Why do people refer to space as nothing or nothingness?

[uberrobonomicon4000]

I was talking to some other people about this after reading a thread by Copernicus and come to find out people do refer to space as nothingness, even though it is present and houses all matter.

I generally think of nothing as nonexistent, is there an exception for space?

Maybe someone can give a better explanation for this. But from my understanding of space (being nothingness), it would act as a giant elastic bag that is empty.
The more stuff that gets added to the bag (say we put marbles in it), it expands. Is this similar to the properties of space? Is there no elastic bag?

IMO - There seems to be more to this problem than what people normally think or originally thought, because you cannot always take something at face value. As in, we as human, have developed sensory ways of acquiring information here on earth to detect elements such as oxygen, sunlight, and even gravity. But is there a point in space where we simply don’t have the sensory to observe things that are beyond our own cognitive abilities? Even where math is not capable of producing results? Hence, the reason why people developed calculus and other branches of mathematics too explain such phenomenon.


* I could probably go on and on about this forever, but for the time being I will leave it at that, because I would like to know what other people have to say. *

 

[Quintessence]

A really important question first. Which definition of "space" are you talking about? There are several. I presume you mean something like "the universe" or "astronomical phenomena not including earth" but there are many other definitions of "space" so... this is important to clarify. I think looking at the other definitions of "space" might help you understand why "space" can legitimately be a reference to nothing, because "space" can mean a zone between objects that contains... well... nothing.

 

[Lady B]

I was talking to some other people about this after reading a thread by Copernicus and come to find out people do refer to space as nothingness, even though it is present and houses all matter.

I generally thinking of nothing as nonexistent, is there an exception for space?

Maybe someone can give a better explanation for this. But from my understanding of space (being nothingness), it would act as a giant elastic bag that is empty.
The more stuff that gets added to the bag (say we put marbles in it), it expands. Is this similar to the properties of space? Is there no elastic bag?

IMO - There seems to be more to this problem than what people normally think or originally thought, because you cannot always take something at face value. As in, we as human, have developed sensory ways of acquiring information here on earth to detect elements such as oxygen, sunlight, and even gravity. But is there a point in space where we simply don’t have the sensory to observe things that are beyond our own cognitive abilities? Even where math is not capable of producing results? Hence, the reason why people developed calculus and other branches of mathematics too explain such phenomenon.


* I could probably go on and on about this forever, but for the time being I will leave it at that, because I would like to know what other people have to say. *

I don't refer to space as nothingness, I think of space as empty like a glass is empty but has potential to be full and anything with potential is not nothing :areyoucra

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

A really important question first. Which definition of "space" are you talking about? There are several. I presume you mean something like "the universe" or "astronomical phenomena not including earth" but there are many other definitions of "space" so... this is important to clarify. I think looking at the other definitions of "space" might help you understand why "space" can legitimately be a reference to nothing, because "space" can mean a zone between objects that contains... well... nothing.

I'm not refering to the space in your living room from the recliner to the television. I am referring to space as the universe, the distance between galaxies, planets and stars. What actually makes up "space."

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

I don't refer to space as nothingness, I think of space as empty like a glass is empty but has potential to be full and anything with potential is not nothing :areyoucra

I agree the concept of space is not nothingness, yet being empty.

How is anything with potential considered nothing?

 

[Desert Snake]

I think it generally is (or was) referred to as "empty" mainly to delineate it from, say, the earths atmosphere, which although is 'space' in that it can contain objects, it is not 'nothing' like outer space.
Lol not sure if that helps

 

[Lady B]

I agree (with you that) the concept of space is not nothingness, yet being empty.

How is anything with potential considered nothing?

Well it exists does it not? we know it exists right? therefore it is something, it is unchartered and so some say it is nothing, but ....It has potential to be chartered right? so therefore it is not nothing. It is empty and it is unchartered but when it becomes accessable then that space will have a name and will no longer be known as empty, nothing,or unknown.:faint:

 

[Lady B]

I agree the concept of space is not nothingness, yet being empty.

