Absolute nothingness

It may be relevant to mention here that mathematics rules in all robustly logical formulations, and that Kurt Gdel rattled our foundation of mathematics very badly when he proved that:
'All consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undeciable propositions."”HM

Sounds like someones been reading the Summa Theologica...

The naive concept of space between naive concepts of particles is not 'nothing', but instead a misunderstanding of what constitutes space and what constitutes particles. It certainly has 'nothing' to do with the bandying of the word 'nothing' in the context of 'outside' or 'before' the universe. Particles are merely ripples on the surface of an ocean of space. The ocean exists (and is certainly not nothing) even if it happens to be flat smooth upon occasion.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

First off; Could you discribe the difference between the space between particles & the space outside of the universe. What about their composition (for lack of a better term) makes them different?

---

Secondly; The only problem is that if you conceed that point Nothing automatically equates to Everywhere and Forever. But then, that could be the composition of Nothing. Hence, the reason we can't preceive & measure it. (What measures Infinity?)Extend the theory, and the only thing you need to do to create Existance from Nothing is to apply duration and placement to Nothing. (And if time is distance, that's just one force).OK, that is a big 'only'. But if you could find & create that force, theoretically you could create matter. Scary thought.Edited by MadaManga, : Extending commentEdited by MadaManga, : No reason given.

---

Nothing is perfect.Before the universe was nothing and when the universe is perfect it will be nothing.Is it fair to say that Universe resulted from "Nothing" being rendered imperfect to form "Existance"

There is no 'space' outside the universe - there is no 'outside' the universe. The universe is existence. 'Outside' the Universe does not exist. Hence my original point that the words 'nothing' and 'emptyness' are completely inappropriate in this context.If I ask 'what is north of the North Pole' the answer is not 'nothing' but 'the question is ill-defined'. Same with 'what is outside the Universe?' or 'what came before the Universe/Big Bang?'The space between particles is exactly the same as the particles, just with lower localised 'energy' for want of a better word at this level of explanation. You could imagine space as a sheet, and particles as knots in the sheet - there are not two distinct entities: space and that which lives in space. All are part of the same whole. That whole is existence. I have no physical description of it other than poor analogies as it encompasses everything, so there is nothing with which to describe it. However, I can describe it mathematically and that is what we do - welcome to General Relativity and Qunatum Field Theory...

So you're saying the entire concept of Nothing is wrong.The whole universe has something present, even at the smallest magnitudes beyond conception. There is no point of Total Absence.I guess the way to prove or disprove that theory is to find the energy that exists at every point of existance, a Universal constant, as it were.Oh, and I never said there was an edge to the Universe, just meant that there is no point in wasting resources going to a theoretical edge to study the nature of nothing.Edited by MadaManga, : No reason given.

Yep, found it, we call it the vacuum energy. On the cosmological scale it is currently thrusting the Universe apart.

But Einstein's theory of Vacuum Energy is contended because the maths behind it makes the energy 120 times larger than what is needed to cause the Universe to expand at its current rate.Physicists contended it with supersymmetry theory, which cancels out vacuum energy completely.And yes, I am just looking at a copy of New Scientist. I don't know this stuff off the top of my head.

---

Nothing is perfect.Before the universe was nothing and when the universe is perfect it will be nothing.Is it fair to say that Universe resulted from "Nothing" being rendered imperfect to form "Existance"

True nothingness means no space, no dimensions and no timeNothingness is not just vacuum space. It is no space and no time at all.My old physics lecturer used to say there are three questions in physics1) what is nothing
2) What is a thing (i.e. what is matter)
3) What is consciousnessif those can be answered then we have the answer to everything

So is true nothing infinite then?

What is conciousness?Well, here is one Creationist theory on conciousness I came across in another forum;

quote:

---

From the writings of a Hindu Creationist;

​

First of all, consciousness does not come from a combination of chemicals. Consciousness is a non-material energy. Thus, consciousness exists before, during, and after the material creation. This means that the origin of the material cosmos and all life within it must also be consciousness, a Supreme Consciousness from whom come all other forms of consciousness that take up residence in the varieties of material bodies or species found in this material creation.

---

Of course, no one has proven that conciousness has a specific energy.Maybe it the energy that exists everywhere, in an odd joining of science & religion.

---

Nothing is perfect.Before the universe was nothing and when the universe is perfect it will be nothing.Is it fair to say that Universe resulted from "Nothing" being rendered imperfect to form "Existance"

It only equates to that because we've defined it as "lack of existance", which is what is "outside" the universe. That is how it becomes Everywhere and Forever, even though that becomes contraditory, because if it is assigned a place and time then it is no longer "outside" the Universe, by which it would no longer be nothing.I think infinite nothing might be contradicting itself but it is necessary, by definition, so then "Nothing" becomes a logical impossibility. Which gives us the false statement:Nothing is a logical impossibility.I still think we can say that "Nothing" goes on forever, ie is infinite.Now what about the statement?:Nothing is infinite.I do know one thing...this is getting ridiculous.

Ok, first off vacuum energy is an experiemental fact. Tests of the Casimir Effect are probably the most obvious examples.Einstein never had a theory of Vacuum Energy. He reasoned that a QM system will have a non-zero ground state. GR has a cosmological constant, but doesn't say anything about it - it is a free parameter and can take any value.The super-large vacuum energy calculation comes from Grand Unification and SuperGravity. It is still a mystery. SuperSymmetery doesn't actually help much.

Well if it has no time and no spatial dimensions I suppose it is infinite in the sense that it never ends. But equally it is totally non infinite as it never actually starts either I don't think our limited consciousnes is capable of comprehending true nothingness.

I see no reason to think that nothingness is perfect in any way. But perfect is a subjective term and perfection is in the eye of the beholder.Is it fair to say that if any sort of sentience did create the universe they obviously did not consider nothingness perfect otherwise they would have left well alone and not cocked it all up by creating something so imperfect in it's place.