Question about "nothing"

[9797]

Hello scienceforums,

I would like to hear your opinion on this idea about "nothing"

 

 

(This is inspired by question "Why there is something rather than nothing??")

 

 

- in an absolute way "nothing" doesn't have any response (can't be proven), it doesn't contain any space, and can't occupy any space, so it can't be "stored" within existing phenomena

-> this would mean that "nothing" is just a concept our mind created, and that "something" and "nothing" are just completely different entities, which simultaneously denies "existence" of each other

- so if our world is "something", there can't be any "nothing", so it means that our environment can't have any boundaries, and thus is infinite

- and also if we cut our spacetime into slices there can't be any slice zero, because transition from slice zero to slice one is impossible, and also there can't be any final slice, because conversely

"something" can't be transformed into "nothing"

-> and we can't really have "first" slice too, because than we can ask what initiated that one, and the answer has to be "something" -> and this is possible only if spacetime would form a loop, so that "first"

one is created by "final" one

-> this would basically suggest, that existence itself is scripted and everything is repeating infinite amount of times

Thank you for answer and wish you a nice day guys

 

[Strange]

- in an absolute way "nothing" doesn't have any response (can't be proven), it doesn't contain any space, and can't occupy any space, so it can't be "stored" within existing phenomena

 

This seems to be treating nothing as a "thing" rather than the absence of anything.

 

-> this would mean that "nothing" is just a concept our mind created, and that "something" and "nothing" are just completely different entities, which simultaneously denies "existence" of each other

 

It doesn't seem to make much sense to apply the word "existence" to nothing; it is, after all, the absence of anything existing.

 

Clearly, in any absolute sense it is purely a concept. There is nowhere where there isn't some amount of matter or electromagnetic radiation or whatever. However, it is often a useful approximation to say, for example, that space is empty.

- so if our world is "something", there can't be any "nothing", so it means that our environment can't have any boundaries, and thus is infinite

 

Not having boundaries does not imply infinite. The surface of a sphere has no boundary but is finite.

- and also if we cut our spacetime into slices there can't be any slice zero, because transition from slice zero to slice one is impossible, and also there can't be any final slice, because conversely

 

This sounds like a version of Zeno's paradox; which is addressed by the concept of limits.

 

-> and we can't really have "first" slice too, because than we can ask what initiated that one, and the answer has to be "something" -> and this is possible only if spacetime would form a loop, so that "first"

 

Or if it is infinite; in which case there is no first or last, and no need for repetition.

 

-> this would basically suggest, that existence itself is scripted and everything is repeating infinite amount of times

 

This sounds like a complete non-sequitur. Perhaps you need to explain in more detail how you reach this conclusion.

[9797]

Thank you Strange for detailed answer - it helped me to realize my mistake. I misunderstood infinity and reached wrong conclusion, because of that.

 

 

Thanks again!

[studiot]

A three dimensional object with a hole through it (doughnut) is different from a three dimensional object without said hole.

 

So is the hole nothing or something?

[Strange]

A three dimensional object with a hole through it (doughnut) is different from a three dimensional object without said hole.

 

So is the hole nothing or something?

 

Or something else?

[StringJunky]

Could we call it a "quasi-object"?

[Delta1212]

Or something else?

Or nothing else?

[jajrussel]

 

You could think in terms of groups. Then say that anything that is not part of that group is nothing. Of course it could still be something, but then it would be another group.

[surreptitious57]

It is important to understand the distinction between nothing and absolute nothing for they are not the same. Nothing is

defined as the absence of matter and is more commonly known as a vacuum. Absolute nothing as the name implies is

the absence of absolutely everything so not just matter. It can actually exist though only at the quantum level and only

infinitesimally so from a temporal perspective. Now anti matter and matter particles cancel each other out but there is

still something as there are more matter particles. Otherwise the Universe could not exist as it is composed of matter

Edited August 24, 2015 by surreptitious57

[Strange]

It is important to understand the distinction between nothing and absolute nothing for they are not the same.

 

Says who?

 

Now anti matter and matter particles cancel each other out but there is still something as there are more matter particles.

 

Perhaps more importantly, when they cancel "each other out" they are converted to energy (so, you are right, there is still something).

