what is nothing?

[coltcat]

I'm not good in english , so I've to present this question in simple words (then taking twice of time reading any responds)

I was just finish chatting with a friend about pop.sci (good entertaining for nerds)
we both come across the concept of "nothing" (or zero , or some concept like that)
we found out that both Sagan and Hawking like use the word "nothing" in pop-sci. program.
I remember Sagan say something like "matter are made of nothing(or mostly empty)"
in the other hand , Hawking always says like "universe was made of nothing"
off course these word are chosen for general audience.
but still feel struggling for many ppl , whats these scientists definition for "nothing"
my though will be something like what we've know in quantum event: particle pop out , and we dont understand but only says "it came out from nowhere"
I dont understand any piece or fraction about quantum mechanics or some weird things like strain theory
human have thought theres nothing is vacuum long time ago , but not now
still , we've seen many scientist using that word.
 
I just cant help but to ask , what is everybodys thoughts about "nothing"
what is nothing?

[Tank]

what is nothing?

The total absence of anything that can be defined as something.

[coltcat]

what is nothing?

The total absence of anything that can be defined as something.

then that would be another word for "we dont know what it was for now" , it's reasonable for researcher to thinking about this , but pretty unresponsible for using that word "nothing" in a educational process. I'll be glad Hawking says "we have some hypothesis like the dark matter , and we are working on them" than saying "universe is expanding caused by something we dont understand and I calling it nothing" , it might leave a big hole for anti-science folks to stuff crazy idea in it.

[Martin TK]

Nothing is what one is left with when everything is gone.

[Tank]

Nothing is what one is left with when everything is gone.

Sounds like my bank balance  

[hismikeness]

It's funny, as I was reading the OP, trying to place an accent to the writer who obviously employes English as a second or even third launguage, I kept coming up with Eastern European of sorts. One of the old Russian territories maybe? And, they were yelling at me.

It's one of my favorite ways to concede that I'm just not as smart as any sort of astrophysicist, let alone Stephen Conworthy Hawking. Black Holes, Big Bang, and comets oddly enough. How can a comet have such a wildly eccentric- but stable nonetheless- orbit around the sun? I don't get it.

Nothing is the neighbor of oblivion. That's my best guess.

[Whitney]

I'm surprised that Hawking would say that all that exists came from nothing as he tends to speak about cosmology in a deist-like manner; sometimes referring to the universe as god.

Sagan saying nothing also surprises me; simply because we don't know if there was ever a state of nothing existing.  I would have thought Sagan to be more inclined to assume that something always existed as he seemed to have an optimistic nature about him....that is if he were to be making guesses, frankly we really don't know how it all started yet.

Do you have links to the sources of these quotes where they said the universe came from nothing?  Perhaps something got lost in translation.

[coltcat]

I'm surprised that Hawking would say that all that exists came from nothing as he tends to speak about cosmology in a deist-like manner; sometimes referring to the universe as god.

Sagan saying nothing also surprises me; simply because we don't know if there was ever a state of nothing existing.  I would have thought Sagan to be more inclined to assume that something always existed as he seemed to have an optimistic nature about him....that is if he were to be making guesses, frankly we really don't know how it all started yet.

Do you have links to the sources of these quotes where they said the universe came from nothing?  Perhaps something got lost in translation.

I remember it's a BBC program couple years ago call The Big Question, I cant find the whole show online. but this is whats most close to it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x2BWWdeVTc

I quoted Sagan from Cosmos
this part:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JJHC5y_RKE

It's funny, as I was reading the OP, trying to place an accent to the writer who obviously employes English as a second or even third launguage, I kept coming up with Eastern European of sorts. One of the old Russian territories maybe? And, they were yelling at me.

yezzz,like Tulansiolvaania...

I'm Nou in my koffin, postin leplys on a gawdless foloom vvhile dulinking vvine. LOL

[penfold]

Physical Nothing:

In physical terms there is no such thing as absolute nothing. Even a vacuum has inherent energy which can be measured: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect. In fact the universe seems to go out of its way to avoid nothing. As Feynman points out we cannot even find a place in the universe with no movement:

Remember that when a crystal is cooled to absolute zero, we said that the atoms do not stop moving, they still jiggle. Why? If they stopped moving, we would know where they were and that they had zero motion, and that is against the uncertainty principle - From The Feynman Lectures on Physics 2-3 Quantum Physics

So when people like the late great Sagan use the term nothing in reference to the physical universe they are talking of relative nothing (ie most of the atom is 'nothing' compared to the nucleus) NOT absolute nothing.


Philosophical Nothing:

In philosophical terms nothing stands in comparison to being. In the Western tradition nothing tends to be talked of as an opposite to being. So nothingness is literally an absence of being. This has a nice logical form. For example take a horse and a unicorn. The horse exists in the world, ie it has being. The unicorn does not exist in the world, ie it is nothing (lit. no thing). [Interestingly this use of 'being' (or 'existence') as a predicate is strongly attacked by Kant in relation to the ontological argument]

In the Eastern tradition being and nothing tend to be seen as interrelated in the same way form and void are. This latter position was adopted by Sartre who, in his book Being and Nothingness, says "Nothingness is the worm coiled at the heart of being." In this view nothingness is the context in which being is defined. Just as we think of a square as being defined by the area it contains bounded by the area it does not contain. So analogously we define our being not only by its scope but by its limits (ie nothingness).

[pinkocommie]

Physical Nothing:

In physical terms there is no such thing as absolute nothing. Even a vacuum has inherent energy which can be measured: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect. In fact the universe seems to go out of its way to avoid nothing. As Feynman points out we cannot even find a place in the universe with no movement:

Remember that when a crystal is cooled to absolute zero, we said that the atoms do not stop moving, they still jiggle. Why? If they stopped moving, we would know where they were and that they had zero motion, and that is against the uncertainty principle - From The Feynman Lectures on Physics 2-3 Quantum Physics

So when people like the late great Sagan use the term nothing in reference to the physical universe they are talking of relative nothing (ie most of the atom is 'nothing' compared to the nucleus) NOT absolute nothing.


Philosophical Nothing:

In philosophical terms nothing stands in comparison to being. In the Western tradition nothing tends to be talked of as an opposite to being. So nothingness is literally an absence of being. This has a nice logical form. For example take a horse and a unicorn. The horse exists in the world, ie it has being. The unicorn does not exist in the world, ie it is nothing (lit. no thing). [Interestingly this use of 'being' (or 'existence') as a predicate is strongly attacked by Kant in relation to the ontological argument]

In the Eastern tradition being and nothing tend to be seen as interrelated in the same way form and void are. This latter position was adopted by Sartre who, in his book Being and Nothingness, says "Nothingness is the worm coiled at the heart of being." In this view nothingness is the context in which being is defined. Just as we think of a square as being defined by the area it contains bounded by the area it does not contain. So analogously we define our being not only by its scope but by its limits (ie nothingness).

+1 with a side of welcome to the forum!  =D

[Martin TK]

Actually, NOTHING is what I was left with after my first divorce.

[Tank]

Actually, NOTHING is what I was left with after my first divorce.

So you were one of the lucky ones that didn't end up in the red! Fortunately after 30 years of marriage I cant see divorce on the horizon.