Is Nothing Still Considered Something?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lensman
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the philosophical and scientific implications of "nothing" and whether it can be considered "something." Participants explore the concept of vacuum energy, suggesting that true "nothing" cannot exist within the universe, as there are always particles and energy present. The Big Bang is discussed, with questions raised about what it is expanding into, leading to the conclusion that it is expanding into "nothing" or "everything," as the universe itself encompasses all. The conversation also touches on the definitions of the universe and the observable universe, debating whether the observable universe can be equated with the entirety of existence. Ultimately, the thread highlights the complexity of understanding cosmological concepts and the challenges of defining "nothing."
Lensman
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Just watched Stephen Hawking "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 Maybe it's outdated by now, maybe not.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?
 
Space news on Phys.org
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".
 
But if you're talking about inside the universe, (since that's all there is), then nothing is filled with lots of somethings.
 
Lensman said:
Just watched Stephen Hawking "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 Maybe it's outdated by now, maybe not.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. ;)
 
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?
 
Lensman said:
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.
 
phinds said:
"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.:bugeye:
 
Lensman said:
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.:bugeye:

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.
 
salvestrom said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
ynot1 said:
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 universe 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.
 
  • #11
ynot1 said:
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 said:
No, that is complete speculation on your part. It is not known whether the universe 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.
 
  • #12
ynot1 said:
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!
 
  • #13
Deleted
 
  • #14
Drakkith said:
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. :wink:
 
  • #15
phinds said:
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. :wink:
Wrong? Could that be worse than being speculative?;)
 
  • #16
alexg said:
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!
 
  • #17
sigurdW said:
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.
 
  • #18
phinds said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
sigurdW said:
The assumption is that the observable universe is identical to a universe that contains everything that is.

You COMPLETELY misunderstand cosmology.
 
  • #20
phinds said:
You COMPLETELY misunderstand cosmology.

Prove it!

I point out that the definition of the universe as everything that is, arguably is inconsistent...

Is cosmology a religion? Where concepts are sacred? Why do you attack me instead of my argument?

If you believe in your definition please answer the question:

Does a universe containing everything that is, contain itself?
 
Last edited:
  • #21
I am not "attacking" you in the least. I am pointing out that you have made a nonsensical statement. If the observable universe were everything that is, all of physics as we know it would be rendered pretty much meaningless by the existence of a boundary.

Cosmology is based on fact, not religion.

Your question "Does a universe containing everything that is, contain itself?" is equivalent to the question "does the set A contain the set A". Do you think that's a particularly meaningful question?
 
  • #22
phinds said:
I am not "attacking" you in the least. I am pointing out that you have made a nonsensical statement. If the observable universe were everything that is, all of physics as we know it would be rendered pretty much meaningless by the existence of a boundary.

Cosmology is based on fact, not religion.

Your question "Does a universe containing everything that is, contain itself?" is equivalent to the question "does the set A contain the set A". Do you think that's a particularly meaningful question?

No those questions are NOT equivalent!

But the question: "does the set A containing all there is, contain the set A"
is indeed equivalent with:"Does a universe containing everything that is, contain itself?"

Thats why i claimed that concept of "universe" to be inconsistent.

I never claimed that the observable universe is all there is!

Im not aware of claiming anything else than that there is no universe containing all there is!

So I don't understand this:"You COMPLETELY misunderstand cosmology."

Edit:The thread is about: "Isn't nothing still something?"

Its a tricky question! But there really is no nothing that is something:

If there is nothing in x then there is not something in x!

And that's all there is to it.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
sigurdW said:
I never claimed that the observable universe is all there is!
You didn't claim it, you said it was the assumption.
sigurdW said:
The assumption is that the observable universe is identical to a universe that contains everything that is.
 
  • #24
DaveC426913 said:
You didn't claim it, you said it was the assumption.
This is what was said:
But if you're talking about inside the universe, (since that's all there is)

Which may mean:
The universe contains everything that is.

What I said meant:
His assumption is that the universe we live in is identical to a universe that contains everything that is. And no such universe exists!

My assumption was that we live in an observable universe... Dont we?

So how does this show I COMPLETELY misunderstand cosmology?
 
Last edited:
  • #25
You can have the point of view: "What you can't see does not exist."
That is hard to disprove.
So you could consider the Observable Universe is the only thing that's relevant to us, and either not bother with what's beyond its event horizon(s), or even consider nothing exists beyond the event horizon(s).

But on the other hand physicists can build theories and mathematical models about what is beyond an event horizon.

--------
So you have:
1: You can consider what you can't see does not exist (personal choice).
2: Building mathematical models of what you can't see is perfectly possible.

Both of those statements can be true at the same time without any problems.
 
  • #26
What you can't detect is not testable. It may exist, but, the proposition is irrelevant until scientifically testable.
 
  • #27
Constantin said:
You can have the point of view: "What you can't see does not exist."
That is hard to disprove.
So you could consider the Observable Universe is the only thing that's relevant to us, and either not bother with what's beyond its event horizon(s), or even consider nothing exists beyond the event horizon(s).

But on the other hand physicists can build theories and mathematical models about what is beyond an event horizon.

--------
So you have:
1: You can consider what you can't see does not exist (personal choice).
2: Building mathematical models of what you can't see is perfectly possible.

Both of those statements can be true at the same time without any problems.

I agree now!
I agreed before!
And I will agree in the future!
 
  • #28
Chronos said:
What you can't detect is not testable. It may exist, but, the proposition is irrelevant until scientifically testable.


