What is Nothing? Research & Explanation

[Bob600]

I have some difficulty in understanding why "nothing" is so underrated in scientific research, as it seems to be the "container" for everything, some guidance would be appreciated. I an certainly not trained in the sciences, and I am not suggesting how you would go about removing all particles/energy, but let's assume that it can be done. My logic then goes like this. Remove all particles from the Universe and you get a vacuum, but it still contains protons neutrons gravitational waves etc. So remove all of that and you have a quantum vacuum but this also contains some particles that pop into and out of existence and some electromagnetic waves. So remove all of that and you are left with pure nothing for want of a better word, something that contains no time, no size, no scientific laws, in fact what was there before the "big bang" a container for everything yet to come, it could be infinitely large and infinitely small at the same time, would allow light to travel "faster than light" as it enters it as there are no scientific laws to stop it, it would be a connection between the alternate universes in the Multiverse. It might even help explain dark matter/energy and the apparent accelerating nature of our Universe.

 

[Drakkith]

I have some difficulty in understanding why "nothing" is so underrated in scientific research, as it seems to be the "container" for everything

That is incorrect. 'Nothing' is defined as the absence of something. In the strictest sense, it would be the absence of everything. Similarly, a shadow is simply the absence of light on a surface. A shadow does not contain anything.

So remove all of that and you are left with pure nothing for want of a better word, something that contains no time, no size, no scientific laws,

You cannot remove all of reality and expect to get sensible answers. The fact is that we cannot remove everything from the universe, so while claiming that the removal of all matter and energy would result in no time, no size, and no scientific laws may seem logical, it's simply philosophy, not science.

in fact what was there before the "big bang" a container for everything yet to come

You are assuming that the big bang was an event that created the universe and everything in it. This is an incorrect understanding of the big bang. The big bang was, and is, a process of universal expansion from a high-density state to a lower-density state. There is no evidence suggesting that the big bang created everything from nothing. The actual origin of the universe is unknown. Perhaps it was created from nothing. But I find it equally possible that the universe has always existed in some form or another, in which case there was never 'pure nothing'.

it could be infinitely large and infinitely small at the same time, would allow light to travel "faster than light" as it enters it as there are no scientific laws to stop it, it would be a connection between the alternate universes in the Multiverse. It might even help explain dark matter/energy and the apparent accelerating nature of our Universe.

None of this makes any logical sense, which is why talk about 'nothing' being a container or something is not science.

Since this topic involves quite a bit of speculation and nonsensical talk, thread locked. Please see PF Terms and Rules for information on what is considered to be acceptable discussion topics.