What and where is nothing;

You would probably say that vacuum is nothing...but light can travel through this vacuum, so there is a form of energy....(photons)
and when there is energy, can you say that there is nothing.

and between electrons, neutrons and protons, I'm teached there's nothing.
But what is this nothing?

I am gettin' a little freaked out about this, so help me pls and explain what 'nothing' exactly is.

Hi KneD,

Nothing = absence of something (in this case energy or matter). You can regard the space between atoms or particles as spacetime not filled with matter.

Bye!

Crisp

Hey Crisp,

Re. your reply to KneD: Are you essentially saying that 'nothingness' is a microcosmic phenomena, but not a macrocosmic one?

Originally posted by Crisp
Nothing = absence of something (in this case energy or matter). You can regard the space between atoms or particles as spacetime not filled with matter.


so you don't say there is 'nothing' between atoms, do you?
Is there a place somewhere in universe where is nothing?

Hi KneD, Chagur

Chagur: Yes I would tend to look on a microscopic scale to define "nothing", simply because on a macroscopic scale, nothingness because non-existent. You could say that an empty room has nothing inside, but there are airmolecules bouncing around (microscopic). Even in space, there are a few atoms in every cubic meter (and then we're not speaking about the trillions of neutrinos and other particles that zap through). So to me personally, a "macroscopic" nothing does not exist inside the universe (you are always exposed to some sort of radiation, neutrinos or electromagnetic in type).

On a microscopic scale, and this relates to KneD's question, things become different. If you look on a fine enough scale, I think it is possible that you're actually looking at ... nothing... empty space (however, this is probably only for a very short time since something zaps by every now and then - and this is not related to virtual particle pairs since these are not directly observable anyway).

KneD, whether or not there's something between atoms is a tricky one. Quantummechanics makes it hard to say that the electrons are well-localized around the nucleus (because of a spread in the wavefunction). The problem here is the following: the more conventional theory of quantummechanics tells you that from the moment you look at an electron, its spread on the wavefunction becomes zero (the electron is well defined in space, also referred to as the collapse of the wavefunction). If you look at a very small area near the nucleus, you have a certain probability of finding the electron in that area. If you would do two measurements, you could find the electron in that area, while making the exact same measurement again (*) could yield the opposite result.

(*) This is under the reservation that an experiment is 100% repeatable. The problem is that measuring a system influences it, so I assume here that the system can be brought back in its initial state, before the first measurement.

Now this makes it difficult to speak of "nothing". It would seem logical to define "nothing is in that area of space" as "whatever measurement I make, I would find absolutely nothing there". So in the case of electrons bound to a nucleus, I'd say there's "something" there (which is in contrast to my previous post - I hadn't thought it over that well ;)). Some people will say that the electron is spread out, although I have some difficulties grasping that concept.

Now essentially this leads to another problem: quantummechanically speaking, every wavefunction is spread out over the entire universe (with ofcourse a very very very very very (x10) small chance of finding an elektron in the Andromeda galaxy if you'd measure it here on earth). So technically speaking, even where you'd expect to measure nothing, there would be some wavefunction of an unmeasured particle somewhere in that space. Hrmmm..... Let me think that one over...

(Perhaps this is a possible explanation for the "virtual" particle pairs, you just measure particles that are actually in the Andromeda galaxy but because they have a tiny probably of emerging here - and because there are a lot (understatement) of particles in the universe, some turn up every now and then ;) = Let me think that one over aswel).

Bye!

Crisp

well, I think I got your point crisp....

THANK YOU for your point view, you made a lot clear to me.

(ik kan waarschijnlijk ook gewoon dankjewel zeggen)

Hi KneD,

Inderdaad ;).

Bye!

Crisp.

It's filled with ether. If not, then what is nothing if it is not filled with something. It's not yet it is? Yoinks!

Is there a difference in 'nothingness' between an empty void in the middle of the universe and whatever it is that lies beyond the boundaries of the universe? Is the 'nothing' inside the universe more substantive than the 'nothing' outside?


This recalls the one problem that my mind can never reason about -- that everything (the universe) is distinctly finite. How can everything be finite!? It may seem simple and trivial at first glance, but I've found that any attempt to grok this leads to failure. It's rather interesting to have found a statement that I cannot intuitively understand -- and never will. I suspect the problem lies more with the definition of "everything" than with "finite".

Hi Dave,

I would say there's a difference between empty space (whether wavefunctions from particles somewhere are non-zero there, see previous post) and whatever it is "beyond" our universe. A particle can exist in empty space if put there, it cannot exist beyond the boundaries of the universe; as per definition, the universe is ... everything, the whole spacetime fabric with all its extra dimensions (if we are to believe stringtheory), all the matter and energy.

I would just like to add that it's quite difficult to speak in an exact scientific way of what is beyond the universe, there are no verified theories or experiments on this. I think it's also impossible to go beyond the boundaries of the universe to do an observation there.

