What is Nothing vs Absolutely Nothing?

[bettysfetish]

Well, I've been just reading these threads for awhile and doing a lot of reading; everything from Thales- about 600 b.c. to Newton, Einstein, Greene, Reese and Hawking. And all those in between.
This "nothing" thing is simply not going to be solved in our time. If this "must" be included in the T.O.E. then that theory may simply not solidify. Whatever state exsisted before the "Planck Time" will never (i use that term loosely) be determined. We are forced to accept that this "unknown state" must have exsisted. Even through the application of well known quantum theories like those of Heisenberg we're forced to accept that the conditions must have been right sooner or later for energy to quantum tunnel into exsistance.
It just happened. Now it's up to entropy to take it's course; and in the termoil we exsist, "For there can be order in the chaos." This temporary order is held in check by gravity, and "that" being the result of mass will eventually dissipate as well. Then all will be calm in the universe.
L8R
--------"After all is said and done, Gravity Rules."------------

 

[pallidin]

There is no such thing as "nothing" within any framework of reality. As such, it is a concept which can not exist.
After all, if nothing were something it could not be nothing.
Thus, "nothing" is not only the absence of substance, but also the absence of reality.

 

[wisp]

... and, more specifically, what is the difference between nothing and absolutely nothing?

Nothing: This is an absence of what our senses and measuring instruments detect. For example, we may think of empty space as void, when it could contain solid ether. But we fail to detect it and so think empty space has nothing in it.

Absolute nothing: This is the ultimate in emptiness. Even if our senses and measuring instruments we set to detect everything that existed. In this case there is nothing there. Absolute nothing is void of everything: force, gravity, photons, ether, etc.

So "nothing" and "absolute nothing" are not the same thing.

wisp

"particles of nothingness"

 

[Antonio Lao]

What is "nothing?"

It is something which cannot be seen, cannot be heard, cannot be touched, cannot be tasted, cannot be smelled, cannot be thought of and hence cannot be discussed.

Nothing is the complete opposite of the whole purpose of science. Science is the search for truth and truth is always something although truth can more often hide behind the concept of nothing if the truth is relative, but if the truth is absolute then it is the biggest thing in the universe and it is as clear as the purest crystal found in nature.

 

[mapper]

you can't nor will we ever define nothing or no-thing cause once that happens it becomes something...

 

[michelle s]

What if space is infinite?

 

[Antonio Lao]

What if space is infinite?

We will never be here to talk about it.

 

[michelle s]

We will never be here to talk about it.

please could you elaborate on that, i do not understand...

 

[C. Michael Turner]

Nothing by definition does not exist. Therefore space itself is something. It is the monopole gravitational wave evaporating, decaying, from mass creating the actions of time, SPACE, and gravitational wave sychronization(i.e. brining mass together through the path of least resistance. Everything is made up of the bound or unbound gravitational wave- even space itself. It ain't that hard to see from God's view point of how hecreated it all--- for you.

 

[Antonio Lao]

please could you elaborate on that, i do not understand

If space is infinite, it can have no beginning and no end. It is always there and there is no need for change of any kind. It is full and empty at the same time. This might be one of the ideas that the debunked cosmological proposal of steady state theory of the universe.

But even the big bang theory (accepted by many since the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation) has its share of problems. The latest more effective problem solving theory of the universe is the inflationary theory.

 

[north]

Well, I've been just reading these threads for awhile and doing a lot of reading; everything from Thales- about 600 b.c. to Newton, Einstein, Greene, Reese and Hawking. And all those in between.
This "nothing" thing is simply not going to be solved in our time. If this "must" be included in the T.O.E. then that theory may simply not solidify. Whatever state exsisted before the "Planck Time" will never (i use that term loosely) be determined. We are forced to accept that this "unknown state" must have exsisted. Even through the application of well known quantum theories like those of Heisenberg we're forced to accept that the conditions must have been right sooner or later for energy to quantum tunnel into exsistance.
It just happened. Now it's up to entropy to take it's course; and in the termoil we exsist, "For there can be order in the chaos." This temporary order is held in check by gravity, and "that" being the result of mass will eventually dissipate as well. Then all will be calm in the universe.
L8R
--------"After all is said and done, Gravity Rules."------------

___________________________________________

"unknown state" is nothing to do with the logic of "absolute nothing" since it IMPLIES that a substance exists but as of yet is undefined.but "absolute nothing" has no undefined,hidden substance,this is a problem conjured up by the big bang theory.

