What is Nothing vs Absolutely Nothing?

[Erck]

What is "nothing?"

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

 

[selfAdjoint]

This difference between nothing and absolutely nothing is -- nothing!


Nothing is the absence of anything; the state with cardinality zero, the empty set.

Don't confuse nothingness with the physicists "vacuum state", which is the state you can't subtract particles from. That's a different definition and the interactive quantum field vacuum is a dicey thing and certainly not "nothing".

 

[Erck]

Maybe I should have said no-thing and absolutely nothing.

Would that have made your response any different?

 

[Erck]

Let me add to that if I may.

Even the absence of everything... isn't necessarily "absolutely" nothing.

Prior to anything... is different than "in relationship" to anything.

 

[Jack Martinelli]

Let me add to that if I may.

Even the absence of everything... isn't necessarily "absolutely" nothing.

Prior to anything... is different than "in relationship" to anything.

Let 1=something & 0=nothing. The difference is 1-0 = 1.

No-thing is a non-existent. Have you ever found one? Have you ever found a unicorn?

 

[Erck]

No-thing exists because at the very minimum it contains "implication."

Absolutely nothing is a different animal.

 

[sol2]

What is "nothing" for Artists and Scientists?

No-thing exists because at the very minimum it contains "implication."

Absolutely nothing is a different animal.

Here is a link that speaks to this issue. I have struggle with this idea of nothing, and just doesn't make sense to me. From this perspective, I always start from something. Is this not logical?

Anyway here is a link of interest.

In the last 30 years, Particle Physicists, Cosmologists and Mathematicians have fought like alley cats, each redefining the concept of zero. But is zero "nothing"? "Nothing" is a serious matter. Understanding the "absolute vacuum" is a compelling quest. Does the Higgs Bosun exist? If we find it, what will it tell us? Why does the universe exist when matter and anti - matter should have canceled each other out at the Big Bang leaving "nothing"?

http://www.infinite.linst.ac.uk/english/symposium/popsympintro.php

 

[Jack Martinelli]

No-thing exists because at the very minimum it contains "implication."

Absolutely nothing is a different animal.

you can't verify implication. You also can't verify absolutely nothing. There are no referece objects for either one.

 

[deda]

Nothing is the absence of anything

Does it include the absence of nothing its self?

I think though nothing is equal amounth of pro and anti at once!
Nothing is the perfect balance evrything tends to achieve!
In a way nothing is all!
GOD is all;all is nothing;nothing is GOD!
Nothing is enough!
...

 

[Erck]

you can't verify implication. You also can't verify absolutely nothing. There are no referece objects for either one.

No less than anything else one might want to talk about.

This is the world of ideas... a world in which we have no reference objects to work with yet... that is what theoretical physics is all about.

We are looking for a reference object... aren't we?

 

[sol2]

When Certains Assumptions are Adopted

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=172243&postcount=7

This defintiely sets up for the ideas between two positions. Is a singularity really a singularity, or a connection in the idea (blackhole) of the recycling universe?


Colliding Branes?

The Universe was not born in one Big Bang, it has been going through cycles of creation and annihilation for eternity, according to a controversial new mathematical model1.


http://www.nature.com/nsu/020422/020422-17.html#

 

[Erck]

sol2... I appreciate your approach to this subject.

A helpfulness born out of humility is the only way we are going to make progress.

deda... your question is a very deep one.

 

[Erck]

"Absolutely nothing" existed... before the infinitely small, compact and powerful particle that produced the big bang somehow came into existence... or did it?

 

[John]

I came to the idea of nothing when considering the above idea: a large expanse of emptiness that the Big Bang exploded into, creating matter out of nothing, pushing it into a big expanse of emptiness. It occurred to me empty space is definitely something. Our whole physics seems to be based on the existence of an infinite expanse of empty space. If physicists think empty space is nothing, let them try renting an empty space uptown!

So I said, “What is nothing?” Nothing does not contain the concept of space. Nothing also implies the idea that there is a thing. Thing would be everything there is, but no “thing” is infinite, so outside the boundaries of the thing is no-thing.

No I see a vast piece of matter surrounded by an infinite amount of nothing, which does not contain the concept of space. My first question was, “What is the tensile strength of the matter?” Is this large something like a heavy rock that is very strong and solid?

