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

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
40 replies · 7K views
Astronomy news on Phys.org
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
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.
 
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.
 
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