Lets talk about nothing.

[xelasnave]

Nothing is a term we use often but it seems to me that one simply can not find it... but in my quest to find nothing I have started thinking about the voids.

The voids are those regions between galaxy clusters/groups/filaments/... I recall one void was discovered that was some half a billion lights years across (maybe larger) and without being specific as to size we can at least say they are huge.

What appears very strange is that there is nothing in them... and if you have better info nows the time... when I say nothing there are no galaxies, no stars and not even gas it seems...

Still one could reason that electro magnetic energy will pass thru such and that if one were in the middle of one you would expect to see the surrounding most distant galaxies. No doubt even we peer thru them to see many distant galaxies.

To me they seem possibly inconsistent with the expectations one could form if we work with the big bang model which for me suggests that at a point energy and matter was rather uniformly spread around the place so its absence from such vast volumes of space seems difficult to explain...

What do you think about this... on the one hand it would seem that the voids must have always been there.. if not at some point the matter was sucked out to be distributed amoungst the closest galaxies.

Maybe the voids are bits of nothing that existed before BB and got spread around... maybe they are where the bodies of photons are buried...

So what are your views on nothing?

alex

[DavidU (Dave)]

..

[Robh (Rob)]

Alex,

Interesting topic of discussion.
The sum total of all we see originated from a singularity after the Big Bang. Before the Bang, outside (whatever that means) of this singularity there was nothing- no matter, space, energy or time. This was truly a void.
Now, there are no voids. Any cubic volume of space at any time will have a measurable amount of mass or radiation (don't ask me how to measure it). Indeed, space itself may be related to energy in a similar way as mass is related to energy. After all, mass modifies space so it must be energetic.

Regards, Rob

[Dennis]

Okay Alex, I’ll play and offer my immediate thoughts, be they right or wrong!

If by nothing you mean literally, no-thing, then I would be curious about the boundary layer and how “no-thing” could transition to “some-thing”, whether that “some-thing” is matter, energy, fields, etc.

If no-thing means an absolute absence of anything and everything, zip, nadda, zilch, then does it not seem sensible that either we can have only “no-thing”, or only “some-thing”, but not the two side by side?

Cheers

Dennis

[DavidU (Dave)]

So for there to be nothing we must look further out than the Tachyon field?

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Robh

Alex,

Interesting topic of discussion.
The sum total of all we see originated from a singularity after the Big Bang. Before the Bang, outside (whatever that means) of this singularity there was nothing- no matter, space, energy or time. This was truly a void.
Now, there are no voids. Any cubic volume of space at any time will have a measurable amount of mass or radiation (don't ask me how to measure it). Indeed, space itself may be related to energy in a similar way as mass is related to energy. After all, mass modifies space so it must be energetic.

Regards, Rob

To take that to a logical conclusion, even the thought of nothing, the existence of the concept, means there is something there. Therefore there is no void...in order for there to be such a condition there would even have to be an absence of nothing (as a conceptual entity).

The sum total of all we see originated from a singularity after the Big Bang. Before the Bang, outside (whatever that means) of this singularity there was nothing- no matter, space, energy or time. This was truly a void.

This is true only from our present perspective. However, QM, Supersymmetry and String/M Theory would say otherwise. In these cases, the universe we see unfolded from a higher dimensional state, which whilst it may appear infinitesimally small from our perspective, is in fact many orders of magnitude larger than the universe we inhabit. Here space, energy and matter take on aspects which would be completely unfamiliar to us. Time itself would be something completely different, if it even exists at all.

[bartman (Bart)]

Is that a bit like matter and anti-matter?
Are these voids the source of anti-matter?
If these Voids are the same as the point before the BB, could they be a place where a new BB could occur?
I guess if these Voids co-exist in our universe and have nothing in them, they would have to contain time. If not , then that Void would be the same as what is beyond the boundry of our universe or what was before the BB.
Therefore a possible breeding ground for a new BB.
If scientists can determine that there is no matter in these Voids, can they figure out if time exists in these areas?
Just my quick thoughts....
Bartman

[Dennis]

I have a basic problem in “looking” for “no-thing”.

