So God, You Wanna Come Out and Play?

[RJM]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...ientific-meanings-of-nothing/?sh=2d7495c91a5f
Thanks @Aupmanyav
Very well expressed. So I have pulled out some main bits for people who will not read the whole thing.
I go with number 4:

Four Scientific Meanings of Nothing

1) A time when your "thing" of interest didn't exist. How did the Universe make planets? How about stars? How about a matter asymmetry? These things didn't always exist, but rather had to be created. When the mechanism is known, we normally say that our "thing" was created from something, rather than nothing … According to some, this means that the matter we have today arose from nothing, although others who adhere strictly to one of the other definitions dispute this.

2) Empty space. Think of all the "things" that exist in the Universe today. Think of every fundamental constituent of matter; every quantum of radiation; every black hole; every mass; every particle and antiparticle. Now, imagine removing them all. Imagine somehow taking them out of the Universe, leaving nothing but empty space behind. What would you have left? Some call that "nothing," and are quite happy with that definition. The entity known as spacetime is still there, as are the laws of physics.

3) Empty spacetime in the lowest-energy state possible. What if the zero-point energy of the Universe were reduced to its true ground state? … If you reached whatever the true ground state is and expelled all the matter, energy, radiation, and spacetime ripples from your Universe, what would you be left with? That is, perhaps, the ultimate idea of what "physical nothingness" can be: where you still have a stage for the Universe to play out on. There may be no players, no cast, no script and no scene, but in the great abyss of nothingness, you still have a stage.

4) Whatever you're left with when you take away the entire Universe and the laws governing it. At last, you can conceive of removing everything, including space, time, and the rules that govern any sort of particles or quanta of energy. This creates a type of "nothing" that physicists have no definition for. This goes beyond "nothing" as it exists in the Universe, instead realizing some sort of philosophical, absolute nothingness. But in the context of physics, we cannot make sense of this sort of nothingness. We'd have to assume that there is such a thing as a state outside of space and time, where you can have the emergence of spacetime from this hypothesized state of true nothingness.

But is that possible? How does spacetime emerge at a particular location, when there's no such thing as space? How can you create the beginning of time if there's no concept of something like "before" without time already existing? And where, then, would the rules governing particles and their interactions arise from? Does this final definition of "nothing" even mean anything at all, or is it just a logical construct with no physical meaning of its own?

If something fundamentally arose where there was no such thing before, you can call it nothing, but not everyone will agree. If you take all the matter, antimatter, radiation, and even spatial curvature away, you can certainly lay a claim to that being what "nothing" is all about, but there are some "things" that are still around.

If you then take away any energy inherent to space itself, leaving only spacetime and the laws of nature, you can call that "nothing" as well. But ... Only by taking away that as well will some finally acquiesce to calling such an entity "nothing."

 

[powessy]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...ientific-meanings-of-nothing/?sh=2d7495c91a5f
Thanks @Aupmanyav
Very well expressed. So I have pulled out some main bits for people who will not read the whole thing.
I go with number 4:

Four Scientific Meanings of Nothing

1) A time when your "thing" of interest didn't exist. How did the Universe make planets? How about stars? How about a matter asymmetry? These things didn't always exist, but rather had to be created. When the mechanism is known, we normally say that our "thing" was created from something, rather than nothing … According to some, this means that the matter we have today arose from nothing, although others who adhere strictly to one of the other definitions dispute this.

2) Empty space. Think of all the "things" that exist in the Universe today. Think of every fundamental constituent of matter; every quantum of radiation; every black hole; every mass; every particle and antiparticle. Now, imagine removing them all. Imagine somehow taking them out of the Universe, leaving nothing but empty space behind. What would you have left? Some call that "nothing," and are quite happy with that definition. The entity known as spacetime is still there, as are the laws of physics.

3) Empty spacetime in the lowest-energy state possible. What if the zero-point energy of the Universe were reduced to its true ground state? … If you reached whatever the true ground state is and expelled all the matter, energy, radiation, and spacetime ripples from your Universe, what would you be left with? That is, perhaps, the ultimate idea of what "physical nothingness" can be: where you still have a stage for the Universe to play out on. There may be no players, no cast, no script and no scene, but in the great abyss of nothingness, you still have a stage.

4) Whatever you're left with when you take away the entire Universe and the laws governing it. At last, you can conceive of removing everything, including space, time, and the rules that govern any sort of particles or quanta of energy. This creates a type of "nothing" that physicists have no definition for. This goes beyond "nothing" as it exists in the Universe, instead realizing some sort of philosophical, absolute nothingness. But in the context of physics, we cannot make sense of this sort of nothingness. We'd have to assume that there is such a thing as a state outside of space and time, where you can have the emergence of spacetime from this hypothesized state of true nothingness.

But is that possible? How does spacetime emerge at a particular location, when there's no such thing as space? How can you create the beginning of time if there's no concept of something like "before" without time already existing? And where, then, would the rules governing particles and their interactions arise from? Does this final definition of "nothing" even mean anything at all, or is it just a logical construct with no physical meaning of its own?

If something fundamentally arose where there was no such thing before, you can call it nothing, but not everyone will agree. If you take all the matter, antimatter, radiation, and even spatial curvature away, you can certainly lay a claim to that being what "nothing" is all about, but there are some "things" that are still around.

If you then take away any energy inherent to space itself, leaving only spacetime and the laws of nature, you can call that "nothing" as well. But ... Only by taking away that as well will some finally acquiesce to calling such an entity "nothing."