First of all, how would you define the boundary of the universe ? Surely no problem in a mathematical way, the universe can be described as a 4 dimensional sphere or surface (depending on whether you allow big crunches or not ;)). Physically speaking, there's ofcourse no sign saying "you're now leaving the known universe".
Secondly, from a mathematical point of view we live on that multidimensional sphere/surface, so the boundary of the universe is at every point of spacetime. However, what mechanism would one use to step "outside" ?
...


I think you have a good point that the problems arise with the definition of "everything". Do we just count the matter and energy as everything ? Or do we include empty spacetime aswel ? Do we include higher dimensions if they exist ? Et cetera...

On your note on how everything can be finite: it depends on the point of view on the universe. From our 3 or 4 dimensional point of view, space is infinite, either as a surface (we can never reach the border because it would be moving away faster than we can travel, hence infinite), or as a sphere (you can keep on driving circles on the earth, you'll never reach a boundary - well no boundary of earth anyway, we're not talking about some customs fellow stopping you when entering Zimbabwe ;)). If you look in a higher-dimensional world, spacetime would be finite. You can compare this with a circle: in a 1 dimensional world, somebody moving on the edge of a circle would think his world is infinite: he can keep on running, without ever reaching a boundary. If you look at it from a 2 dimensional point of view, you suddenly get a shape with a certain circumfere (2*Pi*R).

But this leads to the higher dimensional/boundary issue again :)

Bye!

Crisp

I'm curious:

http://fy.chalmers.se/tp/Egroup/stringtheory.html

http://www.everythingforever.com/hawking.htm

http://pages.prodigy.com/suna/galaxies.htm

http://www.itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/q1513.html

http://www.novan.com/space.htm

http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~jh8h/glossary/criticaldensity.htm

http://www.padrak.com/ine/QUANTFLUX.html




Wow, when I have more time, I will go back and read those.

PERHAPS IN THE BEGINNING EVERTHING CAME OUT OF NOTHING. THIS WOULD MEAN THAT NOTHING IS EVERYTHING.

Ofcourse, the grandaddy of all mystries is what was there before the universe (i.e. existence). Personally, this fascinates me as a valid topic. However, I must comment that it is in the very nature of human minds to question what and why; we continue to search for something and when there is no mystery, we continue to create them. For example, Einstein, the genius of geniuses, created a cosmological constant, and later admitted it a folly:p.

Before the universe, there must have been nothing, the human mind reasons...wrong:D. Perhaps there was never a time when the universe was not created, no time when he universe was not created, because if photons and particles moved at c (the speed of light), they pretty much defy time, so either a loop or eternity is the answer.

And ofcourse, there is the debate of what is there outside the universe. Hmm...seen Men In Black? At the end, there is a riveting sequence in which it is implies that our universe is just contained in another universe, which is contained in another...etc. How visionary!

KneD

This is an interesting question. Do you have any idea how long it took the human race to understand the concept of zero? A while anyway! The way I look at it is to define nothing is to say that it simply does not exist. As with before the big bang, outside the singularity there was no empty space or lack of light as outside of it did not exist at all. There was no outside.
A+ if you can make anything out of that paragraph of confusion.
ha ha.


Of all the things I've lost ... I miss my mind the most.
Catalyst.

i find this to be a very difficult topic to discuss because it seems that every "answer" or theory offered seems to bring up more and more questions based on that specific conclusion and then from those answers given, more quetions arise. as i read through the explanations i find myself thinking "we have defined empty space, yet who actually has a true understanding of it or feeling about it besides being able to state the phrase, lack of everything." then one begins to question what is everything?... then a person begins to explain things in terms of infinity which leads to talk of eternity. though there are certain deffinitions for the words used in context the comprehension of them by the human brain is rather vague and only leads to more questions in this vicious cycle. now that i have probably confused myself beyond the point of no return, i hope that i have just given you a little more to think about. ;)

"Nothing" = "No Thing"

I know... I know... it's too simple. But to describe anything we have to use our languages--verbal and non-verbal.
(Spoken and body language--'course, body language doesn't get us very far in a forum. )

In English, some words stem from very simple concepts. What we then wish to make of those concepts is a-whole-nother ballgame.

Still, we have to start somewhere, and that's where "nothing" starts from.

No Thing.

(Carry on)

:)

How about: an idea, the lack of intelligible information, or what lies beyond the Universe.

Zero is the idea of nothing, but that makes it something. So, perhaps nothing is best quantified as what may or may not lie beyond the Universe and what we know of it.

As I see it, it is impossible to know what lies beyond the universe, thus it is meaningless to ask. That sounds like a nothing.

By definition, the universe is Everything and there can be nothing more that isn't already included in the set of Everything (and what part of everything is nothing, to continue the semantic muse).

But for the sake of argument, let's suppose there is something outside and beyond the boundry of the Universe -- be it 'edge' or 'neighboring dimension(s)'. How would we learn about outside? Maybe a probe of some sort, passed through the boundry between the Universe and the Beyond?

