Lets talk about nothing..

[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 (Karl)]

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 (Phil)]

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

[Glenhuon (Bill)]

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

or

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

My dogs were discussing it thats all


alex

[Kal (Andrew)]

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

[mill (Martin)]

"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 ).

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[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