Isn't nothing still something?


by Lensman
Tags: None
Lensman
Lensman is offline
#1
Feb20-12, 12:52 AM
P: 17
Just watched Stephen Hawkings "The Story of Everything". Maybe it's outdated by now, maybe not. Still beautiful to watch.
Anyway.....Isn't Nothing still considered to be Something?
Phys.Org News Partner Space news on Phys.org
SpaceX launches supplies to space station (Update)
Quest for extraterrestrial life not over, experts say
Sun emits a mid-level solar flare
phinds
phinds is offline
#2
Feb20-12, 12:57 AM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 5,684
You need to be more specific in defining what you mean.

For example, for the sentence "there is nothing outside the universe", then NO, the word "something" could not be meaningfully substituted for the word "nothing".
alexg
alexg is offline
#3
Feb20-12, 01:03 AM
alexg's Avatar
P: 126
But if you're talking about inside the universe, (since that's all there is), then nothing is filled with lots of somethings.

salvestrom
salvestrom is offline
#4
Feb20-12, 02:18 PM
P: 226

Isn't nothing still something?


Quote Quote by Lensman View Post
Just watched Stephen Hawkings "The Story of Everything". Maybe it's outdated by now, maybe not. Still beautiful to watch.
Anyway.....Isn't Nothing still considered to be Something?
Vacuum energy essentilly removes the possibility of an actual "nothing" existing within the universe. If you stand with your hands apart and put yourself anywhere in the universe, you would never find a situation where you can accurately declare "there is nothing between my hands". The only solution is to put your hands together. ;)
Lensman
Lensman is offline
#5
Feb20-12, 11:04 PM
P: 17
Thank you all. I was curious as to what kind of comments I might get on my not-very-specific question. The comments in themselves are welcome. I envy those of you who do understand the math associated with physics, the equations and all. My talents lie elsewhere.
I will be more direct now with my question. In "The Story of Everything" Stephen Hawking showed the beginning of the Big Bang. Do I understand this right? Before the BB there was nothing, correct? The Big Bang started expanding and still is expanding. What is the Big Bang expanding into?
phinds
phinds is offline
#6
Feb20-12, 11:36 PM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 5,684
Quote Quote by Lensman View Post
Thank you all. I was curious as to what kind of comments I might get on my not-very-specific question. The comments in themselves are welcome. I envy those of you who do understand the math associated with physics, the equations and all. My talents lie elsewhere.
I will be more direct now with my question. In "The Story of Everything" Stephen Hawking showed the beginning of the Big Bang. Do I understand this right? Before the BB there was nothing, correct? The Big Bang started expanding and still is expanding. What is the Big Bang expanding into?
"big bang" really has two totally distinct meanings

1) the singularity / t=0 --- this is TOTALLY a mystery to everyone including Hawking. The most meaningful way to descirbe it is "the place where current theories totally break down and give meaningless answers"

2) the evolution of the universe starting at one Plank time after the singularity --- this is reasonably well understood in many aspects. I commend to your reading "The First Three Minutes" by Weinberg

as to what it is expanding "into", there is no such thing. The thing that is expanding is everything.
Lensman
Lensman is offline
#7
Feb21-12, 12:04 AM
P: 17
Quote Quote by phinds View Post
"big bang" really has two totally distinct meanings

1) the singularity / t=0 --- this is TOTALLY a mystery to everyone including Hawking. The most meaningful way to descirbe it is "the place where current theories totally break down and give meaningless answers"

2) the evolution of the universe starting at one Plank time after the singularity --- this is reasonably well understood in many aspects. I commend to your reading "The First Three Minutes" by Weinberg

