Moonshed

I think the only way we can describe a smaller volume within our one cubic metre of nothing is by mathematics. We could, for instance, say we have a volume of one cubic centimetre within our cubic metre of nothing by mathematical showing that we actually have 1,000,000 of them, simply by WxHxD = 100 x 100 x100 = 1 million cubic centimetres. If we want to really impress our spellbound audience, gasp, we could give an exact location of our chosen cubic centimetre simply by given each one a number. We could for example imagine looking at the cube of nothing and starting with the 1cc of nothing at the top LHC and calling it No.1 and work our way along the top row, then continue with second row and so on. We now have a million individually numbered 1cc cubes of nothing within our cubic metre of nothing and can specify the precise location of each. Yeh!!! However, I’m not at all convinced that it is meaningful to describe an area and position within nothing. I’m almost certain that nothingness can only exist as a theoretical concept, but even so in order to agree on what it is we have to agree on a definition. Olly, you seem to be a reasonable man, so please no more inspirations because had you not had the last one I would now be rejoicing and feeling super smug. Life can be so cruel. I want to be alone now. Keith

Hi Olly, I would suggest that a cubic metre of nothing is defined as being that size by the mass that surrounds it and puts that constraint on its size, for without being surrounded by something that we can measure we cannot say what the volume of nothing would be. Adding another cubic metre of nothing gives us two cubic metres of nothing, again determined by the mass that surrounds it. Therefore you will need two cubic metres of normal space with which to contain them. I think that makes sense. Cheers Keith

In that case I will show you may bank balance.

Hi Olly, Now behave yourself, just stop it, you are only making matters worse! Your hypothetical vacuum can be put in a hypothetical FTL spaceship inside a wormhole and disappear in a hypothetical puff of smoke. See how easy that was. 😂 On the other hand, we are told that time stands still for the photon, the only object that can move at light speed. This is beyond my comprehension because how can you have speed without time? I really need my coffee Cheers Keith

Hi bosun21, I find the whole thing regarding our universe being infinite too much to handle, especially like you in the morning! It puzzles me how the universe can be described as infinite and expanding. To my simplistic way of thinking it can’t be infinite if it is expanding. If we wind the clock back to when the universe was the size of an apple, was it infinite then as well? I have a feeling that somebody will come back and explain how it’s all relative from the perspective of inside the universe. As for the multiverse, I think this may have been created to help explain Quantum Physics, but I’m not sure, memory not as good as it once was. In any event it is too much for me to pretend to understand it, it’s like how I have read many books on quantum theory but that doesn’t mean I understand it. Time for a cup of coffee. Cheers Keith

If, as you suggest, you take a volume of space which is a vacuum and then remove all atomic particles you have not created nothing. As @ollypenrice said “My understanding is that, in such a vacuum, new particles would spontaneously appear. There is a minimum energy density which is non-zero. That's why I think it is likely to be one of those infinities which have no physical existence.” That alone negates your vacuum being nothing. As for time, I agree it is not a physical substance, but nonetheless it would still be there as you haven’t removed it, you only removed particles. Time was described by Einstein as the fourth dimension to the three we are familiar with and is at right angles to them. As time is an integral part of the very fabric of the universe it cannot be removed. It is impossible to take any volume of space and reduce it to nothing. If it is possible for nothingness to exist it would have to exist outside of our universe, but that would necessitate there being an outside to the universe. If the universe is infinite, as many top cosmologists and scientists believe it to be, that may well mean that it is impossible to have an outside. I hope my further explanations have helped you to understand my argument. Cheers Keith

Time and gravity do not have any substance to them but nonetheless they are very real and are an intrinsic part of the universe. My point is that by removing all atomic particles from a vacuum they would still remain thus meaning that the vacuum would not become nothing, it still contained something. I don’t follow your point about thinking about nothing puts my thoughts in it. How does that work?