Well, the probe necessarily must be built inside the Universe, subject to all the known laws of Nature known to science.

Then the probe -- all of its various components and systems (whatever they may be) -- must be studied in the greatest possible detail so that we can completely characterize how it will behave in all imaginable situations, so that we might know precisely what portion of any future information it provides us is new information (signal) and which is information that we already know to expect from the probe's operation (noise).

Satisfied that we know how to substract from the information returned from the Beyond the information that tells us only of the probe itself, we send it on its mission.

The probe passes through the 'boundry' between the Universe and beyond. Suppose then we actually receive information returned by the probe from the Beyond. Does this information have any meaning at all?

Afterall, won't the Laws of Nature in the Beyond be different from those in the Universe? (They must or the Beyond wouldn't be the Beyond.)

Won't the behavior of the probe be different in the Beyond than when it was inside the Universe?

So what portion of the information being returned from the beyond is information unique to the Beyond, and which portion is information being provided about the probe itself behaving in ways we could never predict?

Thus, there is no practical difference between being unable to make sense of any information returned from the Beyond and the Beyond being non-existant.

Therefore, for its apparent meaninglessness, unintelligible information may be as close to nothing as we're likely to find within the Universe (to revisit the semantic argument, nothing is anything we cannot identify as something -- some part of Everything).

Nothing is what we are seeking for understanding the universe.That "nothing" is the key for finding out why our universe is curve and what we can find in empty space.

...it becomes something, and is not nothing anymore.

:D

So Zen. :D

Originally posted by Bowser - It's filled with ether.
Just want to point out that ether is proved not to exist years ago with the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887. They tried to detect the motion of Earth relative to the ether using the phenomenon of the interference of light to measure the minute distance but no results were found which proved the ether to be non-existant. The reason for ether to exist at the first place was that the Greeks reasoned that in order for light to travel through space, there must be something to allow it to do so as they think it travels like sound waves - which we now know it's wrong. Through the experiment, they found the ether is not required for light to travel and it travels at constant speech, which is used by Einstein for his Theory of Relativity.

Nothing is simply the absence of something. ;)

So, we should be able to find nothing by looking for someplace where something is absent? Where?

Now, Zero is something that mathematically represents nothing. And Nothing is the word used to represent the idea of the absense of something. But where in Nature can we actually find something absent that truly defines the actual existence of Nothing?

:)

"And ofcourse, there is the debate of what is there outside the universe. Hmm...seen Men In Black? At the end, there is a riveting sequence in which it is implies that our universe is just contained in another universe, which is contained in another...etc. How visionary!"

yep, and an Alien playing with it

if it's like that, that's another question

There is a post earlier in this thread relevent to your referenced debate.

If you consider Nothing is a void between somethings then Nothing is still a something.
The only real Nothing you are likely to experience is when you die (unless there is an afterlife of course!)

Jake, Bebelina,

I concur.

As soon as you try to define a nothing it becomes a something.
If the universe is expanding then it must have limits. This being the case, outside the limits defined by the physical size of the universe you may say there is nothing. But the universe expands into it and so even this nothing becomes a something; 'what the universe is expanding into'.

It may be that in the real world there is no such thing as nothing. It may exist only as an abstract concept. Just like a paradox, or infinity.

King Canute in Viking Folklore wanted to show that he had reached a godlike state through his command, so much so that he sat on his throne on a shoreline and command the tide not to come in.

Of course as it goes, the sea did come in and it tarnished his name.

I look at this thread in the same respects.

It's all very well to point at an area and say "It's nothingness, but a space, void of matter and energy" but as with the Tide if something was truly empty to the point of being oblivion, then the energy of the space that surrounds it would only too willingly like to fill that space.

So as for many years before quantum mechanics and it's "Liquid" definitions continues, too look at space as a "Sea" of transversement. (or Zero-point energy)

When discussing what lies 'outside' the physical universe, it seems ludicrous to me to talk about what happenned 'before' the big bang. Time is simply another dimension of the universe; it can only exist so long as the universe itself exists. We only percieve the passage of time because we are beings of this universe, just as we can only describe the motion of a particle in terms of the three dimensions we see, and no more. So I see it as odd to look for nothingness 'before' the creation of the universe.

Looking inside the universe for nothing makes just as little sense(as several of you have already pointed out), because even in the absence of matter, energy exists, so 'something' is still there.

I think the problem here is that we're looking for an ABSOLUTE nothing. I don't think such a thing exists, only relative 'nothings'. Just as there are no absolute positions or velocities in the universe, only relative ones. When speaking of the number of atoms (for instance) in a tube, it has a quantity. But so does the amount of energy, light, etc. One could reduce any of these quantities to zero, procuding a relative zero, but to attempt to reduce all the values to zero wouldn't work.