Our senses, feelings, thoughts, intuition, instruments, etc. seem to rely on “some-thing” being present for an interaction to take place and for us to register, recognize and measure “it”.

With “no-thing”, there is no texture, differentiation, substance, stuff or whatever so it cannot be recognized or measured?

Cheers

Dennis

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by bartman

Is that a bit like matter and anti-matter?
Are these voids the source of anti-matter?
If these Voids are the same as the point before the BB, could they be a place where a new BB could occur?
I guess if these Voids co-exist in our universe and have nothing in them, they would have to contain time. If not , then that Void would be the same as what is beyond the boundry of our universe or what was before the BB.
Therefore a possible breeding ground for a new BB.
If scientists can determine that there is no matter in these Voids, can they figure out if time exists in these areas?
Just my quick thoughts....
Bartman

No. Matter and antimatter formed (in almost equal quantities) at the moment of the BB (to be more precise, after the end of the inflationary period) and are a part of the universe we live in, not part of anything else outside of the universe. The voids you're talking about are the voids between superclusters of galaxies. They're part of our universe and share its properties.

The void we're talking about is the complete absence of all of this...matter, spacetime etc etc. Another BB, if it occurred, would happen outside our universe. Just as no two particles can occupy the same space and conditional setup, neither can two universes (Pauli Exclusion Principle, writ large). If a BB was to occur within our spacetime, it would reset our universe's conditions to such an extent we would immediately cease to exist.

[bartman (Bart)]

Carl, what I was trying to say is if "The void we're talking about is the complete absence of all of this...matter, spacetime etc etc.", wouldn't that be an area ( cant think of a better word as there wouldn't be an 'area') that is similar to beyond the boundary of our universe and/or before the BB?

However just reading back.....Alex said that .. "I recall one void was discovered that was some half a billion lights years across (maybe larger) and without being specific as to size we can at least say they are huge."
therefore if it has a dimension ie size, then it isn't a Void!
It might be void of matter but not spacetime.... surely?
Bartman

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by bartman

Carl, what I was trying to say is if "The void we're talking about is the complete absence of all of this...matter, spacetime etc etc.", wouldn't that be an area ( cant think of a better word as there wouldn't be an 'area') that is similar to beyond the boundary of our universe and/or before the BB?

However just reading back.....Alex said that .. "I recall one void was discovered that was some half a billion lights years across (maybe larger) and without being specific as to size we can at least say they are huge."
therefore if it has a dimension ie size, then it isn't a Void!
It might be void of matter but not spacetime.... surely?
Bartman

It's like I said...if it were truly a void, there would even be an absence of the concept of a void. The mere thought of a void is the presence of something. Therefore, it isn't a void. The universe unfolded from a higher dimensional entity and the precise moment of that event was the BB. There was never an absence of anything. The presence of a trigger for the BB, even if it was a random fluctuation of an abstract mathematical entity/quantum field, means there is something there.

In those voids, even if you did take out all the matter from the area, the fact that spacetime is present means there will be matter there anyway. The quantum fluctuations of spacetime itself generates virtual particles from the energy present. Remember, energy and matter are just two aspects of the same thing. Opposite sides of the same coin, so to speak.

[xelasnave]

So never complain if you have nothing to talk about it obviously provides one with some interesting things to think about.

Avoid is verb meaning to er avoid.

A void is therefore at least a slice of space and hopefuly time... I expect we could not have one without the other or could we???

AND now that we have observed voids does the fact we hacve observed them change them in any way???

I do think seeking a reason why we find so little (the closest to nothing we can imagine) in a void asks the question why is there nothing there..rather so little ..there... was there stuff there once but it has gone now or is the nothing going to be filled with something later in time?

There must be energy passing thru so how much? If we use E=MC^2 to hypothetically consider the energy as mass could we build a couple of galaxies out of it...

In the fullness of time will we see the voids gradually fill with stuff or will matter become grouped in smaller and smaller volumes of space (and time even) ...Is it the voids that are expanding when we think we observe an expanding Universe... so that even though matter is no reducing per se it is indeed taking up less and less room in space/time...

