Lets talk about nothing..

[xelasnave]

Folk use the term ...nothing...easily without any contemplation of the implications of the word ..indeed who can entertain the concept that we call nothing.

We have nothing left in the biscuit tin and nothing left in the tank..but in truth there is always something..in the tin and in the tank there still is something..if only air...but there would be dust and fumes respectively to mention a few of the remnants of each vessel.

Bojan replied recently to my question (in science section) which I asked somewhat with tounge in cheek ...

"what is on the other side of everything (meaning the universe)"

and he replied...."Nothing"

and most of us being humans and knowing what the word means are happy having formed a view of an absence of everything..I get a mind picture of the universe sitting as a glowing sphere in a sea of nothing... but how can there be nothing I wonder..:shrug:

What happens at the boundry of the Universe at the fence line between the universe and the stuff we would describe as ......nothing...Do photons from the very first moment of creation (in the big bang sence) bounce up against the fence of the universe and not pass out into nothing?

Does the cosmic background radiation reach a point where it runs into the boundary fence between the universe and nothing and get turned back.

AND most of all if there be nothing can it have dimention...after all it is nothing so one wonders how any of our four popular dimentions can be used to describe it... if there is nothing there is nothing to be measured...not lenght or depth.... not even time..one could speculate such is so...if so one may ask well how wide is this nothing on the outside and how old is it?

Does the universe float in a sea of nothing ... if there is a single photon passing thru I suspect that region could then not be called nothing...so to be nothing it can contain not a single particle or pulse of energy...

So what are your thoughts on nothing or is nothing really always a very small bit of something.

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

and into what medium does the Universe expand into...and dont say nothing as it must expand into something and that something must be something and certainly not nothing...

alex

[Ian Robinson]

Well , I want to know what "nothing" actually is.

To my knowledge there is actually no such thing as "nothingness".

ooo..... this might get deep .... :rofl:

[xelasnave]

Maybe its like dark matter its there but we can not see it..but we have worked out it must be there and so it is...

well if it is there can we see some please..nothing or dark matter ... if there is so much of it we should be able to "hold" some ... how would you know if the box you are holding held either:shrug:

I feel the absence of nothing must ofer an infinite universe as a real posibility .... and while we are at it...in what medium did the big bang take place..nothing? mmm the Popes version of events is looking better:lol::lol::lol:

alex:):):)

[Ian Robinson]

Nope , dark matter is something and not NOTHING.

Also unlikely for lots of deep physical reasons the monoblock ("singularity") that sporned the universe existed in a realm of nothing as well .... no I do not have time to go into details for my conclusion but even logically it makes sense that there was actually SOMETHINGNESS surrounding it "BEFORE". The Pope (and the Bible) is completely W R O N G .

At that point I depart this vacuous discussion before it becomes much ado about nothing. Bye.

[casstony]

There was recently nothing in my bank account....... is that a real nothing?

[xelasnave]

Definetly not...there will be fees to be added
alex

[xelasnave]

In the most remote part of space (inside our universe) a photon or a packet of energy from everyplace in the Universe will be passing through... think of it there is no place where a part of something does not pass thru..

there may be only one hydrogen atom per cubic mile but the energy packets will still pass by....

but on the outside what will we find...nothing???


alex

[leon]

Tony, you may have something here, we all, or most of us have bank accounts, but what is this in reality, it is a number given to us when we hand over our hard earned cash, however our money dosn't sit in a special place with our number or name one it.

If it did there would be something in our bank account, no, once our money is deposited into that account, it is gone, because the bank uses it for other purposes, so really there is nothing in our bank account, until we ask for it back, and then the bank goes and gets it from some other place and puts it back. :shrug:

So there is in never anything in our bank accounts. :whistle:

Leon :thumbsup:

[casstony]

That explains why the bank manager frowns when we ask for our money back - he has to materialise something out of nothing. I think that's what got the banking system into trouble - people suddenly realised there was nothing in the banks.