How is anything with potential considered nothing?

My actual quote says "anything with potential is NOT nothing"

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

My actual quote says "anything with potential is NOT nothing"

I know, I didn't mean anything by it!

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I'm not referring to the space in your living room from the recliner to the television. I am referring to space as the universe, the distance between galaxies, planets and stars. What actually makes up "space."

Em, the only difference between the space in my living room, and the space in the galaxy, is??? I assume you are referring to the 3 dimensions of reality that serve as the fabric to which all else is related?

I think you question is a great one to ask here and has a lot of implications. I think it's merely that we can not observe space as such. We can see there is distance between two objects, or between ourselves and another object. But if you were the only thing in the universe, would you even have a concept of space? So intuitively there is nothing there.

Nothing seems to be a word to describe 'something' that has no context in the proximate conversation. What's in the glass? Nothing (that I can drink). What are you up to? Nothing (worth talking about). What's in the room? Nothing (that I can see).

Nothing as a concept of the absence of anything, context or not, may be just a more formalized usage of the word? It is very interesting though.

Nothing does not exist is being studied as a scientific hypothesis if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Lady B]

I know, I didn't mean anything by it!

no problem, thought provoking thread by the way,maybe explains why my brain hurts now

 

[crossfire]

I was talking to some other people about this after reading a thread by Copernicus and come to find out people do refer to space as nothingness, even though it is present and houses all matter.

I generally think of nothing as nonexistent, is there an exception for space?

Maybe someone can give a better explanation for this. But from my understanding of space (being nothingness), it would act as a giant elastic bag that is empty.
The more stuff that gets added to the bag (say we put marbles in it), it expands. Is this similar to the properties of space? Is there no elastic bag?

IMO - There seems to be more to this problem than what people normally think or originally thought, because you cannot always take something at face value. As in, we as human, have developed sensory ways of acquiring information here on earth to detect elements such as oxygen, sunlight, and even gravity. But is there a point in space where we simply don’t have the sensory to observe things that are beyond our own cognitive abilities? Even where math is not capable of producing results? Hence, the reason why people developed calculus and other branches of mathematics too explain such phenomenon.


* I could probably go on and on about this forever, but for the time being I will leave it at that, because I would like to know what other people have to say. *

I think this might be due to the western tendancy to focus on objects and things rather than systems/processes. (An American mom showing a toy truck to her child will say, "look at the wheels on the truck. Look at the bumpers. The truck can roll!" whereas a Japanese mom will say, "I roll the truck to you, you roll the truck to me. If the truck hits the wall, the wall says 'Ouch!'")

Space is the arena where the interactive processes occur--without space, there is no interaction, no movement, no room for comparisions or even separation of objects or processes--not even a place for conceptual thinking to develop.

Space is form, and form is space. Energy needs space to organize into matter, matter needs space to organize into forms.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The physicist's approach to space, like anything else, is to avoid vagueness. So for example, if you describe space as 'X' that is only meaningful if you can also describe what 'not X' means. Furthermore, if you say something about space there must be way to tie that back to the results of experiments. That way, we are all on the same page. So when someone claims that space has property 'X', we should all recognize that 'X' is shorthand for 'if you do such-and-such experiment, you will obtain such-and-such result".

This approach is important, because there are many versions of 'space' that we could imagine. They are all valid as far as imagined things go. But that is "folk physics". If we want to know what things are like in the real world, we have to go out and test our ideas.

Armed with this approach, I encourage anyone interested to read about these three different notions of "space" in physics:

(1) Space in Galilean relativity / classical mechanics (this is the ordinary notion we are all intuitively familiar with of space as a universal backdrop);
(2) Space in Einstein's special relativity (space and time are not universal backdrops, but strangely, are different depending on the observer's motion);
(3) Space in Einstein's general relativity (mass distorts space and time);
(4) Space in quantum field theory, or the "vacuum state" (space as the lowest possible energy state, a weird fluctuating sea of particles popping into and out of existence);

Ideas (1) and (2) are still great approximations but are now known to be incorrect. Ideas (3) and (4) are correct as far as they go, but because we don't have a complete theory of physics we know they will end up being modified or merged together somehow. The final word on "space" is yet to be written!

