Does empty space/nothingness exist?

[ZVBXRPL]

I can only think of two possible answers

 

1. YES. There is empty space and everything that exists in the Universe is surrounded by empty space/nothingness. In this empty space NOTHING exists whatsoever. No energy, no fields, no subatomic particles or sub sub sub atomic particles. ABSOLUTE ZERO ANYTHING.

 

2. NO. Empty Space does not exist and everything that exists in the Universe is connected. It is one huge ball of energy.

 

These are the two possible answers according to logic, correct? Tell me if there is a third option.

 

 

 

If option 1 was true then surrounding the Universe would be an infinite ocean of nothingness and between all the matter would be infinite empty space and nothingness.

Or, "our Universe" is one of many and if you were to somehow travel far enough past the boundaries of our Universe, you would eventually reach some other region of space, that may be another Universe, could be a year old, could be a trillion years old, who knows. Or, you might just pass a few million particles that exist all on their own as part of a small gas cloud (very lonely for them).

If this was true then there is a good chance that "our observable part of the Universe" is merely a tiny part of an infinite Greater Universe

 

(Random additional thought - if our Universe was surrounded by x number of other Universes, could these Universes affect our Universe in a such a way as to cause the expansion theory that is popular at present? I heard Dark Energy was a theory behind this expansion, is it one of many theories, or the main and only theory?

Maybe our Universe began this recent expansion period because the Universes surrounding us are of a similar age and so their affect on us, would not be noticeable until relatively recently?)

 

 

If option 2 was true then the only logical conclusion is that the Universe is infinite.

No empty space, with everything connected would mean that the microcosm and macrocosm were both infinite.

This possibility is even more mind boggling than the first I think.

If the Universe was connected, infinite in all directions, then this would mean that energy and matter do not move through empty space, past other forms of matter and energy, but instead, they "transfer"

Eg Imagine a room filled wall to wall, ceiling to floor with tiny light bulbs. Each light bulb has an infinite number of colours. These light bulbs represent energy, they are not literally light bulbs.

If all the light bulbs were blue, this means they are at x amount of energy. Then if 2 lights next to each other turned green, they represent a different form of energy.

For that energy to "move" the light bulbs themselves don't move, instead the 2 lights adjacent would turn green, and the original two green lights revert back to blue.

This would repeat and the light bulbs would appear to be moving if viewed from a zoomed out POV.

 

 

 

This question fascinates me the most. I love thinking about the Universe, surely all people interested in Science do right?

 

 

Personally I lean toward option 2, my main reason being is there is a repeating substructure present in the Universe I see around me, from stars and galaxies, down to cells, DNA and down further to atoms and down further again to all the weird stuff such as quarks etc

 

 

 

 

Please choose which you think is true 1, 2, other? Explain reasoning

 

I am not a physicist or mathematician, so please explain in basic terms, rather than using equations (If you are unable to explain without using equations, then there is no point replying really is there, because if you don't understand what you saying, how will I? )

 

This is my thread, so I believe I have the right to politely request this

 

Thanks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Thread moved to Speculations.

[mathematic]

A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing is a book by physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, first published in 2012, discussing various scientific ideas related to cosmogony.

 

The above book discusses this question in detail.

[StringJunky]

Scientists are trying very hard to find discrete units in the structure of space as this would help them to unify gravity with the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces which, so far, stubbornly refuses to be described in any way other than as a smooth continuum,.. as per General Relativity. The other three forces can be described in discrete units ie quantised.This is one such experiment NASA did:

 

"Physicists would like to replace Einstein's vision of gravity -- as expressed in his relativity theories -- with something that handles all fundamental forces," said Peter Michelson, principal investigator of Fermi's Large Area Telescope, or LAT, at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif. "There are many ideas, but few ways to test them."

Many approaches to new theories of gravity picture space-time as having a shifting, frothy structure at physical scales trillions of times smaller than an electron. Some models predict that the foamy aspect of space-time will cause higher-energy gamma rays to move slightly more slowly than photons at lower energy.

