If I move a box with nothing in it, does the nothing move with it?

[iNow]

Temperature is a measure of movement. If there’s nothing in the box, then nothing is moving, and if nothing is moving there is no temperature by definition. 

2 hours ago, Kartazion said:

It's the story of a box at room temperature where there is nothing inside. Only emptiness, no fields. You tell me now that this nothing inside has no temperature since it is nothing?

 

[Kartazion]

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

Temperature is a measure of movement. If there’s nothing in the box, then nothing is moving, and if nothing is moving there is no temperature by definition. 

I confess.

I made a mistake in associating the temperature with nothing.

So move some nothing is therefore not possible, since there is nothing.

Does the term 'nothingness' might be more appropriate? In this philosophy section?

Quote

"Nothingness" is a philosophical term for the general state of nonexistence, sometimes reified as a domain or dimension into which things pass when they cease to exist or out of which they may come to exist, e.g., God is understood to have created the universe ex nihilo, "out of nothing"

Nothing - Wikipedia
 

 

[iNow]

Philosophy annoys me, at least the type of pseudo philosophy we generally see here at SFN. We’re too close to absurdism already for my taste. 

Define what you mean by “nothing” then work from that. Until then, we’ll spin endlessly in circles, especially since in a physics sense there’s ALWAYS something in that box, even if just probabilistically. 

Edited June 27, 2021 by iNow

[Kartazion]

6 hours ago, studiot said:

But I didn't get an answer to the Physics content of my post.

 

But I would go further than anyone else here and declare that a box which contains exactly nothing is impossible as a self contradiction.

Let us say this 'box' has sides of 10 cm by10cm x 10cm that is it has a volume of exactly one litre.

So it has the capacity to contain one litre of whisky.

Now capacity is an abstract noun, to be sure and an old fashioned one to boot.

But a noun it is and therefore a 'something'

So by studiot's theorem

"Every empty box contains something."

 

The definition of nothing certifies not to have a volumetric size? If so, 'nothing' is the smallest and non-existent quantity ever seen.
 

[iNow]

If it’s nonexistent, there is no quantity. Like I said, absurd 

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Kartazion said:

You tell me now that this nothing inside has no temperature since it is nothing?

Yes.

 

4 hours ago, Kartazion said:

The definition of nothing certifies not to have a volumetric size? If so, 'nothing' is the smallest and non-existent quantity ever seen.

The volume is defined by the box

[Kartazion]

30 minutes ago, Conscious Energy said:

“The null hypothesis is that nothing, zero is a physical reality based mathematical conception which we can perceive as an energy, matter, information, space, time free state. Revealing as our common physical, mathematical, philosophical origin, a physical reality based mathematical reference point. I state that in proportion to this physical reality based sense(conception) everything has some kind of mathematically expressible value. Space, time, information, energy, matter. 

The hypothesis is based on the fact that space expands and time evolves which points that our current moment is bigger and older than the moment before. Following this path backwards on the timeline of the physical reality we arrive at the lowest possible physical state, which I perceive as a space(time), energy, matter, information free state. 0. In proportion to this state everything has value. Everything has mathematically expressible value. Space, time, energy, matter and information. “

There is a difference between nothing and zero (philosophy of zero).
 

Quote

Abstract
Zero provides a challenge for philosophers of mathematics with realist inclinations. On the one hand it is a bona fide cardinal number, yet on the other it is linked to ideas of nothingness and non-being. This paper provides an analysis of the epistemology and metaphysics of zero. We develop several constraints and then argue that a satisfactory account of zero can be obtained by integrating (1) an account of numbers as properties of collections, (2) work on the philosophy of absences, and (3) recent work in numerical cognition and ontogenetic studies.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-019-02220-x
 

 

[studiot]

5 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

There is a difference between nothing and zero (philosophy of zero).

Agreed.

[Conscious Energy]

13 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

There is a difference between nothing and zero (philosophy of zero).

