World of Warcraft

I gleefully await your attempts!

The complete lack of anything.

Potential to become everything.
Nothing>big bang>everything
Void=potential

Absolutely f all

no potential, no actual. Just completely f all.

(Well, I couldn't make a post without typing anything, so yeah).

This ---> <---

This ---> <---

no, there is space there!

There is no such thing as "nothing" in the physical world. There is no such place in the universe that is void of everything.

03/08/2011 14:04Posted by Immolate

There is no such thing as "nothing" in the physical world. There is no such place in the universe that is void of everything.

the outside of the universe in some theory's is described to be Nothing tho, no matter, no energy, dimensions, simply nothing

03/08/2011 14:33Posted by Duckvader

There is no such thing as "nothing" in the physical world. There is no such place in the universe that is void of everything.

the outside of the universe in some theory's is described to be Nothing tho, no matter, no energy, dimensions, simply nothing

If the outside of the universe is nothing that means there is no outside the universe. So you basically disproved that there is an "Outside the universe".

I'm interested to hear which theories state that the "outside of the universe" lacks dimensions and is nothing. The big bang theory? Tells us that there is no "outside of the universe" and it's standard model simply states that the universe is isotropic, homogeneous and that there is no special frame of reference in our universe (so as soon as you think you're at the "edge" you are really in the "centre"), so the three basic assumptions the BBT makes dictate that there cannot be an "outside of the universe".

String theory, M-theory and other superstring theories don't really tell us about "outside of the universe" in fact in String theory the universe is very very different from the standard BB model. (Hidden dimensions exist, all matter is made up from one dimensional strings and our four-dimensional universe is restricted to a brane inside a higher-dimensional space, called a bulk, where other universes can also exist)

But if string theory (or any of its derivatives) does tell us that if there is an "outside of the universe" it certainly does have dimensions and certainly does have a medium by which energy can travel through (which debunks the "nothingness" of it). M-theory actually tells us that the start of our universe was created by colliding branes (not really the "start" of our "universe", rather the collision caused all the energy in our universe to become present, via the energy introduced during the collision). Besides, superstring theories have been developed to solve the more pressing question of "Why is gravity such a weak force?" which it does offer an answer to but leaves so many other questions unanswered.

Anyway, space is simply a definition of the distances between physical objects, nothing more. The BBT states that there is that there is no need for an external higher-dimensional space to hold the curved 4D spacetime of our universe and that our universe is perfectly selfcontained without reference to any such "external space".


To answer the OP, it is impossible. Technically, a vacuum is "void of everything" but the ideal vacuum is impossible to conceive of because it will contain "something". Freespace is also considered to be "void of everything" but such definitions have lead to stop thinking of nothing as an "absence of stuff" and start trying to think of a better definition, so far I have failed. But thanks for giving me something to think about whilst I eat my dinner!

The standard Big Bang Theory is incomplete, if we include inflation and chaos inflation then we have an outside of the universe, the quantum ripple responsible for the Big Bang has to be outside the universe. On top of that we have the universe expanding, it falls outward losing gravitational energy and gaining dark energy. How can it fall outward if there is nothing?

The sum energy of the universe is 0 therefore came from nothing, so the definition of nothing would be:

A lack of and potential for, everything...

People think too deeply about such a simple to answer question.

pronoun

not anything; no single thing:I said nothing there's nothing you can do they found nothing wrong
something of no importance or concern:‘What are you laughing at?’ ‘Oh, nothing, sir’they are nothing to him[as noun] :no longer could we be treated as nothings
(in calculations) no amount; nought.

adjective
[attributive] informal

having no prospect of progress; of no value:he had a series of nothing jobs

adverb

not at all:a man who cared nothing for herhe looks nothing like the others
[postpositive] North American informal used to contradict something emphatically:‘This is a surprise.’ ‘Surprise nothing.’

easy.

Okay, inflationary theory was created because it helps solve some of the most fundamental questions that the big bang theory cannot. Inflation was proposed to resolve these unanswered questions and it's physics are based exclusively on the BBT but that is somewhat irrelevant.

I'm not saying that the BBT dictates that there isn't a "outside of the universe" but rather that there is no need for an external higher-dimensional space to hold the curved 4D spacetime of our universe: you can have a perfectly self-contained description of curved spacetime and an expanding universe without referring to any such external space. That doesn't mean such a space might not exist, it just means that there is no compelling reason we must believe in such a space, and if general relativity is correct the existence of such a space would have no testable consequences.

In addition, the "quantum ripple" you are talking about would have had to exist within spacetime, and we have no real "observable" data to back this up with anyway, so saying that quantum fluctuations in spacetime are what caused the big bang singularity is purely speculation

From nothing there is chance of potential. In this state something is bound to happen. This will then be everything. Everything can not be contained in 0 space/time and it creates the smallest possible space and time.

`

04/08/2011 02:17Posted by Dhrizelle

`

IS THAT A COMMA I SEE?

DISQUALIFIED

It is impossible for the human mind to imagine anything other then 3 dimensional objects. Thus it is just as impossible to imagine nothing as it is to imagine a 4 dimensional cube (Tesseract).

After some thought, here is an answer: (In terms of science/physica/philosophy)

Vacuums are regions of space which do not contain any matter, but they will/must contain physical fields which can be used as a reference point in spacetime (so they contain something).

A region of space which contains nothing is a logical contradiction because, even when you remove all matter and physical fields, it will still contain gravity (because gravity cannot be blocked from other physical object within the universe). Along with gravity, all objects at a non-zero temperature radiate electromagnetically so some forces/energy will still be present.

So you finally conceive of a place which has no matter, no physical points of reference, no fundamental interactions (including the removal of gravity) and the "nothingness" exists at absolute zero thus removing an forms of energy and reaching the lowest possible value of entropy, right? But it still isn't "nothing" because it will still have mathematical/physical properties and must have a measurable existence because it is part of the quantum-mechanical vacuum.

So in terms of logical thinking and science, it is impossible to reach a sate of "nothingness" because it will still have properties and an existence (along with reference points in spacetime).



In addition, if you subscribe to a model of our universe that dictates that it is infinite, nothingness is, once again, physically impossible: because everything exists within the infinite universe (there is no "outside of the universe" because the universe is everything) and so the nothingness must exist within the universe, thus making it "something" as opposed to "nothing". <- I do not agree with the notion that our universe is infinite, but if you do then "nothing" is certainly physically impossible.

04/08/2011 00:02Posted by Dronê

In addition, the "quantum ripple" you are talking about would have had to exist within spacetime, and we have no real "observable" data to back this up with anyway, so saying that quantum fluctuations in spacetime are what caused the big bang singularity is purely speculation

Well of course it is, but so is saying there is nothing outside :)


I also do not think outside the universe can be nothing, objects fall from areas of high gravitational energy to low ones, the universe expands by falling outward, and would only do so if the outside of the universe had a low gravitational energy. Therefore outside the universe has at least one property and thus not nothing!
I have to agree with Drone, to me nothingness seems impossible. Anywhere inside the universe at least, as wherever you are, there is radation (you can see stars and neutrinos are passing through you), should we wait until the universe has expanded to a size and acceleration that means no radiation is reaching you, then we still have interaction with dark energy and gravity.