What is Nothing vs Absolutely Nothing?

[north]

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.

___________________________________________

nothing has well NOTHING,there is NO force of any kind.is seems to me that we ADD things to nothing.nothing is nothing people,plain and simple.nothing hidden or to be discovered, nothing in it's purest formless concept is all it is or ever will be.

 

[Antonio Lao]

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

This statement is an assumption. Because it can be observed that the domination of redshifts against blueshifts is an astronomical fact and that can only be described if the universe is finite and has a beginning. The universe might expand forever if the value of omega is less than 1. Omega is defined as the ratio of observed total density of matter to the critical density.

 

[north]

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.
___________________________________________

nothing may have two ideas but not "absolute nothing" mass cannot even exist here since in absolute nothing there NOTHING for mass to exist IN.

 

[north]

This statement is an assumption. Because it can be observed that the domination of redshifts against blueshifts is an astronomical fact and that can only be described if the universe is finite and has a beginning. The universe might expand forever if the value of omega is less than 1. Omega is defined as the ratio of observed total density of matter to the critical density.

___________________________________________

in Halton Arp's idea mass is created all the time.(his book SEEING RED isbn#0-9683689-0-5)
further this a discussion of nothing,substance always was and will be since nothing has NO possibility of creating substance.or show that nothing can.substance survives always,no ifs ands or buts.if you disagree explain.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Another alternative but hopefully more comprehensive description of nothing is the following:

In physics, when we say nothing we usually mean there is no mass. But what is mass? There is still no satisfactory answer. In experiment, we defined equal mass with respect to other mass (the standard mass) when the gravitational attraction to both is balanced. Gravity is a force. What is a force? When a force moves an object thru certain distance, the product of this force and distance is defined as the work energy or kinetic energy. But a motionless object a distant apart from a gravity field of force is defined as possessing potential energy. So that in a time independent isolated system, the total energy is a constant and is equal to the sum of kinetic energy and potential energy.

if the universe is considered as an isolated system, then its total energy is a constant. From this constancy of energy, we can defined two kinds of mass: the potential mass and the kinetic mass. Everything is composed of some amount of potential and some amount of kinetic mass. When the amounts are equal, the object has zero mass and its speed is always equal the speed of light.

 

[Antonio Lao]

in Halton Arp's idea mass is created all the time

This seems to be a revival of the steady state hypothesis of Bondi-Gold-Hoyle. But this idea cannot account for the dominant redshifts over blueshifts as observed in a homogeneous and isotropic universe like the one we are in.

 

[north]

This seems to be a revival of the steady state hypothesis of Bondi-Gold-Hoyle. But this idea cannot account for the dominant redshifts over blueshifts as observed in a homogeneous and isotropic universe like the one we are in.

___________________________________________

it seems to me that red shift and blue shift are relative to where you are to the source of the shifts,north-south-west-east and all points in between are a matter of observational perspective.blues would be hidden more than reds.

 

[elas]

nothing has well NOTHING,there is NO force of any kind.is seems to me that we ADD things to nothing.nothing is nothing people,plain and simple.nothing hidden or to be discovered, nothing in it's purest formless concept is all it is or ever will be.

QT states that the void has a minimum energy state, so
1)how does it get into the state envisaged in the above statement? and
2) if such a state ever existed what caused creation to commence?

This seems to be a revival of the steady state hypothesis of Bondi-Gold-Hoyle. But this idea cannot account for the dominant redshifts over blueshifts as observed in a homogeneous and isotropic universe like the one we are in.

All that has to be done to make sense of the steady atate theory is to replace 'galaxy' with 'universe'. Bondi-gold- and Hoyle did not think big enough.

 

[north]

Another alternative but hopefully more comprehensive description of nothing is the following:

In physics, when we say nothing we usually mean there is no mass. But what is mass? There is still no satisfactory answer. In experiment, we defined equal mass with respect to other mass (the standard mass) when the gravitational attraction to both is balanced. Gravity is a force. What is a force? When a force moves an object thru certain distance, the product of this force and distance is defined as the work energy or kinetic energy. But a motionless object a distant apart from a gravity field of force is defined as possessing potential energy. So that in a time independent isolated system, the total energy is a constant and is equal to the sum of kinetic energy and potential energy.

if the universe is considered as an isolated system, then its total energy is a constant. From this constancy of energy, we can defined two kinds of mass: the potential mass and the kinetic mass. Everything is composed of some amount of potential and some amount of kinetic mass. When the amounts are equal, the object has zero mass and its speed is always equal the speed of light.