Agreed

Note that ever since anything exists as little as an empty dot of space, Nothing can not exist.

Note that any dot of space still today has physically 0 value.

Edited June 27, 2021 by Conscious Energy

[dimreepr]

5 hours ago, Conscious Energy said:

Agreed

Note that ever since anything exists as little as an empty dot of space, Nothing can not exist.

Note that any dot of space still today has physically 0 value.

What does that even mean...

As @iNow suggest's, it's absurd to assign a value to zero...

[Intoscience]

I guess the crux of the question depends on the definition of "nothing". A difficult one to answer in its own context without adding any further complications. For me these types of questions can be nonsensical when you delve into what is physically possible. 

It's a bit like asking what came before the big bang, if the big bang was considered the moment of all creation. Well the first obvious answer is "nothing", then we get right back into what defines nothing in the true sense of reality. 

There is an hypothesis that states that "nothing" can't be, in that nothing is unstable as it requires something to define it. Which is why there is something rather than nothing. 

Going back to the OP, I guess that if we state that the box just contains empty space then, yeah sure that space would move with the box since nothing can enter the box. But true nothing has no dimensional or physical properties in every sense of the word therefore cannot exist even in empty space. What make this scenario worse is the fact that the box itself is defining an area of space so the box contains something. 

Nothing therefore exists (want for a better word) outside of all existence, time, space etc... so its non quantifiable in physical measurement and also in concept.  

[swansont]

23 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Going back to the OP, I guess that if we state that the box just contains empty space then, yeah sure that space would move with the box since nothing can enter the box.

No thing can enter the box is not the same as saying nothing can enter the box.

Are we sure that nothing can't pass through the box? What if nothing can enter the box, and nothing can leave the box.

How do you you check to see if this happens?

 

[Intoscience]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

No thing can enter the box is not the same as saying nothing can enter the box.

Are we sure that nothing can't pass through the box? What if nothing can enter the box, and nothing can leave the box.

How do you you check to see if this happens?

 

I guess this is where semantics and definitions play a key part in describing the scenario. Nothing and no thing essentially mean the same thing is nothing not a derivative of no thing? 

Nothing in simple terms means non existent. So to say no existence can enter or not enter the box is nonsensical. The box exists and the space inside the box exists by the very fact that the box defines it.

Don't forget we are talking about an hypothetical object, where the box by definition has nothing but empty space separating its walls. We know that this is physically impossible based on our current understanding of quantum mechanics. But lets say that hypothetically the box is empty of all matter, all energy and has a quantum state of zero,  regardless of this, to even exist as a box within this universe there will, by definition, still be space in the box, simply because the box has dimension, therefore it exists in space & time along with the space inside the box. So in the true sense of the word the box doesn't contain nothing. You cant have a system where there is a defined space that contains nothing.

Contain and nothing (actual nothing) are not mutual.  The term in the context of this thought experiment "contains nothing" is non sensical. It's a bit like saying what was before time, where "before time" in the true definition of the meaning is nonsensical. 

The best we can say is that the box contains nothing but empty space.    

Edited June 28, 2021 by Intoscience
spelling

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I guess this is where semantics and definitions play a key part in describing the scenario. Nothing and no thing essentially mean the same thing is nothing not a derivative of no thing? 

Yes, semantics is a big part of this.

12 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Nothing in simple terms means non existent. So to say no existence can enter or not enter the box is nonsensical. The box exists and the space inside the box exists by the very fact that the box defines it.

Don't forget we are talking about an hypothetical object

Are we? Is nothing an object?

There are a number of cases where a certain class of nothing is defined by something: a hole in the dirt is defined by a lack of dirt, dark is the absence of light.

It's not an object, it is a state or condition. It's dark inside the box. Is it the same dark if you move it? Kind of nonsensical. The same condition exists, but the phrasing is treating it as an object rather than as a condition.