Just a thought from a newbie =)
Enjoy

Ok correct me if im wrong but ...

we as humans dont have the ablity to conceive the idea of nothing, unfortunately its one of the limitations of our mind.

I dont care how much you talk or how well educated you are , if you can describe what nothing is exactly.....
Then you just described something, therefore, its not nothing after all, and you just wasted your time talking about something.

example......

close your eyes, imagine nothing, then when you have it clearly pictured, remember you just thought of something, IE: a black space or something clear... ermm correct me if im wrong but .....these are somethings.

Nothingness is beyond our comprehension.

let that one sink in and bake ya noodel ;)

cheers

Originally posted by razz
Ok correct me if im wrong but ...

we as humans dont have the ablity to conceive the idea of nothing, unfortunately its one of the limitations of our mind.


That's exactly what I meant. The act of defining a nothing makes it a thing, at least as far as human perception is concerned.
:)

I would just like to mention these points:

1. The post that c'est moi referred to was posted by myself (plagiarist!) and its purpose was to illustrate not only the value of art in science (since art is the nucleus of science) but also an interesting concept.

2. Secondly, this fascinating issue of "nothing" has reared its rather complicated head. There is no such thing as nothing, in my opinion. Possibly a black hole, but I doubt it. It may not actually be a "hole"...rather, the concept of nothing is something derived from Plato & Archimedes in an artistic colour, rather than quantum mechanic. The absence of something is surely impossible? Even in a vacuum there is what we used to call the Boson (recently disproved)...surely something is there...? The concept of zero was invented by we Indians, but it was not supposed to be taken thus...mathematics and physics are the furthest away they ever can be here.

3. And why do people insist on saying that time could not have existed before the universe? Of course, the mathematical singularity at the beginning of the universe (where Einstein's theories disintegrate in order of effectiveness) cancels out the mere chance of calculating anything, so we are left with almost purely scientific-philosophical questions. For example, can there be time without space (as in the universe)?The space time continuum is one of mankind's most profound discoveries, immediately cancelling the idea of time existing without space...but I wonder...?

Perhaps, as Razz mentioned, we (humans, atleast those sans the IQ of Einstein's) do not have the mental capacity of thought to consider nothingness and solely time separately. Perhaps if one had about 150 more IQ points than Einstein...Nothingness is nothing yet so much.

Thatz all for today people.

"nothing" doesn't exist. The word exixts to describe the abscense of anything of real value at the time.

If you get rid of all the atoms/quarks/beta/alpha/leptons/etc etc, you still have a whole zoo of things that we know exist but we cannot locate (i.e. gravity)

Once you get past that, you have Superstrings, intersecting dimensions, blah blah blah.

"Space is not empty". Yes, it is a vacuum, but I think now that humans can create a vacuum that is emptier than space, which means that the vacuum the humans create and space and still not completely empty. There is no nothingness now.
Whether the light came out or nothingness in the beginning may well have been, we may never know, since we only have instruments that can only look back so far, and then there is a gap and I do not think that anyone will be able to actually 'see' the early Universe of the Big Bang!
Different instruments may be used in the upper or lower limit of the electo-magnetic spectrum which is what Einstein worked with on his famous Law of Relativity and Special Relativity.
E= MC^2 is about the electro-magnetic spectrum.

Space is not empty, something like a hygrogen atom, (the basic building block of the Universe, the simplest atom) every something like 2.5cm.

pure "nothing" does not exist(might in the distant future but not now). simple as that

So, Zen was right afterall....
:D

Originally posted by Raion
"Space is not empty". Yes, it is a vacuum, but I think now that humans can create a vacuum that is emptier than space, which means that the vacuum the humans create and space and still not completely empty. There is no nothingness now.
Whether the light came out or nothingness in the beginning may well have been, we may never know, since we only have instruments that can only look back so far, and then there is a gap and I do not think that anyone will be able to actually 'see' the early Universe of the Big Bang!
Different instruments may be used in the upper or lower limit of the electo-magnetic spectrum which is what Einstein worked with on his famous Law of Relativity and Special Relativity.
E= MC^2 is about the electro-magnetic spectrum.

Space is not empty, something like a hygrogen atom, (the basic building block of the Universe, the simplest atom) every something like 2.5cm. Technically Even a vacuum isn't empty. Look up zero point energy.

Empty space is made from matter with the least amount of energy. Therefore, if you had space you would have something. If you want to find "nothing", go to the end of the universe, where space is just begining to form.

Tom

It doesn't work that way.
There is no "edge of the universe."

Alpha,

If space is made of the smallest quants of energy, and space is infinite, than the total energy in the universe is infinite. This is very unlikely.

But if there is a finite amount of energy/matter in the universe and space is composed of this, then the universe is finite in size and it does have an edge.