I concluded tensile strength was irrational. Matter has no tensile strength to speak of. Raw matter is like water. The Bible says, “The whole world was formless and void and the Spirit of God flew above the waves of the abyss.” That describes a very large formless thing that is like water, and it has boundaries that God is just outside of: exactly what I created from my exploration of the concepts of thing and nothing.

We know a Big Bang happened, so the way to make the thing larger and more complex was to break it up. Breaking it up makes it expand into nothing. If you break it in half and separate the two halves, they want to come back together because they are separating into what does not contain space. This has the same feel as gravity: two pieces of matter want to fall back into each other. But the force is not gravity it is the strong force. The tensile strength of matter is the weak force.

I exploded this vast sea of liquid matter, and the attraction between every drop of matter is the strong force. The drops of matter make up the points of space. Space is not an empty expanse; space is the distance between two points of matter. And the two points are separating against the strong force. The two points separated by a distance is a string, with string tension, which physicists say make up every particle.

 

[Erck]

The expanding or exploding point... into nothing and from nothing... in the beginning was the word... and the word was "poof."

Seriously though... everything (including anti-matter) and nothing (empty space) are just two sides of the same coin. A coin that appears to be real but actaully isn't. On the everything side it never reaches solidity, i.e. matter without anit-matter, or a "point" you can put your finger on... and on the nothing side, it never reaches nothing because empty space is still something.

Both seem to be infinite. Go out beyond everything and there's empty space... go a little farther and everything is still there... a little farther still... more nothing, or empty space... ad infinitum.

If you're headed toward everything, the universe seems to be expanding. If you're headed towards nothing, the universe seems to be contracting.

There is a step beyond this though... a different kind of step... a leap as it were... where absolutely nothing resides... or doesn't.

 

[John]

it never reaches nothing because empty space is still something

Nothing does not even contain empty space, therefore we have to build space out of the only thing that exists, which is matter.

Each point of matter represents a point of space. When you build space out of physical points, you create a space in which you can only go in a limited number of directions. Try laying pennies on a table. The pennies are points that you are using to build a flat plane. You'll find that if you can only go from one penny to any other penny, that is to say, from one point to any other point, there are a limited number of directions and paths you can go. These limited paths become dimensions. If space were a given, if space existed on its own there would be an unlimited number of paths. If you have to construct space out of physycal bits of matter, then there are a limited number of paths you can travel, and these limited paths become dimensions.

When you put distance between points, you create multiple dimensions.

 

[Erck]

I agree that space is completely tied-up with matter.

But is it fair to only say, that we build space out of matter?

Couldn't we just as easily say, that we build matter out of space. There would only be one single point of matter, if it weren't for the space inbetween multiple points of matter.

Matter and space (thing and no-thing) make up the universe... but neither one, nor both together, rise to the level of an absolute.

 

[John]

No, you can't say you build matter out of space. Space is much too complex to be an absolute form of existence. To begin with, it has three dimensions. Where did they come from? Matter has only one quality: it is. Based on that charactorization of matter, it has two natural qualities. It is, therefore it is not something else, therefore it has inertia. And it occupies a place.

So ironically, we can't say in an absolute way there is nothing. That implies the absence of something, which requires something. The only absolute idea is: it is. We can't say, "How do things come into existence within space?" Saying that, we are implying two complex thoughts: we imply the idea of nothing, which is a combination of two concepts, no and thing; and we imply the idea of space which is a combination of three dimensions. Matter has one dimension, it is. That leads to two qualities. It cannot be something else, therefore it has inertia. And it occupies one place. Matter is the singularity the universe was made from. It didn't spring from nothing within space. Something exploded within nothing.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Umm, matter has a lot of properties, whether at the particle level or emergent. Think of all the different elements. Think of the different states of water. Look at the world of matter around you. You can't capture its essence with just generic stuff.

 

[Imparcticle]

Something exploded within nothing.

Nothing is by definition "not anything", therefore it has no properties what so ever. Therefore it cannot have anything within. That would imply that nothing is a something. Nothing cannot exist because in order for it to exist it must have properties.

To begin with, it has three dimensions.

Space has 4 demensions.
The actual fabric of space has (according to M-theory) 8 curled up demensions.

 

[p-brane]

(quoting FZ+) "erm"... nothing is an anti-something. What is true in my hypothesis is that you can't have something without having nothing in the same dimension/coordinate.

Therefore a particle cannot exist without not existing at the same time... as in simultaneously existing in the exact coordinate as the particle. This is partially examplified when you look at the anti-photon and the photon. They are the same entity. In the same place. They cannot collide because they are the same unit.

