Inside of the box?

[Jordan14]

I didn't really know where to put this post in the forum. I decided it probally mostly fitted in here.

 

I have a box, inside is truely a vacumm does inside the box exist??

 

Obviously you can see inside the box let if there is nothing in the box can a nothingness be an existance. In affect if nothing is an existance then nothing can end because it can't be surrounded by nothing if nothing is an existance.

 

I know this is terribly worded, but your thoughts please.

[Jordan14]

I didn't really know where to put this post in the forum. I decided it probally mostly fitted in here.

 

I have a box, inside is truely a vacumm does inside the box exist??

 

Obviously you can see inside the box let if there is nothing in the box can a nothingness be an existance. In affect if nothing is an existance then nothing can end because it can't be surrounded by nothing if nothing is an existance.

 

I know this is terribly worded, but your thoughts please.

[Ophiolite]

I would say it exists in a couple of ways.

Firstly, the space is defined by the box. The box exists, has dimensions, and so the space has dimensions also.

Secondly, vacuums are not empty. I am not speaking about stray atoms floating around, as you have stipulated that for this thought experiment we have a perfect vacuum. In a vacuum, virtual particles and anti-particles are continuously created and destroyed in a process I think is called quantum vacuum fluctuation.

With luck one of the physicists will respond with a fuller (and more accurate) assessment.

[Ophiolite]

I would say it exists in a couple of ways.

Firstly, the space is defined by the box. The box exists, has dimensions, and so the space has dimensions also.

Secondly, vacuums are not empty. I am not speaking about stray atoms floating around, as you have stipulated that for this thought experiment we have a perfect vacuum. In a vacuum, virtual particles and anti-particles are continuously created and destroyed in a process I think is called quantum vacuum fluctuation.

With luck one of the physicists will respond with a fuller (and more accurate) assessment.

[Jordan14]

Thanck for the response i'm going to go to the physics forum and post a thead on quantum vacuum fluctuation is sounds intriguing.

[Jordan14]

Thanck for the response i'm going to go to the physics forum and post a thead on quantum vacuum fluctuation is sounds intriguing.

[Jordan14]

To the first point. A vacuum always has to be cotained in order to keep it alway from particles, so in this sense if a vacuum has to be contained can a vacuum be formed? Except maybe in somewhere abstract like the 0th dimension as the vacuum would not be contain if the sense it can only occupy a dot not because it is contained but because it is inadaquate to move in any other direction.

[Jordan14]

To the first point. A vacuum always has to be cotained in order to keep it alway from particles, so in this sense if a vacuum has to be contained can a vacuum be formed? Except maybe in somewhere abstract like the 0th dimension as the vacuum would not be contain if the sense it can only occupy a dot not because it is contained but because it is inadaquate to move in any other direction.

[YT2095]

the box would not exist, if the vaccum were perfect, the vapor pressure would turn the box into Gas, therefore No box

[YT2095]

the box would not exist, if the vaccum were perfect, the vapor pressure would turn the box into Gas, therefore No box

[Jordan14]

I don't understand why the box would vapourise can you explain it to me a little more please. Thanx.

[Jordan14]

I don't understand why the box would vapourise can you explain it to me a little more please. Thanx.

[Ophiolite]

You may be thinking that YT means the box would instantly vaporise. That is not the case, nor, I imagine, what he means. Atoms or molecules on the internal surface of the box would find it possible to detatch themselves from the other molecules in the box and move into the vacuum. This would occur when random fluctuations in point temperatures (i.e movement of individual atoms/molecules) became sufficient to overcome the physical/chemical bonds. Over time all of the box could dissipate in this way. at least until it lost is structural integrity.

Two things could suppress this tendency: if the box was small then the molecules building up in what is now no longer a vacuum could exert sufficient pressure to prevent further loss of box material. (More exactly, a dynamic equilibrium would be established.) Secondly, if the temperature of the box were sufficiently low then there would be inadequate thermal energy to allow any molecules to escape.

Since I think you intended this as a thought experiment only these considerations are probably irrelevant. [Please don't take the foregoing as gospel. I haven't dabbled in physics for three decades and I was crap then!]

[Ophiolite]

You may be thinking that YT means the box would instantly vaporise. That is not the case, nor, I imagine, what he means. Atoms or molecules on the internal surface of the box would find it possible to detatch themselves from the other molecules in the box and move into the vacuum. This would occur when random fluctuations in point temperatures (i.e movement of individual atoms/molecules) became sufficient to overcome the physical/chemical bonds. Over time all of the box could dissipate in this way. at least until it lost is structural integrity.

Two things could suppress this tendency: if the box was small then the molecules building up in what is now no longer a vacuum could exert sufficient pressure to prevent further loss of box material. (More exactly, a dynamic equilibrium would be established.) Secondly, if the temperature of the box were sufficiently low then there would be inadequate thermal energy to allow any molecules to escape.

Since I think you intended this as a thought experiment only these considerations are probably irrelevant. [Please don't take the foregoing as gospel. I haven't dabbled in physics for three decades and I was crap then!]

[nameta9]

Anything is defined in terms of another thing. Everything is system; what is inside the box is defined in terms of: 1) box; 2)inside; 3)volume;4)meaning etc. That is why atoms probably DO NOT EXIST. They are defined in terms of a complex system of instruments, math formulas, interpretations, billions of neurons conceiving the atom etc. The whole system is what renders all kinds of philosophical or fundamental problems so intractable in the end.

[Sayonara]

Make the box out of diamond to reduce the vaporisation problem.

[MolecularMan14]

geez, this is almost like a debate on topicality (if you dont know what I mean, then well, look it up) Let's say that there were simply absolute nothingness in the box...does the nothingness exist? I think that was the main question to begin with.

I honestly dont have a good answer, as I have never thought about having absolutely nothing in a box before.

[LucidDreamer]

I believe that the contents of the box exists.

 

1) It has properties: the contents of the box are so and so big, and its located at so and so. It is a vacum. It is dark. Etc, etc.

 

2) It has a definition. All of its properties combine to make up a certain unit of something that we can easily identify and talk about. We can even give it a name. How about Fred?

 

3) It has the attribute of being. We have already defined what it is and talked about its properties. We have been told to assume that Fred exists inside this box and then we are asked whether Fred exists. Fred definitely exists because if Fred did not really exist then we should have been told that there was no such thing as Fred and that we should assume that there was no Fred in the box. If Fred didn't exist anywhere in the universe then he would not exist but as long as he exists in the box then he must exist.

[Jordan14]

Yes the first question was is nothingness an existance. And I think that we can define a contained nothingness as a existance because it has a defined shape, so we can measure the shape that nothingness is occupying so nothingness does exist. However I think we have moved on to CAN nothingness exist? Because does that suggest that everything (in physical terms) will go on forever because it can't end in nothingness as that is an existance. And on a simple level does this not suggest that the universe can never end.

[YT2095]

I still reccomend that this question is purely hypothetical and philosophical, as the situation could never occur! even with a "Diamond box".

 

it`s like the "irresistable force and Imovable object" scenario, it simply cannot occur!

[RICHARDBATTY]

Even in a perfect vacum space time still rules.

[YT2095]

50% incorrect!

 

a Perfect vacuum would by default remove it`s boundries, thereby A) Negating the vacuum. or B) the "space" it was confined in

 

TIME would remain unaffected though

[Jordan14]

I'll think i'll rephase the question is nothingness an existance? Thinking about what you just said if nothingness exists in time then does that mean that nothingness is an existance?