions Muslims, etc.)

 

The "start" concept comes from our understanding of living creatures (birth), and not from our observation of the physical world. Observation & experimentation shows that energy is conserved.

You need incredible intellectual masturbation to ejaculate the concept of energy creation.

It is not something observable.

Everything shows that energy creation (from nothing) is wrong. But our preconception of "creation" is so strong that it eradicates any other logical approach.

IMHO of course.

And also our understanding of the concept of Time is still in its infancy.

[hypervalent_iodine]

***yes, I know this is a current question in physics that has yet to be properly answered

 

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Which is why it doesn't belong in the main Science forums. Moved to Speculations.

[ElasticCollision]

I think the closest anyone has ever come to finding out what "nothing" is was through studying the torricillian vacuum, because within this vacuum, there is not only no air, but there is supposedly "nothing" whatsoever. I think this was closely linked to the theory of virtual particles, as it was theorized that inside this vacuum of nothing, there were these "virtual particles" which come in and out of existence at random.

I can remember watching an entire documentary about this, if I can find a link to it I'll be sure to post it.

[pantheory]

I think the closest anyone has ever come to finding out what "nothing" is was through studying the torricillian vacuum, because within this vacuum, there is not only no air, but there is supposedly "nothing" whatsoever. I think this was closely linked to the theory of virtual particles, as it was theorized that inside this vacuum of nothing, there were these "virtual particles" which come in and out of existence at random.

I can remember watching an entire documentary about this, if I can find a link to it I'll be sure to post it.

The question then becomes: if within the Torricellian vacuum virtual particles can be found, can we really say there is nothing there? I like the way you phrased it, "supposedly nothing."

 

We know that within any vacuum of space there exists what we call "the Zero Point Field (ZPF)," also called "Zero Point Energy." It has been estimated that there is more energy within the totality of space than there is energy in all of the matter within the universe, including hypothetical dark matter. So is the contents of this vacuum really "nothing?" From the perspective of its whole it may be the farthest thing away from being nothing as possible.

 

When Stephen Hawking proposed that the universe was created from nothing, what he really meant was that he thinks the universe was created from the Zero Point Field.

 

Since this thread is now in the Speculation Forum:

 

Theorists today have proposed the existence of many yet undiscovered types of particles within the vacuum: particulate dark matter, Higgs particles, gravitons, etc. They have proposed several different types of yet undiscovered energies in this field: dark energy, quantum foam, etc. If any of these hypothetical particles, energies, or other hypothetical entities exist within this vacuum it could also be called an aether. To be called an aether its constituents would seemingly need to have relative motions within it, as well as a frame of least motion (a rest frame concerning EM radiation).

//

Edited September 30, 2012 by pantheory

[Ben Banana]

But there is a clear bridge between nothing and inequality.

If some part of nothing is not equivalent to the rest of nothing then it's something.

 

You constructed that reasoning without using a necessary derivation from the essence of nothing. This reasoning can be applied to a lot of things: it's not meant to explore *truth*, only to surface implicit character. "some part of nothing" <-- assumes too many characteristics about 'nothing' in the first place ... which is quite silly especially by the nature of our subject here, 'nothing.'

 

'Nothing' labels a certain phenomenon of indexicality. 'Random' is another (more obvious) kind of this indexical phenomena etc.

 

EDIT:

Also notice how you jumped by my analysis of your analogy -- where I referred to nothing and equality -- to begin referring to inequality...

which really exhibits to me how you're just spewing nonsense.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Ben Bowen

[pantheory]

Michel123456,

 

In this case the Columbus egg is:

First time I've heard that expression. I will us it in the future, thanks. And it would seem that "what started the universe," or "was there a beginning to the universe," were the bottom-line questions concerning this posting, as you suggested

 

And also our understanding of the concept of Time is still in its infancy.

Again this being the Speculation Forum:

 

I think that some understand time perfectly well. I think that it is just some mainstream concepts of time that are goofed up. When all of the kinks are removed from today's theories I believe time will be simply understood as "an interval of change" and nothing more. But discussions on this thread should not diverge on this topic.

//

Edited September 30, 2012 by pantheory

[finster]

I have thought about this ....a lot.

 

Both "something" and "nothing" is relative to what is doing the observing (interacting.)

 

Here is a diagram (from a series of diagrams) I have made explaining why the Universe appears to "exist" to us (when, in actuality, nothing exists):

 

http://s12.postimage.org/7g1in5b57/nothingness.jpg

 

 

[pantheory]

I have thought about this ....a lot.

 

Both "something" and "nothing" is relative to what is doing the observing (interacting.)

 

Here is a diagram (from a series of diagrams) I have made explaining why the Universe appears to "exist" to us (when, in actuality, nothing exists):

 

http://s12.postimage...nothingness.jpg

 

finster, something has constituent parts, nothing does not.

 

One must use words according to the way they are defined in language. If you have a different meaning for a word then you might have to coin your own word to explain a different concept concerning any existing word, such as the word "nothing."