[jajrussel]

It is important to understand the distinction between nothing and absolute nothing for they are not the same. Nothing is

defined as the absence of matter and is more commonly known as a vacuum. Absolute nothing as the name implies is

the absence of absolutely everything so not just matter. It can actually exist though only at the quantum level and only

infinitesimally so from a temporal perspective. Now anti matter and matter particles cancel each other out but there is

still something as there are more matter particles. Otherwise the Universe could not exist as it is composed of matter

I suppose that if you measure absolute nothing the result would be absolutely accurate?

[surreptitious57]

Absolute nothing cannot be measured as such because it has no dimension or property. It is by definition non

physical and is practically invisible space. Indeed the very notion of it existing is nonsensical because it is non

existent. What is referred to as absolute nothing can exist at the quantum level although only infinitesimally so

But if that were absolute nothing in the truly literal sense then it could not exist at all even allowing for quantum

weirdness. Because something which does not exist cannot simultaneously exist. As that makes precisely zero

sense so cannot be true. And any confusion is more so a problem pertaining to language rather than to physics. .

[jajrussel]

Absolute nothing cannot be measured as such because it has no dimension or property. It is by definition non

physical and is practically invisible space. Indeed the very notion of it existing is nonsensical because it is non

existent. What is referred to as absolute nothing can exist at the quantum level although only infinitesimally so

But if that were absolute nothing in the truly literal sense then it could not exist at all even allowing for quantum

weirdness. Because something which does not exist cannot simultaneously exist. As that makes precisely zero

sense so cannot be true. And any confusion is more so a problem pertaining to language rather than to physics. .

The sense I make of this is that nothing can only exist as an adjective of a unit of measure. In order to avoid confusion we have to be like minded in the measure. In use it has to apply to the measure.

 

A charge can be positive, can be negative, or in relation to charge nothing. The term absolute nothing in this sense is like using a double negative in a sentence.

 

It isn't necessary, and adds nothing to the meaning, but confusion. Which is exactly what it is usually meant to do when used rhetorically.

 

However, the term absolute nothing can also imply that the user is confused. This would remove any rhetorical desires of the user to lend weight to their argument. They simply think the term is necessary because, so many others seem to think that it is.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.-

. Is an - Electro Magnetic Wave - , going to ' punch itself ' out into space or into nothing ?

 

Mike

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

So !

 

Is NOTHING ... What it says ...Absolutely nothing what-so-ever .

 

and

 

Is SPACE ...... What ,the Nobel prize winner ( 2004) for his work on Asymtotic freedom (. Frank Wilczek ) says in his book " The Lightness of being " That ....

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

" Space ...is ... A grid , containing a multitudinous composite of things . From quantum fluctuations, to virtual particles , to various fields , including electro-magnetic fields , to name only a few .

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Link : http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2004/wilczek-lecture.html

 

Lecture from MIT re Frank Winczek " The Lightness of being " Link to video lecture MIT:

 

http://video.mit.edu/watch/the-lightness-of-being-mass-ether-and-the-unification-of-forces-anticipating-a-new-golden-age-9423/

 

If you cannot afford the time to watch it all ( I suggest you do though ) . Then the last 20 minutes ( or even 10 minutes ) of questions , reveal a succinct statement about SPACE NOT BEING EMPTY .

 

Mike

Edited October 15, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Sorcerer]

 

This sounds like a complete non-sequitur. Perhaps you need to explain in more detail how you reach this conclusion.

I followed his reasoning quite well, he just forgot to add a few hidden premises. The conclusion comes from the problem of causality and the first cause, nothing cannot set a chain of events in motion. So given that there are events, there must be an infinite regress towards the beginning of time or there must be a prime mover. Similarly something cannot undergo an event where it becomes nothing, it must go somewhere. So the event after something begins to tend towards nothing must be added on an thus out to infinity.

 

There was a non sequitur that came from supposing that these 2 infinite ends must connect and loop though. Although there was unconnected mention of the first cause being a time loop, causing itself.

 

The problem of nothing is quite easily solved if we consider it is a humans mathematical construct which we use as a place holder and a tool to model concepts. 0 or nothing is always attached to a quantifier when used as a tool to model reality.