Such a model would violate Einstein's edict that all electromagnetic radiation -- radio waves, infrared, visible light, X-rays and gamma rays -- travels through a vacuum at the same speed.

On May 10, 2009, Fermi and other satellites detected a so-called short gamma ray burst, designated GRB 090510. Astronomers think this type of explosion happens when neutron stars collide. Ground-based studies show the event took place in a galaxy 7.3 billion light-years away. Of the many gamma ray photons Fermi's LAT detected from the 2.1-second burst, two possessed energies differing by a million times. Yet after traveling some seven billion years, the pair arrived just nine-tenths of a second apart.

"This measurement eliminates any approach to a new theory of gravity that predicts a strong energy dependent change in the speed of light," Michelson said. "To one part in 100 million billion, these two photons traveled at the same speed. Einstein still rules."

 

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/first_year.html

[Semjase]

If all that was possible was absolute nothingness then we wouldn't

be here, but it turns out that nothingness was something had all

these properties that made our reality possible, there is no other

logical scientific explanation for this reality, if you reverse the

direction of time to infinity you'll get a 100% accurate answer

to that question.

[too-open-minded]

Personally I like to think of it as a yin and yang sort of deal. Nothingness allows everything that is to work properly. Imagine math without 0.

[PeterJ]

Yes, there is a third alternative. To find it would require examing exactly what you mean by 'exist'. Consider Heraclitus' comment 'We are and are not'. By this view it is not completely true that we are and not completely true that we are not, and there is a third option. On his view this would also be true for space. It would be true for everything.

[kristalris]

I choose 1 as a testable option BTW.

 

You only need an infinite amount of two different particles to produce a Yin and Yang of order and disorder that indeed will result in a stable multiverse being per given volume of space much more nothing than something. This as a speculative yet testable idea.

[moreinput]

You might actually wanna check out Jim Al Khalili's BBC documentary on this called "Everything and Nothing" to get a laymen explanation. Complete with pretty visual effects and back story to help paint a more clear portriat. I would post links to a stream of it for you, but I dunno if posting links to obvious pirated material is against the rules. You will just have to search /cough dailymotion.com yourself to find it. =)

 

But to sum it up, the answer is no as far we know. Because even in vacuums photons appear but have to disperse quickly in order to pay back the energy they borrowed to come into existence. But this is a VERY abstract thing to ponder and I myself have spent many hours trying to visualize or even contemplate absolute nothingness (as Emo as that sounds).

[JohnStu]

here is my input: the question "does nothingness exist" requires existance. This is a paradox isn't it

[ACG52]

here is my input: the question "does nothingness exist" requires existance. This is a paradox isn't it

 

No.

[pantheory]

Does empty space exist?

 

 

I can only think of two possible answers

 

1. YES. There is empty space and everything that exists in the Universe is surrounded by empty space/nothingness. In this empty space NOTHING exists whatsoever. No energy, no fields, no subatomic particles or sub sub sub atomic particles. ABSOLUTE ZERO ANYTHING.

 

2. NO. Empty Space does not exist and everything that exists in the Universe is connected. It is one huge ball of energy.

 

These are the two possible answers according to logic, correct? Tell me if there is a third option..........

 

 

 

 

Empty space being the absence of matter certainly exists within the universe. Empty space in the absence of the ZPF probably does not exist within the universe. There is probably no such thing as "space" of any kind outside the universe based upon the definition of space (nothing has existence ouside the universe).

 

So this is probably a third choice.

Edited January 10, 2013 by pantheory

[SamBridge]

Essentially the answer is "no" in our observable universe, because "nothing" would mean there isn't even distance, so there is some "thing" that is causing the aspect of distance between objects that allows us to measure things to determine there is distance and not nothingness.