 

[crossfire]

I think this might be due to the western tendancy to focus on objects and things rather than systems/processes. (An American mom showing a toy truck to her child will say, "look at the wheels on the truck. Look at the bumpers. The truck can roll!" whereas a Japanese mom will say, "I roll the truck to you, you roll the truck to me. If the truck hits the wall, the wall says 'Ouch!'")

Space is the arena where the interactive processes occur--without space, there is no interaction, no movement, no room for comparisions or even separation of objects or processes--not even a place for conceptual thinking to develop.

Space is form, and form is space. Energy needs space to organize into matter, matter needs space to organize into forms.

Wiki article--Ma
This shows the eastern perspective, and gives some easy to understand examples of the interaction between space and form, like the pauses between the notes in music.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

The physicist's approach to space, like anything else, is to avoid vagueness. So for example, if you describe space as 'X' that is only meaningful if you can also describe what 'not X' means. Furthermore, if you say something about space there must be way to tie that back to the results of experiments. That way, we are all on the same page. So when someone claims that space has property 'X', we should all recognize that 'X' is shorthand for 'if you do such-and-such experiment, you will obtain such-and-such result".

This approach is important, because there are many versions of 'space' that we could imagine. They are all valid as far as imagined things go. But that is "folk physics". If we want to know what things are like in the real world, we have to go out and test our ideas.

Armed with this approach, I encourage anyone interested to read about these three different notions of "space" in physics:

(1) Space in Galilean relativity / classical mechanics (this is the ordinary notion we are all intuitively familiar with of space as a universal backdrop);
(2) Space in Einstein's special relativity (space and time are not universal backdrops, but strangely, are different depending on the observer's motion);
(3) Space in Einstein's general relativity (mass distorts space and time);
(4) Space in quantum field theory, or the "vacuum state" (space as the lowest possible energy state, a weird fluctuating sea of particles popping into and out of existence);

Ideas (1) and (2) are still great approximations but are now known to be incorrect. Ideas (3) and (4) are correct as far as they go, but because we don't have a complete theory of physics we know they will end up being modified or merged together somehow. The final word on "space" is yet to be written!

Thanks for the links! I read some of them and agree with quantum field theory the most. Simply because of the following:

"According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space", and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void." According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence."'

Particles that pop into and out of existence makes me think of some type of disturbance.
Like a lake that is nice and calm until a person on a jet-ski goes flying across it at 50mph and causes a wake to splash up against a pleasantly undisturbed cove.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Thanks for the links!

You're welcome!

Particles that pop into and out of existence makes me think of some type of disturbance.
Like a lake that is nice and calm until a person on a jet-ski goes flying across it at 50mph and causes a wake to splash up against a pleasantly undisturbed cove.

That's a good analogy. The main difference would be that a lake is capable of being calm if it is undisturbed, whereas the vacuum state is the lowest-energy state possible, and therefore it can never "calm down". So the vacuum state is like your disturbed lake analogy, except the lake is disturbed all by itself and can't calm down, sans jet skis.

 

[Leonardo]

The physicist's approach to space, like anything else, is to avoid vagueness. So for example, if you describe space as 'X' that is only meaningful if you can also describe what 'not X' means. Furthermore, if you say something about space there must be way to tie that back to the results of experiments. That way, we are all on the same page. So when someone claims that space has property 'X', we should all recognize that 'X' is shorthand for 'if you do such-and-such experiment, you will obtain such-and-such result".

This approach is important, because there are many versions of 'space' that we could imagine. They are all valid as far as imagined things go. But that is "folk physics". If we want to know what things are like in the real world, we have to go out and test our ideas.