Tom

Your reasoning is not incorrect, but the case you state is not so... You see, particles have a property called "spin"...which means that they are different depending on which angle from which you look at them. This, combined with the uncertainty principle, means that there is no definite, set level of energy in particles, so ambiguousity clouds the issue...and we still don't know what space is made of, remember! :p

The "thing" that makes up space may well limit the amount of energy that the universe "holds". But, first of all, why should the universe be infinite? Is ANYTHING in the universe infinite? Even the sun's life ends eventually...

Ankit,

Regardless of spin, uncertainty principle, etc., particles exist and therefore must at all times contain at least a small amount of energy. And since space exists, it also must contain a small amount of energy. Therefore, if there is limited energy in the universe, the universe has to be limited in size.

Tom

Which is partly what I said, no?

I've just read from where I last posted to see how this discussion has progressed, After reading all your inputs I've deduced my own reasoning on this subject.

Firstly, I found a mentioning of "An Edge of the Universe", admittedly my perception of the universe is the universe itself exists like a solar system within a galaxy. Our universe is just like a Housing estate or Block in a city.

What our universe exists in is space, It's percievable that there are no limits to the extent of space, just limits on the amount of energy that exists through "Doppler shifts that can use Quantum Entanglement and Doppler Congestion to span the Universe" (congestion meaning that Dopplers are forced to span out after clashing together like the crest of a wave)

The space beyond a percievable edge might actually get to the point of nothingness with no or limited amounts of energy or quanta.

As for the Energy within space and it's definition of it being finite or Infinite, I would suggest the latter. My understanding of how a universe was born, is the idea that at one point there was nothing but space (with a limited energy deduced by relativity).
The understanding of light congregating in a future blackhole to amount the energy necessary to navigate a temporal wormhole back to the beginning of the universe. creating a spout of the first atoms into a relative space, where space now increased with it's waves of dopplers eminating from the newly defined atoms.

The creation of a Star at this point is inevitable from the collection of gases forming, and the gravity they all collect. The continued steam of atoms causes fission enough to burn brightly, and over time it eventually cancels out the blackholes creation.

This would explain how an individual one occurs, since the first dopplers are moving across space they slow and are overtaken by an explosion of quanta from the reaction of the Blackhole to Star invertion. This causes "Clone" versions of that event occuring, with each one occuring the original ones cause small distortions that make each uniquely different.

This of course means that SPACE is MULTIDIMENSIONAL, it holds no bounds to it's dimensional capability. Due to the process I've written above, the amount of matter that can exist within it is INFINITE. The universe continues to expand like a chain reaction.

nothing is everything.
when 1 meets -1,it's nothing, retro is also truth.
retro is very important, it co-exist with the big bang.
when time travel is available, we might get the answer.

Is a nice double-entendre, and will be a good name for my book.

You guys/gals are awesome, and I thoroughly enjoy all of your posts.

Why I and I'm sure the others thankyou for that comment Jagwired I hope throughout the many relevant discussions that everyone has upon this forum, new theories and understandings can be born.

I welcome you to the Forum seeing it's your first post and hope that you join the conversation (or any other at this forum) when you feel comfortable and have the time :D

Well, thank you for that all-encompassing and obviously well-ruminated-over compliment, Jagwired. From all the scientists/artists in this forum, I thank you. Now, where were we?

Ah, yes. "What is nothing?" Well, that is a mathematical identity. "What is it?", you ask. I don't know. The answer is probably contained in 21st century Maths, which hasn't been formulated yet.

Thoughts?

humble me thinks that NOTHING does simply NOT EXIST !

everything is something

rather phylosophical and not really within the direct domain of the positive sciences I think also

it's a point of view you have to take here

and i take this one

it may very well be a wrong question
wrong questions lead to unsolved problems ... simply cause the question is wrong........

Settled vision on an unused landscape Normandy reckoning never to come over a 120 mph headlong thrust a steering wheel circumference never quite described pi of un-halting innumerable digits stretching into the vastness of a predictable deterministic firing of the God knows how many cylinders visiting the long lost never accepted lust filled fire burns from the top of her head into the soul unquenchable desire taking the days as they come two steps backward off the fence by brute force of ballistic bibles filled with the names of the begotten now forgotten likeliest of approaching chosen impending judgment square in the face of the fact catching slightly more enchanted lepton through the slit of its own accord while you're not watching out of the corner the coroners eye glazed over staring ceiling of an abandoned missing tile wires and pipes exposed transporting a substance destination most suited far too near a long time friend but more recent enemy after hour emergency shoulder tears held in despite the apparent need for release sputtering nonsense babbled to the deaf ear nothingness which is quite impossible their own volition caught in the game played by the rules of a world placed in the furthest spiral some whimsical thought alone in the cycle becoming a timeless one with itself maddening enough to make you create despite apathy bearing a laughter out of necessity a great time had by a return to the soiled womb an indifferent fetching image caught in the review mirror brought up to the front seat caught by the hard right hand turn spinning particle out of the lung into yours closest you'll get fighting all the way back to a simpler beginning with all the knowledge this time groundhog while chance devours the chips placed on the table with hope far overdue :confused:

Maby if you go far enough you fall of the "edge" of the universe!!:D
Maby we need another Columbus or a Leif Ericson.
But let's start with Mars,...