___________________________________________

this getting away from the original forum here.lets not loose sight of what the original question is here.i mean now you are talking of mass.in "absolute nothing" there is nothing,no energy of any kind.what you are talking about is some sort of mathematical definition of nothing based on cancellation of energies in an equation and yet this a contridiction of nothing,THERE IS NO EQUATION. nothing is nothing is nothing.physics DOES NOT MAKE IT CLEARER,PLAIN AND SIMPLE there are no variations of the theme.there is no mass,time,space or dimension period! physics is not the answer to nothing,its a contradiction,physics NEEDS something physical to analyze,nothing HAS NOTHING physical TOO analyze.

 

[BoulderHead]

[foot in door] There was a show I saw on television where young people were asked to draw air in a syringe, then, the same amount of air in the syringe under compression. Virtually all drew little dots to represent air molecules, closer together in the compressed stage, not as close in the other. The troubling question was then asked; what’s in-between the dots? It made them pause, but none of them seemed comfortable with the idea of ‘nothing’. [/foot in door]

 

[John]

What exists between the dots?

Does the vacuum exist between planets, stars, and galaxies? The answer is, nothing as powerful as the vacuum could exist between planets.

So, what does exist between the planets and stars?

We have the idea that matter (from stars to atoms) live in this empty expanse of nothing. But we really have two definitions of nothing. The more sophisticated definition is “vacuum state” which we have found inside the structure of atoms and greatly affecting particles. What exists between stars? Space is different from the vacuum, so what is space?

The old answer was “ether”. Ether, or anything that makes up space would involve the vacuum state and something else filling it, making it less intense. Empty space, like the space inside a box, is literally a collection of points. A line is literally a series of points. Ask the question do the points take up any space on a line?

Strings do take up space on a line.

Are points on a line non-dimensional? or are they strings? Strings would be little segments of the line. If you put any number of non-dimensional dots side by side, you still have a non-dimensional dot. You don’t have a line. To make a line, you have to separate the dots and then you have something between the dots. If you constructed a line, it must be constructed of strings not non-dimensional points, and strings take up space on the line. The strings fill up the vacuum state and create a line.

What is the space between stars? Little tetrahedrons, not strings can make up a 3D space. The tetrahedrons must have some volume. You have space made of little tetrahedral points that have volume. Tetrahedrons have six edges, six dimensions. Add the classic three dimensions and that is nine dimensions, with one dimension of time, and that is exactly what string theory predicts. String theory, in pure math terms, is a theory that says a point on a line is really a little segment of that line. Likewise, a point in space would really be a little segment of space. It is shaped like a tetrahedron and has six edges, which could be called six dimensions. This space filled with points that have volume is not absolute vacuum. It is something else, like ether. If space were the absolute vacuum, then all the stars would be sucked together in a few years. This tetrahedral structure of space is what makes the vacuum less intense and converts the vacuum to gravity, and this tetrahedral structure with nine dimensions is what light, cosmic waves, and all particles travel through.

 

[C. Michael Turner]

Something exists, nothing doesn't. Therefore expanding space is something because nothing doesn't exist. Space is the expanding monopole gravitational wave as it changes from bound matter to unbound wave. an Unwinding! Everything is something and something always eventually becomes the gravitational wave, therefore nothing is outside the realm of matter which includes the gravitational wave and therefore space!

 

[Antonio Lao]

it seems to me that red shift and blue shift are relative to where you are to the source of the shifts,north-south-west-east and all points in between are a matter of observational perspective.blues would be hidden more than reds.

Hubble didn't think so and Einstein agreed with him.

 

[Antonio Lao]

this getting away from the original forum here.

The "nothing" in physics is the false vacuum. The "nothing" in philosophy is the true vacuum. The true vacuum is unreachable either by time or space or force or energy.

 

[bettysfetish]

:uhh: O.K. - - I'll agree that nothing is nothing. To have something, you need mass. Do we agree? But do we agree the Big Bang provided the essential requirments to create the mass we see today in our universe as it is today? All things considered, this mass originated at a singular point, right? Where would that have been; in what environment?
Antonio, help me here - - as you stated, the nothing in physics is the "false Vacuum State." Does anyone else here grasp that concept? That is the key to where the singularity came into exsistance, or "what" the environment was like before mass. I ask; can energy "be" without mass? And why not? Does space really "need" to be strecthed by mass to "be there"?
We may fare better to pursue the false vacuum angle as it represents a state of nothing where virtual particles can interact for an infinite length of time until one lucky pair of particles don't annililate one another in a timely mannor. This would create quite an imbalance in the system in question. I will stand by proven theory or the most reasonable and logical theories to date. Heisenburg may have tried to bomb us first and thanks to many operatives he failed, but his theories stand firm. Nothing is an unstable system. If one waits an infinite length of time, something will happen.
L8R

 

[John]

Bettysfetish-- To have something you need mass.