Which makes is a bit of a silly semantic game, as people have hinted at or suggested in the thread.

 

12 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

where the box by definition has nothing but empty space separating its walls. We know that this is physically impossible based on our current understanding of quantum mechanics. But lets say that hypothetically the box is empty of all matter, all energy and has a quantum state of zero,  regardless of this, to even exist as a box within this universe there will, by definition, still be space in the box, simply because the box has dimension, therefore it exists in space & time along with the space inside the box. So in the true sense of the word the box doesn't contain nothing. You cant have a system where there is a defined space that contains nothing.

Which is why this is silly.

 

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I guess the crux of the question depends on the definition of "nothing". A difficult one to answer in its own context without adding any further complications. For me these types of questions can be nonsensical when you delve into what is physically possible. 

It's a bit like asking what came before the big bang, if the big bang was considered the moment of all creation. Well the first obvious answer is "nothing", then we get right back into what defines nothing in the true sense of reality. 

There is an hypothesis that states that "nothing" can't be, in that nothing is unstable as it requires something to define it. Which is why there is something rather than nothing. 

Going back to the OP, I guess that if we state that the box just contains empty space then, yeah sure that space would move with the box since nothing can enter the box. But true nothing has no dimensional or physical properties in every sense of the word therefore cannot exist even in empty space. What make this scenario worse is the fact that the box itself is defining an area of space so the box contains something. 

Nothing therefore exists (want for a better word) outside of all existence, time, space etc... so its non quantifiable in physical measurement and also in concept.  

 

Yes I think you put your case quite well  +1 and welcome here.

Sadly I think you took your analysis to extremes and even contradicted yourself with your additional post.

20 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

You cant have a system where there is a defined space that contains nothing.

Contain and nothing (actual nothing) are not mutual.  The term in the context of this thought experiment "contains nothing" is non sensical. It's a bit like saying what was before time, where "before time" in the true definition of the meaning is nonsensical. 

The best we can say is that the box contains nothing but empty space.    

Apart from the fact that space, empty or otherwise was not mentioned by Kitty, you have told us a couple of times that you can't link 'contains' to 'nothing' and then gone and done just that in the last line!

 

Try this.

I have just one apple in my bag.
I eat the apple.
Now my bag contains nothing.

[Intoscience]

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Yes I think you put your case quite well  +1 and welcome here.

Sadly I think you took your analysis to extremes and even contradicted yourself with your additional post.

Apart from the fact that space, empty or otherwise was not mentioned by Kitty, you have told us a couple of times that you can't link 'contains' to 'nothing' and then gone and done just that in the last line!

 

Try this.

I have just one apple in my bag.
I eat the apple.
Now my bag contains nothing.

Thank you for the welcome, I'm glad you picked up on the contradictions, this was sort of my point and the analogy you presented points this out quite clearly. 

"I have just one apple in my bag. I eat the apple. Now bag contains nothing" -  is not a true statement.

It should be - "I have just one apple in my bag. I eat the apple. Now my bag contains no apple". 

The bag by the very fact that it is a dimensional object contains at the very minimum empty space. 

So, going back to the OP, the only way the box could have "nothing" inside it is to have no inside in the first place. Which is a contradiction and nonsensical. 

My point which I've sort gone the long way round to state is.

"nothing" in the true sense of the word is the absence of existence which is outside the realms of reality as we understand it. 

This is just one of many hypothetical nonsensical concepts, like - Before time existed, Beyond infinity...

 

 

 

[KittyBeRich]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

No thing can enter the box is not the same as saying nothing can enter the box.

Are we sure that nothing can't pass through the box? What if nothing can enter the box, and nothing can leave the box.

How do you you check to see if this happens?

 

THe way I thought of an Impenetrable box was a box where nothing could effect the inside from the outside.

