B Is it possible for "nothing" to exist

[KarminValso1724]

If there was nothing, would there still be dimensions of space and nothing in them or would there not be any dimensions of space at all.

 

[PeterDonis]

Define "nothing".

 

[Chronos]

'Nothing', according to Einstein is the 'lack of any ponderable properties'. This definition obviously lacks any contextual meaning.

 

[rootone]

You can in principle have a total vacuum devoid of all matter, although actually achieving that has not (I think) been done yet.
Such a vacuum could be contained within a container of a known size.

 

[PeterDonis]

You can in principle have a total vacuum devoid of all matter, although actually achieving that has not (I think) been done yet.
Such a vacuum could be contained within a container of a known size.

I don't think this can be what the OP meant by "nothing", since it obviously has dimensions of space because of the container. (Also, the container is obviously not "nothing".) However, the best thing would be for the OP himself to clarify what he meant.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

You can in principle have a total vacuum devoid of all matter, although actually achieving that has not (I think) been done yet.
Such a vacuum could be contained within a container of a known size.

Even a vacuum produces particles.

 

[rootone]

Even a vacuum produces particles.

and radiation can exist in a vacuum too, was really waiting for the OP to define 'nothing', but no atoms would be a place to start.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

Even a vacuum produces particles.

Vacuums also have geometry and curvature.

 

[windy miller]

It seems to me that QM forbids absolute nothing, wouldn't that contradict uncertainty?

 

[PeterDonis]

QM forbids absolute nothing

Define "absolute nothing". The root issue here (which the OP's question also illustrates) is that you are throwing around ordinary language terms that do not have precise definitions. Questions framed in that manner do not have precise, well-defined answers.

 

[rede96]

Define "absolute nothing".

Would one way of looking at this be to ask just what do we know that does exists? E.g. mass, energy, fields, and space time? Is there anything that we know to exist or theorise to exist that falls outside of those 4 generic categories?

 

[newjerseyrunner]

Would one way of looking at this be to ask just what do we know that does exists? E.g. mass, energy, fields, and space time? Is there anything that we know to exist or theorise to exist that falls outside of those 4 generic categories?

The laws themselves that govern those entities.

 

[rede96]

The laws themselves that govern those entities.

True, but those laws are only there because those entities exist. No entities no laws.

 

[anorlunda]

Leonard Susskind, in one of his video lectures, said that the electric & magnetic fields cannot both be zero at the same time in the same place according to the HUP. Fields are something.

 

[PeterDonis]

Would one way of looking at this be to ask just what do we know that does exists?

Not really. Read the OP question again. Suppose we have a definitive answer to your question--say, for concreteness, that the list you give is in fact the definitive list of "things we know exist". How would that help in answering the OP's question?

 

[PeterDonis]

Fields are something.

Ok, so how does this help in answering the OP's question?

 

[anorlunda]

Ok, so how does this help in answering the OP's question?

If there was nothing, would there still be dimensions of space and nothing in them or would there not be any dimensions of space at all.

It refutes the OP's premise, " if there was nothing." In the universe that physics deals with, there is always something.

 

[rede96]

Leonard Susskind, in one of his video lectures, said that the electric & magnetic fields cannot both be zero at the same time in the same place according to the HUP. Fields are something.

I would imagine that because the electromagnetic forces are caused by electrically charged objects that if you remove all those object there is no field, so not sure if that would apply in that case.

 

[anorlunda]

I would imagine that because the electromagnetic forces are caused by electrically charged objects that if you remove all those object there is no field, so not sure if that would apply in that case.

Photons don't require charged objects to exist.

 

[PeterDonis]

It refutes the OP's premise, " if there was nothing."

That depends on how the OP defines "nothing". Which is what I asked him to clarify. (For example, I could define "nothing" as "vacuum", in which case it is certainly possible for there to be nothing, and there would still be dimensions of space if there were nothing.)

 

[rede96]

It refutes the OP's premise, " if there was nothing." In the universe that physics deals with, there is always something.

Thanks for that, that's pretty much how I was thinking. If we take away everything that physics deals with what is left? The question would therefore be are there any laws of physics that prevent that?

 

[rede96]

Photons don't require charged objects to exist.

Yes of course, probably a bad example but was just trying to restate that if we took everything we know about away, then those laws don't apply.

 

[PeterDonis]

This thread is degenerating into the kind of speculation that my original question to the OP in post #2 was supposed to forestall. Thread closed.