Just a thought

Scenario and abstraction

WE have a absolutely strong bottle 12 inches (inner diameter).....we remove everything that is in the bottle so that we have an absolute vacuum and absolutely nothing in the bottle.

What is the diameter inside the bottle?

How long would it take to travel from one inner wall to the opposite inner wall ( of the bottle)?

Could you? Wouldn't you need some sort of medium to travel across? Sorry, I've never taken physics (only in 10th grade :bugeye: )

I would think that whilst the distance would be still 12 inches the time to travel that distance would be zero.
I think some where in another thread some one was referring to space contraction to zero ~Lorenze Contraction. I am not sure whether this is at all relevant.

If space contracts to zero then the distance to travel is also zero, instantaneous.
Again I a not sure of this but if an object is travelling a v='c' then space contracts to zero??? ( according to relativity)

WHAT???

The lack of a "medium" has nothing to do with the travel time. The time would depend on the velocity, just like it does anywhere else.

And your bottle doesn't have to be particularly strong. The only force acting on it is atmospheric pressure (14.7 psi approx.).

I think the question hinges on "absolute vacuum". Does a true vacuum have different properties than a virtual vacuum? I think I've seen de Sitter space used in reference to an absolute vacuum. Not sure what physical properties it has though. Does space need something in it to be? What would happen if a true vacuum were ever created? It would probably have to be a very strong bottle at least.

edit: On the strength of the bottle issue. What would happen to a bottle filled with sea level pressure air if it were released in space? The analogy might be flawed because of how cold space is, making the bottle brittle. Would it have a different effect if released into a true vacuum?

There's very little difference between an "absolute" vacuum and a "near" vacuum (which can be produced artificially). If you're talking about a different kind of space, that isn't something that can be "produced" by removing everything from the bottle.
And no, the bottle does not have to be particularly strong. Glass flasks are used to "contain" fairly high vacuums in the laboratory.

If the distance between the walls of the bottle is d and the speed of the thing travelling across it is v, the time taken will be d/v, regardless of whether the bottle is empty or full of something.

if there is absolutley nothing betweeen the walls and yet the walls stand as separate. What is the distance ( in this thought experiment ) of the inner diameter?

A true vacuum would still be immersed in gravity, electric, magnetic, ets.fields. Virtual particles would still be popping in and out of existence. And it would be stretching with universal expansion. So it would still have energy and not be truly 'nothing'.

It would act pretty much like ordinary space.

If there is absolutely nothing in there, then you have absolutely no way of measuring
the inner diameter at that time, but why should it vary from when a ruler WAS in there? Are you trying to suggest that there 'cannot be' distance without 'some' substance within the space?

It would act pretty much like ordinary space.
Yadayada ( I like the handle BTW) with out sounding too silly " if I wanted to talk about ordinary space I wouldn't be talking about absolute vaccumm or absolute nothing.
Keeping in mind this is purely an abstraction what I am attempting to discuss is how the universe exists in a sea of absolute nothingness.

My example of the bottle is to try and describe how matter can be maintained as separate and yet have absolutely nothing between them. Matter being held apart by normal space but atthe same time absolute nothing exists.

If there is absolutely nothing in there, then you have absolutely no way of measuring
the inner diameter at that time, but why should it vary from when a ruler WAS in there? Are you trying to suggest that there 'cannot be' distance without 'some' substance within the space?
This of course is fair comment 2inquisitive, but if the inside of the bottle was absolutely nothing then the inside diameter would be zero.

yet the walls exist as separate.

In other words 4 dimensions can co-exist with zero dimension.
IN fact it could be argued that by having this co-existence it provides space with it's attributes and tension.

No distance + distance equals energistic tension

So by taking the logic a little further it means that two dimensional wormholes can be discussed and the possibility of instantaneous travel anywhere.

