Difference between 'nothing' and a 'vacuum'

[TeresaofRoses]

Whoa! champam you have really thought this through. Scientific empirical evidence does not automatic equate to atheism. For instance, if I had a dire disease, I would not go to a faith healer. Also, although I believe in God, what did he have in mind by creating the vastness of space and the utter nothingness between celestial bodies?

 

[adriancombe]

That still does not answer my question. May I explain: “place” is the innermost surface of a surrounding body. Within that surface there is nothing. Nothing is nothing. Period. That there is a space, is simply an epistemological convention, due primarily, I think, to our native language insufficiencies.

Now, I understand that there may well be no place where some matter is not extant. But, there could be such a place. I further understand that we could postulate some type of matter, or, “virtual” matter, or, energy, however sparse, and thus there could be causation. But, of course, we would still be left with the theorem that from nothing nothing can come (to be, that is).

A distinction is being made herein, and in many other threads that I have read. If nothing exists within a defined place, why is it not still nothing? Is the nothing-vacuum dependent upon the surrounding body? Is it dependent upon the “stuff” of the universe? How about outside of the universe? What is that nothingness dependent upon? Or, is it not dependent at all?

jd

Essentially: the definition of space you are using is not precisely the one used by science. One of the keys to this is the behavior of light.

Light is defined as both a wave and a particle. Inasmuch as it is a wave, it must travel through some medium. Since we know that light can travel through a vacuum, the medium cannot be matter - and space (whether it really consists of merely three dimensions or many more) is all that is left.
Hence. space/vacuum is not the same as nothing. Of course, it necessary follows that not everything that is real (such as space) can be observed/quantified - but don’t tell the atheists.

-Adrian

 

[JDaniel]

Essentially: the definition of space you are using is not precisely the one used by science. One of the keys to this is the behavior of light.

Light is defined as both a wave and a particle. Inasmuch as it is a wave, it must travel through some medium. Since we know that light can travel through a vacuum, the medium cannot be matter - and space (whether it really consists of merely three dimensions or many more) is all that is left. Hence. space/vacuum is not the same as nothing.

True. Now, how would you define “nothingness?”

jd

 

[TeresaofRoses]

When I was a young child my father and I would look through our telescope at the planets and moon and I would try to imagine what if there was nothing. No earth, no moon no space, no stars. A chill would run through me, I felt so isolated with this concept of nothingness. As I grew older I discovered physics. What makes the universe tick. What I discovered was with the beauty of the universe, conversely you have the dangers of radiation, gamma rays, the birth and death of stars and breathtaking beauty. Most stars are binary stars, two celestial bodies locked in a rotation around each other. Then eureka, I knew it all had to be. You can not be alone, two of everything. Like the story of Noah collecting two of all the creatures of the earth so the cycle must go on. It’s more than just physics and mechanics and electromagnitism. I now concentrate on the beauties on earth here and now. The miracle of birth, the amazing flora and fauna that surrounds us. The noise we have created has left us tone deaf to the sounds of life. The ancients knew this. The ancients knew more about the heavens than we know today. There was less noise then. They were so atuned to the cosmos in ways we are yet to discover. For all the science and philosophy and religion there are still wonderous mysteries yet to be known, and the greatest of mysteries are right in front of us, and greater still are the ones waiting for us.

 

[adriancombe]

True. Now, how would you define “nothingness?”

jd

I am not sure that we can or should define nothingness. From a purely natural sciences standpoint since we cannot know for certain the number of dimensions (we don’t even have a grand unified theory!) and space’s nature is inferred by the nature of e.g. light passing through it…even when we think we ‘observe nothing’ we cannot know for certain there is nothing there. At best, we can speak of a lack of matter or energy.

From the theological side, of course, God is everywhere - so we should not be surprised that ‘nothingness’ is so hard to locate an example of

-Adrian

 

[Jerry_Vilt]

Theology is “verified” by laws of logic and scripture.

 

[TeresaofRoses]

I agree, however there are more theories than answers. For example the string theory, the membrane theory. I am certainly no Stephen Hawking by any stretch of the imagination. I do however like the different myths and the similarities of myths in different cultures regarding nothing and voids, before the universe was created. and how it was created. Have you ever read Joseph Campbell’s The Power of Myth? Fascinating stuff. Do you consider nothing and vacuum as tangible entities? If so, explain it to me.

