Is Nothing Still Considered Something?

[Lensman]

Just watched Stephen Hawking "The Story of Everything". Maybe it's outdated by now, maybe not. Still beautiful to watch.
Anyway...Isn't Nothing still considered to be Something?

 

[phinds]

You need to be more specific in defining what you mean.

For example, for the sentence "there is nothing outside the universe", then NO, the word "something" could not be meaningfully substituted for the word "nothing".

 

[alexg]

But if you're talking about inside the universe, (since that's all there is), then nothing is filled with lots of somethings.

 

[salvestrom]

Just watched Stephen Hawking "The Story of Everything". Maybe it's outdated by now, maybe not. Still beautiful to watch.
Anyway...Isn't Nothing still considered to be Something?

Vacuum energy essentilly removes the possibility of an actual "nothing" existing within the universe. If you stand with your hands apart and put yourself anywhere in the universe, you would never find a situation where you can accurately declare "there is nothing between my hands". The only solution is to put your hands together. ;)

 

[Lensman]

Thank you all. I was curious as to what kind of comments I might get on my not-very-specific question. The comments in themselves are welcome. I envy those of you who do understand the math associated with physics, the equations and all. My talents lie elsewhere.
I will be more direct now with my question. In "The Story of Everything" Stephen Hawking showed the beginning of the Big Bang. Do I understand this right? Before the BB there was nothing, correct? The Big Bang started expanding and still is expanding. What is the Big Bang expanding into?

 

[phinds]

Thank you all. I was curious as to what kind of comments I might get on my not-very-specific question. The comments in themselves are welcome. I envy those of you who do understand the math associated with physics, the equations and all. My talents lie elsewhere.
I will be more direct now with my question. In "The Story of Everything" Stephen Hawking showed the beginning of the Big Bang. Do I understand this right? Before the BB there was nothing, correct? The Big Bang started expanding and still is expanding. What is the Big Bang expanding into?

"big bang" really has two totally distinct meanings

1) the singularity / t=0 --- this is TOTALLY a mystery to everyone including Hawking. The most meaningful way to descirbe it is "the place where current theories totally break down and give meaningless answers"

2) the evolution of the universe starting at one Plank time after the singularity --- this is reasonably well understood in many aspects. I commend to your reading "The First Three Minutes" by Weinberg

as to what it is expanding "into", there is no such thing. The thing that is expanding is everything.

 

[Lensman]

"big bang" really has two totally distinct meanings

1) the singularity / t=0 --- this is TOTALLY a mystery to everyone including Hawking. The most meaningful way to descirbe it is "the place where current theories totally break down and give meaningless answers"

2) the evolution of the universe starting at one Plank time after the singularity --- this is reasonably well understood in many aspects. I commend to your reading "The First Three Minutes" by Weinberg

as to what it is expanding "into", there is no such thing. The thing that is expanding is everything.

Thanks! It's really a challenge trying to wrap my mind around a concept such as "as to what it is expanding "into", there is no such thing. The thing that is expanding is everything."
It only natural, for me, to try to understand such descriptions based on how I perceive everything around me. I have to get out of my comfort zone.

 

[Drakkith]

Thanks! It's really a challenge trying to wrap my mind around a concept such as "as to what it is expanding "into", there is no such thing. The thing that is expanding is everything."
It only natural, for me, to try to understand such descriptions based on how I perceive everything around me. I have to get out of my comfort zone.

Perhaps instead of imagining the universe expanding, just realize that what we actually see is that everything in the observable universe is moving away from everything else. Whether the universe is expanding into nothing or something is beyond our capabilities to determine at the moment, and possible forever. Our model doesn't REQUIRE that anything be outside the universe for it to expand into, but it really doesn't care if there is or isn't, it simply doesn't go there.

 

[ynot1]

Vacuum energy essentilly removes the possibility of an actual "nothing" existing within the universe. If you stand with your hands apart and put yourself anywhere in the universe, you would never find a situation where you can accurately declare "there is nothing between my hands". The only solution is to put your hands together. ;)

Ergo nothing would be the absence of a vacuum energy. Finally an answer with a physical interpretation. It would seem at the big bang all the vacuum energy in the universe was compressed into a small volume.

