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

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the nature of vacuum in physics, questioning whether it is "something" or "nothing." Lawrence Krauss's assertion that empty space is filled with virtual particles is contrasted with the idea that vacuum does not create or destroy particles, leading to the conclusion that vacuum could be considered "nothing." Participants explore the implications of vacuum energy in cosmology and its relationship to the Big Bang theory, noting that the concept of "nothing" is not particularly useful in this context. The conversation also touches on the philosophical aspects of defining vacuum and the necessity of a mathematical model to understand these concepts. Ultimately, the complexities of vacuum and its properties remain a topic of debate and speculation within the scientific community.
  • #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.
 
Physics 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.
 
  • #33
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #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 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 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 Dale, Rev. Cheeseman and phinds

Similar threads

I Vacuum entanglement: between what and what, exactly?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
B New hypothesis of continuous wave function collapse
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
What is Nothing? Research & Explanation
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
B A Possible Challenge To Chronology Protection Conjecture?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
B Need help with understanding time travel
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
B Can Antiparticle Collisions Occur Without Charge Intervention?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
A Propagator from a space-time point to itself
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
I Time travel is a fact or fiction.?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
B Can particles appear from "actual" nothing including no space?
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
Vacuum fluctuations do not exist
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K