Box of nothing.

[Technosoul]

Scientifically and logically could you have a sealed box containing nothing. What is the best way to answer the riddle?

Can the word "nothing" be properly defined so that people understand the meaning of that "name".

So. Can nothing-ness be contained? Can you have a box of nothing?

[Jack]

Certain words mean different things in different contexts, and in this case "nothing" is a matter of scale. On the scale of human eyesight, you could indeed have an empty box that contains nothing. On the molecular level that's less likely. If I can see the box is empty that means there are light particles in the box. There's also oxygen and hydrogen, among thousands of other molecules. Drop down to the sub-atomic scale and I doubt you could ever have an empty space anywhere.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Jack Certain words mean different things in different contexts, and in this case "nothing" is a matter of scale. On the scale of human eyesight, you could indeed have an empty box that contains nothing.

"Nothing" is sort of a relative term. If a box has nothing that catches the mind, "empty" will be the default judgment on it.

Grandpa h.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Jack Certain words mean different things in different contexts, and in this case "nothing" is a matter of scale. On the scale of human eyesight, you could indeed have an empty box that contains nothing. On the molecular level that's less likely. If I can see the box is empty that means there are light particles in the box. There's also oxygen and hydrogen, among thousands of other molecules. Drop down to the sub-atomic scale and I doubt you could ever have an empty space anywhere.

And if you pump it down to total vacuum and absolute zero and then find a way to keep neutrinos out, you still have virtual particles.

Once I saw the designs for a device called a Casimir engine. The idea was to put two metal plates so close together that virtual particles could not appear between them, resulting in a space with negative energy density relative to the rest of the universe. In other words, a box of nothing.

But would it really be empty? Does spacetime itself or the Higgs field count as something? Physicists spend a lot of time arguing about nothing and still do not understand it fully.

If people want to understand this as well as anybody does, which is not that well, watch this series of videos.

YouTube - The Mystery of Empty Space 1

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Thanatos And if you pump it down to total vacuum and absolute zero and then find a way to keep neutrinos out, you still have virtual particles. Once I saw the designs for a device called a Casimir engine. The idea was to put two metal plates so close together that virtual particles could not appear between them, resulting in a space with negative energy density relative to the rest of the universe. In other words, a box of nothing. But would it really be empty? Does spacetime itself or the Higgs field count as something? Physicists spend a lot of time arguing about nothing and still do not understand it fully. If people want to understand this as well as anybody does, which is not that well, watch this series of videos. ********************************************************** In theory could you have a box located between virtual particles. It seems that the size of the box would be a major factor relative to what posters had said. A microscopic box so tiny that no known or visible substances could be seen in it by modern technology, is that possible? YouTube - The Mystery of Empty Space 1

I accidently posted above final end of your quote.

PS. thanks for the link.

[Thanatos]

In theory could you have a box located between virtual particles. It seems that the size of the box would be a major factor relative to what posters had said. A microscopic box so tiny that no known or visible substances could be seen in it by modern technology, is that possible?

Hmm...I think so. You just need to make the box about 1.6x10^ -35 meters across.

Suppose you wanted to see very small objects. To be visible even as a point an object has to be about the same size as the wavelength of the photons you are looking at it with. Human eyes can only see down to about 400nm, which is why you can never see an individual atom through a microscope based upon visible light.

The higher energy a photon, the shorter its wavelength and the better your picture. You can keep using higher and higher energy photons to take sharper and sharper pictures (with the help of a camera that can see beyond the human range of vision), but there's a limit; eventually you would cram so much energy into that one little photon that it turns into a black hole because energy is equivalent to mass. A small black hole, but one that's inconvenient for measuring things with.

That energy corresponds to a maximum resolution of 10^ -20 times the diameter of a proton. This is called the Planck length.

So, if you build your box small enough then anything that might fit into it would be impossible to look at with modern technology or any technology that's easily imaginable.

That was a pretty good question. If you can do the math that goes along with this then you should study this more.

[Jack]

Physicists spend a lot of time arguing about nothing and still do not understand it fully.

It strikes me as a physical and psychological conundrum. In a state of absolute nothingness, there'd be no way to measure it and it would, as a result, be undetectable to us. We cannot establish the existence of anything unless we have a way to measure it. Nothingness would be void of everything, including anything we could detect and measure. We might postulate its existence, but we could never physically experience it.

[gela]

I'm not up to scratch on my physics..

But even if you did suck out all the air molecules from the box, wouldn't the box contain pressure?

If it has pressure, then it has something, which means it doesn't have nothing.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela I'm not up to scratch on my physics.. But even if you did suck out all the air molecules from the box, wouldn't the box contain pressure? If it has pressure, then it has something, which means it doesn't have nothing.

That sounds logical, otherwise the sides of the box would cave inwardly and in effect fill up the inside of the box. Unless the box was of such strong constructure that the limited pressure within the box would have no effect.

But we do have pressure everywhere that seems to emminate from all points. The "force" as a Starwars fan might call it. But I am not sure if pressure is made out of something. Does pressure have any physical qualities? But pressure does keep things from exploding or imploding to some degree. Depending on other factors - such as water pressure which is different then air pressure.

Can "nothing" have any pressure to it at all?

[Technosoul]

However are we sure that pressure emminates from all points? What if in theory I created my box out of pressure such that it has equal pressure compacting all sides of the box in a uniformed manner. Can the pressure pushing in form all sides create a space of emptyness in the center of the surrounding pressure, perhaps by creating counter pressure that in effect also pushes all four sides of the box apart also in a way such that the 8 sides of pressure cannot touch each other.
And therefore defining that containment "space" as "nothingness". ????

I would assume that pressure from all 8 sides of a box would shape the box into a global kind of shape eventurally. to design a circular shape, if it had no resistance from pressure emminating with equal force from the center of the box. However pressure would or could pass through nothingness as it can only impact what has some sort of solid formation made out of somehting. Presure can move objects but pressure cannot move nothing because it would have nothing to push around.

But pressure from all sides could define both space and compacted materials, depending on if anything materialistic is present to be compacted. But can equal pressure pushing inwardly from all sides make "surface to surface" contact without triggering a reaction of pushing all sides away from each other also. Can imploding pressure create a big bang for expanding pressure? Based on a natural law that something cannot become nothing.

Therefore, can a box made out of exsistance contain non-exsistance? (an elaboration of my original question ).

Or would such a question cause a fuse in the brain to short out - so that the thinking system shuts down?

[RealRockingham]

The answer is no. The concept of nothing is merely a simplified adaption of the brain so as to allow as to comprehend things efficiently- the flip side is, efficient doesn't translate to accurate. Even a vacuum is "something".... hell, what we might define as "nothing" could also be defined as something in itself.