I was reading a thread about the Lorenze contraction and how if mass acheives v='c' space contracts to for that mass to zero. Is this not evidence of our zero dimension?

by QQ,

"but if the inside of the bottle was absolutely nothing then the inside diameter would be zero."
================================================== ==========

I do not follow your logic here.

by QQ,

"I was reading a thread about the Lorenze contraction and how if mass acheives V='c' space contracts to for that mass to zero. Is this not evidence of our zero dimension? "
================================================== ==========

I don't know who stated that, but it is incorrect according to relativity or any other
theory that I am aware of. According to SR, mass cannot acheive 'c' and how much
energy do you think it would take to contract 156 billion light years of distance to
'almost' zero? 'Almost' all the energy in the universe. And that would be only in that
relativistic frame of reference. The 'big bang' in reverse?

interesting stuff.......we have all these photons travelling at 'c' admittadly not mass as such.......if a photon experiences contraction to zero then that would make light instantaneous and yet measurable as 'c' simultaneously.

so as far as light is concerned the universe could be deemed as zero space

Don't worry I am just throwing stuff around......and not really serious.

Absolute nothing means no space, no dimensions, absolute zero substance and can only be acheived by default.
so inside the bottle would be zero dimensions and the diameter would be zero.

The time needed to travel from one side to the other would be zero. because you would be on both sides simultaneously.

It has been my view for ages now that gravity is a prodct of "Nothing" the exiustance of normal space time being the result gravitational centres of masses being separated by space that is more than Nothing. The true nothing only existing at the center of mass. The centre of time ( between future and past) also absolutely nothing.
It is the separation of mass that gives us space time. For with out mass the universe would not be. Because absolutely nothing is extremely attractive even to itself we have gravity.

The casmir effect tend to support this view.

I tend to look at it from a Nothing upwards and outwards perspective rather than a something inwards perspective.

Don't mind me I am just talkin' sh*t.

The big bang was "nothing" gaining separation by the creation of mass, (space time folded in on itself) with a centre of nothing

Quantum Quack,
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.

The abstractions that you talk about have nothing to do with the original questions you asked.
A vacuum, whether perfect or partial is not some magical different kind of space. It's just space with nothing in it, pretty much like all space. All your folding and worm-holing is not what you specified at the beginning of the thread. If you're speculating about the dimensionality of space, don't use words like "vacuum", which have real meaning.

Personally. I have no interest in abstractions, so I'll leave you to it.

A vacuum, whether perfect or partial is not some magical different kind of space. It's just space with nothing in it, pretty much like all space. All your folding and worm-holing is not what you specified at the beginning of the thread. If you're speculating about the dimensionality of space, don't use words like "vacuum", which have real meaning.

Sideshowbob, you are not the only one who has difficulty imagining or conceptualising Absolute nothing. The lack of existance before the big bang.

My conception of nothing ( just to clarify )

Absolute nothing has No time, no gravity, no EM, no space, no volume, and so on.

Absolute Nothing has no temperature and no pressure there fore by comparison with ordinary space is a absolute vacuum. Absolute nothing is similar to what we experience when we are unconscious ( sleeping) and totally unaware of our surroundings.

The space you are talking of is "something", a less intense form of absolute nothing. Space time, gravity are sort of like the next level in the "nothingness tree"

From your description, I thought you were talking about "sucking" everything out of the bottle - i.e. trying to "make" absolutely nothing.

Would you mind telling us: On what do you base your description of the properties (or lack of properties) of "absolutely nothing"?

'Absolutely nothing' is what lies 'beyond' our expanding universe. The universe is said
to be borderless, but it is expanding and doesn't expand INTO anything. But there
cannot be 'absolutely nothing' inside of 'something', i.e. our observable universe. At
least, that's my take on it.

That's what peaked my interest in this thread. What would happen if this "absolute nothing" could be made in our universe? A black hole? A new big bang? A supernova? From Paul Dixon's posts about de Sitter space (if that in fact refers to this nothing) something might happen. I imagine it's an unanswerable question though. At least until the next generation of mathematics and physics is made.

Would you mind telling us: On what do you base your description of the properties (or lack of properties) of "absolutely nothing"?

" The existence of Nothing is absolutely dependent of everything being in a relationship with everything else"

There fore nothing can only be deemed to (Non-exist) by default of everything else existing.

Funnily enough relativity seems to prove zero dimensionality as I previously mentioned.

Another approach is to ask the question:
"If we agree that the universe started with a "big Bang" then prior to this there was absolutely nothing. ( from a universal perspective )?"

