- #1
KarminValso1724
- 25
- 1
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.
rootone said: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.
rootone said: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.
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.Kevin McHugh said:Even a vacuum produces particles.
Vacuums also have geometry and curvature.Kevin McHugh said:Even a vacuum produces particles.
windy miller said:QM forbids absolute nothing
PeterDonis said:Define "absolute nothing".
The laws themselves that govern those entities.rede96 said: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 said:The laws themselves that govern those entities.
rede96 said:Would one way of looking at this be to ask just what do we know that does exists?
anorlunda said:Fields are something.
PeterDonis said:Ok, so how does this help in answering the OP's question?
KarminValso1724 said: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.
anorlunda said: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.
rede96 said: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 said:It refutes the OP's premise, " if there was nothing."
anorlunda said:It refutes the OP's premise, " if there was nothing." In the universe that physics deals with, there is always something.
anorlunda said:Photons don't require charged objects to exist.
The concept of "nothing" is often debated among philosophers and scientists. Some argue that true "nothingness" is impossible because even empty space contains energy and fluctuations. Others believe that the absence of anything, including space and time, is possible but not observable by humans.
This is a common question related to the idea of the Big Bang theory, which suggests that the universe began as a singularity, or a point of infinite density and temperature. While it may seem counterintuitive, the laws of quantum mechanics allow for particles to spontaneously appear and disappear in a vacuum, suggesting that something can indeed come from nothing.
This question is difficult to answer definitively because our understanding of time and space breaks down at the singularity of the Big Bang. Some theories suggest that time, space, and matter all came into existence simultaneously at the beginning of the universe, making the concept of "before" irrelevant.
While they may seem similar, the concept of "nothing" goes beyond just empty space. It also includes the absence of particles, energy, and even time. Empty space, on the other hand, still contains energy and the potential for particles to appear and disappear.
This question is often asked in relation to the idea of a "creator" or the concept of a universe with a definite beginning and end. It is difficult to definitively answer this question as our understanding of "nothingness" is limited and constantly evolving. Some theories suggest that "nothing" is a fundamental state that cannot be created or destroyed, while others propose that it is possible for "nothing" to be created or destroyed through natural processes such as the Big Bang.