Jagwired,

Are we to believe that the ultimate secrets of the Universe can be revealed to us by someone for whom the far easier secrets of both syntax and punctuation remain excruciatingly unknown?

;)

You sure do seem determined to be anointed
'The Curmudgeon of Sciforums.com'.

Rant on, oh wise one! :D

And ... Take care ;)

just as it says,...it's al the things that are not,....even if that place or thing or nothing exists only in theory or in tought,...
people can deduct the nothingness as an X-factor,...it's supposed to be created as the opposite of the materialistic world. But to make things easy to understand: you can look between molecules , you can search the sky and the universe for the end,...but true end is not reached nor breached by breaking or taking the limit,.....
-fractal (looking into matter --> just variations)
-no end nor beginning of universe-

true end is thus reached by a completion wich is limitless,...
so everything equals nothing in this way,
you can not look at one without leaving the other out of sight or count,......
the end is the beginning and vice versa,...
this is also confirmed by cern,....they created anti-matter out of matter,....
It's literally the opposite.
the circle is complete
Thx

:bugeye:

Just a beginner here, but let me ask something.
Nothingness does not exist, we have concluded that, correct? Nothingness is an abstract thought that man invented to describe an amount (equal to none) of something, like 'I have no apples'. Is not this the only applicable situation for the word nothing? Nothing is a state of having none. So to relate it to different situations is possible?
To say that I have nothing of apples, is very real. I have no apples. Simple idea.
But to relate it to the Universe, something we can't even begin to comprehend, is ridiculous. For Nothingness in that relation means a lack of ANYTHING. But wouldn't that mean NO dimensional state as well? Everything in our Universe though lies in the Space/Time thread though, does it not? So then even a lack of energy or matter is still a lack of energy/matter IN a thread of Space/Time? So there may be no energy/matter, but there is still the thread of space/time?

You know, when you really get to thinking about this stuff, you realize how useless this debate is!!!

You know, when you really get to thinking about this stuff, you realize how useless this debate is!!!
For you maby,...too much to comprehend,...and don't get so angry frustrated.

It's useless because it doesn't aid us in any way.
Personally, I find most of NASA to be a complete waste of money. How much does the U.S. government spend on NASA, billions a year? NASA is basically a cold war left over like the CIA that has little value compared to other areas the money could be spent. If it takes us trillions of dollars to discover time travel, would that aid humanity more than if we'd spend that money towards eliminating homelessness? True, these things are less interesting (MUCH), but in my opinion, more important.

It's useless because it doesn't aid us in any way
You refer to yourself when you say 'us'? Or do you refer to me in a position of an outsider?
Do you acspect something only to be usefull if it is benificial or helps you? What if it helps others? Could you settle with that knowlegde? Bearing that in mind?

Tell me in what way you expect me to help you and I will,...I have a good idear tough. But it's not helpfull to ask help just to deny and neclect it afterwards,...by stating that you didn't want someone to give you some answers: He who seeks must not be surprised when there are answers presented to him/her. the seeker will find his quest, to solve the quest, one must be questionable,suseptible and sceptical, ect,...

It is not my intension nor my mission however to impose any threat to anyone,...my proper funtion is also not to lecture you on how to comprehend the vastness of the universe,...my job also does not exists out of telling you what you already know,...(I hope)
It is also not my aim to discuss this hereby,...(don't fight)

Altough I do agree to some height with your conclusions, I must also state that there are more sides to look at, and more perspectives to dis-engage of then you presume. (come to the point=yourself)

Personally, I find most of NASA to be a complete waste of money
Now NASA has some aspects that are mutual beneficial,...for NASA and for 'us' and hereby I don't mean just the states,...but the world. How much money would you spend on research if you knew that this could give an ANSWER to every single dissease,...(for expl.) that would end the suffering for thousands of people thoughout the world,... This actually is not a real aim hence it would counter-act the actual steps taken to control birth/deathrates trough the acutal manipulation of disseases. (like making war spreading disseases basically killing people, esspecially poor people) Until there is a change in mentallity (pro-human instead of contra-human) there wil always be this exploitation of the peoples of this world, yes,...And If I overhear you,....then you don't sound like as if you can imagine how to make a change.

How much does the U.S. government spend on NASA, billions a year?
Here's: (ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/budget/2003/budget_summary.pdf) the exact info on the info you request, just open from location.