 

[joezoom]

As I have read with interest the thread of this topic, I am happy to see that a couple of posts considered that “nothing” does not mean just “no material things”. I agree with one reply that it means not even time. That kind of clinches my definition that nothing means “no forms of energy”, be they material or electromagnetic; ie. heat, light, radio, x-ray, gamma ray etc. We have Einstein’s work to know that mass has equivalent energy e=mc^2 . Einstein also ties in the four dimensions to space being length, width, depth and time. Without time, there is not any space either.

It was said in one reply that creating something from nothing is impossible. For man, that is certainly true, but for God “nothing is impossible”.

Blessings,
Joe

 

[greylorn]

why should there be a universe at all? why is there anything? i often hear the continual misinterpretation of quantum virtual particles as a possible explanation for the existence of the universe. people commonly misunderstand that this is more than a theory about the behavior of virtual particles in a vacuum.

people tend to think that a ‘vacuum’ is the same thing as ‘nothing’. its not! a vacuum, even a perfect vacuum, is a dimensionally defined space.

there is no physical reason why anything should exist at all. not even a vacuum. i wonder by what method an atheist may say we came into existence? if there be no physical reason for existence, we shouldn’t be here should we?

Petey,
If I was not fully aware that communications between you and I have strayed afar from their full potential, I’d propose that your excellent question here came from reading the “Miracles” page on my website. If so, thank you! If not, then we have yet another case of great minds thinking alike.

But can we carry your question a tad farther along, as I do elsewhere? There is an unnecessary word in your last paragraph, “physical.” You might have said, simply, “There is no reason why anything should exist.”

This holds as true for God as for anything else. Yes?

 

[greylorn]

I am not sure that we can or should define nothingness. From a purely natural sciences standpoint since we cannot know for certain the number of dimensions (we don’t even have a grand unified theory!) and space’s nature is inferred by the nature of e.g. light passing through it…even when we think we ‘observe nothing’ we cannot know for certain there is nothing there. At best, we can speak of a lack of matter or energy.

From the theological side, of course, God is everywhere - so we should not be surprised that ‘nothingness’ is so hard to locate an example of

-Adrian

Nothingness is the absence of anything. That means, no quarks, neutrinos, dark matter or dark energy. No electromagnetic fields. No space, no time, and no spirits. It also means no God.

The rules of mathematical logic would exist in such a null universe, but to no effect, because there would be no intelligent entity to discover them.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Petey,
If I was not fully aware that communications between you and I have strayed afar from their full potential, I’d propose that your excellent question here came from reading the “Miracles” page on my website. If so, thank you! If not, then we have yet another case of great minds thinking alike.

But can we carry your question a tad farther along, as I do elsewhere? There is an unnecessary word in your last paragraph, “physical.” You might have said, simply, “There is no reason why anything should exist.”

This holds as true for God as for anything else. Yes?

the word ‘physical’ is important because we deny self causality of the physical based on tphysical laws, those same physical laws cannot be applied to the non-physical, as they lack the normal physical qualities.

i can say “physical matter cannot cause itself” and be upheld by every principle we know

i cannot say “the non-physical cannot cause itself” in fact i cant say anything about the non-physicals environment, causes, laws, rules of behavior etc.

i can only exclude self causation for the physical, not the non-physical.

no, i didnt get it off your website, its the most basic statement of the same proofs i have offered previously, concerning the logical necessity of the non-physical.

 

[TeresaofRoses]

It’s all so confusing to me. Thank God I’m not a physicist, I go into sensory overload contemplating Nothingness. However, didn’t Einstein say that time and space can be distorted by gravity? On a different note, I was so glad to hear that they are sending a shuttle to repair the Hubble. That thing is wonderous. The first time I saw what they call the ‘Pillars of Creation’, I was in awe. Contemplate The Infinate and you know that God is truly great.

“I have called you by your name and you are mine”

Many Blessings,
TeresaofRoses

 

[joezoom]

Nothingness is the absence of anything. That means, no quarks, neutrinos, dark matter or dark energy. No electromagnetic fields. No space, no time, and no spirits. It also means no God.

What you have so far seems OK. Where it ended is incomplete. No God, also implies “Nothingness forever”; thus, no creation, no universe, no earth, no me, no you…

My hypothesis is that if God is not in the nothingness, the nothingness in contained by God. God’s word penetrated it God entered it, and creation began. The rest is found in Genesis 1 ff.
Blessings.
Joe

 

[greylorn]

What you have so far seems OK. Where it ended is incomplete. No God, also implies “Nothingness forever”; thus, no creation, no universe, no earth, no me, no you…

My hypothesis is that if God is not in the nothingness, the nothingness in contained by God. God’s word penetrated it God entered it, and creation began. The rest is found in Genesis 1 ff.
Blessings.
Joe

Joe,
I only offered up a definition of “nothingness.” You’ve read something into that definition which I did not put.

