Vaccum = nothing?

[Anonymous No.10477418]

If all matter like planets, stars, etc were removed from the universe leaving only vaccum there would still be an empty universe right?

The universe would still exist, just empty. So what is the vacuum? What is the difference between non existence of the universe and this state, if any? Would it be theoretically possible for the universe to not exist, as in there is no 3D space at all.

[Anonymous No.10477426]

>>10477418
Dark Energy is probably an element of Vaccum and Virtual Particles could arise from Vaccum as well. True Nothing only exists in mathematics.

[Anonymous No.10477450]

A vacuum still consists of the various fundamental fields and whatnot.

[Anonymous No.10477462]

>>10477418
Read about Zero-Point Energy. Then Casimir Effect.

The "vaccum" is not nothingness. If you shake it a little bit stuff start popping out into existence.

[Anonymous No.10477477]

>>10477426
>>10477450
So, is our visible universe of 9b light years like a bubble in an infinite field of dark energy stretching forver in all directions? Isn't inifinity also just a mathemetical concept?

>>10477462
Yeah I guess what I'm trying to imagine is "true nothing"

[Anonymous No.10477548]

>>10477477
Indeed, true nothingness is hard to imagine. No space, or no time - what is that?

[Anonymous No.10477692]

>>10477548
That's how I always thought it was before the big bang but it doesn't make sense. True nothingness seems impossible.

[Anonymous No.10477699]

>>10477477
Our visible universe is most likely just the extent of what we can see, given the finite age of the universe and the amount of time light has had to travel. There's no good reason to think the universe suddenly ends at the limit of our sight, and several good reasons to think it continues for at least a very long way after that (including cosmic microwave background, measurements of curvature of the universe, observed homogeneity and isotropy combined with the cosmological principle in general)

[Anonymous No.10477707]

>>10477692
I have a feeling true nothingness is very, very different from the boring blank slate that we imagine. For instance, it must be capable of producing a universe and conscious observers.

[Anonymous No.10477717]

>>10477699
Specifically I mean there likely isn't just an expanse of empty space beyond the visible universe, but countless more galaxies

[Anonymous No.10477732]

>>10477707
>I have a feeling true nothingness is very, very different from the boring blank slate that we imagine.

I'm trying to imagine true nothing, not even a blank slate, no emptiness. Just nothing. Hard to give a methaphor for it but like a human before being born but for everything. Not sure if this state is even possible. I mean the laws of our universe does not apply to a non universe.

[Anonymous No.10477739]

>>10477418
>The universe would still exist, just empty. So what is the vacuum?
A vector in some Hilbert space, denoted |0>
>What is the difference between non existence of the universe and this state, if any?
Non-existance is the 0 vector in said Hilbert space. 0 is not |0>, despite the similar notation.

[Anonymous No.10477751]

>>10477418
The vacuum of space isn't a true vacuum. That phrase is typically used to refer to the lack of ambient pressure in space as oppose to the atmospheric pressure we have on Earth.
In truth there is a baseline fundamental amount of energy present across a variety of fundamental fields across the whole of "empty" space.
Spacetime itself is also a real element of the universe. It's hard to think about, but the space which things exist in has its own independent properties and can be warped and bent and influenced.
If the universe were devoid of matter as we know it, all else would still exist.

A true total vacuum doesn't exist as far as is reasonable in our universe. It would require actually 0 energy contained in all fields at all points and depending on your definition, an absence of not only those fields but even of space itself.
It's difficult to imagine how truly empty nothing would be.

Maybe there is something other than spacetime, other than our universe, but any claims you could make about this void between voids are so far purely speculation, metaphysics, pseudoscience. It's easier to imagine what the universe would be like if the laws of physics were different than to imagine what it would be like if there were no "it".

[Anonymous No.10477768]

>>10477739
Remind me again, does the 0 vector have a direction associated with it or is it's direction just N/A

[Anonymous No.10477851]

>>10477751
Not saying you're wrong, but an interesting quote from Einstein himself:
>It was formerly believed that if all material things disappeared out of the universe, time and space would be left. According to relativity theory, however, time and space disappear together with the things.

[Anonymous No.10477858]

>>10477851
I think that in developing Relativity, Einstein saw spacetime as a purely relational entity between things. Fits in with his notion of background independence

[Anonymous No.10477893]

>>10477768
No direction.

[Anonymous No.10478039]

>>10477418
Guess it depends how you define the universe. It's supposed to be everything. All things. It's only as big as things are spread out. So if there are no things, there's no universe.
It would just be the emptiness that preluded the big bang. You could argue the "ether" or the "wave fields" or wtvr still exist, but there's no information transferred, or anything for them to interact with, so there's nothing to observe, so it's just nothing. One could never say "here we see remnants of the old universe".
But the potential for things to work again the same way they did before exists.

[Anonymous No.10478144]

>>10477418
>So what is the vacuum?

Baby don't hurt me...