In my hypothesis, however, nothing is required to allow for somthing. Proof positive when you look at a glass of water. You cannot have a full glass of water if there is not an empty glass.

These two states (something and nothing) exist simultaneously and are completely reliant on each other in order to exist. However, they are not the polar opposites into which one would like to pigeonhole them. These two states, nothingness and somethingness are simply two states on an infinite compass of states.

Thank you, any comments are welcome!

 

[Imparcticle]

This is partially examplified when you look at the anti-photon and the photon. They are the same entity. In the same place. They cannot collide because they are the same unit.

They do too collide. Anti-particles always collide.

In my hypothesis, however, nothing is required to allow for somthing. Proof positive when you look at a glass of water. You cannot have a full glass of water if there is not an empty glass.

How in the world do you propose "not anything" to exist in the first place? According to the Pythogoreans' (I think it was them) logic, in order for nothing to exist, it must have a property of existence. And, something (if something is a something it already exists) would never not-exist and not have a beginning because that idea presupposes the idea that something can come from not anything (nothing). Rather, something can always exist, it would have no beginning and no end.

 

[Erck]

No, you can't say you build matter out of space. Space is much too complex to be an absolute form of existence. To begin with, it has three dimensions. Where did they come from? Matter has only one quality: it is. Based on that charactorization of matter, it has two natural qualities. It is, therefore it is not something else, therefore it has inertia. And it occupies a place.

Actually, I'm saying each is interdependent with the other, and neither exists on it's own.

I have to disagree that space is a more questionable commodity than matter.
The dimensions of space come from the same place matter comes from. Matter is not self-generated. Matter is not simple.

You're saying that "matter has one quality; it is." But is it? It has never been shown that matter really exists. No building-block of the universe has ever been proven. Matter in any form, no matter how small or old, has ever been shown even theoretically, to be the absolute (singularity) that the universe came from or is made up of.

You're also saying that "it occupies a place." That makes it dependent on the existence of a "space" to be in. This also, only serves to support it's relative status.

So ironically, we can't say in an absolute way there is nothing. That implies the absence of something, which requires something.

This kindof gets back to my original question or point... "what is the difference between nothing and absolute nothing?" There is a difference.

Nothing implies the absence of something as in no-thing.

Absolute or absolutely nothing... is a different animal.

 

[p-brane]

They do too collide. Anti-particles always collide.

I'm not sure when photons got the esteemed classification of "particle" but, here is an answer to a question that will clear up what I said about Anti-photons and photons.

Are there such things as anti-photons. And if there is, what would happen if it collided with a photon? Thank you

Matthew Ervin (age 16)
High School
USA


A: Hi Matthew,

The short answer to "are there anti-photons" is "yes", but the disappointment here is that anti-photons and photons are the same particles. Some particles are their own antiparticles, notably the force carriers like photons, the Z boson, and gluons, which mediate the electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong force, respectively. Particles that are their own antiparticles must be electrically neutral, because an aniparticle has the opposite electrical charge as its partner particle. Other things must also be zero, like the number of quarks. A neutron cannot be its own antiparticle because it is made up of quarks and an antineutron is made up of antiquarks. A pi_0 is made up of a quark and an antiquark and is in fact its own antiparticle also.

2ITSalimander said:

How in the world do you propose "not anything" to exist in the first place? According to the Pythogoreans' (I think it was them) logic, in order for nothing to exist, it must have a property of existence. And, something (if something is a something it already exists) would never not-exist and not have a beginning because that idea presupposes the idea that something can come from not anything (nothing). Rather, something can always exist, it would have no beginning and no end.

Its almost a topic for the philosophy threads. A state of nothingness is being contemplated in this thread. In order to contemplate something (in this case, nothing) one must create a model of it, whether real or imagined. In doing so, it becomes existent, to the degree that it can be contemplated, observed and commented upon. If we were discussning nothingness in a true fashion to the state of nothingness, we would not be discussing it. Thanks! (edited for coherence)

 

[JesseBonin]

as we gaze into nothingness we will find something...absolute nothing = the period befor we started looking for it 8)
befor you start looking for nothing you must define the term, and by defining the term you give nothingness presecne. and therefor make something out of nothing.

concider this, as something moves out of sensory range does it continue to exist? when the moon is hidden by the Earth is it still really there? of course it isen't.. a thing not percived is nothing... so on so on so on

 

[Erck]

Its almost a topic for the philosophy threads. A state of nothingness is being contemplated in this thread.

