Is there such a thing as nothing?

[hadit]

I don't think we are wired to truly grasp the concept of absolute nothing, any more than we can grasp the concept of eternity.

Infinity is pretty graspable. There have been mathematicians who have tackled the subject intensively. However, you will find that no worthy physicist acknowledges the idea of nothing. This leads us to believe that something was always there and something will always be there.

I don't think you can truly grasp infinity. For one thing, it's impossible to define. Take the following thought experiments:

I have an infinite number of tennis balls. I give you half of them. I still have an infinite number. Infinity/2 = infinity. Infinity = 0.

Simultaneously, I have given you an infinite number of tennis balls and I still have an infinite number. Infinity - infinity = infinity. Infinity = 0.

I have an infinite number of tennis balls. I give you one of them. I still have an infinite number of balls. Infinity - 1 = infinity. Infinity = undefined.

Like pi, you can use infinity in math, but grasping it intellectually is another thing

 

[Pogo]

I don't think we are wired to truly grasp the concept of absolute nothing, any more than we can grasp the concept of eternity.

Infinity is pretty graspable. There have been mathematicians who have tackled the subject intensively. However, you will find that no worthy physicist acknowledges the idea of nothing. This leads us to believe that something was always there and something will always be there.

I don't think you can truly grasp infinity. For one thing, it's impossible to define. Take the following thought experiments:

I have an infinite number of tennis balls. I give you half of them. I still have an infinite number. Infinity/2 = infinity. Infinity = 0.

Simultaneously, I have given you an infinite number of tennis balls and I still have an infinite number. Infinity - infinity = infinity. Infinity = 0.

I have an infinite number of tennis balls. I give you one of them. I still have an infinite number of balls. Infinity - 1 = infinity. Infinity = undefined.

Like pi, you can use infinity in math, but grasping it intellectually is another thing

But you can't divide infinity in 'half'.

 

[Vikrant]

I don't think you can truly grasp infinity. For one thing, it's impossible to define. Take the following thought experiments:

I have an infinite number of tennis balls. I give you half of them. I still have an infinite number. Infinity/2 = infinity. Infinity = 0.

Simultaneously, I have given you an infinite number of tennis balls and I still have an infinite number. Infinity - infinity = infinity. Infinity = 0.

I have an infinite number of tennis balls. I give you one of them. I still have an infinite number of balls. Infinity - 1 = infinity. Infinity = undefined.

Like pi, you can use infinity in math, but grasping it intellectually is another thing

I can understand why you are mystified with infinity. You think infinity is a number. That is the problem right there. Infinity is an idea or concept or a technique to denote something which has no end. Once you realize this then it is not hard to see the problem with your logic.

Let us take a look at the very first operation in your example:

In order to divide a number of tennis balls in half, you will need to know the actual number of tennis balls. Since you do not know how many tennis balls constitute infinity, you will never be able to get to a point where you can divide it in half. It means you will be busy counting the tennis balls for ever because infinity has no end.

Now, apply the same logic to rest of your operations and you will see the problem with your thought experiment.

 

[Vikrant]

Mistake, yes. Because it's a concept we cannot accurately verbalize in a word.

I would submit, as in the last post, that this future event that may or may not happen is not something; only the thought that it may come to pass is something. That is if you consider actions (i.e. thought) to be "things". And now it's necessary to define that part.

In order for the idea of future event to happen, your thoughts have to exist. Your thoughts cannot exist without your brain. Your brain cannot exist without you. So we are talking about whole lot of somethings here.

 

[Pogo]

Mistake, yes. Because it's a concept we cannot accurately verbalize in a word.

I would submit, as in the last post, that this future event that may or may not happen is not something; only the thought that it may come to pass is something. That is if you consider actions (i.e. thought) to be "things". And now it's necessary to define that part.

In order for the idea of future event to happen, your thoughts have to exist. Your thoughts cannot exist without your brain. Your brain cannot exist without you. So we are talking about whole lot of somethings here.

That's an argument that the brain is something, which it is. But it doesn't mean the thought is "something".
Moreover, future events do not require thoughts; we call them surprises.

 

[Vikrant]

That's an argument that the brain is something, which it is. But it doesn't mean the thought is "something".
Moreover, future events do not require thoughts; we call them surprises.

Thoughts are definitely something. They leave electro-magnetic signature. Even what is a surprise for you was someone's thought first before it became your surprise. That is something.

