# Building a model out of nothing explains a lot.

If you don't want to hear my, boring philosophy and want to answer whats probably a supid question, its closer to the end.

T=0 singularity, a plague of questions just by it's mention follow. Nothing may be the answer.
First nothing is a paradox in nature, it has a meaning that states it does not exist, thereby making it impossible for it to have meaning, it is not even an 'it'. When one calculates the eventual, density, local temperature, and local energy of the universe it seems to calculate to zero. Someone once told me you can't divide by infinity, but they obviously were in entropy denial. So if everything is dividing into nothing, its likely it came from nothing. That would of course mean that zero equaled its self and did not, can 'something' which does not exist be equal to anything, including its self?, and yet since it is not possible for any value to equal non existence, non existence is not equal to its self, so it must be equal to something else. Free will becomes possible in a finite quantity, if all existence is paradox.

0*5=0, 0*0=5?, 0*5x=0, 0*0=5x
1 divided by infinity squared = both 1 and zero
because infinity*infinity=infinity
therefore infinity=1
because 1*x always = x

If you say you cant square infinity, your right I don't have enough graph paper, but reality cubes it.

moving on, I have a question, what would happen if space were depressed with no mass at the center of the depression? I have been thinking of ways to test if its even possible and will explain the only one I can conceive.
Take a vacuumed hollow sphere, attach it to an external axis, and rotate it at high speed. My supposition is that at a certain speed the increased mass of the container would eventually bend the space at the center enough to observe the effect, but the problem is theres nothing there to observe. There would have to be matter quantum leaped into the center, if the effect (if any) this would have on the changing of entropy is to be observed. Does this even make sense?

Last edited:

Related Other Physics Topics News on Phys.org
Nothing in the post made any sense to me (and probably) anyone else. Pherhaps you need to *Downgrade* the quality of your post so that we could understand what you are trying to say?

It makes perfect sense, though I can't answer it. I would assume there is no way to measure what happens to the space itself considering we still only rely on theories to understand just what that space is. Perhaps you could shoot a beam of light through the sphere to ovserve the bend (if any) but I suspect you may tear a hole in the space time continuum and we would all get sucked into the other side!

The OP doesn't make sense, and #4 is just getting further away from doing so.

Well the question made sense. The rest I didn't really care to decrypt but it seemed irrelevant to the question. If you take a hollow sphere that's perfectly sealed where the center is a vacuum, and you were to expand that sphere (by rotating it really really fast), what would happen to the 'space' inside of the sphere? Would it expand as well, and how could you monitor that expansion?

That's my take, and if there's any truth to the string theory then I would suggest that the space would indeed bend/expand and if you were to accelerate a mass through that space it would travel through the space on a path that would reflect the curve of the bent space.

Though there is another side to that theory which would suggest that rather than bending space, you would simply be bending the contents within that space away from its center of origin. I kind of see it as a type of reverse gravity, basically what space is.

Well the question made sense. The rest I didn't really care to decrypt but it seemed irrelevant to the question. If you take a hollow sphere that's perfectly sealed where the center is a vacuum, and you were to expand that sphere (by rotating it really really fast), what would happen to the 'space' inside of the sphere? Would it expand as well, and how could you monitor that expansion?

That's my take, and if there's any truth to the string theory then I would suggest that the space would indeed bend/expand and if you were to accelerate a mass through that space it would travel through the space on a path that would reflect the curve of the bent space.

Though there is another side to that theory which would suggest that rather than bending space, you would simply be bending the contents within that space away from its center of origin. I kind of see it as a type of reverse gravity, basically what space is.
None of this makes sense. If you expand the sphere you just get a bigger volume. The space inside doesn't expand.

Rotating the sphere wouldn't cause it to expand. Deform, quite possibly, but not expand.

There is a clear lack of understanding being shown here.

None of this makes sense. If you expand the sphere you just get a bigger volume. The space inside doesn't expand.

Rotating the sphere wouldn't cause it to expand. Deform, quite possibly, but not expand.

There is a clear lack of understanding being shown here.
It does make sense, it's just not correct. I understand what is being asked, do you not?

Okay so you're right, rotating the sphere won't expand it, but if you could expand the sphere and increase the vacuum so much that it did have an effect on the space inside, how would that be measured.

Okay so you're right, rotating the sphere won't expand it, but if you could expand the sphere and increase the vacuum so much that it did have an effect on the space inside, how would that be measured.
The sphere occupies space. As it expands it occupies more space. It doesn't affect the space inside.

You are treating space as if it is a medium filling the inside of the sphere. This is incorrect.

In essence, yes. But not directly, I think of it more like if you had so much force pulling an incredibly strong vacuum, how do we know that there's not some unmeasurable change in the space inside. If there is no effect at all I'm going to be dissappointed, because I still think there is plenty we don't know about it, but that's based on the fact that there's no way to measure 'nothingness'.

Drakkith
Staff Emeritus
In essence, yes. But not directly, I think of it more like if you had so much force pulling an incredibly strong vacuum, how do we know that there's not some unmeasurable change in the space inside. If there is no effect at all I'm going to be dissappointed, because I still think there is plenty we don't know about it, but that's based on the fact that there's no way to measure 'nothingness'.
Do you know what a vacuum is? It is merely an absense of matter in a volume of space. You can't exert a force on a vacuum, for there isn't anything there to exert a force upon.

Also, the term "nothingness" implies that "nothing" is actually "something". Which is incorrect. The absence of something, be it a particle or a photon or whatever, is what "nothing" is.

From wikipedia on the ariticle for "Nothing":

In physics, the word nothing is not used in any technical sense either. A region of space is called a vacuum if it does not contain any matter, though it can contain physical fields. In fact, it is practically impossible to construct a region of space that contains no matter or fields, since gravity cannot be blocked and all objects at a non-zero temperature radiate electromagnetically. However, even if such a region existed, it could still not be referred to as "nothing", since it has properties and a measurable existence as part of the quantum-mechanical vacuum.
Also, even attempting to figure out what was "before" the big bang and the beginning of the universe is falling into an unprovable, unobservable mindset. No matter how "logical" an argument is, in the end the fact remains that we cannot determine the properties of space, time, or anything else IF they even existed, before the big bang.