You interjected your (Catholic) belief that the universe was made from nothing by God into a clear and irrefutable definition of “nothingness” which excludes God. Instead of trying to torque the meaning of things to suit your beliefs, why not reconsider at least one of your beliefs?

Beliefs, after all, are simply ideas which someone made up and convinced other people of their truth. Everyone has them. Some are useful, others get in the way of intelligent understanding.

The belief I’d invite you to reconsider is that nothingness ever existed. There is no need for it. The Bible doesn’t declare that God made the world from nothing. That’s just something that some theologians made up.

Getting rid of the idea that the universe was created from nothing eliminates several contradictions, including the most serious contradiction between science and Catholicism: The absolute validity of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

 

[greylorn]

the word ‘physical’ is important because we deny self causality of the physical based on tphysical laws, those same physical laws cannot be applied to the non-physical, as they lack the normal physical qualities.

i can say “physical matter cannot cause itself” and be upheld by every principle we know

i cannot say “the non-physical cannot cause itself” in fact i cant say anything about the non-physicals environment, causes, laws, rules of behavior etc.

i can only exclude self causation for the physical, not the non-physical.

no, i didnt get it off your website, its the most basic statement of the same proofs i have offered previously, concerning the logical necessity of the non-physical.

Petey,

Two points:

1. According to current astrophysical theory, atoms (i.e. matter) heavier than hydrogen are created in the thermonuclear cores of stars, and atoms heavier than iron are created in novas and supernovas. Is this not an example of “the physical causing itself?”

There are others.

1. Since the “non-physical” is totally beyond human discovery (by definition) anyone can make up whatever they want to about it. The Catholic Church has made up some things. Buddhists make up other things. Anyone who wants to can invents anything he, she, or it wants to invent, and cannot be refuted— except by someone who declares, “Hey, the invented stuff about the non-physical which I believe in is better than yours!”

What basis is that for coherent understanding?

Lots of people confuse “physical” with “material.” Matter is only one of the energy forms in the physical universe.

The definition of “physical” includes everything which interacts with anything which is physical. If the soul is in any way connected to the human brain-body system, it is physical by definition. If God created the physical universe and interacted with it in the process, or afterward, God is, by definition, physical.

The concept of non-physical is both absurd and irrelevant.

 

[greylorn]

Theology is “verified” by laws of logic and scripture.

Which laws?

And which theology?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Petey,

Two points:

1. According to current astrophysical theory, atoms (i.e. matter) heavier than hydrogen are created in the thermonuclear cores of stars, and atoms heavier than iron are created in novas and supernovas. Is this not an example of “the physical causing itself?”

i wouldn’t say so thats a change of state not a creation of mass. fusing 2 hydrogen doesn’t ‘create’ more matter, it simply changes whats there and emits the difference as energetic particles, the products of reactions are still constituted of the same subatomic particles in different configurations

There are others.

1. Since the “non-physical” is totally beyond human discovery (by definition) anyone can make up whatever they want to about it. The Catholic Church has made up some things

.

what did we make up?

Buddhists make up other things. Anyone who wants to can invents anything he, she, or it wants to invent, and cannot be refuted— except by someone who declares, “Hey, the invented stuff about the non-physical which I believe in is better than yours!”

thats all theology your talking about here.

What basis is that for coherent understanding?

i think you mean something like “why believe in your particular faith?” in our case converegent prophecy makes Christianity mathematically sure, but thats a whole nother line of thought and topic.

Lots of people confuse “physical” with “material.” Matter is only one of the energy forms in the physical universe.

ok

The definition of “physical” includes everything which interacts with anything which is physical.

where did you get that definition? i am using the term as anything having the normal qualities we associate with material objects

If the soul is in any way connected to the human brain-body system, it is physical by definition.

that leads to another proof of the non-physical, if indeed we are physically determinant, than no free will exists, as that is patently false, we do exercise free will, than physical determinism is broken at some point by a non-physical process, maybe thats the 'soul, maybe not, the mechanism of the interaction is unknown, as half the process, the ‘non-physical’ part is unobservable, thats hardly a surprise. after all, we know the laws when one physical object interacts with another, but any interaction between the physical and non-physical is entirely unkown

If God created the physical universe and interacted with it in the process, or afterward, God is, by definition, physical.

your definition of physical is not the same as the one operative here, so you may come to a different conclusion using it.