By removing all atomic particles that still leaves time, and other dimensions, plus gravity, not sure of what else, so we haven’t arrived at nothing yet. Back to the drawing board 🥸

To answer the OP’s original question “What does nothing look like?” Nobody has a Scooby. I think that is self evident. The End.

A very good talk by Lawrence Krauss sprinkled as usual with his little quips, he has a wicked sense of humour. For those intending to watch this very good presentation be advised that Krauss does not enter the stage until 13 minutes in and starts talking about Nothing at 35 minutes in. Well worth watching all of it though, after he first appears. Cheers Keith

Hi Jim, I would agree with you in that all fields are an intrinsic part of the fabric of the universe. I can only think of one place where they may not exist, inside a black hole. Cheers Keith

Agree 100%. Well worth watching.

Because of your post I now have that infernal song running through my head. I need a stiff drink 😄

Hi Jim, I agree with that comment that some things that are real cannot be seen, I have no problem with that, be it some esoteric mathematical formula or gravity, they are real but cannot be seen. The problem here is that I have never discussed that point, it arose from a misunderstanding by @vlaiv of my reason why “nothing” can’t be seen, I have never mentioned anything at all about something that cannot be seen, that’s just a misunderstanding and I hope I have now clarified that point. I am also off to bed now, way past my bedtime. Cheers Keith

Hi @vlaiv I can see that you are still misunderstanding me because you just said “Well, I misread your post for sure, but then again, I'm not sure that I understand what you mean that if something can be seen it can't exist.” You are making the same mistake about what I have said. I said that if NOTHING could be seen then it can’t be “nothing” because to be seen requires that an OBJECT emits or reflects light, therefore it’s not “nothing” if we can see it. I made no mention of “If SOMETHING can be seen it can’t exist. You asked “…if by definition nothing can't be seen and we see it then it can't exist as such - but what would be definition of nothing that says it can't be seen?” I don’t have a problem with not seeing “nothing”, that much has been covered, but a definition of it that says it can’t be seen, is to me, unnecessary, we have already said why it can’t be seen, only objects that emit or reflect light can be seen. I quote below from my very old website my attempt at defining nothing, best read while drinking your favourite alcoholic beverage. “A definition of Nothing. The use of the word 'nothing' has a very special meaning in this context, unlike our every day use of the word. It means here quite literally nothing, the complete absence of everything. By definition then nothing must be an infinite void. If nothing exists it would HAVE to be infinite. This is a result of it not being allowed any boundaries, as a boundary would place a limit on nothing's size and furthermore would also indicate that there was something existing on the 'other ' side of the boundary, apart from the boundary itself existing. This would be contrary to our definition of both infinite and of nothing. This also, it should be noted, excludes anything existing in any other dimension, or dimensions, as a dimension would then be a boundary. Nothing then, when described as an infinite void, excludes all possibility of anything else existing, anywhere. I hope I have made this point absolutely clear, this is what having nothing would mean, absolutely nothing anywhere. The only conclusion I can draw from that is nothing cannot exist, because we do. Could nothing have existed in the past? No. If it existed in the past, then some event must have taken place to end it. An event would be impossible in nothing, so nothing could never have existed because we do, and as our universe now exists, nothing can never exist in the future either. Why could an event not happen in nothing? Because apart from the obvious that there is nothing to happen, an event would create and require a moment in time. There can be no time in nothing as relativity describes time as just another dimension. As for Time, without it nothing must have always existed, it can not have a beginning or end because either would create a moment in time. It would in reality be meaningless to ask how long nothing has existed and how long it will continue to exist, it would be eternal and unchanging. Again, because we exist, nothing could not have had an existence because the creation of the universe would have required a significant change, thus contravening an unchanging nothing. We will look at this idea of creation in more detail later. Nothing can not have any laws of physics because there is nothing to apply those laws to, also the very concept of having laws contravenes our description of nothing. In the absence of any basic laws, let alone matter, how could anything be created? Once again, because we exist nothing could not have. Could the universe have been created in nothing? No, for the reasons stated above. However, just for the sake of argument, let us imagine it was. If the universe was created in nothing then where was it 'put'? If somewhere 'outside' of nothing, this would require an 'outside' to pre-exist, but it could not because that would require a boundary. It can not be ' put' within nothing, because containing a universe would no longer be within our definition of nothing. So far then we have discovered that by using the simple definition of nothing as being an infinite void we have placed the following conditions on it:- 1) It must be timeless. 2) It must have always existed and could not have been created. 3) It is unchanging. 4) Nothing else can exist. 5) It is unable to create anything. We have now concluded that nothing, when described as an infinite void, could never have existed because we do. There is however nothing wrong with the definition itself, the existence of nothing as an infinite void would appear to be logical, more than that, it HAS to be that way, nothing could not have any restraints of size or time placed upon it.” That’s my thoughts on the matter, the best I am able to come up with and that was many years ago. Feel free to find fault or criticise. Cheers Keith