 

[north]

There is no such thing as "nothing" within any framework of reality. As such, it is a concept which can not exist.
After all, if nothing were something it could not be nothing.
Thus, "nothing" is not only the absence of substance, but also the absence of reality.

___________________________________________

yes there is a such thing as nothing, nothing can be used in the practical sense,an expression.but in the strictess sense your right.

 

[north]

you can't nor will we ever define nothing or no-thing cause once that happens it becomes something...

___________________________________________

you can define nothing in terms of action(which you have done here)i've done nothing all day,an expression or absolute existence of substance.

 

[north]

What if space is infinite?

___________________________________________

it is and therefore so is substance.substance NEEDS space and therefore absolute nothing is impossible.

 

[north]

If space is infinite, it can have no beginning and no end. It is always there and there is no need for change of any kind.
___________________________________________

define what you mean by SPACE does not change. do you mean pure space with no substance or the universe,which has of course substance.
___________________________________________

 

[michelle s]

___________________________________________

it is and therefore so is substance.substance NEEDS space and therefore absolute nothing is impossible.[/QUOTE

so... space is substance?
and there are no ends to the universe...no nothing, always something

 

[Antonio Lao]

define what you mean by SPACE does not change

Defined in cosmological theories as that is expanding. Infinite space implies no such expansion hence does not change. Steady state theory implies continuous creation of matter, it does not implies an infinite space, but it implies eternal, self-replicating expansion of something either matter or space.

 

[bettysfetish]

"unknown state" is nothing to do with the logic of "absolute nothing" since it IMPLIES that a substance exists but as of yet is undefined.
Hello all. I was going to drop out of this thread since there seems to be no answers at this time, but I'd like to clarify one point.
North, I'm honered to be one of thoses you've singled out for comment. I may not have elaborated enough to make myself clear, sorry. I was referring to whatever "state", or whatever term you personally might apply to it, that "may" have exsisted, since this "is" theoriticle, or didn't or couldn't have exsisted, depending on your viewpoint, before the creation of matter.
I used the word "state" for just the reason you've pointed out as problematic, simply because it does not imply the exsistance of matter. The only reference I made to matter was in using the word "mass" in reference to a point in time "after" the conversion started.
As Antonio stated, the best problem solving theory right now is the inflationary theory. What theory do you subscribe to? And what was there before "that" started? How do you "set the arrow of time" without real particles, be they antiparticles or not. And before this point could there not be energy? Photons are energy with no decernable mass, or mabey it's nutrinos, but there seems no reason to think this type of energy can't be present without mass to stretch the fabric of space. And even if that be the case, what lead to the creation of the energy?- - and so on and so on. What I was concerned with was what it may have been like to lead to the creation of mass.
But as I said, as far as I can find, there is no answer now or on the horizon. Even if string theory works out it won't answer absolutly every question.
I be happy to communicate with anyone who can come up with anything new or interesting, but this "is" getting a bit trite. And North, I'd like to hear from you, I think I sortof ment things the way you stated them, perhaps I just didn't choose my words or phrasing correctly.
L8R
----------"Atfter all is said and done, Gravity Rules."--------------

 

[Antonio Lao]

I be happy to communicate with anyone who can come up with anything new

The ideas that I'm proposing is that we are living in a quantum universe. The quanta are 1D spacetime structures giving two distinct topological geometries. These geometries can describe both mass and charge concept in physics. And what is quantized space is definitely different from what is quantized energy and from what is quantized mass.

Quantum theory as set forth by Planck is the quantization of energy. But the atomic theory did partially the quantization of mass for it did not give good explanation why some masses could be zero. For a theory to account to zero mass, it must defnitely take negative valued mass into consideration even if only for mathematical equations and not for any physically meaningful negativity. So the quantum of mass is really the Planck mass and the mass of the electron is just some multiples of positive and negative of the Planck mass.

 

[John]

What if space has mass?