 

Also, I completely forgot about virtual particles so...   😿

[swansont]

27 minutes ago, KittyBeRich said:

THe way I thought of an Impenetrable box was a box where nothing could effect the inside from the outside.

"impenetrable" implies there is something there that might penetrate. Again, this is treating nothing as a substance, which it is not.

[studiot]

8 hours ago, Intoscience said:

"nothing" in the true sense of the word is the absence of existence which is outside the realms of reality as we understand it. 

Well I understand 'nothing' perfectly well thank you.

I agree that nothing is pretty insubstantial, but pray tell me, what is between the electrodes of a spark plug ?

[Conscious Energy]

7 hours ago, studiot said:

I agree that nothing is pretty insubstantial, but pray tell me, what is between the electrodes of a spark plug ?

Space?

[Intoscience]

12 hours ago, studiot said:

Well I understand 'nothing' perfectly well thank you.

I agree that nothing is pretty insubstantial, but pray tell me, what is between the electrodes of a spark plug ?

I never stated that you didn't understand what nothing is?? I was just reiterating my understanding. 

Can you explain in more detail why you asked the question of the spark plug electrodes please? I'm not sure what answer you are looking for. 

Thanks 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

I never stated that you didn't understand what nothing is?? I was just reiterating my understanding. 

Can you explain in more detail why you asked the question of the spark plug electrodes please? I'm not sure what answer you are looking for. 

Thanks 

There are now three concurrent threads that turn on the meaning of 'nothing'.
This is after quite a few such debates here in the past.

Not bad for a concept that "has no existence"

I think we are generally agreed that

On 6/28/2021 at 10:47 AM, Intoscience said:

I guess the crux of the question depends on the definition of "nothing".

and since we are having so much trouble with that definition I am offering an alternative approach as apposed to the getout of declaring it nonsense.

 

@Conscious Energy has been trying to express nothing mathematically as 'zero' but does not seem to have the mathematical sophistication to do this.
No offence meant CE.

This approach, like most in mathematics, is best done in set theory and then we can employ the empty or null set.

Beacuse mathematicians employ the null set to construct the numbers we get a hint of something we can do with nothing.

This bring us to my spark plug and also my litre box, because we can quantify nothing mathematically.

That is we can order different nothings as larger or smaller than each other. In some cases we can make actual measurements.

In the case of the spark plug there could be simply air or there could be inert gas or there could be complete vacuum between the electrodes.

The point is there is the 'spark plug gap' which is conceptually composed of nothing at all.

And we can quantify this gap.

Furthermore if they are actually touching there is nothing between them!

Nothing is indeed a strange beast; as so often happens fact turns out stranger than our imagination (ie fiction), which is why we have (and probably always will have) so much yet to discover.

🙂

 

Edited June 29, 2021 by studiot

[TheVat]

It's always a fun semantic category error,  when one puts abstractions in a concrete box.   Kitty's box also contains the hope of a nation,  several latent tendencies,  the creeps that a Stephen King novel gave me,  the purpose of a paper clip, and the unobserved litter of Schrodinger's cat.  

And,  like Hilbert's Hotel,  there is always more room available.

 

[Conscious Energy]

On 6/29/2021 at 1:06 PM, studiot said:

@Conscious Energy has been trying to express nothing mathematically as 'zero' but does not seem to have the mathematical sophistication to do this.
No offence meant CE.

This approach, like most in mathematics, is best done in set theory and then we can employ the empty or null set

What I tried to express is that the volume of universal space(time) is the physical null set and the empty box would be a subset of this set. If we move the empty box it will be a different subset of the empty set.

I know that I do not have the most sophisticated mathematical knowledge but since you have a much deeper mathematical understanding could you give an other/better example for a physically recognisable null set?

10 hours ago, TheVat said:

And,  like Hilbert's Hotel,  there is always more room available.

From the perspective of spacetime, how future times are available in our current moment of existence? Like a 10 billion years older solar system?