as to what it is expanding "into", there is no such thing. The thing that is expanding is everything.
Thanks! It's really a challenge trying to wrap my mind around a concept such as "as to what it is expanding "into", there is no such thing. The thing that is expanding is everything."
It only natural, for me, to try to understand such descriptions based on how I perceive everything around me. I have to get out of my comfort zone.
Drakkith
Drakkith is offline
#8
Feb21-12, 06:13 PM
PF Gold
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,032
Quote Quote by Lensman View Post
Thanks! It's really a challenge trying to wrap my mind around a concept such as "as to what it is expanding "into", there is no such thing. The thing that is expanding is everything."
It only natural, for me, to try to understand such descriptions based on how I perceive everything around me. I have to get out of my comfort zone.
Perhaps instead of imagining the universe expanding, just realize that what we actually see is that everything in the observable universe is moving away from everything else. Whether the universe is expanding into nothing or something is beyond our capabilities to determine at the moment, and possible forever. Our model doesn't REQUIRE that anything be outside the universe for it to expand into, but it really doesn't care if there is or isn't, it simply doesn't go there.
ynot1
ynot1 is offline
#9
Feb24-12, 11:57 PM
P: 90
Quote Quote by salvestrom View Post
Vacuum energy essentilly removes the possibility of an actual "nothing" existing within the universe. If you stand with your hands apart and put yourself anywhere in the universe, you would never find a situation where you can accurately declare "there is nothing between my hands". The only solution is to put your hands together. ;)
Ergo nothing would be the absence of a vacuum energy. Finally an answer with a physical interpretation. It would seem at the big bang all the vacuum energy in the universe was compressed into a small volume.
phinds
phinds is offline
#10
Feb25-12, 02:31 AM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 5,684
Quote Quote by ynot1 View Post
Ergo nothing would be the absence of a vacuum energy. Finally an answer with a physical interpretation. It would seem at the big bang all the vacuum energy in the universe was compressed into a small volume.
No, that is complete speculation on your part. It is not known whether the unverse was infinite at the beginning. All we know for sure is that it was a lot smaller than it is now and a lot denser. That does NOT imply that it was small or finite.
ynot1
ynot1 is offline
#11
Feb25-12, 05:34 AM
P: 90
Quote Quote by ynot1 View Post
Ergo nothing would be the absence of a vacuum energy. Finally an answer with a physical interpretation. It would seem at the big bang all the vacuum energy in the universe was compressed into a small volume.
Quote Quote by phinds View Post
No, that is complete speculation on your part. It is not known whether the unverse was infinite at the beginning. All we know for sure is that it was a lot smaller than it is now and a lot denser. That does NOT imply that it was small or finite.
Ergo the universe was a lot smaller and a lot denser than it is now, not small, not infinite. Sorry for the speculation.
Drakkith
Drakkith is offline
#12
Feb25-12, 05:41 AM
PF Gold
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,032
Quote Quote by ynot1 View Post
Ergo the universe was a lot smaller and a lot denser than it is now, not small, not infinite. Sorry for the speculation.
No problem. Someone forgot to refill Phind's food bowl and he's irritable at the moment.
Down Phinds down! *swats with newspaper* Off the couch!
Radrook
Radrook is offline
#13
Feb25-12, 06:41 PM
P: 334
Deleted
phinds
phinds is offline
#14
Feb25-12, 07:41 PM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 5,684
Quote Quote by Drakkith View Post
No problem. Someone forgot to refill Phind's food bowl and he's irritable at the moment.
Down Phinds down! *swats with newspaper* Off the couch!
Nah, I'm just permanently irritable. It's my mission in life to tell other people when they are wrong. It's a public service I perform.
ynot1
ynot1 is offline
#15
Feb26-12, 12:12 AM
P: 90
Quote Quote by phinds View Post
Nah, I'm just permanently irritable. It's my mission in life to tell other people when they are wrong. It's a public service I perform.
Wrong? Could that be worse than being speculative?;)
sigurdW
sigurdW is offline
#16
Mar10-12, 09:03 AM
P: 27
Quote Quote by alexg View Post
But if you're talking about inside the universe, (since that's all there is), then nothing is filled with lots of somethings.
Is what we think of as our universe , the universe that contains everything?

Where is the proof? I think you treat an assumption as a fact!
phinds
phinds is offline
#17
Mar10-12, 10:45 AM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 5,684
Quote Quote by sigurdW View Post
Is what we think of as our universe , the universe that contains everything?

Where is the proof? I think you treat an assumption as a fact!
No, he is treating a DEFINTION as a fact. The word "universe" in physics is genearlly taken to mean "all that there is". Yes, there ARE theories (that have no basis in fact) that there are "multiple universes" and so forth, but that doesn't change the basic definition.
sigurdW
sigurdW is offline
#18
Mar10-12, 12:06 PM
P: 27
Quote Quote by phinds View Post
No, he is treating a DEFINTION as a fact. The word "universe" in physics is genearlly taken to mean "all that there is". Yes, there ARE theories (that have no basis in fact) that there are "multiple universes" and so forth, but that doesn't change the basic definition.
The assumption is that the observable universe is identical to a universe that contains everything that is.

Not all definitions are valid, so why believe there IS a universe that contains everything that is?

Does it contain itself? How can science tell its unique?

It would surprise me if physics uses such an unscientific concept anywhere!

My guess is that it is laymen discussing physics who use the concept.


Register to reply