If a certain identifiable part of space that has no type of measurable energy fields manifesting 'in it' for a given duration ; is such a totally empty space the same as 'nothing'? Anything with any property that introduces comparable measurements into its physical states is not nothing as 'nothing' could be said to be perfectly incapabable of being measured. A space with no energy fields within it still can have a coordinated system of measurements regarding anything that could travel through the space , so it is not the 'same' as nothing. Is this argument correct?
10
-
3$\begingroup$ In general you'll find working physicists are uninterested in arguments like the definition of the word nothing. $\endgroup$– John RennieFeb 21, 2016 at 8:54
-
2$\begingroup$ @JohnRennie: That is not so. Even though I am retired I have been trying to get my hands on "nothing" for over 20 years. Every time somebody asks me about its properties and how one can create "something from nothing" I request a sizable sample. I do feel enormously frustrated that despite my generous offer to perform extensive precision DC and AC electrical testing for free (!) nobody has ever honored my request. $\endgroup$– CuriousOneFeb 21, 2016 at 8:58
-
1$\begingroup$ Hello. This is either a philosophical question, or, if you want it to be scientific, you should try to present arguments that might have a way of being scientifically studied. To just write some of about nothing( a very dense philosophical subject nevertheless) is no well-based scientifically. How can we study nothingness and what more can we tell about it than we already can: that is nothing? So, if this question bothers you from a physical point of view I think you must become more precise on what term we should discuss nothing. Thanks. $\endgroup$– Constantine BlackFeb 21, 2016 at 10:17
-
1$\begingroup$ There's actually a long discussion in Arostotles Physics IV.B, which you may find interesting; but it's probably best discussed on Phil.SE; despite how the book is titled. $\endgroup$– Mozibur UllahFeb 21, 2016 at 12:25
-
1$\begingroup$ I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is about philosophy and not physics. $\endgroup$– DanuFeb 21, 2016 at 14:16
|
Show 5 more comments
3 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
11
It's probably worth noting that this is a cross-disciplinary subject; with a strong weighting towards philosophy.
In Aristotles Physics; he writes:
The notion that there has to be a void for movement to occur turn out, on reflection, to be quite the opposite of the truth: void makes it impossible for anything to move.
The idea that the earth is at rest because of the equilibrium of things is analogous: by the same token, anything in a void is bound to be at rest, since there is now-where for it to move to more or less than anywhere else, because the void by definition contains no differentiation.
The conceptual picture one might have, is the picture of a manifold thought intrinsically, ie a circle 'hanging in the void'; though that sentence, taken literally makes no sense; and extrinsically when thought as drawn in some other manifold, say the Euclidean plane and, or on a sphere.
In the first picture, the intrinsic one, there is nowhere one can push any part of the circle to; all we have is a circle - and nothing else; pardon the pun.
In the second picture, the extrinsic one; one can certainly push or pull the circle in the plane or sphere; it's what we do with rubber bands.
It's worth noting too, that this is only one notion of rest (and void) that Aristotle uses amongst several in his discussion of the philosophy of nature.
answered Feb 21, 2016 at 12:38
-
1$\begingroup$ Hello. I 'm finding very interesting quoting Aristotle here, in Physics Stack Exchange. If I may propose two thinks, or may I ask them as questions: 1)Can there be a comparison between the word of Aristotle with the findings of current Physics, 2) could you make some references on the subject by more recent philosophers(Heidegger, Sartre, last century) and how they stand in comparison with Physics? Thank you. $\endgroup$ Feb 21, 2016 at 12:53
-
1$\begingroup$ @black: well, here's one quote for you, Heidegger said (expressing a sentiment about Ancient Greek philosophy) that "philosophy started in greatness, continued in greatness, and ended in greatness"; that's a quote in his discussion of Metaphysics, and probably not quite what you were looking for; I'm not particularly interested in Sartre, unfortunately. $\endgroup$ Feb 21, 2016 at 13:03
-
$\begingroup$ ... are you suggesting this because he wrote a book, Being and Nothingness? $\endgroup$ Feb 21, 2016 at 13:07
-
$\begingroup$ @black:You might want to ask those questions on Phil.SE; they're more suitable there ;). $\endgroup$ Feb 21, 2016 at 13:09
-
$\begingroup$ Neither of them discuss A's physics in the terms that he put them in, by the way; they have their own philosophical project. $\endgroup$ Feb 21, 2016 at 13:15
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
2
Even if something like what you described exists, those coordinates have to be totally imaginary in absence of anything. And imaginary stuff should not impact anything including symmetry.
-
$\begingroup$ I think what 'nothing' is in a 'physical' sense and whether it is the same as 'empty space' that is devoid of energy fields is interesting within the philosophical viewpoints of physics. I mean what is 'empty space? Is anything that can be called 'nothing' actually realizable in the Universe , or is any particular thing in the Universe not nothing? $\endgroup$– 201044Feb 27, 2016 at 0:07
-
$\begingroup$ Surely the question of what IS empty space is partly a 'physics' question ? $\endgroup$– 201044Mar 18, 2016 at 23:33
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
2
We fixed this in our computers (5th D, virtual reality, whatever name fits best) by starting with 1 instead of 0. The paradigm shift of our perception of a point of origin will be slow but inevitable. Without a fixed point of origin there cannot be a definitive perception of a unilateral boundary of equidistant from a center point. (ie. it frees us from the box)
RE:in response to creating something from nothing,,,I know of two examples,,one involves complex geometry that actually has a lot to do with point of origin of a sphere(I'll find a link). The other is when stars fuse hydrogen together to make helium,,compare 2H atoms atomic mass to one He.
-
$\begingroup$ Well 2 hydrogen atoms is not exactly nothing. $\endgroup$– Jan BosFeb 21, 2016 at 14:54
-
$\begingroup$ Is empty space with no energy fields manifesting within it the same as 'nothing' (in whatever definition a physicist might use to describe 'nothing'). If indeed physics has a 'real' identifiable concept that is used to represent 'nothing'. $\endgroup$– 201044Mar 10, 2016 at 20:04