 

[Pogo]

That's an argument that the brain is something, which it is. But it doesn't mean the thought is "something".
Moreover, future events do not require thoughts; we call them surprises.

Thoughts are definitely something. They leave electro-magnetic signature. Even what is a surprise for you was someone's thought first before it became your surprise. That is something.

We are behind on our definition of "thing". Is an "electromagnetic signature" a thing? It's naught but pre-existing electrons rearranged. Or perhaps more accurately chemicals, but there is no new material. Therefore a thought is an action. Can an action be a thing? I think not.

And to the second part -- not everything that happens was someone's thought. The glass falls off the table to the floor, not because anyone thought it to fall.

René Descartes walks into a bar. He orders un bière.
Bartender asks, "would you like a glass with that?"
Decartes considers and answers, "I think not"
And he disappears.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I have often heard people say that the universe came from nothing. If that is the case then what is nothing? I personally cannot seem to get my head wrapped around the idea of nothing. To me the concept of nothing does not make any sense at all. Something (space, time, matter, etc) on the other hand is much more easier to get my head wrapped around.

Can someone define nothing?

Let us give it a shot.

no

I have often heard people say that the universe came from nothing. If that is the case then what is nothing? I personally cannot seem to get my head wrapped around the idea of nothing. To me the concept of nothing does not make any sense at all. Something (space, time, matter, etc) on the other hand is much more easier to get my head wrapped around.

Can someone define nothing?

Let us give it a shot.

Is there such a thing as nothing?

no

 

[Youch]

I have often heard people say that the universe came from nothing. If that is the case then what is nothing? I personally cannot seem to get my head wrapped around the idea of nothing. To me the concept of nothing does not make any sense at all. Something (space, time, matter, etc) on the other hand is much more easier to get my head wrapped around.

Can someone define nothing?

Let us give it a shot.

Some describe anti-matter as nothing. But then again, it is something.

The absence of light is dark. But then again, that is something.

I guess you have to decide the parameters for nothing. Even a homeless man with no possessions could have dignity, which is something.

Yes and no. Anti-matter is something, yes. But the absence of something cannot also be something. It may (or may not) be something else, but being a shadow does not tell us what it is, only what it is not.

One remembers this from one's childhood:
"That that is, is; that that is not, is not" and the corollary: "That that is is is that that that that is not is not".


Ponder ye this:
In baseball (where a lack of runs scored is commonly called "nothing") each team takes turns trying to score before it commits three outs, with the visitor team getting first chance. Hypothetical game: the visiting team takes its turn in its half of the first inning and scores two runs before committing three outs. Now it's time for the home team to take its turn.

At this moment in time, the score is not "two to nothing" or two to zero; the score is "visitors two, home team coming to bat", i.e. the score is incomplete since the home team has not had a chance to score, therefore their score cannot be called "zero" or "nothing". Rather, their score does not yet exist. Which is distinct from "nothing".

I did not say the absence of something is something.

But I like your baseball score example.

 

[Vikrant]

We are behind on our definition of "thing". Is an "electromagnetic signature" a thing? It's naught but pre-existing electrons rearranged. Or perhaps more accurately chemicals, but there is no new material. Therefore a thought is an action. Can an action be a thing? I think not.

And to the second part -- not everything that happens was someone's thought. The glass falls off the table to the floor, not because anyone thought it to fall.

René Descartes walks into a bar. He orders un bière.
Bartender asks, "would you like a glass with that?"
Decartes considers and answers, "I think not"
And he disappears.

Light is an electromagnetic wave and we feel it every day. Is light a thing? It definitely is and so is thought. There is no such thing as future event other than in the minds of ours. Sun rises in the east everyday. It is likely that it will do so again tomorrow. But time and space have no provision for reserving a spot for matter on the graph. If Sun does not rise in the east tomorrow, we will have a different graph. That is it. From the perspective of the matter, there is no such thing as past or future. There is only present. And present does not stand still even for the smallest fraction of measurable time. Thus existence of future only exists in our mind (brain).

 

[Vikrant]

When you have nothing, you have nothing to lose!

That is pretty deep thought actually. Let us say that the said nothing has a value of X. In order to lose that X, you have to acquire it first.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Was a costumed guy at a Renaissance Pleasure Faire back in California hollering he had "nothing" for sale. Inquiring, I asked him how much for the nothing. Was there a guarantee? Could I return the nothing for something else?