I won’t question why you said it, but it’s absolutely right; and you put that statement at the beginning. It is the beginning of understanding creation and the big bang, at least, according to my theory. To have something you need mass. Everything else you said was on the same point and it was the point I was going to address next. Let's see if we can understand each other and maybe agree.

A single point on the number line is considered non-dimensional, which, by definition, is nothing. We say number lines are made up of non-dimensional points. Are they? An infinite amount of nothing is still nothing, so we have a real contradiction in our most basic concepts. We think a number line is made of an infinite amount of nothing. We think the universe was made from nothing.

We say that in the line from 0 to 1, you can divide it in half and find a non-dimensional point halfway between. Divide it in fourths and you find four non-dimensional points. Divided it by infinity and you have an infinite number of non-dimensional points between 0 and 1. You can say the line from 0 to 1 is constructed of an infinite number of non-dimensional points. In other words, it is constructed of an infinite amount of nothing. But can you?

If you divide the number line by 10 million, then each point in the number line is a small segment 1/10millionth long, or each non-dimensional point is separated by 1/10millionth.

Something in that equation is real: either the non-dimensional point is real, or the separation of 1/10millionth is real. The non-dimensional point is not real, because “to have something you need mass”, or at least, you need a numerical value. So instead of a non-dimensional point, we have the length between two points that is 1/10millionth long, and that is real. It could be called a string point. We could take 10 million of those string points and make the line.

No matter what we divide the line by, we can divide it by a little more (or even a lot more) so we never reach infinity, therefore a non-dimensional point, which has the value 1 / Infinity doesn’t exist. The only thing that does exist is a string point.

If the singularity that the universe was created from was a string point then the point that the universe was created from had to have some value or mass. Here is the cool part. You can always cut a string point in half. In fact, you can cut it into any number of pieces. So if all the mass in the universe was one string point, you could cut up the singularity into a large number of pieces and explode it all into the vacuum of nothing.

Now you have a dynamic, which is, "nothing" has neither any space to separate into, nor any ability to resist the separation. That is a dynamic. A dynamic is a force, in this case a force pushing inward, like gravity. Scientist say the solution to the whole mystery is to understand gravity. Two strings that have value or mass, separating into nothing... nothing neither allows then to separate nor can resist it, creates a force that has the same direction as gravity, pulling the two strings or points back together.

Since the singularity is a string point and must have some value, some mass, we can have a normal big bang, which is the explosion of something that does have mass. Now the creation looks a lot more normal.

 

[elas]

A single point on the number line is considered non-dimensional, which, by definition, is nothing. We say number lines are made up of non-dimensional points. Are they? An infinite amount of nothing is still nothing, so we have a real contradiction in our most basic concepts. We think a number line is made of an infinite amount of nothing. We think the universe was made from nothing.

You are missing the point made first by Newton, who realized that the centre was a Zero Point (no dimensions) but all other volumes have dimensions and therefore must have a quantity greater than zero. Newton decided this is a quantity of force, hence gravity, but gravity is a hypothetical term.
Newton was the first person to use the term Zero Point but it has since be given a different definition.

 

[Chronos]

Permit me to step out of this argument in the same way I stepped in. 'Nothing' quantifies the operator in a 'null premise' mathematical argument. What remains is philosophy. You guys are on the wrong board.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Where would that have been; in what environment?

In physics, it's called the quantum vacuum fluctuation. Proven to exist by the Casimir effect. This expeiment was suggested by the Dutch physicist in 1940s.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Does space really "need" to be strecthed by mass to "be there"?

Actually, it's spacetime not space alone that is being stretched by mass. It is very hard or impossible to visualize but using math, it can be calculated. But because Einstein's field equations of general relativity are 16 coupled hyperbolic-elliptic nonlinear partial differential equations, their solutions are infinite. Even Einstein himself, at first, thought that a solution could never be found. Subsequent works by many other have led to many particular solutions forming various models of the universe.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Since the singularity is a string point and must have some value, some mass, we can have a normal big bang, which is the explosion of something that does have mass. Now the creation looks a lot more normal.

My hypothesis is this: before the string point can exist, it needs to possesses 8 properties of a principle of directional invariance.

These 8 properties are 3-way permutations of right-left, back-for, top-down symmetries.

All 3D objects possesses these properties. A left, a right, a back, a front, a top and a down. If either one is missing, the object cease to exist in 3D. When these properties become dynamic then the object becomes 4D of space and time. This 4D object is what we call mass. The 3D object is what we call energy. The 2D object is what we call continuous space. The 1D object is what we call quantized space. The 0D object is what we call the false vacuum.

 

[bettysfetish]

Well, the last few threads "were" quite thought provolking. And thanks to Antonio Lao. I'll digest this and return.
L8R

 

[John]

I wrote a kind of proof that said a non-dimensional point can’t really exist on a 1D line: the point must be a string. That explanation would have been too involved if I had not just accepted the fact that if a point has to be a string on a line, it has to have volume in 3D.