 

[phinds]

Ergo nothing would be the absence of a vacuum energy. Finally an answer with a physical interpretation. It would seem at the big bang all the vacuum energy in the universe was compressed into a small volume.

No, that is complete speculation on your part. It is not known whether the universe was infinite at the beginning. All we know for sure is that it was a lot smaller than it is now and a lot denser. That does NOT imply that it was small or finite.

 

[ynot1]

Ergo nothing would be the absence of a vacuum energy. Finally an answer with a physical interpretation. It would seem at the big bang all the vacuum energy in the universe was compressed into a small volume.

No, that is complete speculation on your part. It is not known whether the universe was infinite at the beginning. All we know for sure is that it was a lot smaller than it is now and a lot denser. That does NOT imply that it was small or finite.

Ergo the universe was a lot smaller and a lot denser than it is now, not small, not infinite. Sorry for the speculation.

 

[Drakkith]

Ergo the universe was a lot smaller and a lot denser than it is now, not small, not infinite. Sorry for the speculation.

No problem. Someone forgot to refill Phind's food bowl and he's irritable at the moment.
Down Phinds down! *swats with newspaper* Off the couch!

 

[Radrook]

Deleted

 

[phinds]

No problem. Someone forgot to refill Phind's food bowl and he's irritable at the moment.
Down Phinds down! *swats with newspaper* Off the couch!

Nah, I'm just permanently irritable. It's my mission in life to tell other people when they are wrong. It's a public service I perform.

 

[ynot1]

Nah, I'm just permanently irritable. It's my mission in life to tell other people when they are wrong. It's a public service I perform.

Wrong? Could that be worse than being speculative?;)

 

[sigurdW]

But if you're talking about inside the universe, (since that's all there is), then nothing is filled with lots of somethings.

Is what we think of as our universe , the universe that contains everything?

Where is the proof? I think you treat an assumption as a fact!

 

[phinds]

Is what we think of as our universe , the universe that contains everything?

Where is the proof? I think you treat an assumption as a fact!

No, he is treating a definition as a fact. The word "universe" in physics is genearlly taken to mean "all that there is". Yes, there ARE theories (that have no basis in fact) that there are "multiple universes" and so forth, but that doesn't change the basic definition.

 

[sigurdW]

No, he is treating a definition as a fact. The word "universe" in physics is genearlly taken to mean "all that there is". Yes, there ARE theories (that have no basis in fact) that there are "multiple universes" and so forth, but that doesn't change the basic definition.

The assumption is that the observable universe is identical to a universe that contains everything that is.

Not all definitions are valid, so why believe there IS a universe that contains everything that is?

Does it contain itself? How can science tell its unique?

It would surprise me if physics uses such an unscientific concept anywhere!

My guess is that it is laymen discussing physics who use the concept.

 

[phinds]

The assumption is that the observable universe is identical to a universe that contains everything that is.

You COMPLETELY misunderstand cosmology.

 

[sigurdW]

You COMPLETELY misunderstand cosmology.

Prove it!

I point out that the definition of the universe as everything that is, arguably is inconsistent...

Is cosmology a religion? Where concepts are sacred? Why do you attack me instead of my argument?

If you believe in your definition please answer the question:

Does a universe containing everything that is, contain itself?

 

[phinds]

I am not "attacking" you in the least. I am pointing out that you have made a nonsensical statement. If the observable universe were everything that is, all of physics as we know it would be rendered pretty much meaningless by the existence of a boundary.

Cosmology is based on fact, not religion.

Your question "Does a universe containing everything that is, contain itself?" is equivalent to the question "does the set A contain the set A". Do you think that's a particularly meaningful question?

 

[sigurdW]

I am not "attacking" you in the least. I am pointing out that you have made a nonsensical statement. If the observable universe were everything that is, all of physics as we know it would be rendered pretty much meaningless by the existence of a boundary.