The concept of "nothing" doesn't contain the concept of space. We think of nothing as empty space, but that is not accurate. A creator would make space in nothing by having points of matter that define the places. So imagine space as being a dust cloud of points of matter. Space has mass.

A photon supposedly doesn't have mass, but what if a photon is one of the points in the dust cloud that makes up space? Now a photon and space have the same mass, which we define as zero mass, but really it has some mass.

If something were lighter than space, it would have negative mass.

 

[north]

___________________________________________

it is and therefore so is substance.substance NEEDS space and therefore absolute nothing is impossible.[/QUOTE

so... space is substance?
and there are no ends to the universe...no nothing, always something

___________________________________________

to the first question,no.(space and substance become at the same time,to me) the universe is the result of SPACE,for if there was no space, substance could not be. of all dimensions space is most important,think about it.

 

[north]

Defined in cosmological theories as that is expanding. Infinite space implies no such expansion hence does not change. Steady state theory implies continuous creation of matter, it does not implies an infinite space, but it implies eternal, self-replicating expansion of something either matter or space.

___________________________________________

why do you say that infinite space does not expand? why not infinite expanding space?
is there a continuous creation of substance? if there is show it.(no disagreement here, just asking,define the thought)

 

[north]

What if space has mass?

The concept of "nothing" doesn't contain the concept of space. We think of nothing as empty space, but that is not accurate. A creator would make space in nothing by having points of matter that define the places. So imagine space as being a dust cloud of points of matter. Space has mass.
___________________________________________

no, nothing(or absolute nothing,in the strictess sense of the word) is not just empty space,it has no time or dimension.
___________________________________________

 

[north]

"unknown state" is nothing to do with the logic of "absolute nothing" since it IMPLIES that a substance exists but as of yet is undefined.
Hello all. I was going to drop out of this thread since there seems to be no answers at this time, but I'd like to clarify one point.
North, I'm honered to be one of thoses you've singled out for comment. I may not have elaborated enough to make myself clear, sorry. I was referring to whatever "state", or whatever term you personally might apply to it, that "may" have exsisted, since this "is" theoriticle, or didn't or couldn't have exsisted, depending on your viewpoint, before the creation of matter.
___________________________________________

there was no before substance.that would lead to "nothing" producing something.but this is erroneous.since substance must be infinite.

so why do i think that, simply because "nothing" would be infinite(since there is no possibility of form to the concept) and therefore "nothing" would always be "nothing". there is no possibility of change.

___________________________________________

I used the word "state" for just the reason you've pointed out as problematic, simply because it does not imply the exsistance of matter. The only reference I made to matter was in using the word "mass" in reference to a point in time "after" the conversion started.
___________________________________________

to me it is ALL intertwined,energy in all it's forms is only limited by it's self and that which holds it(space for instance).

more later,got to go!

___________________________________________
As Antonio stated, the best problem solving theory right now is the inflationary theory. What theory do you subscribe to? And what was there before "that" started? How do you "set the arrow of time" without real particles, be they antiparticles or not. And before this point could there not be energy? Photons are energy with no decernable mass, or mabey it's nutrinos, but there seems no reason to think this type of energy can't be present without mass to stretch the fabric of space. And even if that be the case, what lead to the creation of the energy?- - and so on and so on. What I was concerned with was what it may have been like to lead to the creation of mass.
But as I said, as far as I can find, there is no answer now or on the horizon. Even if string theory works out it won't answer absolutly every question.
I be happy to communicate with anyone who can come up with anything new or interesting, but this "is" getting a bit trite. And North, I'd like to hear from you, I think I sortof ment things the way you stated them, perhaps I just didn't choose my words or phrasing correctly.
L8R
----------"Atfter all is said and done, Gravity Rules."--------------

___________________________________________

 

[UltraPi1]

Can't say I've had any personal experience with nothing, but I can say we are the definition of it. This is meted out through conceptual geometrics. This means that there is nothing physical about our universe at all.

Hence - In our universe there are only ones ... one at a time. Where time is the nothing one's are composed of.

 

[Nimbupani]

Can't say I've had any personal experience with nothing, but I can say we are the definition of it. This is meted out through conceptual geometrics. This means that there is nothing physical about our universe at all.

Hence - In our universe there are only ones ... one at a time. Where time is the nothing one's are composed of.