[leon]

Pretty much on the mark ;) Tony, even if I need 5K out of the Bank I have to order it and pick it up the next day. :rolleyes: because it is not there the day I need it. :shrug:

Leon :thumbsup:

[TrevorW]

nothing

[Jen]

:screwy::screwy::screwy::screwy:
you all think way too much :lol::lol:
:P


Grammatically, the word "nothing" is an indefinite pronoun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_pronoun), which means that it refers to something. One might argue that "nothing" is a concept, and since concepts are things, the concept of "nothing" itself is a thing. This logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy) is neatly demonstrated by an old joke that contains a fallacy of four terms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_four_terms): if nothing is worse than the Devil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil), and nothing is greater than God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God), then the Devil must be greater than God:

The Devil is greater than nothing.
Nothing is greater than God.
The Devil is greater than God.Clauses can often be restated to avoid the appearance that "nothing" possesses an attribute. For example, the sentence "There is nothing in the basement" can be restated as "There is not one thing in the basement". "Nothing is missing" can be restated as "everything is present". Conversely, many fallacious conclusions follow from treating "nothing" as a noun.
Modern logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic) made it possible to articulate these points coherently as intended, and many philosophers hold that the word "nothing" does not function as a noun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun), as there is no object that it refers to. There remain various opposing views, however—for example, that our understanding of the world rests essentially on noticing absences and lacks as well as presences, and that "nothing" and related words serve to indicate these.
:google:

[leinad]

lol, some great topics xelasnave. here's my 2c attempt.


..this 'nothing' must be something; have been something, or becomes something.. If the universe is expanding, then this nothing must become affected by something, or becomes something, however if it was was infinite, it couldn't exist? Something would be infinite of nothing.


now to go take my daily dose of crazy pills, LMAO
:P

[leon]

I can see this thread going crazy, :lol: what to do on a wet day :whistle:

Leon :thumbsup:

[GeoffW1]

:lol::lol::lol::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I love nothing more than a good pun.......

An invisible man marries an invisible woman.
The kids were nothing to look at either.

Cheers

[Jen]

:lol::lol::lol:

[Ian Robinson]

^^
:rofl:

[xelasnave]

This thread is an opportunity for all to say something even if they say nothing.

Man I am bored..it is raining on and off..rather light to heavy rain... the batteries wont hold a charge such that I can run the lap top but if I switch it off and just recharge it does recharge... so at least I get a break...

Well if there is nothing outside our Universe and as nothing can have no dimension does that mean we are smack bang up against the Universe next door....

This weather is a pain... got my new camera and got the old one working but rain rain rain... its all Al Gores fault and his global warming...either him or his mate Al Ninyoh ..

even got the 12 inch next to the bed so I can look out the window at the sky...or lay in bed with the binos doing the same... anyways the dark has passed with no joy... so all that is left to do is read about dark matter and wonder about the science behind the idea.... man they are setting up a super computer to simulate an environment where dark matter rules... will this offer proof of dark matter or will it offer proof that you can model anything even if it is not there (my belief as you may have guessed)...

Saturday night and she is finally gone it is so good to be alone ... and get a rest from the astrology lectures.....sigh.

alex

[Kal]

Just to tickle your fancy Alex, but as the universe is expanding, where is that "space" coming from? It appears to be coming from nothing!

:D

[xelasnave]

Well Andrew I really dont have a problem with nothing as I believe it is a myth.. there is no such thing I believe... and I dont believe the data has been correctly interpreted, such that the conclusion is drawn that the Universe is expanding, and that we are under an incorrect assumption ... therefore there is no need for any medium into which the Universe doth expand... The search for nothing has lead me to conclude that it is a myth and as it can not be there we can not be surrounded by nothing and as this would seem reasonable the final conclusion must be the Universe is infinite.... but on the other hand......still raining here so I can put more time into this question.

alex

[Karls48]

The concept of nothing is highly dependant on your point of view of the universe origins. If you go along with Big Bang hypothesis then- The time and the space did not existed. Singularity come to existence in “nothing”. At the moment the Singularity come to existence it had to create space for itself. The Time come to existence at same moment because the Time is just property of the space. According to current wisdom – nothing could escape from this primordial singularity to influence its surroundings (Nothing), except the gravity. Immense gravity may have acted on “Nothing” and created of more space. Eventually the leakage of the energy in converting “Nothing” to the Space has caused the singularity to explode and to create our Universe. The assumption of Big Bang hypothesis that the Space can expand by action of energy release leads to logical conclusion that Space (as all other things that make our universe) can exist in different states. “Nothing” then is just the form of compressed non-dimensional space. When the particle hits boundary between the Universe and “Nothing” it creates bit more of the Space and disappear in the process. Infinity and “Nothing” does not exist in such universes because it is dynamic.
This philosophical concept based on Big Bang is highly unsatisfactory. It shuts the door on any kind of reasoning as why, or how (cause) the original singularity comes to existence. It leaves room for only one conclusion that it was caused by some superior force (God). Being agnostic I accept it as possibility but my reason rebels against such conclusion.
The concept of Universe that existed before creation of our Universe leads to different conclusions that provide more logical outcomes. But I leave it to someone else to expand on this.