 

Nothing is just something we confuse ourselves with. It's quite possible for there to be 0 units of the universe, yet something still existing. What exists is the potential for a universe, it's not time and space, just its potential, its existence was at the beginning but there was no spacetime so it makes no sense to causally link it because events only happen once the potential has allowed spacetime.

 

For example let's suppose that only mass and energy form the entire universe and mass and energy are inverse properties, two halves of a whole. So we could picture that as all the mass in the universe having a positive value and all the energy having a negative value.

 

If mass has a value of +M then energy has the inverse value of -M. The universe = +M-M=0

 

I'm not saying that's correct but as an example of how there needn't be a first cause or infinite regress. When there was "nothing", before time the universe existed as 0 units of universe, the first moment of time or event was a split into positive units of mass, balanced by negative units of energy. That was the first event, before it existed only potential. Similarly in this case there may come a point in time where the universe again returns to 0 and only potential.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Sorcerer

[MigL]

Potential is a form of energy, Sorcerer, but I see where you're going with this.

I don't remember who first proposed the zero-sum universe.

 

My 'opinion' is that 'nothing' is ill defined. What do we really mean by it ? The absence of what ?

 

And don't say "the absence of everything", because then, you are using one ill defined word ( everything ), to define another ill defined word.

[Sorcerer]

Well in terms of physics and potential/kinetic yes it's energy, but I was using the normal semantic definition. In this case it is just an equation or a set of possible equations which allow spacetime so existence. Since they're physically abstract this is about as close to nothing as it gets, yet the conditions which allow something isn't nothing.

 

I'm inclined to believe (with good reason) nothing is an abstract concept we created. 0 however should be accompanied by a quantifier or a set of rules of which it is a part.

 

I think I first heard of the idea from Lawrence Krauss, I have actually toyed with the thought myself though since I was a teen and linked possible ways the universe could've been with the yin yang.

 

I still however prefer the idea that even in the "potential" state the universe is simply partitioned between physical states. Everything always existed and always will. It seems close to turtles all the way down, however if you remove the concept of time, something that exists in this form of everything, but probably only exists in the minority of possible configurations. Then you remove the dimension of down, it's just turtles, one big fucking mess of them.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

 

It is all to do with :-

 

~~~~~~~~

 

EPISTEMOLOGY ( The theory of knowledge ) and ONTOLOGY ( The study of the nature of being ) .

 

And the involvement or otherwise non involvement of :-

 

A PRIORY ( Logic , involving reasoning from cause to effect ) .

 

~~~~~~~~

 

 

So spake great thinkers ( greater men/women , than I )

 

Citation BOOK ISBN 0-281-05644-7 pages 77-79 ( J. Polkinghorne)

 

Mike

Edited October 18, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Sorcerer]

Time is an artifact of the universe due to our observation from within spacetime at this present moment, our cognition works via entropy's arrow of time and our senses and the machines we augment them with are dependant on observations of the EM field. Therefore we are restricted to having only knowledge of the portion of spacetime we call the past, even the present is kept slightly distant due to the speed of light.

 

We are therefore biased to view cause and effect as unidirectional.

 

If we remove this bias and consider the totality of existence simultaneously, then the need for a first cause or prime mover becomes illogical.

 

To make that concise: Everything exists at once but we are deluded by our perception into assuming an uncertain future which we are moving into. This leads to invalid reasoning, which creates the infinite regress problem of causality. Which in turn creates the unecessary assumption of a first cause and the false semantics surrounding time which confuse an otherwise simplistic issue.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

Edited October 18, 2015 by Sorcerer

[michel123456]

Time is an artifact of the universe due to our observation from within spacetime at this present moment, our cognition works via entropy's arrow of time and our senses and the machines we augment them with are dependant on observations of the EM field. Therefore we are restricted to having only knowledge of the portion of spacetime we call the past, even the present is kept slightly distant due to the speed of light.

I don't know what you really mean with the world "artifact", but I agree with the bold part of your statement. I think it is a basic understanding of the concept of Spacetime in Relativity.

 

We are therefore biased to view cause and effect as unidirectional.