On 6/29/2021 at 1:06 PM, studiot said:

The point is there is the 'spark plug gap' which is conceptually composed of nothing at all.

Space with an exact age is there in the spark plug gap, which is physically nothing, but mathematically(conceptually) is a measurable space in the moment of observation. 

Edited July 18, 2021 by Conscious Energy

[studiot]

4 hours ago, Conscious Energy said:

What I tried to express is that the volume of universal space(time) is the physical null set and the empty box would be a subset of this set. If we move the empty box it will be a different subset of the empty set.

I know that I do not have the most sophisticated mathematical knowledge but since you have a much deeper mathematical understanding could you give an other/better example for a physically recognisable null set?

When I first saw the OP I thought it was a deep question.

On second thought I realise that it is actually much deeper than I first thought.

TheVat made a worthwhile distinction between concrete and abstract nouns

14 hours ago, TheVat said:

It's always a fun semantic category error,  when one puts abstractions in a concrete box.

This is one of the advantages English has over Mathematics.

So to discuss your question, let us consider two well defined sets.

1) The set of people born on or after 1950.

2) The set of people born on or after 2050.

The first set has a specific finite number of members. This number is given (measured) by the natural or counting numbers, otherwise known as the positive integers.
Note these does not include zero. We show these in set notation by listing between curly brackets (braces) thus {1,2,3,...}. The three dots at the end (ellipsis) denotes indefinite continuation.

The second set has no members and is called the empty set or the null set.
Thus we denote the empty set {}. This is very important to show that there are no members.
Note also that it is not the number zero.

Create as many copies of the null set as we need.
Then collect them together, grouped in sets within a larger container set.

{ {{}}, {{},{}}, {{},{},{}},...}

Which corresponds to our set of natural numbers

{1,2,3,...}

So we have constructed as many counting numbers as we wsih for nothing !

That is almost enough set theory for our purposes but there are two theorems we need that I will state but not prove.

1) There is only one empty set.

2) The empty set is an (honorary) member of all sets.

The first theorems comes into play with the issue of moving the box.

Suppose I form my box from the curly braces with nothing inside and send it to you over the net.

I have moved an empty abstract box and, so long as there is no data corruption along the way, it is still empty at your end.

Mathematically the question of what is in your box is answered by theorem 1 which says that it must be the same nothing as there is only one empty set.

 

In case you think this is rather arbitrary, smart ass even, there is a definite application in Engineering and Physics in Fluid Mechanics and other places.

In Fluid Mechanics there are two formulations of the equations of fluid motion depending upon your viewpoint.

An abstract box with abstact walls is constructed in the imagination and suprimposed within the flow.

View 1 considers the flow flowing through the box, which is fixed in position, size and shape, in and out through the walls.
It is known as an Eulerian analysis.
The flow into / out of the box brings with it physical variables such as momentum, energy, mass, force on the walls and so on.
This causes changes in other properties such as density etc.

https://alldifferences.net/difference-between-lagrangian-and-eulerian-approach/

View 2 considers the box to move with the flow and is called a 'with the flow analysis', or Lagrangian analysis

In some flow patterns the flow can actually be at a standstill ie there is no flow.
These are called stagnation points. They appear directly in front of obstructions to the flow and other places.
If the box is located at such a stagnation point it enclose zero momentum since there is zero motion.

6 hours ago, Conscious Energy said:

Space with an exact age is there in the spark plug gap, which is physically nothing, but mathematically(conceptually) is a measurable space in the moment of observation. 

Don't forget that the spark plug gap can actully be zero (nothing) if the electrodes are touching.
This is a different nothing from the what is in the space between them, since there is not even space between them.

6 hours ago, Conscious Energy said:

From the perspective of spacetime, how future times are available in our current moment of existence? Like a 10 billion years older solar system?

Time is not the same as space and considering the quantity of space within the box must involve a relativistic calculation, due to the problem of defining simultaneity.