Nothing is only a idea, the concept of nothing exists, but nothing which the concept describe cannot exist cause the nature of nothing is non-existance (and non-existance as a word is also illogical since it describes nothing, nothing cannot be described, not as black, not as "empty", not as vaccuum, not as anything cause nothing doesn't exist).

The idea of nothing must exist though, since we need to describe something missing, incomplete or something lost, but nothing is allways a replacement for something, and are never the opposite of something, since something is and nothing isn't, the opposite of something (something as in "any object") must exist also. Nothing is in the truest meaning a description of something that either changed form (particle- antiparticle collision) or changed place (something is lost), to say that there is nothing on that table (for example) is meaningless since there are allways something there, air, particles, etc. so the nothing used in that context are simply a replacement of something that exist (for example, air instead of hundred dollars :rolleyes: ).

Of course the word nothing must be used to describe everyday things (like there's nothing on that table) since the meaning is obvious anyway, we don't expect it to be a black hole on the table just because someone say that nothing is there, but when designing scientific theories which requires high accuracy, nothing shouldn't be used in a way that changes the meaning of the theory, (like: the particle vanishes to nothingness), since nothingness doesn't exist, and something cannot vanish to nothing (vanish is also such a word). If nothing existed then everything would disappear, since "nothing" never can be filled. The vaccuum effect would swallow the whole universe instantly, it's another story with black holes since they have laws with how much they can bend space (they have a beginning (or end), even if it's infinitly small) but "nothing" has no beginning and no end, the universe would be swallowed even if it were infinite, or maybe the universe would swallow nothing, since "nothing" never were allowed to exist in the first place.

Let's say a particle borrow energy from "nothing" as described in quantum physics, as long as it's not recognized it hasn't broken any laws but is only allowed to exist in a brief period of time. Somehow "nothing" must then be a reservoar of everything possible, and thus cannot be "nothing", cause nothing is not some black field or anything like that, nothing doesn't exist. Nothing is not. It only exists as a concept in our minds.

However, the "nothing" that the particle borrows energy from must actually be a "something" that holds infinite energy and which has no laws and thus have neverending possibilities but has lost all concepts, have no meaning whatsoever (at least from what I can figure out). Since meaning requires law, law is the requirement for cause and effect, there must be a way in which something behaves otherwize everything would break down to chaos...

Maybe we can say that the particle which started to exist in the universe is a particle that follows order and law, while a particle that doesn't exist is a "particle" that follows chaos, it can't even be described as a particle since particle suggest form and form requires order (chaos can produce form randomly though, but then the form isn't chaos anymore and thus is allowed to exist).

Since the universe has laws, any form of energy can't just pop to existance (or order, since "nothing" might then be chaos), the energy must (either by coincident or something else) have formed itself so that it doesn't break any law that the universe have. The more laws it breaks the less long is it allowed to exist, I think that the first requirement is that it has to have some kind of form, it can't be formless since existance requires some kind of form, it has to take place. The other requirement is that the particle (since it has form) can't contradict itself (it mustn't break it's own laws) and the third requirement is that it mustn't break the laws of the universe.

So from my point of view, nothing doesn't exist, but is merely a state of all possibilities, have no form and maybe no reason (well, one reason if we look at the big picture would then be to enable existance by random order).

I guess that each particle that comes to existance must be given a first cause (to start the chain of events that the particle must have in order to stay "alive" and have laws) this first cause might actually be the reason why the particle can pop into existance in the first place. Maybe there are many different levels a particle must go through to become a stable and "fixed" particle, cause it would seem strange if a particle just popped into existance with a form and everything ready for it, it must somehow have developed.

We can say however, that something doesn't exist to us or where we are, but it must exist in it's own right. Nothing can't create anything, nothing is forever bound to be nothing at all. Except as a idea, or a concept...which might just have a world of it's own. Like a mental idea world, where the perfect circle exists and etc. and where everything possible is happening all the time, and where thoughts create their own reality.