I think that when we get down to discussing the very root of existence where all disperate things converge... disciplines converge also.

All states, forms, forces etc... and science, philosophy and religion... become one... or at least on the precipice of one.

In order to contemplate something (in this case, nothing) one must create a model of it, whether real or imagined. In doing so, it becomes existent, to the degree that it can be contemplated, observed and commented upon.

Another good point. Can we contemplate something that doesn't exist... and if we can... what do we end up finding?

 

[Erck]

as we gaze into nothingness we will find something...absolute nothing = the period befor we started looking for it 8)
befor you start looking for nothing you must define the term, and by defining the term you give nothingness presecne. and therefor make something out of nothing.

I think we will only find it if it is there to begin with. Might it be folly to think that we can make something out of nothing just by thinking about it.

We might affect the relative world that way... but I doubt we can change an absolute, whether it exists or not. If it could be changed, it wouldn't be an absolute.

 

[JesseBonin]

now your useing your knoggin...
in every pop-theroy of "relativity" the one defining element is always left out of the equation... "US" our perception, Albert E. tried to quantize this element by giving it a name or paradox "frame of referance". maybe we don't give ourselves enough credit.
if you did not exist to observe something would it still exist? the answer has to be no, unless your willing to make a "leap of faith". yes, logic would tell us that the object would still exist inspite of us. But i would say this, prove the existence of something we have yet not observed. yeah yeah, the whole tree falling in a forest paradox.

but how is this for a real paradox, if all of reality is based on our perception of it, then all things imagined are reality. Nothing as a term can exist makeing the term contradictory, but then we would have to find a name for all the things that have yet to be observed.

 

[Jimbroni]

But i would say this, prove the existence of something we have yet not observed. .

Isn't that the point of the Super String Theory or any other Theory of Everything?

Which I don't necessary believe Super String or any Theory for that matter is the theory of Everything, because "everything" is too big of a subject that would have include even are own delusions and beliefs.

 

[Erck]

maybe we don't give ourselves enough credit.

... or too much?

if you did not exist to observe something would it still exist? the answer has to be no, unless your willing to make a "leap of faith". yes, logic would tell us that the object would still exist inspite of us.

Might all our problems in life (scientific, philisophic and religious) be solved with a leap of faith?

If these three disciplines converge at some point... maybe the answer to how to solve their questions, converges into one answer also?

but how is this for a real paradox, if all of reality is based on our perception of it, then all things imagined are reality. Nothing as a term can exist makeing the term contradictory, but then we would have to find a name for all the things that have yet to be observed.

I doubt the universe exists because we think it does.

 

[JesseBonin]

"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
do not multiple enitities beyond the neccessary, or in modern terms, the simples answer is usually the correct answer.

the universe is the name with give the great expance beyond our horizon, the world was flat until one man with a vision perceived it differently...

 

[JesseBonin]

all i want to do is open minds to the possibility that all things and nothing are one in the same.. or could be.. this string is an exorcise in philosophy based in physics.

truth: we do not know what exists beyond our perception
truth: our endevor to discover and explore will no doubt find something where there was nothing befor 8)

 

[p-brane]

Might it be folly to think that we can make something out of nothing just by thinking about it.

Hello Erck.

This is an interesting point. To begin with; energy can neither be created nor destroyed... so, we can't "make" anything while we are within those constraints. We can only transform what already exists. (This would include transforming nothing into something and visa versa)

We transform empty fields into housing developments and we transform housing developments into empty fields. This involves the specific distribution of resources and materials but, it is a transformation rather than what is thought of as a "creation".

I would maintain, however, that one cannot have something without first ensuring there is an equal amount of nothing for it to occupy!

 

[JesseBonin]

nothing = that which we have not discovered YET
absolute nothing = that which we will never discover

 

[Erck]

Intersting post p-brane (and I do love callig you that).

You too Jesse... I like your approach here.

The stuff we've have theoretically located (particles, waves, strings etc.) never seem to rise to the level of "things"... and the lack of things we see (empty space, ether etc.) never seems to rise to the level "nothing."

The things implying the no-things and the no-things implying the things... all in a little dance we are part of.

So where and how do we find the absolutes... the absolute thing and the absolute nothing?