As not being American I should not probably be patriotic or something like it but I'm just being positive here: altough I now that there's a lot going on in evil minds and black buget funded programs ect,...and all WE get to see is this: (http://www.nasa.gov/images/nasa1.swf) It's no wonder that people tend to be reluctant to see what the world (not only Americans) is paying for.
NASA is basically a cold war left over
Now that's not entirely true,...
Since its inception in 1958, NASA has accomplished many great scientific and technological feats in air and space.
NASA technology also has been adapted for many non-aerospace uses by the private sector.
NASA remains a leading force in scientific research and in stimulating public interest in aerospace exploration, as well as science and technology in general.
Perhaps more importantly, The exploration of space has helped some people to view the Earth, themselves, and the universe in a new way.
While the tremendous technical and scientific accomplishments of NASA demonstrate vividly that humans (not only Americans) can achieve previously inconceivable feats, we also are humbled by the realization that Earth is just a tiny "blue marble" in the cosmos.
(And it can be destructed just as easally as Mars was by the explosion and then the impact of a planet killer, wich is in the unconsious realm of human beings, but in order to supres this people devised history at their wil, and not to reality.)
a cold war left over like the CIA
Now don't mix up those two so easely as you do,...they may be founded by the same nation,...and they surely serve unilateral purpousses. But nowadays these institutes can not be regarded as leftovers,.... That would be the same as stating that (it's just a way of looking at things differently) you are a 'genetical left over' of your antcesters. (your genes hold also some cultural and behavioral aspects of their lives,...)

No,...we humans (altough I do tend to look at earth as an alien) adopt ourselves to any given situation and circumstance we encounter,...or else suffer the consecuences (we all in fact do suffer from stupid decisions made over our heads wich we are made to believe we cannot change.

Because we all have the power to tap into or to direct ourselves to other experiances if we want,...(or if nessesary) so that in our turn we may give birth to this vision we endorsed troughout our lives. Do not believe the misconception that there is nothing to change,...esspecially: don't be fatalistic: don't say: "I can't help it, it's in my genes" because you can help, you can change,....this world, now,....in this life,....

If it takes us trillions of dollars to discover time travel, would that aid humanity more than if we'd spend that money towards eliminating homelessness?
Here's a culprit: The system is aimed at profit,...a system that is aimed at profit at all costs,...thus: people are not the goal in the first place,...they are merely instuments devised, educated ect,... by this system to aid the system in achieving the system's goal: profit. If the system is telling you that it's actually in service of people: then sure as hell it's aiming at the people who are at the end of the money-line.

Did Jesus pose the questions or did he held the answers? and do you not suppose the answer is already (or at least a part of) the answer? Are the teachings of Boudha maby familiar by you? thoughs really CAN be comprehended,...it's just difficult to explain,...or is it just devised to sustain a level of re-action,...on your behalf,...do you find yourself lectured by many people? Or is it just you who want to lecture others? did you come here to read or just to spread some mayhem and discontent? Do I offend you or did I do so in any way? Are you never angry with yourself? And : great questioning this contribute to nothingness,...by you,....any more idears that help you?
And I do NOT fail to see what all this has to do in particular with this thread: NOTHING :p :p :p

Thx
:bugeye:

Very nicely said, first of all.

For starters, my quote on the bottom. My 'Great are not...' quote. It took me 2 months of studying philosophy from Socrates to Kant, from St. Alms to Neitzsche before I realized the truth in 'the only knowledge is in knowing that you know nothing'. I began to understand that there was far too much possible truth for me to know the exact right answer. Then about a year later I discovered that was completely the wrong way of looking at it (or, to me it was). The only truth, in my belief, is that there is an infinite number of questions. That with every answer we come to, multiple questions arise. So, to me the truth is that those who discover the next questions, are those who have aided man and knowledge. If you simply answer a question, you have halted progress. If you answer a question, then pose the next one, you have continued the search for knowledge and technology. Or, if simply you ask the question, you have still encouraged and pushed the search for knowledge.

Anyway, that's not factual so much as a personal opinion.

By 'us' I meant humanity. I understand and know the technological advancements which are directly resultant of NASA and space travel in general. I understand how important it was during the Cold War and even how some today view it as a cultural race and journey. I understand the attraction to it (as I myself am incredibly wondered, intrigued and mystified by it). But even with these things, I still believe the money could be better spent elsewhere.

I love computers. They are one of my greatest sources of learning, entertainment and passtime. And I realize that chances are, without space travel, we would not have the kind of accessibility to internet or computer technology. Yet, as much as I love it, I believe I would rather see the millions or billions (I can't seem to find an amount online, that link you put sadly doesn't seem to work for me) of dollars given to the poor and homeless than I would see it given to developing new technology for me. It's not that I'm a humanitarian or anything, I just don't understand the selfishness involved in believing we should work on the problems of space/time and discover how to travel through millions upon millions of miles in small amounts of time before we should take care of the problem surrounding us.

Not to sound like some crazy Marxist, but isn't this the whole idea that so many people were once against in democracy? The concept of bettering the wealthy before bettering the poor?

On another note, I would rather be lectured than lecture. I believe it was Budha himself (correct me if I'm wrong) who posed the question; why do you think we have two ears and only one mouth?

