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?
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. 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.
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.
