What does nothing look like?

[Moonshed]

14 minutes ago, bosun21 said:

I agree with you about it apart from the infinite universe. If it is indeed infinite then what about the multiverse which many astrophysicists talk and theorize about ? This is too much to comprehend in the morning.

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

[Moonshed]

23 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

We are happy with the idea that time slows to a standstill at the speed of light. At a standstill, I don't see how it can separate events. What if space, too, can reduce to zero? If it can, then where would we put our hypothetical vacuum?

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

 

[andrew s]

Lets keep it simple. Following Einstein,  time is what a clock measure and keeps everything  from happening  at once. Space is what a rulers measure and stops everything being in the same place.

No clock no time, no ruler no space and no clocks or rulers no space time.

Regards Andrew 

I will refrain from trying to debunk the misunderstanding about light, photons and time etc. Life is too short and I have flies to catch using the Mr Miyagi chop stick method.

Edited April 14, 2023 by andrew s

[ollypenrice]

4 hours ago, andrew s said:

Lets keep it simple. Following Einstein,  time is what clock measure and keeps everything  from happening  at once. Space is what rulers measure and stops everything being in the same place.

No clock no time, no ruler no space and no clocks or rulers no space time.

Regards Andrew 

I will refrain from trying to debunk the misunderstanding about light, photons and time etc. Life is too short and I have flies to catch using the Mr Miyagi chop stick method.

So that NOTHING! Brilliant, we got there. But... erm, what does it look like???

lly

 

Edited April 14, 2023 by ollypenrice
typo

[andrew s]

13 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

So that NOTHING! Brilliant, we got there. But... erm, what does it look like???

lly

 

I already answered that.  It doesn't look like anything 😕

Regards Andrew 

[Alien 13]

22 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

So that NOTHING! Brilliant, we got there. But... erm, what does it look like???

lly

 

I want to know how big or small NOTHING is too. 😋

Alan 

[Moonshed]

32 minutes ago, Alien 13 said:

I want to know how big or small NOTHING is too. 😋

Alan 

In that case I will show you may bank balance.

Edited April 14, 2023 by Moonshed

[ollypenrice]

49 minutes ago, Alien 13 said:

I want to know how big or small NOTHING is too. 😋

Alan 

Excellent!  I have a cubic metre of nothing and I find another cubic metre of nothing. Do I need two cubic metres of space in which to contain them? Or will they both fit into no cubic metres of nothing?

lly

[Moonshed]

20 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Excellent!  I have a cubic metre of nothing and I find another cubic metre of nothing. Do I need two cubic metres of space in which to contain them? Or will they both fit into no cubic metres of nothing?

lly

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 

Edited April 14, 2023 by Moonshed

[saac]

7 hours ago, andrew s said:

Lets keep it simple. Following Einstein,  time is what a clock measure and keeps everything  from happening  at once. Space is what a rulers measure and stops everything being in the same place.

No clock no time, no ruler no space and no clocks or rulers no space time.

Regards Andrew 

I will refrain from trying to debunk the misunderstanding about light, photons and time etc. Life is too short and I have flies to catch using the Mr Miyagi chop stick method.

I couldn't resist, courtesy of ChatGPT :  

Jim

In spacetime's fabric, light does race, 
At constant speed, it keeps its pace,
Its world line traced in null event's space, 
No time to feel, no moment to embrace.

Null trajectories, world lines traced,
In spacetime's fabric, they are based,
A path through which light is raced,
And cosmic mysteries are faced.

No time to feel, no moment lost,
In timeless flight, no matter the cost,
Null events are where they are crossed,
And in their wake, we're left engrossed.
 

Edited April 14, 2023 by saac

[saac]

57 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Excellent!  I have a cubic metre of nothing and I find another cubic metre of nothing. Do I need two cubic metres of space in which to contain them? Or will they both fit into no cubic metres of nothing?

lly

Just don't expect to fly Ryanair with them without paying for overhead storage.

Jim

ps - my engineering head cannot fail to comment that you have over specified your container - most inefficient use of material  

Edited April 14, 2023 by saac

[ollypenrice]

11 hours ago, Moonshed said:

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 

Hmm... I was about to concede defeat and accept that the mass outside the nothing could be used to define its volume, but inspiration saved me at the last moment! Within the one cubic metre volume as you describe it,  can we meaningfully describe a smaller volume such as one cubic centimetre?  You might try to do so by defining it as a distance from the sides of the cubic metre - but that would be unsporting!

lly

[Moonshed]

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

Hmm... I was about to concede defeat and accept that the mass outside the nothing could be used to define its volume, but inspiration saved me at the last moment! Within the one cubic metre volume as you describe it,  can we meaningfully describe a smaller volume such as one cubic centimetre?  You might try to do so by defining it as a distance from the sides of the cubic metre - but that would be unsporting!

lly

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

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, Moonshed said:

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

Ypu're right, this conversation is doomed. Nothing will come of it.

lly

[Mr Spock]

For those who have difficulty with the metric system, can you convert a cubic metre of nothing into standard giraffes please.