[Ian Robinson]

Decided to move post to new thread.

"






"

[avandonk]

xelasnave the best I can do is to explain it as I see it. We will never have all knowledge (see Godels Theorem). There is no such thing as the ether or a medium into which the Universe expands. Beyond the boundaries of the Universe there is simply nowhen and nowhere. In other words no time or space. It is as stupid as asking where you lap went when you stand up. All the known universe is connected as far as I am concerned as once it was all in the same place. The naked singularity that gave rise to the so called big bang.

Bert

[Dog Star]

Of course Nothing exists!!
That is..I..um..

[Glenhuon]

Nothing
Def: A subject much discussed by teenagers, usually by use of the telephone at great expense. The esoteric language used is unintelligable to anyone over the age of 25 and the subject therefore a mystery to adults.
:)
Bill

[sjastro]

Lucky for you Alex you didn't post this in Science forum.:)

Steven

[xelasnave]

Steven I thought I may have respect for my scientist heros but I thought I would demonstrate by this small token... and I hope my crack pot efforts may somehow stimulate interest in science...maybe

alex

[xelasnave]

So any posts on the nothing post...yes ...nothing

alex

[xelasnave]

If we placed a single H atom in nothing would it expand replicating itself by the generation of quantum fluctuations such that it would fill all the nothing and create there fore a new Universe:shrug:.

or:rolleyes:

would it be consumed by the nothing and disappear from existence:shrug:???

My dogs were discussing it thats all:whistle:;)


alex:):):)

[Kal]

By simple fact of the hydrogen atom's existance, you can say that there is something, hence there is no possibility of there being nothing. If there is a hydrogen atom then there is space, and if there is space then there is time, and there is something.

You need to imagine a place with no time and no space Alex. There may very well still be something there, something beyond our universe, and hence beyond any comprehension. This is the nothing that you seek, and chances are that it is still something, and I don't see man ever finding out what it is :)

[GrahamL]

I look at the boundary from both sides alex as the beginning were everything exists at once .

Though I can see the merit in Tonys analogy in that you give the bank manager your money and it dissappears into nothing .. the bank manager then gives it to somone with no job or assets on the expactation that something will come from nothing .. but when it all goes pair shaped we are all back to that nothing word again:P

[mill]

"and if there is space then there is time, and there is something."

First of all, humans have invented time so in reality there is no time in space.

In the great nothingness, there could be many other universes and still new universes beeing made from nothing?

I dont believe in the concept of nothing, you always need something to create something (unless the universe creates in a weird way :P ).

There might be no boundery at all (now i get a headache just trying to think about how big that would be).

Just my nothingness here.

[xelasnave]

This is just the sort of thing for a rainy day...
Wonderful inputs by everyone. It is interesting that to even discuss nothing there will be variyng points of view ... and how good is that.

One could only conclude that the conservation of energy rules somehow dont even come into play if there is indeed a nothing so at the start there must have been something..a whole lot of something all the energy that converted into all the matter we can see today (and presumably the dark matter as well) but as energy ...so one wonders if the Universe started as a compact ball of energy and is expanding does that mean the conversion of energy to matter is ongoing such that one day only matter will exist with no energy??? mmm can E=MC^2 work that way??? Just think about that. But matter needs energy to exist one would think..but then what happens if the energy goes..all the particles separate into little bits that float around with no function (not math function) say purpose or meaning..dam not religious either... and will all particles finally be made up of one maybe two particles that make all the rest.

alex
alex

[sjastro]

Here is point of view based on cosmology. The universe isn't expanding dimensionally or spatially hence any discussion about something and nothing and the boundaries between them is irrelevant.

The universe is expanding in space-time but not space.