Hello RJM

I will try to explain nothing as I see nothing. First of all nothing is something just not something here.

Lets try this then, lets say we have two colored bread boxes, one of them blue, and the other one red, for simplicity. In the blue bread box you have a loaf of bread and in the red box you have nothing yet. In the red box no bread has yet existed there and at this point is only speculated at this time to its existence and will only become something if the blue box contains no bread inside of it. One might think that since there is still dust or small particles remaining that this still represents something but these particles are now pressed down into origin and not in time any more so are not something here.

I use the word nothing loosely as you have to see nothing to understand it. Now we will say the blue bread box is able to remember the bread within it by the shape and contents of the bread itself, I call this yourself or the yourself of the bread, this can also be thought of as a thought form of the bread in the displacement of space. Over time now the bread will start to mold and rot away, the atoms or energy of the atoms will move away from it and enter into a state of nothing here. The bread or the dust left behind will remain here but it's energy moves into nothing here as a yourself of the bread is now holding a memory of what it is and the things inside of it.

The other problem with nothing here is the observer can only observe in one timeline. If you were able to watch the bread become nothing here in all five timelines it would make it easier to understand nothing here when it reaches a point it can not figure itself out again.

As for the bread boxes once all the bread in the blue box is gone and nothing but dust ripped apart and compressed into nothing remains it will explode outward to form muffins in the red box. Once everything enters into origin we will never find time in the blue box again.

Now we have muffins in our red bread box made from the same ingredients as the bread was made of. The shape and size of the muffins constitutes the whole amount of mass as the bread did. The problem now is we are in the red box and the blue box now has nothing inside of it but a memory of what it was. The blue box has all the yourselves that ever existed within it still there and it also has nothing inside of each yourself.

So the blue box will never become itself again but we can get the yourselves of the blue box to become the yourselves of the red box so they can become something again.

When I talk of nothing I never mean empty space it is just the opposite, what I mean is nothing here the changing of the states of matter and energy. I have descended to a size I can fit through the fabric of space entering into other timelines to be the largest thing there. I have watched nothing rip itself apart to figure something out breaking itself into smaller and smaller pieces just to become something again. As nothing descends into itself to become nothing again it will keep ripping itself apart to become something again until it reaches origin were time does not exist. If nothing enters into origin it will never find time to become something again and is there for lost. If the opposite were to happen and nothing enters into origin but finds time it can become itself again and again until the thing it's figuring out becomes itself forever inside of nothing here.

I probably made this more confusing I wish I could show you and then you would understand what I am trying to say.

Powessy

 

[RJM]

Hello RJM

I will try to explain nothing as I see nothing. First of all nothing is something just not something here. *

Lets try this then, lets say we have two colored bread boxes, one of them blue, and the other one red, for simplicity. In the blue bread box you have a loaf of bread and in the red box you have nothing yet. In the red box no bread has yet existed there and at this point is only speculated at this time to its existence and will only become something if the blue box contains no bread inside of it. One might think that since there is still dust or small particles remaining that this still represents something but these particles are now pressed down into origin and not in time any more so are not something here.

I use the word nothing loosely as you have to see nothing to understand it. Now we will say the blue bread box is able to remember the bread within it by the shape and contents of the bread itself, I call this yourself or the yourself of the bread, this can also be thought of as a thought form of the bread in the displacement of space. Over time now the bread will start to mold and rot away, the atoms or energy of the atoms will move away from it and enter into a state of nothing here. The bread or the dust left behind will remain here but it's energy moves into nothing here as a yourself of the bread is now holding a memory of what it is and the things inside of it.

The other problem with nothing here is the observer can only observe in one timeline. If you were able to watch the bread become nothing here in all five timelines it would make it easier to understand nothing here when it reaches a point it can not figure itself out again.

As for the bread boxes once all the bread in the blue box is gone and nothing but dust ripped apart and compressed into nothing remains it will explode outward to form muffins in the red box. Once everything enters into origin we will never find time in the blue box again.

Now we have muffins in our red bread box made from the same ingredients as the bread was made of. The shape and size of the muffins constitutes the whole amount of mass as the bread did. The problem now is we are in the red box and the blue box now has nothing inside of it but a memory of what it was. The blue box has all the yourselves that ever existed within it still there and it also has nothing inside of each yourself.

So the blue box will never become itself again but we can get the yourselves of the blue box to become the yourselves of the red box so they can become something again.

When I talk of nothing I never mean empty space it is just the opposite, what I mean is nothing here the changing of the states of matter and energy. I have descended to a size I can fit through the fabric of space entering into other timelines to be the largest thing there. I have watched nothing rip itself apart to figure something out breaking itself into smaller and smaller pieces just to become something again. As nothing descends into itself to become nothing again it will keep ripping itself apart to become something again until it reaches origin were time does not exist. If nothing enters into origin it will never find time to become something again and is there for lost. If the opposite were to happen and nothing enters into origin but finds time it can become itself again and again until the thing it's figuring out becomes itself forever inside of nothing here.

I probably made this more confusing I wish I could show you and then you would understand what I am trying to say.

Powessy

* Ok
Thank you.
The coloured bread boxes analogy is quite a good mental image; I can relate it to Schrodinger's Cat? But of course a simple explanation using only words is impossible. I want to read it carefully.

To me, depending on the way that each individual 'mind' perceives it, something like that is probably the actual reality of what is happening in the earth-surround -- close to the world. Every 'mind' will perceive it in their own way.

EDIT
I've read it more carefully, and it makes more sense to me than you might think.
Thanks again