Is Nothing Still Considered Something?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lensman
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the philosophical and scientific implications of "nothing" and "something," particularly in the context of the universe and the Big Bang. Participants explore definitions, interpretations, and the nature of existence within and outside the universe, touching on concepts from physics and cosmology.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether "nothing" can be considered "something," suggesting that definitions matter significantly in this context.
  • One participant argues that vacuum energy implies that true "nothing" cannot exist within the universe, as there are always "somethings" present.
  • A later reply discusses the Big Bang, noting that before it, there was "nothing," but questions what the Big Bang is expanding into, suggesting that it may not be expanding into anything at all.
  • Another participant distinguishes between two meanings of the Big Bang: the singularity at t=0, which is poorly understood, and the evolution of the universe after that point, which is better understood.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the nature of the universe's expansion and whether it requires something outside of it to expand into.
  • There are claims that the universe was smaller and denser at the beginning, but this is contested, with some asserting that it is speculative to assume it was finite or small.
  • Discussions arise about the definition of the universe, with some asserting it is generally taken to mean "all that there is," while others challenge this assumption.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus reached on the definitions of "nothing" and "something," the implications of vacuum energy, or the nature of the universe's expansion. Disagreements persist regarding the interpretations of the Big Bang and the assumptions about the universe's boundaries.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of the concepts discussed, with some noting the limitations of current theories and the speculative nature of certain claims. The discussion reflects a variety of interpretations and assumptions that are not universally accepted.

  • #31
Chronos said:
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.

Yes I alwasy thought it was , for example, terribly unfair that someone like Ralph Alpher didnt get a Nobel prive for the CMb whereas Penzias and Wilson did. Not saying that latter didnt deserve theirs but I think you get the point.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
Chronos said:
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.
It is because - as demonstrated by the popularity of physicsforums and sciforums for amateurs - ideas are a dime a dozen. It's the verifiability that gives an idea teeth.
 
  • #33
The universe is composed of MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, AND TIME. Beyond the universe is no matter, no energy, no space and no time (NOTHING). NOTHING is the key to the unified theory and needs to be studied! It is not composed of dark energy. That is what space is made of. The universe expands because as light or fields (e.g., gravitational, electromagnetic, etc) travels it creates space and time and is also energy and matter. Beyond where the universe's light/fields has expanded is NOTHING.

The unifying thread to Matter, Energy, Space and Time is Nothing. Matter, Energy Space and time are linked inseparable from each other.You can not have matter without space and time. You can not have space without matter, energy and time. But you can have Nothing only without matter, energy, space and time. E=MC^2

The study of Nothing needs to be pursued. It is the missing key to understanding everything.
 
  • #34
nowhereman said:
The universe is composed of MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, AND TIME. Beyond the universe is no matter, no energy, no space and no time (NOTHING). NOTHING is the key to the unified theory and needs to be studied! It is not composed of dark energy. That is what space is made of. The universe expands because as light or fields (e.g., gravitational, electromagnetic, etc) travels it creates space and time and is also energy and matter. Beyond where the universe's light/fields has expanded is NOTHING.

The unifying thread to Matter, Energy, Space and Time is Nothing. Matter, Energy Space and time are linked inseparable from each other.You can not have matter without space and time. You can not have space without matter, energy and time. But you can have Nothing only without matter, energy, space and time. E=MC^2

The study of Nothing needs to be pursued. It is the missing key to understanding everything.

...What? I don't think you understand what it means that the universe is expanding. The universe doesn't have a boundary, it's that the space in between galaxies expands, increasing the distance in between everything. There isn't anything known as 'Nothing'.
 
  • #35
nowhereman said:
The universe is composed of MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, AND TIME. Beyond the universe is no matter, no energy, no space and no time (NOTHING). NOTHING is the key to the unified theory and needs to be studied! It is not composed of dark energy. That is what space is made of. The universe expands because as light or fields (e.g., gravitational, electromagnetic, etc) travels it creates space and time and is also energy and matter. Beyond where the universe's light/fields has expanded is NOTHING.

The unifying thread to Matter, Energy, Space and Time is Nothing. Matter, Energy Space and time are linked inseparable from each other.You can not have matter without space and time. You can not have space without matter, energy and time. But you can have Nothing only without matter, energy, space and time. E=MC^2

The study of Nothing needs to be pursued. It is the missing key to understanding everything.

You would do well to read some actual physics instead of just making things up. The FAQ section here in the Cosmology subforum would be a good start.
 
  • #36
This thread is not about science. Closed.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Can there be a lawless universe (according to Hawking)?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Black Hole to Other Universe: Violation of 1st Law?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Undergrad How can the universe be infinitely big?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
High School Galaxy Collisions & Expansion: What's Going On?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Brian Cox and the end of the Universe?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
High School Which Hawking paper? (no singularity at the beginning of the universe)
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Undergrad Why do we still see the CMB today?
  • · Replies 103 ·
4
Replies
103
Views
12K
Undergrad Do Black Holes Exist? | Physics & Stephen Hawking
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Undergrad I don't see how a black hole's event horizon can be crossed
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
3K
Undergrad Why aren't Gravitational waves factored in to inflation formulas?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K