Edited January 10, 2013 by SamBridge

[Hafnium]

Stephen Hawking was thinking about the universe (as we know it) as a "bubble", outside which "anything" would be "nothing" to us because it doesn't exist in our space and therefore we couldn't ever be aware of it. However, that wouldn't be "nothingness", but it's an interesting question.

 

Anyway, I think the answer is YES, nothingness can exist.

 

I dont' think distance is essential. It is not difficult to describe something in a system with one, two or three dimensions, or even none: an infinitely small point.

The key thing would be, that if TIME doesn't exist in a space, then there would be nothingness.

TIME is required to define or describe anything we know - particles, energies, forces, light, magnetic field, etc.

 

But if time wouldn't exist in that space - none of those would exist, either.

 

The way I understand Hawkings "bubble" is, that the reason why we couldn't understand anything outside this our bubble is because the time-space is bent so that we cannot travel outside, nor observe anything beyond that.

 

But if time and time-space is so heavily bent, that it forms a shell around our bubble, and the space outside lacks a time-dimension - then nothing would exist, resulting in complete nothingness.

[SamBridge]

S

I dont' think distance is essential.

Ah, but it is, because as weird of a concept it is, distance is actually "created" or "caused" by the fabric of space existing and the dimensions it holds. But outside of the universe, there is nothing to act as a medium for the existence of distance, therefore there is 0 distance outside of the universe, or at least, 0 three-dimensional distance, I'm not sure how it applies to extra dimensions.

Edited January 26, 2013 by SamBridge

[Hafnium]

I fully agree to what you are saying. What I mean by "distance is not essential" is, that TIME is the crucial dimension (with respect to the definition of "nothingness"). The lack of one, two or all three dimensonal distances wouldn't yet be "nothingness" as long as time is present. Without time, no other dimension could exist, so that would be the definition of nothingness. (I think)

 

To develop the question a little further: can "nothingness" exist elsewhere than outside our universe?

 

Imagine "nothingness" somewhere inside the boundaries of our universe - kind of a bubble "filled" with nothingness, an inverse of the universe, so to speak. (Let's call that iBubble).

 

The iBubble wouldn't be like a black hole, as the black hole has gravity and bends the time-space around and into the hole, whereas time-space around the iBubble would bend around and away from the iBubble. Therefore we couldn't even reconize it.

 

However, I think that, to "keep" th iBubble remaining, a force would be required - and that would mean that nothingness isn't nothingness.

 

Conclusion: I think, that nothingness only exists outside our universe.

[SamBridge]

I fully agree to what you are saying. What I mean by "distance is not essential" is, that TIME is the crucial dimension (with respect to the definition of "nothingness"). The lack of one, two or all three dimensonal distances wouldn't yet be "nothingness" as long as time is present. Without time, no other dimension could exist, so that would be the definition of nothingness. (I think)

 

To develop the question a little further: can "nothingness" exist elsewhere than outside our universe?

 

Imagine "nothingness" somewhere inside the boundaries of our universe - kind of a bubble "filled" with nothingness, an inverse of the universe, so to speak. (Let's call that iBubble).

 

The iBubble wouldn't be like a black hole, as the black hole has gravity and bends the time-space around and into the hole, whereas time-space around the iBubble would bend around and away from the iBubble. Therefore we couldn't even reconize it.

 

However, I think that, to "keep" th iBubble remaining, a force would be required - and that would mean that nothingness isn't nothingness.

 

Conclusion: I think, that nothingness only exists outside our universe.

Well I don't know if it's true that other dimensions couldn't exist without time. Mathematically if time was stopped, other dimensions would have no problem existing. The thin about true nothingness is that it can't exist because of the problem that I had just described, true nothingness can't exist because it can't even have distance. I suppose you couldn't say there's an infinite number of cubes filled with nothingness that have a total volume of "0" units 3, but that's as far as close to what you can get to nothing.

[DarkStar8]

Our problem is our understanding of nothing. Nothing like light is a duality (like light)of the infinitesimal and the infinite.