Cosmology is based on fact, not religion.

Your question "Does a universe containing everything that is, contain itself?" is equivalent to the question "does the set A contain the set A". Do you think that's a particularly meaningful question?

No those questions are NOT equivalent!

But the question: "does the set A containing all there is, contain the set A"
is indeed equivalent with:"Does a universe containing everything that is, contain itself?"

Thats why i claimed that concept of "universe" to be inconsistent.

I never claimed that the observable universe is all there is!

Im not aware of claiming anything else than that there is no universe containing all there is!

So I don't understand this:"You COMPLETELY misunderstand cosmology."

Edit:The thread is about: "Isn't nothing still something?"

Its a tricky question! But there really is no nothing that is something:

If there is nothing in x then there is not something in x!

And that's all there is to it.

 

[DaveC426913]

I never claimed that the observable universe is all there is!

You didn't claim it, you said it was the assumption.

The assumption is that the observable universe is identical to a universe that contains everything that is.

 

[sigurdW]

You didn't claim it, you said it was the assumption.

This is what was said:
But if you're talking about inside the universe, (since that's all there is)

Which may mean:
The universe contains everything that is.

What I said meant:
His assumption is that the universe we live in is identical to a universe that contains everything that is. And no such universe exists!

My assumption was that we live in an observable universe... Dont we?

So how does this show I COMPLETELY misunderstand cosmology?

 

[Constantin]

You can have the point of view: "What you can't see does not exist."
That is hard to disprove.
So you could consider the Observable Universe is the only thing that's relevant to us, and either not bother with what's beyond its event horizon(s), or even consider nothing exists beyond the event horizon(s).

But on the other hand physicists can build theories and mathematical models about what is beyond an event horizon.

--------
So you have:
1: You can consider what you can't see does not exist (personal choice).
2: Building mathematical models of what you can't see is perfectly possible.

Both of those statements can be true at the same time without any problems.

 

[Chronos]

What you can't detect is not testable. It may exist, but, the proposition is irrelevant until scientifically testable.

 

[sigurdW]

You can have the point of view: "What you can't see does not exist."
That is hard to disprove.
So you could consider the Observable Universe is the only thing that's relevant to us, and either not bother with what's beyond its event horizon(s), or even consider nothing exists beyond the event horizon(s).

But on the other hand physicists can build theories and mathematical models about what is beyond an event horizon.

--------
So you have:
1: You can consider what you can't see does not exist (personal choice).
2: Building mathematical models of what you can't see is perfectly possible.

Both of those statements can be true at the same time without any problems.

I agree now!
I agreed before!
And I will agree in the future!

 

[sigurdW]

What you can't detect is not testable. It may exist, but, the proposition is irrelevant until scientifically testable.

Why is this under discussion?

Are we discussing the "nothing", the "outside of the universe" or what?

Eh... It should have read:"the proposition is scientifically irrelevant until scientifically testable."

I am not sure the proposition is philosophically and/or logically irrelevant.

The case of "nothing":

The basic statement is: Something is.

Its denial is self contradictory: Nothing is.

Therefore nothing is not something. QED

 

[Lensman]

What you can't detect is not testable. It may exist, but, the proposition is irrelevant until scientifically testable.

Very true. What's so amazing about our minds is that we can envision something that we cannot prove exists, yet thinking about something that might exist can lead us to figuring out a way to come up with a test to see if it can be proven or disproven scientifically. I love this forum. So many great minds at work.

 

[Chronos]

Very true. What's so amazing about our minds is that we can envision something that we cannot prove exists, yet thinking about something that might exist can lead us to figuring out a way to come up with a test to see if it can be proven or disproven scientifically. I love this forum. So many great minds at work.

That is fundamental to science. Many breakthoughs in science started out as little more than a 'crazy' ideas, until someone figured out how to test it. It seems almost unfair that the one who figures out how to test a new idea is more likely to get a Nobel than the one who came up with it.