 

If we remove this bias and consider the totality of existence simultaneously, then the need for a first cause or prime mover becomes illogical.

 

To make that concise: Everything exists at once but we are deluded by our perception into assuming an uncertain future which we are moving into. This leads to invalid reasoning, which creates the infinite regress problem of causality. Which in turn creates the unecessary assumption of a first cause and the false semantics surrounding time which confuse an otherwise simplistic issue.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

There I don't follow your thoughts. The "We are therefore biased to view cause and effect as unidirectional" is a huge step from your first statement. And IIRC Eternalism is not really compatible with Relativity.

 

-----------------

Also you agree that we are restricted to observe only a part of spacetime and alltogether you are jumping into explainaing that "everything exists at once". What "everything"? The "part of everything" that we are observing, or truly "everything"?

Edited October 18, 2015 by michel123456

[Sorcerer]

I don't know what you really mean with the world "artifact", but I agree with the bold part of your statement. I think it is a basic understanding of the concept of Spacetime in Relativity.

 

 

There I don't follow your thoughts. The "We are therefore biased to view cause and effect as unidirectional" is a huge step from your first statement. And IIRC Eternalism is not really compatible with Relativity.

 

-----------------

Also you agree that we are restricted to observe only a part of spacetime and alltogether you are jumping into explainaing that "everything exists at once". What "everything"? The "part of everything" that we are observing, or truly "everything"?

 

artefact

2.

something observed in a scientific investigation or experiment that is not naturally present but occurs as a result of the preparative or investigative procedure.

 

The thought sequence is -

 

"our cognition works via entropy's arrow of time and our senses and the machines we augment them with are dependant on observations of the EM field"

So our brain processes information as if there was time, yet the reverse is true, time is the product of our brain processing information.

 

So it biases our view of what is, because it appears to flow when we think, we don't tend to think of it as not flowing.

 

Which goes to considering the universe to be a static block universe, it is simply the entirety of what exists and there isn't anything outside it, like a ball floating in nothing, it doesn't have something outside it, there is no before it, so its edge in the 4D direction we call the past is the end of time, with no time before it. Just as an edge of the universe in the future 4D direction would be an end of time, with no times after it.

 

If there's no time, there's no way to act, if there's no action, there is no way to cause anything.

 

 

And IIRC Eternalism is not really compatible with Relativity.

 

 

In his discussion with Albert Einstein, Karl Popper argued against determinism:

 

 

The main topic of our conversation was indeterminism. I tried to persuade him to give up his determinism, which amounted to the view that the world was a four-dimensional Parmenidean block universe in which change was a human illusion, or very nearly so. (He agreed that this had been his view, and while discussing it I called him "Parmenides".)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)#Determinism_and_indeterminism

Edited October 19, 2015 by Sorcerer

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

This was posted in the physics section (Modern and Theoretical Physics)so let's restrict our answers to physics-related ones. If you want to discuss the concept in other terms, please open a new thread in the appropriate section of the forums.

[nomnomnom]

On question of indeterminism on nothing"anti matter",i have following theory

Matter and antimatter belong to theory of symmetry and are governed by CPT symmetry

 

Antimatter remains undeterministic and science behind is being discovered,not fully known to be precise.

 

I would call nothing as anti matter. Would i be correct? Just science behind nothing remains under scope of

Indeterminism .. Higgs boson should also fall under this thory . I have my own theory about it when i did

Plc projects dealing with EMC .

I beleive me to be almost correct.

Question is .....

Does anti matter also obey quantum physics which applies matter?

It does obey entirely different set of symmetries

[Strange]

Antimatter remains undeterministic and science behind is being discovered,not fully known to be precise.

 

I would call nothing as anti matter. Would i be correct?

 

Antimatter is very well understood and used in a number of technologies. So I would say you are definitely not correct.

 

Higgs boson should also fall under this thory .

 

Why the Higgs boson? Why not other bosons? Or other fermions?

 

I assume the Higgs boson is its own antiparticle (like photons are).

 

Does anti matter also obey quantum physics which applies matter?

 

Of course.

 

It does obey entirely different set of symmetries

 

Such as?