So, it's impossible for actual nothingness to exist, right? Everything is something? Question: In the vacuum of space where large areas contain only a handful of particles far apart from each other, what is in between them? We can't say nothing, right? "Nothing" can't take up space. Right? So in a vast area of space you may only have a few particles and a lot of "???" Is it really completely empty? Nothing?
[img src]
I'm sure Wolfram Alpha can help somewhat, but I'm curious to hear people's explanations.
Nothing is all the bits we don't understand.
ReplyDeletePossibly.
I cannot answer that question, but that picture is beautiful!
ReplyDeleteNick, it's so interesting to see "Nothing" used as a noun that one is describing. I know this probably gets done in philosophical discussions all the time, but I just noticed it. Talking about Nothing as if it's Something. I guess the idea of it is Something, right? Also, good guess. Or maybe we (I mean, someone somewhere. Astrophysicists?) DO understand those bits but it's not in the general consciousness because of how complicated it is to explain. Possibly.
ReplyDeleteThanks Aly! I just edited the post to include a source, which I should have done before.
I think the current theory/explanation involves Dark Matter and Dark Energy. However, existence of those is not proven, just inferred from observed affects.
ReplyDeleteFrom everything I've studied about the subject it boils down to these little things called "virtual particles" that blink in and out of existence... which leads to even more questions(where do they go, how are they formed, etc). Just a simple "what exists between two atoms?" could make your brain hurt.
ReplyDeleteNothingness is an odd in the sense that by trying to prove it exists(which is absurd because then it would be -something-) we have to prove that everything else doesn't!
Yo Angelynx69... ASL BRB LOL OMG, imo.
the most interesting consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to me is what id mentions, the froth of virtual particles. basically, we generally know of one form of the principle that says: the more we know about a particle's location, the less certain its velocity (and vice versa). the lesser known is: the more precise a particle's energy, the less precise its location in time (and vice versa). after some physics tricks, you get to the point that amounts of energy can be "borrowed" from "nothing", so long as its short enough to satisfy the uncertainty principle. virtual particles are created this way, and annialate themselves quickly. ultimately, enough energy can be borrowed to create an entire universe from scratch...
ReplyDeletePerhaps it's almost impossible to discuss the intricacies of space, without its fellow twin chap time.
ReplyDeleteA short story by Isaac Asimov (I don't remember the title) dealt with a subject similar to the texted question. The clocks that most accurately measure time are the so called atom clocks. But even these clocks don't display time as a continuous event. These clocks tick. The same question applies: what happens between the ticks of those clocks? There was a picture in the book showing a man seated in his living room, while between the ticks of the clock the same space was inhabited by a jungle and a tiger walking through the ethereal man. Both universes inhabited the same space, but were invisible to each other because their clocks didn't tick at the same frequency.
Perhaps bothe questions are complements?
Tristan and Denis, I think my head imploded twice upon reading those. So cool. Thank you :)
ReplyDeleteI argue with my friends about "Noon" and "Midnight" being neither AM nor PM and it reminded me of the ticking clock analogy. There has to be a point that goes from AM to PM between 11:59 and 12:00.000000001... and that point is neither AM nor PM. Okay you get my point, imo.
ReplyDeleteNo sweat, as all credit goes to the Asimov man for "imploding" my mind, years ago. I'm just happy passing on that strong creative spark.
ReplyDeleteyeah, i love that space between ticks. also, on a related topic, there is the concept of light cones. if you imagine an event in time and space being a single point, then you can imagine light speeding away from that point right after the event. it radiates out at the speed of light, creating a "cone" of sorts if you look at it from a higher dimension (the point of the cone being the event, and its body being the light radiating outwards). since nothing can move faster than light, anything outside of the cone cannot have been affected by the event, since the light hasn't reached it yet. basically, the cone defines what can be affected in the future by the event. but, if you have two events happening at around the same time but at a distance, so that neither is in the cone of the other, it's impossible to say which event happened first or second. the concept of before or after can't be measured between the events, only in general in relation to an event (before) and something in its cone (after).
ReplyDeleteLove the conversation here. I've had my head stuck in the time question for ... some time now. I'm really interested in how we perceive time and how it influences our behavior. Dr. Phillip Zombardo has done some amazing research over the last couple decades that show how we perceive the future and past impacts our actions far more than our economic or social backgrounds.
ReplyDeleteThe question of the time between ticks... literally... time is a dimension. Clocks are a metaphor for our movement through that dimension. Consider our movement through that dimension akin to our constant movement around the universe. It happens and we're not conscious of it. You'll never travel a greater distance than the distance you've already traveled through time.
i particularly love your last sentence, bud.
ReplyDelete