Can we build a reference frame for consideration of any geometry and place less in it than the nothing we find in a void...which in fact has something...

How about this weather isnt it the pits in Sydney at the moment..here a week and no boat fun... its like winter.. global warming I guess.
alex

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

To take that to a logical conclusion, even the thought of nothing, the existence of the concept, means there is something there. Therefore there is no void...in order for there to be such a condition there would even have to be an absence of nothing (as a conceptual entity).

Not at all. It's all about perception and symantics. What we perceive is matter, space and energy (by measurement or senses). If a void is defined as the absense of all things (matter, space and energy) then the word nothing can apply to it. The thought of nothing is not an element of the set {the absence of all things} or nothing.

Originally Posted by renormalised

This is true only from our present perspective. However, QM, Supersymmetry and String/M Theory would say otherwise. In these cases, the universe we see unfolded from a higher dimensional state, which whilst it may appear infinitesimally small from our perspective, is in fact many orders of magnitude larger than the universe we inhabit. Here space, energy and matter take on aspects which would be completely unfamiliar to us. Time itself would be something completely different, if it even exists at all.

Granted. But I may still be right. Your Universe may not exist!

Regards, Rob.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Robh

Not at all. It's all about perception and symantics. What we perceive is matter, space and energy (by measurement or senses). If a void is defined as the absense of all things (matter, space and energy) then the word nothing can apply to it. The thought of nothing is not an element of the set {the absence of all things} or nothing.

Yes, that's exactly what it is...perception, and the semantics is used to describe that perception. However, in stating that there is nothing, you are doing precisely the same thing...introducing a semantic concept. If a void is the absence of all things, that also includes the concept of nothing. The thought of that elemental concept cannot be divorced from the concept to which it is observing. It's classic quantum physics. If the thought exists, then there is something to observe. If something exists (the void...nothing) then the thought must also exist. They're one and the same. If neither existed then the point is moot. There wouldn't even be nothing to create nothing, or to think about it. So, whilst what we perceive of as matter, energy and spacetime didn't exist, there was something there. Even if it was just a thought

Granted. But I may still be right. Your Universe may not exist!

Regards, Rob.

Who's to say yours does, either

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

My void is emptier than your void!
Guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Regards, Rob

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Robh

My void is emptier than your void!
Guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Regards, Rob

Actually, your void is full compared to mine. At least you have a void

[bartman (Bart)]

"if it were truly a void, there would even be an absence of the concept of a void. The mere thought of a void is the presence of something. Therefore, it isn't a void"

But not in our universe/our thoughts/our concept of spacetime etc. ,
our concept of a void means exactly that- a void. We created that word to describe an area of nothing (which could include time - i guess in this context).

So if it was truely a void( as you stated) we wouldn't have a word or description of it so I agree with you there, but if we cant have a word or concept of a void then wouldn't the concept of the pre BB or 'beyond' the boundry of our universe be null and void? (pardon the pun)

"There was never an absence of anything. The presence of a trigger for the BB, even if it was a random fluctuation of an abstract mathematical entity/quantum field, means there is something there."

I agree with you 100% ....so there are no "Voids" out there...sorry Alex

Bartman

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Actually, your void is full compared to mine. At least you have a void

Had a chuckle over that one!

Rob

[DJDD]

the voids between superclusters of galaxies is not a void in the sense that has been discussed so far, which seems to be more discussion on philisophical aspects of nothingness and/or semantics. all good discussion points.

so even if there is no matter or electromagnetic waves, etc. in the voids there is not "nothing" there as there is space-time.
(where I say "space-time" with no real understanding of it but only based upon comments from other threads. )


why are there voids? well, i though that it had something to do with fluctuations during the big bang, clumping matter together.


or are my comments "vacuous"...

[bartman (Bart)]

"why are there voids?" by DJDD

I guess they are there to keep us talking about NOTHING!!!!!

Goodnight guys and girls
of to bed
Bartman