Armed with this approach, I encourage anyone interested to read about these three different notions of "space" in physics:

(1) Space in Galilean relativity / classical mechanics (this is the ordinary notion we are all intuitively familiar with of space as a universal backdrop);
(2) Space in Einstein's special relativity (space and time are not universal backdrops, but strangely, are different depending on the observer's motion);
(3) Space in Einstein's general relativity (mass distorts space and time);
(4) Space in quantum field theory, or the "vacuum state" (space as the lowest possible energy state, a weird fluctuating sea of particles popping into and out of existence);

Ideas (1) and (2) are still great approximations but are now known to be incorrect. Ideas (3) and (4) are correct as far as they go, but because we don't have a complete theory of physics we know they will end up being modified or merged together somehow. The final word on "space" is yet to be written!

As I've mentioned in the nothing thread we could look at space as the spatial degrees of freedom of matter, where manifolds (Space) are actually emergent properties of matter. The idea is similar to the notions of the universe expanding. Some ask into what is the universe expanding? The answer is that there is no need for the universe to be expanding in some container. We could take that idea to the atomic level and make the same claim, particles are not contained in space, yet they can freely manifest spatial degrees of freedom. The idea actually goes to the extent that a manifold is not a real substance or object, but a mathematical constuct whose rules are governed by system(s) that can emulate one. Space would then be governed by matter and its subatomic interactions. Its in effect a form of comptuational generated space where matter and how it interacts forms manifolds.

What limits the spatial degrees of freedom of matter? What if there were infinite dimensions but 99.999 percent of the time only three dimension manifest the others just cancel out? This would explain why we usually only find three dimensions. Since matter is the generator of space we can now see how space can expand or warp, the rules controlled by matter can actually re-size the manifold by reactions! This idea does not conflict with Relativity nor notions of geodesic space.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Well Leonardo I believe that is essentially how physicists treat space. Matter (and non-matter, by the way) have degrees of freedom, three of those degrees of freedom correspond to positions along the X,Y, and Z axes relative to some observer. Then there are degrees of freedom for things like particle number, momentum, spin, etc. As for higher spatial dimensions, those sleepless theoretical physicists have been working on it for ages. Lots of things have been calculated assuming more than three spatial dimensions exist, but as far as I know the three dimensions we know and love are compatible with the data so far. We shall see!

 

[Leonardo]

Well Leonardo I believe that is essentially how physicists treat space. Matter (and non-matter, by the way) have degrees of freedom, three of those degrees of freedom correspond to positions along the X,Y, and Z axes relative to some observer.

Yes but those spatial degrees of freedom are constrained by space-time! Why? nobody really has an answer other than they just are, and lucky for us because gravity doesn't work in hyper-dimensions, at least not in allowing for orbits of planets and/or stars. So my argument is; a manifold (space-time) is an abtract mathematical construct that can only be manifested by the execution of rules. What ends up emulating(creating) a manifold are the interactions of particles where space-time emerges because of embedded rules in matter.

Whether a dimension exists or not is a feature or property of matter that is a result of quantum effects that allow a dimension to manifest. So we don't have to ask if a dimension exists or not or how many dimension can there be, no more than we need ask how many points exist between any two points! Infinite dimensions are possible but only some manifest as matter formalizes into states.

 

[Lady B]

Yes but those spatial degrees of freedom are constrained by space-time! Why? nobody really has an answer other than they just are, and lucky for us because gravity doesn't work in hyper-dimensions, at least not in allowing for orbits of planets and/or stars. So my argument is; a manifold (space-time) is an abtract mathematical construct that can only be manifested by the execution of rules. What ends up emulating(creating) a manifold are the interactions of particles where space-time emerges because of embedded rules in matter.

Whether a dimension exists or not is a feature or property of matter that is a result of quantum effects that allow a dimension to manifest. So we don't have to ask if a dimension exists or not or how many dimension can their be, no more than we need ask how many points exist between any two points! Infinite dimensions are possible but only some manifest as matter formalizes into states.

yeah what he said !!