Regards

Steven

[xelasnave]

Steven I thought Space time is a geometric way of describing space so I am confused.
If space time is of four dimensions are not three of them spatical... at least three of the four relate to dimensions that will give us definition of volume...
I am not sure if I get the space time thing.. as I understand it is geometry (simple or complex nevertheless geometry) and that this geometry deals with what could only be described as spatical quantification of space.

Anywyas you have given me something to entertain me all night.. I will think about this more...

Whilst doing nothing today I stacked 1 hour 10 minutes of wide field shots and even with no photo shop I must say ...man is it something...cant down size it or I would post it to show at least I did something today.

alex

[sjastro]

Alex,

Think of space-time as a grid which determines the position (and time) of galaxies in the Universe. If a galaxy moves within space or space expands the position of the galaxy changes on the grid.

Suppose the scale of the grid is allowed to expand. Each galaxy will appear to move away from every other galaxy but their position on the grid remains the same. (This doesn't apply to gravitationally bound galaxies.)

Hence space-time expands but space doesn't. It helps explain why every observer in the Universe is the origin and why the recession velocity of a distant galaxy is proportional to the distance to the observer.

On a different subject, doesn't the software that came with your camera allow you resize images?

Regards

Steven

[xelasnave]

Steven thank you so much for your explanation and I will think long and hard from the direction you suggest... I hope others find your explanations as useful as I find them.

I did manage to find a downsize for my images..most obscure... but I posted a wide field (in deep sky section of this wonderful site) I managed to downsize but not able to do much tweaking of the image as I still dont have photoshop installed... I cant find my disk dam it..anyways look at what you have not what you dont haqve I guess.

alex.

[Jen]

:lol::lol::lol: lol Bill oh do you have that problem at home too do you? :screwy:

[xelasnave]

Seven you said.........

Hence space-time expands but space doesn't.

I dont see the difference between space and space time in so far as the space that remains after space time expands is still space...

I know that sounds strange and I see what you are saying... but simple space is surely what we seek to measure with the concept of space time..space is space and space time is a human method of enabling humans to quantify it. I may sound as if I make a statement but it is really a question as I still feel I miss something so fundamental it hides the rest.. Like the ballon expanding anology the air expandes and the spots on the ballon remain at relative distance ...let me think about it ..it comes down to how does space time define the edge of the Universe I guess... anyways its great to be thinking albiet some what duller than usual.... I think I am free of her so I can relax...so everything will fall into place.

alex

[DJDD]

great topic...beats studying for an exam!

are you saying that 'space time' is just a mathematical construct to help understand the universe, whereas 'space' is a an intrinsic property of the universe?

i thought that 'space time' was an intrinsic property, as well, but it was not until the 20th century that we had the mathematics to understand it.

Steven's analogy is what I have read and never fully grasped but that is, i think, because my everyday experience does not lend itself to understanding 'space time'. Unless you know/understand the maths I think that 3D analogies are as good as it gets.

Perhaps if we were some sort of four (or higher)-dimensional beings we could see 'space time' like the three dimensional nose on my face.:lol:

[DJDD]

perhaps this is where Hawking's "no-boundary universe" comes into it.


"The geometry of the no-boundary universe would be similar to the geometry of the surface of a sphere, except it would have four dimensions instead of two. You can travel completely around Earth’s surface, for instance, without ever running into an edge."

anyway, that is about where my understanding of this stuff ends. :P

[Bassnut]

You guys should listen to James Valentine on 702 am (ABC radio) fridays at 2pm for a deeper understanding of "nothing", inspirational.

[Glenhuon]

Not a problem, just an observation of a 14year old girl with mobile phone permanently attached to her ear. :lol:

Bill

[sjastro]

Space-time is definitely real. Cosmological redshift is a property of space-time. Doppler red shift is a property of space.

Space-time expansion velocity is proportional to distance.
Velocity through space is distance/time.

The inflating balloon is a good analogy by considering the surface to being equivalent to space-time. During expansion of the balloon the dots will move away from each other but not across the surface of the balloon. Spatially they are in the same position hence expansion spatially has not occurred.

Regards

Steven

[ving]

so nothing is just the absence of everything right?

[xelasnave]

er yes yes indeed... however nothing by its very definition therefore will not be observable due to the absence of all dimenion:rolleyes::whistle:...

alex:):):)