The concept of non-physical is both absurd and irrelevant.

its a logical necessity, as stated in the OP, im not sure why you think it is absurd or irrelevant, i assume you disagree, but without changing definitions or premises, it seeming pretty solid to me.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Faith! Haha…but seriously, I know how unsatisfying an answer that is to see…and in all honesty, it’s an unsatisfying answer to give too, in some respects. Not because I don’t believe it to be right, but because it’s so hard to explain, as we as creatures are so dependent on our relationship with the natural world in order to undersand everything that we understand. Let me try to explain, with the caveat that I am by no means the best person to do so.

Faith is, in theology, our validating method. It is how we know that what we do know about the supernatural world is right (it gets more complex than that, but let me start there). Now, we only experience the supernatural imperfectly right now…because we live in the natural world. We believe that our souls are part of the supernatural world, but until we die, we won’t be able to experience that fully. So, the same way that at any given moment, we can only experience a 3 dimentional cross section of the 4th dimension in the natural world…at any given moment, our experience with the supernatural world is incomplete, at the least. However, we do our best to understand. So how do we know that we got it right? Well, for one, we believe that, in the order of things, the supernatural is above the natural…that the natural world came about because of God, who is supernatural. So the supernatural can influence the natural, through whatever means it may have. Things like miracles, like God becoming man are all ways in which the supernatural have affected the natural (the question of “how do you know the natural events were really supernatural things influencing the natural world” is really a question for another thread that i’m sure exists out there…for the purposes of saving myself a lot of typing, we as Catholics do believe that, and we truly do have reasons that we do). It is these things, in the person of Jesus, in the natural law that is intrinsic to each human, and in miracles that we have some idea of where we stand in the supernatural world.

There are many people through the centuries that have arguments as to why we can say there is historical evidence about this, and it’s really too much to get into here, so I won’t rehash it all. Karl Keating is pretty good to read as an author that comes to mind. But also, one cannot deny that there are many many scientists out there that believed as well. One could argue that their belief was just a product of their time. But to say that would be to deny that these were people that KNEW how to ask the hard questions, and they belived regardless. There is something to that, whether we know why or not.

So yeah, faith, in whatever religion you practice, is ONE thing that gives us insight into the supernatural world…where we will not ever have total understanding of until we are better part of it.

HD

That sounds a bit circular.

 

[greylorn]

1. According to current astrophysical theory, atoms (i.e. matter) heavier than hydrogen are created in the thermonuclear cores of stars, and atoms heavier than iron are created in novas and supernovas. Is this not an example of “the physical causing itself?”

i wouldn’t say so thats a change of state not a creation of mass. fusing 2 hydrogen doesn’t ‘create’ more matter, it simply changes whats there and emits the difference as energetic particles, the products of reactions are still constituted of the same subatomic particles in different configurations

Actually,when a pair of hydrogen atoms (deuterium, actually) fuse to make helium, mass is lost. That’s the stuff converted to energy which makes thermonuclear reactions interesting.

However, larger atoms contain more mass than the total mass of their individual components. If I remember rightly, this is the “binding energy” which holds atoms together. The additional energy for small atoms (up through iron) is supplied by the thermonuclear energy of a star such as our sun. Additional mass is created in these processes.

Atoms larger than iron require more additional binding energy than a hydrogen fusion reaction can produce, and are created in supernovas and possibly other ultra-high energy cosmic processes. Some of the energy from these processes is stored in the form of created mass.

By way of evidence, consider where the energy comes from in nuclear fission.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

1. According to current astrophysical theory, atoms (i.e. matter) heavier than hydrogen are created in the thermonuclear cores of stars, and atoms heavier than iron are created in novas and supernovas. Is this not an example of “the physical causing itself?”

Actually,when a pair of hydrogen atoms (deuterium, actually) fuse to make helium, mass is lost. That’s the stuff converted to energy which makes thermonuclear reactions interesting.

However, larger atoms contain more mass than the total mass of their individual components. If I remember rightly, this is the “binding energy” which holds atoms together. The additional energy for small atoms (up through iron) is supplied by the thermonuclear energy of a star such as our sun. Additional mass is created in these processes.

Atoms larger than iron require more additional binding energy than a hydrogen fusion reaction can produce, and are created in supernovas and possibly other ultra-high energy cosmic processes. Some of the energy from these processes is stored in the form of created mass.

By way of evidence, consider where the energy comes from in nuclear fission.

are you actually saying that matter is created in stars? matter that did not previously exist, comes into existence?

i must be misunderstanding your point here.