So you are saying that if we came from nothing we can expect to be made of nothing? How can one nothing effect another nothing?

 

[UltraPi1]

So you are saying that if we came from nothing we can expect to be made of nothing?

Yes - There are no other choices when beginning with nothing.

How can one nothing effect another nothing?

To exist - (ONE) must have form, and the universe is full of these forms. To have form - difference is established. I.E. Inside the form verses outside the form. Plus verses minus. If all forms carry with it (difference). We can expect (effect) between forms. Thus - No form can pass another form without effect. Keep in mind that all forms are conceptual in nature. Physicality is not possible in a universe made from nothing.

To add to this - Contradiction is at the cornerstone in this model. Suffice to say ... A thing is equally dependent on what it is not. I exist because I don't exist as a necessary statement. I.E. 0 and 1 ... pure contradiction.

 

[Antonio Lao]

why do you say that infinite space does not expand?

For infinity has nowhere to expand to. It is full and empty at the same time.

Continuous creation of matter is a proposal of the debunked steady state theory of the universe originated by Bondi, Gold and Hoyle in the 1940s. The observed high redshift of many objects is a proof that the universe is changing as if it's aging hence it's not infinite.

 

[bettysfetish]

Well, I certainly don't know where to go with this. For one thing, I'm not formally educated enough to use the proper terms when required and I have a hard time keeping all these concepts and theories straight. It sometimes makes it difficult to convey what one truly means.
Antonio, what can you suggest for reading material covering the 1D quantum spacetime packets thing you mentioned?
To all; Can we agree that spacetime has an origin?, A begining? And what might that have been? No one seems to be able to offer anything beyond this. And here is where I dwell. I'm getting just about leary of proposing any ideas at all because every idea put forth seems to get tossed in the blender, but that's the way it's been since Gallilio, Newton and many others. I have no problem if shown a more enlightend path and to date see no reason to exclude my postulations because of a more rational concept.
Who here beleives that some form of energy quantum tunneled into exsistance to be the embryo for mass? There might be a few of you. That said, from what place might you think this energy came from? Where ever or whatever it was there was certainly no "arrow of time" at that point. Therefore that "place" (and i use that word quite unspecifically) would have "been" for ever; infinitly.
And North; "No possibility" of form to the concept, and "no possibility" of change? - - In the system in question? Here before us is the concept of infinity; fragmented time which follows no specific direction. Surly you jest. Hiesenburg would be quite put out with the thought. In some limited time frame perhaps the impossibiltys would prove you correct, but how can we assume nothing like what is put forth here could happen when we have forever to wait? This topic does seem to usually end up discussing aspects which require "matter" to be added to the equation. We might fare better to not go that far in the timeline. After all we're discussing "what is nothing" here so the subject should stop with the creation of matter.
L8R

 

[John]

We start with nothing, then realize, that is not a first principle but a second principle. Nothing is made up to two ideas, no and thing. We can’t start with nothing. We have to start with “thing”. Whatever existed or didn’t exist was thing. What is thing? The definition of thing is: what it is. That means it can’t be something else, and right there, we have the definition of mass. "What is" resists movement or change. It resists becoming something else.

And by the definition of existence, two things can’t occupy the same place. That is the same definition as a point. Two points can’t occupy the same place. So the universe had to start as a thing, a single point of existence. That point, that thing was surrounded by nothing.

The third quality of a thing: it must occupy some amount of volume. That can be debated. A point is a thing that pure math says doesn’t occupy any volume. String theory says that a point is not really a volumeless thing, but it occupies a certain distance on a number line. And then, string theory goes on to say, in fact, a string is a hollow tube and has volume.

So a point occupies some volume. Now this point, this thing, which occupies volume is surrounded by nothing.

If it occupies volume, then it can occupy less volume. So let’s break this string in half and separate the two halves. What resists the separation? Nothing. What are they separating into? They have nothing to separate into. So they can’t separate, yet nothing resists their separation. Two things are possible at the same time, which gives birth to? Force. It takes force to separate the divided string into nothing.