 

I think your analysis is based upon the question of how something could possibly come from nothing. The simple answer concerning logic is that it cannot. If valid this answer simply means that either the cosmos (all of reality at any given time including possible multiverses*) has always existed, or that it had a beginning by which the word "before" would be meaningless.

 

Either the known cosmos/ universe* has always existed or it had a beginning. I don't think there is a logical third choice.

 

By definition of the words, "something" and "nothing" cannot be the same. You might however make this argument:

 

If nothing has no constituent parts for a given volume (which it does not by definition)

 

AND

 

If something has no constituent parts or way to describe it for the same given volume

 

then there could be no distinction between something and nothing

 

 

 

 

//

Edited September 30, 2012 by pantheory

[finster]

finster, something has constituent parts, nothing does not.

 

One must use words according to the way they are defined in language. If you have a different meaning for a word then you might have to coin your own word to explain a different concept concerning any existing word, such as the word "nothing."

 

I think your analysis is based upon the question of how something could possibly come from nothing. The simple answer concerning logic is that it cannot. If valid this answer simply means that either the cosmos (all of reality at any given time including possible multiverses*) has always existed, or that it had a beginning by which the word "before" would be meaningless.

 

Either the known cosmos/ universe* has always existed or it had a beginning. I don't think there is a logical third choice.

 

By definition of the words, "something" and "nothing" cannot be the same. You might however make this argument:

 

If nothing has no constituent parts for a given volume (which it does not by definition)

 

AND

 

If something has no constituent parts or way to describe it for the same given volume

 

then there could be no distinction between something and nothing

 

 

 

 

//

 

 

 

I like your if and then statement.

 

btw, I posted my full set of diagrams attempting to explain the universe here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69397-why-the-existence-of-the-universe-does-not-need-to-be-solved-a-series-of-diagrams-on-the-relativity-of-existence/

 

 

[dmaiski]

The Columbus egg is an interesting idea but its unfortunately not relevant to this topic, "something" can't have always been here, because to get here it had to come from there, and this is asking where was there.

 

I imagine its something like the spontaneous subatomic particle generation effect, where particles come from "nothing" by basically taking out a loan and then annihilate themselves completely moments later.

 

 

[moth]

you jumped by my analysis of your analogy -- where I referred to nothing and equality -- to begin referring to inequality...

which really exhibits to me how you're just spewing nonsense.

 

 

I didn't understand why you introduced equality when I was using inequality.

Maybe you could make your point more clearly?

[Ben Banana]

I didn't understand why you introduced equality when I was using inequality.

 

No. I began with equality. You spoke of inequality afterward while you believed you were correctly referring to my analogy.

 

There's no clear bridge between "nothing" and equality.

But there is a clear bridge between nothing and inequality.

 

See, equality is inequal to inequality.

 

Inequality doesn't make any sense for your purposes, especially if you try to put it in the form of my original analogy:

 

1 does not equal 0 ... yeah, and? There's no symmetry there. What can you learn from this? Your association between symmetry and inequality is an invalid assertion you've naively made, in addition to your original speculation regarding symmetry and 'nothing'. I mean, that's completely ludicrous!

 

If 'nothing' is symmetry, then what kind of symmetry is 'nothing' ? Does this idea apply to my analogy? Let's try. 1 = 1.

 

Is that 'nothing' ? How so? Clearly, you're just tossing around arbitrary logic. Also, symmetry is definitely not the only property you can abuse... there's a lot of arbitrary logic you can employ to drag yourself nowhere. Once you're satisfied with this useless idea, you're free to enjoy it as much as you would like: only leaving it behind and forgetting it as useless at it is, regardless of my criticism. I would love to see more interesting results come from this idea.

 

Ultimately, my point here is that you clearly are not working with a rigid concept. Your vague conception has already deceived you into asserting that there exists a clear bridge between nothing, symmetry and... inequality? Ooops! You could have only meant equality, which demonstrates how your own grasp is too vague to be handled coherently even by yourself.

 

This is how the field of philosophy is being abused by naive and radical thinkers who only thought they couldn't fit their ideas into the mainstream fields... which is not true. It's a common and fundamental problem with the way these "philosophers" try to approach theory. They believe it makes sense to dance in their own theory without any valid or coherent basis. A lot of people don't know how to appropriately establish new ideas, and this leads them to wondering why their brilliant light-bulbs can't screw in anywhere but philosophy; the only field which appears to accept their desperation.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Ben Bowen

[moth]

Nothing, like symmetry, has no distinctions. if you can make a distinction the distinguishable part must be different (inequality) from the rest or there would be no reason to segment the part.

In your effort to construct a strawman you introduced equality.

Do you think nothing can be asymmetric?

Maybe you could give some examples of the difference between nothing and symmetry.

[studiot]

*I just thought this was a valid thing to post here since no one has asked this simple question

 

I did promote a related question here recently.

 

http://www.sciencefo...__1#entry689884

Edited October 1, 2012 by studiot