[Anonymous No.10478188]

>>10477851
Time and space aren't matter, but they are substantial. They are not nothing, and like I said; true nothing would mean an absence of even time and space.

[Anonymous No.10479762]

>>10478039
>but there's no information transferred
Thanks anon, that's actually a really fascinating concept.
>>10477732
That's because metaphor is a post-void notion. Void itself isn't nothingness either, it's just vast empty space. We have no way of proving if the concept of infinity applies to the distance of the void, so we cope with Hilbert space (infinite dimensions). This kind of forces all further reasoning to collapse into a relativistic state, because we can't measure "direction" in the void. Each "section" of space ends up being calculated in some dimension of abstraction and we end up with a semiotic crisis that can't be explained because the "depth" factor of nothingness can't be measured. (0x0=0)

Concisely, the more you rotate your reasoning along the "nothing" dimension, the less sense reason produce function.

If your grammar circuits just got fried, drop the last part of the sentence clause after the final comma. You're staring into the face of illogic.

Now you're staring at void. Now you're back in your head. Now you're reading my post-void logic. If my calculations are correct, you didn't visualize absolute nothing. There's no metaphor for it because metaphor only applies to things that have properties. You'll need to work on your visualization skills to create an inner semiotic surface capable of expressing pre-void notions of "imagination." Another way of putting it is that language isn't consciousness.

[Anonymous No.10480930]

>>10477418

[Anonymous No.10481154]

>>10477418
There's no such thing as, "nothing," in nature. That is merely a fictional concept. There's always something everywhere. What you propose to do is complete magic sci-fi and as such you can say any damn thing you want since you are making shit up as you go along.

[Anonymous No.10481199]

>>10481154
You didn't even read the post you're replying to

[Anonymous No.10481620]

>>10478039
>You could argue the "ether" or the "wave fields" or wtvr still exist, but there's no information transferred, or anything for them to interact with, so there's nothing to observe, so it's just nothing. One could never say "here we see remnants of the old universe".

What is the base fabric of the universe? If we remove the ether would there be anything left?
No matter how much is remvoed it would seem the existance of three dimensions would still be there.

[Anonymous No.10481639]

there is no vaccum i believe.
there might be a giant planetary object that carries everything at the lowest point in the universe

[Anonymous No.10481665]

Either there is a higher dimension in which the universe even if empty of matter still exists and goes on for infinity because in that dimension space and time bends so that it doesn't matter how far and fast you go you cannot escape the universe, its like a loop but above the third dimension, for us it would seem like the universe is endless but in that higher dimension we would travel in circles. I don't think vacuum is just nothing there is anti matter and dark matter, even without anything there would still be space and time which is still something so either a universe exists with space and time or there is no space or time so it doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.10481693]

>>10481665
>or there is no space or time so it doesn't exist

I'm wondering if such a "state" would be theoretically possible or if it is fundamentally impossible for absolutely nothing to exist, not even the three dimensions. Trying to picture an absence of spacetime might be impossible for our brains to imagine but it may also be impossible to have been in reality.

[Anonymous No.10481704]

>>10477418
It’d still be swarming with quantum fluctuations.

[Anonymous No.10481727]

>>10481704
The quantum vacuum has energy but its state doesn't evolve. The vacuum state is a steady state which probabilistically interacts with quanta

[Anonymous No.10481730]

>>10481727
>interacts with quanta

[Anonymous No.10483280]

B u m p

[Anonymous No.10483308]

This is something my brainlet mind needs explaining. Nothing is still a 3D space right? It just has nothing in it. What caused there to be a 3D plane at all? Before the universe, why was there even a space things could potentially happen inside?

[Anonymous No.10483320]

>>10477418
It would be really hard to measure anything without anything so therefor it can't be scientifically be proven what will happen

[Anonymous No.10483329]

>>10483308
God always existed, and created that space

[Anonymous No.10483336]

I like this.

[Anonymous No.10483353]

>>10481620
There is no such thing as ether. The ether theory was a mistace.
A dimension is a mathematical thing, not physical thing.

[Anonymous No.10483372]

>>10483308
I always thought the three dimensions were a property of our universe and before the big bang there was a true nothing, no void, no dimensions and while that is almost impossible to imagine the thought that there was an infinite void of nothing that the universe expanded into is equally confusing.

[Anonymous No.10483440]

>>10483372
>expanded into
brainlet

[Anonymous No.10483478]

>>10483329
god doesn't exist. go back to pol fag

[Anonymous No.10483577]

>>10483478
Nice rebuttal lmao

[Anonymous No.10484131]

>>10479762
Nice try but I didn't visualize anything, my visualization ability is below minimal, but I did comprehend the concept of the void, without language or visualization which I think is what you were getting at, maybe.

Are you trying to say that such abstract concepts like pre-void existence/something aren't possible to be fully comprehended because you can't visualize or describe them with language?

>another way of putting it is that language isn't consciousness
Well, duh