Err, no Jim, just the opposite, it cannot be seen for the reasons I have stated, that to be seen requires an OBJECT to emit or reflect light, therefore “nothing” cannot be seen and therefore cannot be visually described. You can of course describe nothingness in a number of other ways. Cheers Keith

Nor would I, I did not say that. What I did say was “In order to “look like” anything requires that an object emits or reflects light to enable us to see it. Now that being the case then “nothing” cannot exist if it can be seen.” in other words I wasn’t saying that if something can’t be seen it doesn’t exist, rather that if “nothing” can be seen it can’t exist. Two very different things. I hate contradicting you @vlaiv, it makes me feel nervous.🤐 Keith

I think the answer is in the question “What does nothing look like?” In order to “look like” anything requires that an object emits or reflects light to enable us to see it. Now that being the case then “nothing” cannot exist if it can be seen. The answer then becomes clear, it is impossible to see nothing therefore we cannot say what it looks like, it cannot exist if we can see it in order to make a comparison. @andrew s made a better fist of it with his very succinctly worded explanation “Nothing by definition doesn't look like anything.” Yes Andrew, that sums it up nicely

That was so uplifting, seeing a video of the beautiful Northern Lights accompanied by such perfectly suited music. It was all so well done!

I feel sure that our individual eyesight is every bit as much a factor of seeing colour on the moon as moon phases, aperture size, the EP used and type of telescope. At my age of 77 I will obviously see less detail on the moon than a younger person because of the natural deterioration in my eyesight, in the same way that I cannot hear the high tones in music anymore, but a young person can. I cannot see any colour on the moon but do not dispute that others might.

Yes, and it could turn ugly 900SL, maybe we should stop broadcasting and seek shelter while we can. Back to you guys in the studio. 🤭

You really are having a bad time of it @wookie1965 with a number of painful areas to deal with. Whatever course you decide to take I hope it works well for you, as well as can be expected. Good luck for the future, clear skies! All the best Keith

Oxycontin is of course an opioid and carries all the risks that go with that, including possible addiction. I have been on Fentanyl, another opioid, for the last 15 years to control pain in my lower spine caused by cancer. It controls the pain just great but I have become highly addicted to it to the extent that if I miss renewing a patch then the withdrawal I go through is absolutely intense. It took me a while to figure out what the hell was going on just because I missed replacing a patch, I was climbing the walls the entire night! This last happened about 5 years ago I make absolutely certain I have patches in reserve and that I never forget to renew one, won’t ever happen again, that’s for certain! As with all powerful drugs it’s a question of striking a balance between an acceptable level of pain and the unfortunate side effects. I’m sure you must have it all under control. I wish you well Keith

And you only mentioned your thumb?

Sorry to hear your bad news, you will most likely find that a high number of members suffer with the same problem, it’s a real curse. Hope the strap support helps and relieves the pain and you manage to get back to observing in a degree of comfort.