I'm not angry in any way, just curious. The more I hear and experience, the more I learn. Experience is learning.

Wel okay then,...

with every answer we come to, multiple questions arise

Now: giving an answer trows more questions néh? : so if anyone (like me for expl.) gives you an answer wich gives you MORE questions :
to me the truth is that those who discover the next questions, are those who have aided man and knowledge
Then I have aided you by giving you an answer, giving you multiple question to chew on,...
so your conclusion that I halted your progress:
If you simply answer a question, you have halted progress.
Does simply not make sense,....(according to your own principles)

And last but certainly not least: It is verry inpolite to answer a question with a question,... :D

For me : My reply on nothingness stands,...and your reply to it doesn't help humans to understand it,....it wil just confuse and diverge the answer to another theme,...upon wich you furiously begin to argue,...

peace man,...

Originally posted by Stryderunknown
Firstly, I found a mentioning of "An Edge of the Universe", admittedly my perception of the universe is the universe itself exists like a solar system within a galaxy. Our universe is just like a Housing estate or Block in a city.

What our universe exists in is space, It's percievable that there are no limits to the extent of space, just limits on the amount of energy that exists through "Doppler shifts that can use Quantum Entanglement and Doppler Congestion to span the Universe" (congestion meaning that Dopplers are forced to span out after clashing together like the crest of a wave)

The space beyond a percievable edge might actually get to the point of nothingness with no or limited amounts of energy or quanta.I think the universe does not exist in space, but the other way around. Space exists in the universe. There can be no percievable "edge" because you could (theoretically) continue in any direction and never come to an edge, but end up back where you started, as if the universe had the shape of a ballon and we're on the surface. Which also explains the expanding galaxies.
As for the Energy within space and it's definition of it being finite or Infinite, I would suggest the latter. My understanding of how a universe was born, is the idea that at one point there was nothing but space (with a limited energy deduced by relativity).
The understanding of light congregating in a future blackhole to amount the energy necessary to navigate a temporal wormhole back to the beginning of the universe. creating a spout of the first atoms into a relative space, where space now increased with it's waves of dopplers eminating from the newly defined atoms.

The creation of a Star at this point is inevitable from the collection of gases forming, and the gravity they all collect. The continued steam of atoms causes fission enough to burn brightly, and over time it eventually cancels out the blackholes creation.

This would explain how an individual one occurs, since the first dopplers are moving across space they slow and are overtaken by an explosion of quanta from the reaction of the Blackhole to Star invertion. This causes "Clone" versions of that event occuring, with each one occuring the original ones cause small distortions that make each uniquely different.

This of course means that SPACE is MULTIDIMENSIONAL, it holds no bounds to it's dimensional capability. Due to the process I've written above, the amount of matter that can exist within it is INFINITE. The universe continues to expand like a chain reaction.There is no such thing as infinity. If you think about it, the concept of infinity is a paradox. Therefore it cannot exist in reality, only as an abstract idea. I think I proved this in another thread.

I've heard of quantum physics uncertainty principle being compared to a typewriter. Now this typewriter is capable of writing up yo fifty characters with fifty different symbols such as A through Z, and 0 through 9 you can supply the rest (period, semicolon,etc.). And what this typewriter goes on to do is write every imaginable thing that has, is and will ever be written. (Gamov's book, "One,two, three, Infinity"). All it goes to show is that there is a lot of meaningless garbage yet to be published about what we cannot measure. Such as the space between the valence shells of an electron's orbital. Supposedly the're forbidden bands. There's not supposed to be anything there, but the method of uncertainty lies in___it grows more certain with___ and less probable with____. Does this help any?

I love words they get you up a creek with out a paddle so fast.

When we ask what is something, we need to be carefull what defintions we use.

Worse still nothing has another handicap it is a negation which is a nasty beast in it'self.

Ok lets get to the bone. First off lets define nothing as a negation of something. Now this concept is artificial. let me explain. To have a negation you always need a universal set, it is what is left over when you take things away from that universal set.

Now if we define nothing as when there everything is removed from the universe we observe. With this set space exists, if we remove space what have we got left - nothing. But can we go to, and is there a place where space does not exist ? No we cant for if it is a place it has a space even if it is infinitely small.

Ok so lets narow the defintion of nothing down a little. Is there a place where the rest of the universe does not affect that place ? Again the answer seems to be no.

Is there a place with no matter, energy. Ie can we or mother nature create a place where no matter or energy exists. The answer to this seems to be no. See the discussion above about quantum probabiltiy being low but never zero anywhere.

There is some argument about the speed of this it is known to exceed C but if less than instantaneous, could the universe expand faster than this and leave a space place where the effects have not yet reached?

Ok so how far do we have to go ? Ok how about a place that we potentially or actually could not detect any matter or energy. Well yes but we would not know we had got lucky and been there until after the event. You just cant know before hand whether that electron from andromeda is going to turn up and trash the place.