Let’s remove the force that broke the string and separated it. Here is the first place we ask ourselves, “Does nothing contain a lot of empty space?” If it does, then the two strings, or points that have volume can float in the nothingness of empty space. But we have already defined space or volume as a quality that only exists in a point, because we call the point a string, and really a hollow tube that has volume. Therefore, no volume exists in “the nothingness of empty space”. The only volume that exists is within each string, and now, we have definitely separated the two strings. Let them go, in you imagination, and what do they do? They must come back together because there is nothing between them, yet they are separated.

Ask yourself, "When do they come back together?" Not instantaneously, but after the mass is overcome because the mass says they are in a state of separation. The thing required for them to come back together is time. The thing pushing them back together is an attractive force the same direction as gravity. It always pushes masses together. The coming back together is from the fact they are separated into nothing, which does not contain space.

Here, by pure defintion we have created mass, force, time and distance. We also created the concept of gravity.

We created those things from no, and thing. Imagine what can be created from mass, force, time, and distance, and gravity!

 

[elas]

Don't confuse nothingness with the physicists "vacuum state", which is the state you can't subtract particles from.

Surely "nothing' or 'absolute nothing' are both states that carry the force of vacuum, just as gravitons carry gravity etc. That is to say 'nothingness is a vacuum state.

 

[Antonio Lao]

what can you suggest for reading material covering the 1D quantum spacetime packets thing you mentioned?

The mainstream physics is going into higher dimensional formulation using tensor analysis. But for the sake of visualization in many specific demonstration of theories, the theorists, more often than not, use 1D of space and time. For example the Feynman diagram and the light-cone diagram in Einstein's relativity theories.

 

[north]

Can't say I've had any personal experience with nothing, but I can say we are the definition of it. This is meted out through conceptual geometrics. This means that there is nothing physical about our universe at all.
___________________________________________

really,so what came first,the elements of biology,or biology? which of course the essence of conceptualisation of any thing,which is based on substance being already there.
___________________________________________
Hence - In our universe there are only ones ... one at a time. Where time is the nothing one's are composed of.

___________________________________________

but time is happening everywhere,in all instances(in the universe)beyond just our perception and conception.

 

[north]

For infinity has nowhere to expand to. It is full and empty at the same time.

Continuous creation of matter is a proposal of the debunked steady state theory of the universe originated by Bondi, Gold and Hoyle in the 1940s. The observed high redshift of many objects is a proof that the universe is changing as if it's aging hence it's not infinite.

___________________________________________

but space is also infinite,so substance and space proceed together.

 

[north]

Well, I certainly don't know where to go with this. For one thing, I'm not formally educated enough to use the proper terms when required and I have a hard time keeping all these concepts and theories straight. It sometimes makes it difficult to convey what one truly means.
Antonio, what can you suggest for reading material covering the 1D quantum spacetime packets thing you mentioned?
To all; Can we agree that spacetime has an origin?, A begining? And what might that have been? No one seems to be able to offer anything beyond this. And here is where I dwell. I'm getting just about leary of proposing any ideas at all because every idea put forth seems to get tossed in the blender, but that's the way it's been since Gallilio, Newton and many others. I have no problem if shown a more enlightend path and to date see no reason to exclude my postulations because of a more rational concept.
Who here beleives that some form of energy quantum tunneled into exsistance to be the embryo for mass? There might be a few of you. That said, from what place might you think this energy came from? Where ever or whatever it was there was certainly no "arrow of time" at that point. Therefore that "place" (and i use that word quite unspecifically) would have "been" for ever; infinitly.
And North; "No possibility" of form to the concept, and "no possibility" of change? - - In the system in question? Here before us is the concept of infinity; fragmented time which follows no specific direction. Surly you jest. Hiesenburg would be quite put out with the thought. In some limited time frame perhaps the impossibiltys would prove you correct, but how can we assume nothing like what is put forth here could happen when we have forever to wait? This topic does seem to usually end up discussing aspects which require "matter" to be added to the equation. We might fare better to not go that far in the timeline. After all we're discussing "what is nothing" here so the subject should stop with the creation of matter.
L8R

___________________________________________

nothing is nothing is nothing in the nonexpression sense.in nothing there is nothing to change.as far as Heisenberg is concerned then he is wrong,whether he's put out or not.

simply i don't get what the problem with " absolute nothing" is. it has no space,time or dimension.so where does the possibility of change come from? put another way if we start with the above mentioned criteria,then what happens?