Why is this under discussion?

Are we discussing the "nothing", the "outside of the universe" or what?

Eh... It should have read:"the proposition is scientifically irrelevant until scientifically testable."

I am not sure the proposition is philosophically and/or logically irrelevant.

The case of "nothing":

The basic statement is: Something is.

Its denial is self contradictory: Nothing is.

Therefore nothing is not something. QED
 
Last edited:
  • #29
Chronos said:
What you can't detect is not testable. It may exist, but, the proposition is irrelevant until scientifically testable.

Very true. What's so amazing about our minds is that we can envision something that we cannot prove exists, yet thinking about something that might exist can lead us to figuring out a way to come up with a test to see if it can be proven or disproven scientifically. I love this forum. So many great minds at work.:approve:
 
  • #30
Lensman said:
Very true. What's so amazing about our minds is that we can envision something that we cannot prove exists, yet thinking about something that might exist can lead us to figuring out a way to come up with a test to see if it can be proven or disproven scientifically. I love this forum. So many great minds at work.:approve:
That is fundamental to science. Many breakthoughs in science started out as little more than a 'crazy' ideas, until someone figured out how to test it. It seems almost unfair that the one who figures out how to test a new idea is more likely to get a Nobel than the one who came up with it.
 
  • #31
Chronos said:
That is fundamental to science. Many breakthoughs in science started out as little more than a 'crazy' ideas, until someone figured out how to test it. It seems almost unfair that the one who figures out how to test a new idea is more likely to get a Nobel than the one who came up with it.

Yes I alwasy thought it was , for example, terribly unfair that someone like Ralph Alpher didnt get a Nobel prive for the CMb whereas Penzias and Wilson did. Not saying that latter didnt deserve theirs but I think you get the point.
 
  • #32
Chronos said:
It seems almost unfair that the one who figures out how to test a new idea is more likely to get a Nobel than the one who came up with it.
It is because - as demonstrated by the popularity of physicsforums and sciforums for amateurs - ideas are a dime a dozen. It's the verifiability that gives an idea teeth.
 
  • #33
The universe is composed of MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, AND TIME. Beyond the universe is no matter, no energy, no space and no time (NOTHING). NOTHING is the key to the unified theory and needs to be studied! It is not composed of dark energy. That is what space is made of. The universe expands because as light or fields (e.g., gravitational, electromagnetic, etc) travels it creates space and time and is also energy and matter. Beyond where the universe's light/fields has expanded is NOTHING.

The unifying thread to Matter, Energy, Space and Time is Nothing. Matter, Energy Space and time are linked inseparable from each other.You can not have matter without space and time. You can not have space without matter, energy and time. But you can have Nothing only without matter, energy, space and time. E=MC^2

The study of Nothing needs to be pursued. It is the missing key to understanding everything.
 
  • #34
nowhereman said:
The universe is composed of MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, AND TIME. Beyond the universe is no matter, no energy, no space and no time (NOTHING). NOTHING is the key to the unified theory and needs to be studied! It is not composed of dark energy. That is what space is made of. The universe expands because as light or fields (e.g., gravitational, electromagnetic, etc) travels it creates space and time and is also energy and matter. Beyond where the universe's light/fields has expanded is NOTHING.

The unifying thread to Matter, Energy, Space and Time is Nothing. Matter, Energy Space and time are linked inseparable from each other.You can not have matter without space and time. You can not have space without matter, energy and time. But you can have Nothing only without matter, energy, space and time. E=MC^2

The study of Nothing needs to be pursued. It is the missing key to understanding everything.

...What? I don't think you understand what it means that the universe is expanding. The universe doesn't have a boundary, it's that the space in between galaxies expands, increasing the distance in between everything. There isn't anything known as 'Nothing'.
 
  • #35
nowhereman said:
The universe is composed of MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, AND TIME. Beyond the universe is no matter, no energy, no space and no time (NOTHING). NOTHING is the key to the unified theory and needs to be studied! It is not composed of dark energy. That is what space is made of. The universe expands because as light or fields (e.g., gravitational, electromagnetic, etc) travels it creates space and time and is also energy and matter. Beyond where the universe's light/fields has expanded is NOTHING.

The unifying thread to Matter, Energy, Space and Time is Nothing. Matter, Energy Space and time are linked inseparable from each other.You can not have matter without space and time. You can not have space without matter, energy and time. But you can have Nothing only without matter, energy, space and time. E=MC^2

The study of Nothing needs to be pursued. It is the missing key to understanding everything.

You would do well to read some actual physics instead of just making things up. The FAQ section here in the Cosmology subforum would be a good start.
 
  • #36
This thread is not about science. Closed.
 

Similar threads

A Can there be a lawless universe (according to Hawking)?
Replies
1
Views
2K
I Black Hole to Other Universe: Violation of 1st Law?
Replies
9
Views
3K
I How can the universe be infinitely big?
Replies
5
Views
2K
B Galaxy Collisions & Expansion: What's Going On?
Replies
3
Views
1K
I Brian Cox and the end of the Universe?
Replies
13
Views
5K
B Which Hawking paper? (no singularity at the beginning of the universe)
Replies
2
Views
2K
I Why do we still see the CMB today?
3
Replies
103
Views
10K
I Do Black Holes Exist? | Physics & Stephen Hawking
Replies
4
Views
3K
B What Happens When You Fall Into a Black Hole According to Stephen Hawking?
Replies
4
Views
2K
I Why aren't Gravitational waves factored in to inflation formulas?
Replies
9
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top