It takes four imaginary points to make a 3D structure, and those four imaginary points form a tetrahedron. If you use string points, it takes six strings to form a tetrahedron, which is the number of extra dimensions in string theory.

If you construct 3D space out of strings, you are met with an amazing fact that you can only travel back and forth in six directions in the string space you have constructed. And the smallest structure in 3D space with string points, the tetrahedron, has volume.

When you realize you can’t have any point that doesn’t have numerical value on a line, you are faced with a 3D space that has an underlying structure of little tetrahedrons, which are little things that turn in on themselves underneath 3D space, like the underlying dimensions of string theory. A string point in 3D space is a hollow tetrahedron with six edges.

When you prove, or realize you can't have a non-dimensional point that isn't imaginary, and when you realize what you can have, you arrive at physical space with 9 dimensions! There could be considered six extra dimensions in the little tetrahedrons underneath the 3 dimensions.

Each little tetrahedron, which has volume and mass and is therefore able to create space out of nothing, is just a point in the 3D space, but in that underlying tetrahedron space, you can only go back and forth in six directions!

 

[bettysfetish]

Hello all. Antonio is right about the "Casimir Effect"; that was 1948, and the dudes first name was Hendrick. The experiment indicates some very compellingly possibilitys. "Acually, it's spacetime, not space alone, that is being stretched by mass." -- O.K., I'll grant you that, but it seems that if gravity was the last force to "freeze out" and manifest itself as "real" then that "in itself" requires the presence of mass. Gravity gradually took hold as more and more energy converted to more and more mass. So here's my problem; before this point, at about 10-35 > 10-45 seconds "Was it a "SpaceTime" or just "Space?" At this point, (how 1o1), you realize the pressures and energys keep everything in an energy state; we're a "Plancks Hair" before the beggining of conversion to mass. Now, without mass, and all this energy contained within a 3 millimeter radius, if your into the expanding universe thing, but then you have to explain X-particles and Monopoles, "or" a radius of 3x10-35 centimeters, which needs "expotential expansion" for the inflationary universe, Is there gravity yet? Might the false vacuum be space without matter so therefore no "time?" Or might the timeline be there without a particle of mass "to set a direction" by it's very disintigration. It seems the very first particle of mass created would have set history in motion; entropy was already at work here. Where did the beggining of entropy begin? Could energy itself trigger time? Is energy "something"? It exsits without mass. If it's timeless then is it something or not? Hummm.
L8R

 

[John]

Mass has to exist. Mass is the very definition of existence: I am, therefore I can't be something else, which is inertia. Energy is mass in motion. Simple.

But ask yourself, where does attractive force come from? It comes from something on the outside pushing in. There is an envelope of nothing around primal matter, such as the matter inside of atoms. The envelope of nothing, pushing in, creates the strong force.

To get from the strong attractive force to gravity is not mathematical, but mechanical, like trying to figure out equations between how much gas you put in a car and how much energy you get out. It goes through a mechanical process and there is no set answer. Gravity is essentially the mechanical relationship between mass which has volume; and nothing, which is perfectly empty and has no space.

The radical concept here is that mass has volume; and emptiness has no space. Physics believes the opposite, that a point particle is dimensionless and there is a vast amount of empty space, though they are questioning the latter.

String theory at its root says that a point particle has volume.

 

[north]

Permit me to step out of this argument in the same way I stepped in. 'Nothing' quantifies the operator in a 'null premise' mathematical argument. What remains is philosophy. You guys are on the wrong board.

___________________________________________

couldn't agree more,guys the original question was what is the difference between "nothing" and "absolute nothing".it has been answered.but the discussion NOW IS BASED ON MASS AND MATH.

i suggest a NEW TOPIC board.then go from there.

 

[John]

What is nothing? is the perfect title for what is being discussed.

If mass has volume, then it fills the absolute vacuum. Filling the absolute vacuum with something that has volume makes absolute nothing into the less intense nothing of space.

But we are not talking about the mass of galaxies that we can see. We are talking about dark matter that fills the void of absolute nothing and creates the properties of space. If we realize space is made of absolute vacuum, and mass which is distributed throughout that vacuum as dark matter has volume, filling the vacuum with its volume and making it less intense, then you can answer a lot of questions.

 

[elas]

If mass has volume, then it fills the absolute vacuum. Filling the absolute vacuum with something that has volume makes absolute nothing into the less intense nothing of space.

There is an implied assumption in this statement which is that absolute nothing has dimensions. Newton, QT, black holes and now string theory all give absolute vacuum as dimensionless zero points, or have I missed something?

 

[north]

there is no such thing as an "absolute vacuum" in reality. have any of you heard of "chiral condensate"?