One side of nothing is a large container of emptiness. The other side is something very small. The universe is the largest container of emptiness there is. The universe is both accelerating towards the infinitely large (emptiness) and contracting towards nothing(infinitesimal). The universe = nothing but the dualities forever dance around themselves ying and yang, the large contains an infinite amount of the infinitesimal and the infinitesimal can exist anywhere and everywhere for a period of time.

Nothing.. Is light ( electromagnetism) and (dark energy). Nothing is all things.

Emptiness accelerates (linear momentum)towards the infinitely large. The nothing of the infinitesimal small accelerates( angular momentum) towards an ever smaller size. The magic of angular momentum is that it gives frequency.. Which gives energy, which gives us everything. For all we see is different aspects of the same phenomena. Nothing-light- energy-mass.

Thing to note is is as the universe expands then all masses must be growing for they are constantly absorbing more energy from the void.

One day we will be consumed inside a blackhole, effectively the end of our view of this universe... which is in itself a black hole.

[SamBridge]

Our problem is our understanding of nothing. Nothing like light is a duality (like light)of the infinitesimal and the infinite.

One side of nothing is a large container of emptiness. The other side is something very small. The universe is the largest container of emptiness there is. The universe is both accelerating towards the infinitely large (emptiness) and contracting towards nothing(infinitesimal). The universe = nothing but the dualities forever dance around themselves ying and yang, the large contains an infinite amount of the infinitesimal and the infinitesimal can exist anywhere and everywhere for a period of time.

Nothing.. Is light ( electromagnetism) and (dark energy). Nothing is all things.

Emptiness accelerates (linear momentum)towards the infinitely large. The nothing of the infinitesimal small accelerates( angular momentum) towards an ever smaller size. The magic of angular momentum is that it gives frequency.. Which gives energy, which gives us everything. For all we see is different aspects of the same phenomena. Nothing-light- energy-mass.

Thing to note is is as the universe expands then all masses must be growing for they are constantly absorbing more energy from the void.

One day we will be consumed inside a blackhole, effectively the end of our view of this universe... which is in itself a black hole.

What you're saying does not make sense and contradicts itself.

[kristalris]

Well the problem with absolute nothing is that it implies that it as well as any particles in it is un-observable. Only when the objects that go trough this absolute nothing hit something else can that something else detect something and then be effected by the time speed mass and effected area and vector that the next occurrence takes place.

 

You thus assume that the observer can observe this inherent un-observable phenomenon in order to describe what is actually happening. You theoretically overcome an inherent measurement problem. I.e. we have to figure out what is happening anyway on basis of what we can observe, knowing we'll never be able to observe it at the deepest level anyway.

 

I.e. time and distance in space are constructs we humans need in order to describe what we observe. They can exist without the need of objects yet then they only don't have meaning yet. That is if the reality is in infinite amount of un-splittable always colliding mass in an absolute void. I.e. Mother Nature then doesn't need time or distance to let things happen. We need that in order to describe what we observe.

[SamBridge]

W

I.e. time and distance in space are constructs we humans need in order to describe what we observe. They can exist without the need of objects yet then they only don't have meaning yet. That is if the reality is in infinite amount of un-splittable always colliding mass in an absolute void. I.e. Mother Nature then doesn't need time or distance to let things happen. We need that in order to describe what we observe.

Virtually everything happens because of time, you could argue energy, but energy is related to time as well, mass times the speed of light. Time and distance are very real things even if intangible just as gravity is. if all the matter in the universe disappeared there would still remain a mysterious medium for the existence of time and distance between points.

Edited February 5, 2013 by SamBridge

[KipIngram]

I think the answer is no. Consider a universe that contains one object: a perfectly rigid sphere. What can you say about its position, or its velocity, or its angular momentum? The answer is "Nothing." Those concepts simply have no meaning without other objects in the universe to define them with respect to. This is more or less Mach's principle. When I reflected on this, I decided that "empty space" isn't even real - it's just our perception of certain relationships amongst certain objects.