According to current physics, is vacuum still something or nothing?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of vacuum in physics, specifically whether it can be considered "something" or "nothing." Participants explore various theoretical implications, including the relationship between vacuum, virtual particles, and the Big Bang theory, as well as the philosophical aspects of defining "nothing." The conversation touches on cosmological models, metaphysical arguments, and the role of mathematics in understanding these concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Metaphysical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference Lawrence Krauss's statement about vacuum being a "boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles," suggesting that vacuum may not be "nothing" due to the presence of these particles.
  • Others argue that the definition of vacuum and its properties, such as vacuum energy and dark energy, complicate the notion of it being "nothing."
  • A participant questions the compatibility of the statement that particles are neither created nor destroyed in a vacuum with the Big Bang theory, seeking clarification on potential conflicts.
  • There is a discussion about whether time can exist without matter or energy, with some asserting that absolute nothingness is a philosophical concept rather than a physical reality.
  • Some participants express skepticism about Krauss's interpretations, suggesting that his popular science presentations may oversimplify complex ideas.
  • Concerns are raised about the appropriateness of certain questions being asked, with suggestions that foundational physics knowledge is necessary to engage with these advanced topics effectively.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether vacuum is "something" or "nothing." Multiple competing views remain, with some emphasizing the metaphysical implications while others focus on mathematical models and physical theories.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of using terms like "nothing" in scientific discourse, indicating that definitions may vary based on context and philosophical interpretations. The discussion also reflects a dependence on mathematical frameworks to understand concepts that challenge everyday intuition.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring the philosophical implications of physics, the nature of vacuum in cosmology, and the interplay between foundational physics and advanced theoretical concepts.

  • #31
wonderingchicken said:
people defined things differently according to different contexts.
In the same way you have a picture of a vacuum in your mind.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
phinds said:
Physics terms are almost always very well defined. English language words and phrases not so much.

Sorry, but what are examples of physics terms that are very well defined if I may ask?

fresh_42 said:
A definition might be incomplete in the sense that not all circumstances are explicitly noted. You won't consider a curved light beam in a lab, so it's allowed to assume that it follows a straight even without mentioning it. Or you can define the natural numbers with 0 or without, but those differences do usually not affect the consistency of a discussion. By far more likely is that terms are irregularly used. It is a common strategy to remain as vague as possible in order to leave options for withdrawls. It is rarely a definition that causes a misconception, it's normally the lack of it.

I'm specifically talking about the definition of terms such as something and nothing. By something, with critical thinking, I define something as that which is contained within boundaries or limits. Basically that which is finite. What is synonymous with something is object such as an atom, "fields", etc. Anything with physical boundaries. By nothing, it doesn't matter if it is absolute or relative nothing, I mean that which is infinite. If something has infinite size, it is no longer something but instead nothing. The synonyms of nothing/nothingness are empty space, vacuum, void, zip, zilch, nada. Those are my definitions for something and nothing to avoid any confusions.

But the weird thing is, even though it may seem vacuum is nothingness, it seems to be fundamental to everything that without the background that we called as nothingness everything will be impossible. There will be no existence whatsoever if there is no space despite I called it as nothing.
sophiecentaur said:
In the same way you have a picture of a vacuum in your mind.

In the presence of an object, which I defined as that which is finite, I can conceive of the background of that object. That background is what we called as space which is synonymous with nothingness imo.
 
  • #35
fresh_42 said:
I haven't checked since I have no and do not want any subscription. But the very first term already looks like cheating! a.c. is mathematics!
That could be alternating current, rather than the axiom of choice.
 
  • #36
PeroK said:
That could be alternating current, rather than the axiom of choice.
And I thought "almost certain".
 
  • #37
fresh_42 said:
And I thought "almost certain".
Acronyms are a.c. (always confusing).
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: phinds and fresh_42
  • #38
wonderingchicken said:
By something, with critical thinking, I define something as that which is contained within boundaries or limits. Basically that which is finite. What is synonymous with something is object such as an atom, "fields", etc. Anything with physical boundaries.

Well... Cosmologists think that Universe is actually infinite, so by your definition Universe is not something. The same with fields, since these are defined on whole "infinite" spacetime.
 
  • #39
Perhaps absolute nothing is still something? Perhaps the absolute nothingness of the vacuum is still something (i.e. a vacuum). What we need is absolute nothing that is not something at all.
 
  • #40
Thread is closed for Moderation...
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: Rev. Cheeseman
  • #41
As it is much ado about "nothing" and seemingly going in (largely philosophical) circles, this thread will remain closed.
 
  • Like
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: Dale, Rev. Cheeseman and phinds

Similar threads

High School Matter/Anti-Matter in a Vacuum
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
High School Does Negative Mass Impact Expansion in Vacuum Space?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
High School Conflict between the conservation of matter and the rapid expansion of our universe
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
1K
High School Questions regarding expansion, the vacuum in space, and black holes
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
High School How do the candidates for Dark Energy 'work'?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
High School The observable and non-observable parts of the Universe
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
High School The M paradox
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
688
Undergrad Vacuum entanglement: between what and what, exactly?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
High School Did the big bang create something from nothing?
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
High School New hypothesis of continuous wave function collapse
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K