But as absolutely nothing continues to exist as the centre of time ( between future and past) and matter is constructed from folded space ( near nothingness) the centre of mass must also be nothing.

Centre of time, centre of mass, centre of gravity,

Mass is therefore a sort of intense space time plug that surrounds a point of nothingness.

If you are asking me to show the existance of nothing, I can not do so because of the inherant nature of what is being described. Nothing can not be proved except by deductive reasoning applied to what we know does exist.
Nothing can only be proven by it's effect of everything else. And to me To make Absolutely nothing the centre of gravity makes a lot of sense.

Prior to the bigbang the centre of gravity existed but not the gravity.

The creation of space time created separated mass and by default gravity ( space time) was created.

And as the centre of time moved in continuum Nothing continues to exist as teh centre of gravity.

Again, back to your question:
Nothing can only be described by it's lack of property and or attributes.
Semantically this immediately gives nothing some values and I have no problem with that. Values by default.

The centre of time is a continuuously changing event horizon. So therefore what you actually percieve is always post Horizon ( the past with it's future implied) from the horizon but not the horison itself.

I have uploaded a simple diagram that shows nothing at the centre of mass
Keeping in mind that the Earth is made up of near infinite numbers of particles the net effect is a centre of gravity for the whole planet. An accumulant centre of gravity.

http://www.paygency.com/NothingGravity.htm

One of the main reasons that support gravity being the product of nothing is that Gravity is omni attractive in that it is normally attractive to everything and the only way for omni atttraction is that everything has a common attribute and I would suggest that that attribute is a centre of nothingness.

this link shows a picture developed to show this concept in three dimensions
http://www.paygency.com/Corecones.htm

If your interested......please allow about 15 seconds to download the pic

The cones represent spiral space time merging at their points to a "point" of nothingness.

This is called a core diagram. And in my view represents the centre of mass in space time terms

QQ,

The absolute 'nothing' you are circumscribing is a pure abstraction and it does not exist. It does not exist physically and it does not exist as an abstraction either.

The best that you can do is to include it in a null set that does exist. Kind of like describing the blackness of a shadow by its outline, or an 'empty' bottle by its container.

YY

YY i think you have it down pretty right.

Another way of looking at it is like this
When you move an object, lets use a tennis ball, across a table. At a certain point in time the ball exists at a certain location. You move the ball and now that location has no ball in it. The ball doesn't exist at it's previous location because it has moved to another.

What was the ball at that location is now nothing ( reference frame = Ball and location).

If the ball did not at this location become "nothing" we would have no movement.
In a similar way this is what happened at conception of the universe. Absolute nothingness acheived time. The bang is now non existant and all we have are the results

If you use the frame "Ball" the ball exists at a single location and doesn't exist any where else.
So using this way of describing Nothing can be inferred.

With out "nothing" the universe would show no diversity of location or substance as it would be one single item or object. Nothing allows for diversity of object.

I look at a blank "Ms Word" page on my PC and apart from the blank white page there is nothing on it. I draw in circle. Now there is something on the page "but it's not a square". I delete the circle and the circle becomes nothing again. And the page is now white and empty of content.

Absolute nothingness does co -exist with everything else if it didn't then the past would still exist as a physical dimension and of course that would be impossible.

Absolute nothingness acheived time. The bang is now non existant and all we have are the results . . . Absolute nothingness does co -exist with everything else

Ex nilhilo et nihil. Everything out of nothing is only a paradoxical illusion that arises from viewing everything as arising either from God magically creating everything from nothing or from general relativity's concept of a magic singularity of nothing.

It is simpler to leave absolute nothing to its nothingness, and allow some initial 'birth energy' to the quantum baby universe that it inherited from its parent, a black hole in some other universe.

Then we have an infinite recurrence, which is fortunately not the topic of this thread ;)

Everything out of nothing is only a paradoxical illusion that arises from viewing everything as arising either from God magically creating everything from nothing or from general relativity's concept of a magic singularity of nothing.

It is only a "paradoxical illusion" because as yet we can not fathom the logic.

Obviously you are suggesting a no beginning to all this....eternity both past and present. This is also just as absurd but by the same token just as valid.

there is no reason why the universe could not cycle from one singularity to another.....afterall.....