 

[asaratis]

I have often heard people say that the universe came from nothing. If that is the case then what is nothing? I personally cannot seem to get my head wrapped around the idea of nothing. To me the concept of nothing does not make any sense at all. Something (space, time, matter, etc) on the other hand is much more easier to get my head wrapped around.

Can someone define nothing?

Let us give it a shot.

What you claim to have heard is incorrect. The universe did NOT come from "nothing". The universe came from ALL THINGS in a compressed form in which there was no space between atomic particles...100% pure energy.

The term "nothing" can be applied in several ways. In regard to physical things, nothing means the absence of all else...just as "complete darkness" means the absence of light...."cold" means the absence of heat.

Used as a descriptive term such as in...there is nothing that you can do to make me like Obama...the qualifier is "that you can do". The list of things that you can do may be quite long. However, the list of things that you can do to make me like Obama has NOTHING on it!

 

[Pogo]

Thirty three posts before some wag comes in to derail with ODS -- a new USMB record!

Thanks a lot, Captain Buzzkill. This is why we need a board shrink.

Now back to the actual topic: yes, shadows, Kelvin Zero and the like are based on the absence of something. But that is the absence of something, not necessarily "nothing", for although the light or heat may be absent, something else (presumably) is present. The OP question as I read it is whether "nothing" is a thing, i.e. does it exist. And if it does exist, does that make it by definition not-nothing.

See if you can find a way to do that without derailing to politics. Thank you.

 

[indiajo]

No in fact there isn't. And as an episode of "Through the Wormhole" explained, if there were such a thing as a perfect absolute nothing, the universe would fall apart. Seems to have something to do with how 'something' even in a seemingly void region of space keeps the fabric of space-time from collapsing in on itself. Think of it like a solid cube of matter. It can support x amount of weight on top of it. But a hollow cube can't support as much. Without that 'something' in space 'supporting' the 'weight' of space-time around it, space would collapse in on itself in a cascade type reaction.

In fact, that is wrong.
The point is, the question of "nothing" arises at the very moment of the big bang. No matter, no time, no space. That is what science means with "nothing". It cannnot be described with stupid analogies for children, actually it cannot be grasped by the human brain like the physical things around us, which the brain is designed to do. Forget the word "designed" before some fool jumps on it.
We are in the realm of Quantum fluctuations here, they can today be partly described mathamatically but not understood like "table" or "chair". We have no expressions for all that stuff. Matter is actually not existing, it is only the exchange of particles. Which are basically no particles because they have no mass. In a nuclear reaction you loose matter. It is diffused in form of energy, which itself consists of particles with no mass. The more you go into details, the more confusing it becomes.
This is no phantasy, because we can already use it without understanding it. We will soon be able to build quantum computers.
Fact is, if you add up all matter and energy in the universe with the correct algebraic signs, the result is zero with a tolerable inaccuracy. This is meant by "nothing".

Deal with it.

 

[September]

The universe emerged from Chaos.

​

 

[Vikrant]

The universe emerged from Chaos.

​

... and Chaos is something.

 

[Vikrant]

In fact, that is wrong.
The point is, the question of "nothing" arises at the very moment of the big bang. No matter, no time, no space. That is what science means with "nothing". It cannnot be described with stupid analogies for children, actually it cannot be grasped by the human brain like the physical things around us, which the brain is designed to do. Forget the word "designed" before some fool jumps on it.
We are in the realm of Quantum fluctuations here, they can today be partly described mathamatically but not understood like "table" or "chair". We have no expressions for all that stuff. Matter is actually not existing, it is only the exchange of particles. Which are basically no particles because they have no mass. In a nuclear reaction you loose matter. It is diffused in form of energy, which itself consists of particles with no mass. The more you go into details, the more confusing it becomes.
This is no phantasy, because we can already use it without understanding it. We will soon be able to build quantum computers.
Fact is, if you add up all matter and energy in the universe with the correct algebraic signs, the result is zero with a tolerable inaccuracy. This is meant by "nothing".

Deal with it.

The big bang does not talk about a big bang from nothing. You are making that assumption.

Particles do have mass. That was the whole point of Higgs theorizing a particular type of boson. It was this work which got him Nobel prize.

Physics - Nobel Prize Why Particles Have Mass

First of all, zero is not nothing. Also, can you do us a favor and write down the 'albebraic sigins' you are talking about?