[billhinge]

13 hours ago, Moonshed said:

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 

Since nothing doesn't contain any fermions and therefore not subject to Pauli Exclusion Principle why can't you stack both cubic metre volumes inside one another, there is nothing to interact with or repulse each other causing outward pressure. Furthermore you could pour the nothing into a container half the size  ad nauseam till you get to infinitesimal size  (since we are putting nothing in )

[iantaylor2uk]

I agree with one of the earlier posts that lengths and time do not exist if there is nothing. To measure a length you need something there to compare against. Similarly, to measure time you need something to happen. 

[billhinge]

23 minutes ago, billhinge said:

Since nothing doesn't contain any fermions and therefore not subject to Pauli Exclusion Principle why can't you stack both cubic metre volumes inside one another, there is nothing to interact with or repulse each other causing outward pressure. Furthermore you could pour the nothing into a container half the size  ad nauseam till you get to infinitesimal size  (since we are putting nothing in )

For the confused ...

Imagine Maxwells Daemon, you tell him to take each cubic component of nothing and stack them so that they will fit into a box half the size of the original (like filling a box with building blocks), since you can stack each nothing block on top of each each other you can always stack nothing into a smaller volume (it has no physical properties to prevent this). Therefore nothing is infinitely compressible to an infinitely small size, why would you expect anything else, what pushes back if you try to compress it? (forget the artificial construction of the box since it is not nothing)

This is akin to asking what does the universe expand into? Nothing, there is no embedding space

[Moonshed]

31 minutes ago, billhinge said:

Therefore nothing is infinitely compressible to an infinitely small size, why would you expect anything else, what pushes back if you try to compress it?

Hi billhinge,

I think we are in danger here of taking our hypothetical cube of nothing and then introducing whatever properties we wish in order to support any given argument. Everyone has their own ideas on exactly what nothing is, so until a unanimous definition can be agreed upon we can make our cube of nothing perform cartwheels if necessary. 😄

Until then, we can argue endlessly regarding what we can do with our hypothetical cube of nothing. 
 

Cheers

Keith
 

[billhinge]

23 minutes ago, Moonshed said:

Hi billhinge,

I think we are in danger here of taking our hypothetical cube of nothing and then introducing whatever properties we wish in order to support any given argument. Everyone has their own ideas on exactly what nothing is, so until a unanimous definition can be agreed upon we can make our cube of nothing perform cartwheels if necessary. 😄

Until then, we can argue endlessly regarding what we can do with our hypothetical cube of nothing. 
 

Cheers

Keith
 

Hi Moonshed

Surely we are debating the properties of nothing not hypothetical cubes which by definition are made of something and have 'some' physical rigidity, I'm actually trying to avoiding giving the box any properties 

Not convinced? Take a 2m cubic box full of air and put a plunger on top. If you push the plunger in then the air in the box will resist 

If you pump out the air to create a vacuum (approximation of nothing) then you can push the plunger all the way to the bottom achieving infinite compression of the vacuum space

In the real world if the box were flimsy enough the external pressure itself would crush the box (air pressure, photon pressure, virtual particle pressure on the outside of the box since there isn't anything to resist other than the artificially introduced properties of the box which we eliminate by making it extremely flimsy).

The introduction of a rigid box is the issue here (it isn't nothing and you are letting its properties influence the experiment)

As I said a few days ago, my opinion is nothing exists a concept same as Father Christmas, pi, imaginary numbers(?) but it doesn't exist in this Universe as a real physical thing that you can measure or see, but as you say everyone has an opinion and this is mine

[iantaylor2uk]

Pi definitely exists as we define what it is and can measure it, or calculate what it is. If it didn't exist how can it be measured?

[billhinge]

25 minutes ago, iantaylor2uk said:

Pi definitely exists as we define what it is and can measure it, or calculate what it is. If it didn't exist how can it be measured?

can you write it down to the last digit, can you draw a circle and measure it exactly? Even if you 'knew' what it was would you have enough paper or computer RAM to hold it all?

I don't dispute you can get gazillion digit approximations of pi but it isn't pi, its an approximation of the concept of pi

The best you can do is create a useful approximation of pi that is useful to you

[iantaylor2uk]

You can't write it down to the last digit because there isn't one. The fact we can approximate it surely means it exists though.

[ollypenrice]

I agree with Billhinge. The cube containing nothing is unconnected with the nothing it contains. Isn't this imaginary cube the same as the imaginary grid on which the Newtonian concept of space fatally relies?

Or, to look at it another way, do two cubic metres of nothing contain more nothing that one cubic metre? Clearly not, so the cubic metre must be fallacious as a volume of nothing.

Olly

[andrew s]

Newton viewed space and time as absolutely (the same for all observers) Einstein viewed them as relative (different for observers in motion with respect  to each other) however, both are geometry.  They are models, useful representations in different circumstances. No fabric to rip or weave just a branch of mathematics. 

In this sense the physicists spacetime is as real or unreal as the mathematicians pi. 

Philosophy has dined out for decades on debating what terms like real and nothing mean without any accepted progress. 

Regards Andrew 

PS how can nothing be contained by anything? For if it could it would be the something contained by the anything and so not nothing any more.

Edited April 15, 2023 by andrew s