[Guille]

talking about nothing again,

I would say that the word nothing can auto-describe.

no-thing. meaning the absence of thing. which IS the oppsoite of something because something is some-thing. meaning presence of thing/s.

[AntonioLao]

when we say nothing what we really mean to say is that there is no matter. But how about energy? How about space?

when can we say that there is no energy? When can we say that there is no space? There can be space without energy or matter. But there cannot be matter or energy without space since matter and energy always occupy space. This shows that space is more fundamental than matter and energy. Space will always be there even though matter and energy cease to exist. The universe started without energy or matter but it has infinite potentiality or infinite capacity to create matter and energy with infinite temperature.Once matter and energy were created then they evolve and develop into more and more complex systems and the temperature decreases but eventually entropy reaches a maximum and the temperature reaches zero such that matter and energy turn back to space and the cycle starts all over again.

[Guille]

well, for me the most fundamental thing of all are dimensions. knwo a question arises from me, taking E=mc^2 into account, can there be energy without mass, or mass without energy??? (mas is a always-common property of matter).

[AntonioLao]

in the vacuum of space, there can be electromagnetic energy without matter. This is where the divergence of electric and magnetic field are both identically zero. This is summarized by Maxwell's equations for radiation.

[Guille]

if magnetic and electric force are zero, then the EM energy shouldn't also be zero? so there is no mass because there is no energy.

[AntonioLao]

in the vacuum, Maxwell's equations are

1.

2.

3.

4.

in matter, Eq. 3 is replaced by

the existence of EM field in the vacuum implies that the EM cannot be zero.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

in the vacuum, Maxwell's equations are

1.

2.

3.

4.

in matter, Eq. 3 is replaced by

the existence of EM field in the vacuum implies that the EM cannot be zero.

that gets completely paradoxical. although I understand it, it exists being zero? but, then it doesn't exist!!.....contradiction.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE

that gets completely paradoxical. although I understand it, it exists being zero? but, then it doesn't exist!!.....contradiction.

zero is a region where there are no free sources, the current density is zero and the charge density is zero.

, current density

, charge density

these mean that electric field and magnetic field are linked into symmetrically unbreakable bond. But in matter, this bond is spontaneously symmetry broken thus separating the concept of mass and charge. In a quantum field theory of the electromagnetic field (QED), it is possible to create and annihilate matter and energy thru quantum vacuum fluctuations and vacuum polarizations. These have been verified by experiments.

[zeroca]

Originally Posted by Dragongod

If you can prove to me that its possible for nothing to exist i would be much obliged and in your debt.

I don’t think that absence of something is nothing. I’d mention two different words: everything and nothing.
Let’s call everything the whole universe together with its attributes: i.e. any kind of matter, gravity, space and time, i.e. the universe entirely, fully. The absence of the whole universe, i.e. absence of everything at the same time is nothing, in other words it’s thorough, complete, general nonexistence: no space, no time, not any substance, no existing change, no existing motion. (Such state can be figured as only material point without measures).
It means that we automatically assume that fading away of this universe is possible. Whether that’s really possible, or not, is another matter. Nobody can prove it, because we all see the existence clearly, saw it yesterday and we know that it happened centuries and millenniums ago (even if this existence is an illusion, the illusion is existence anyway), but adherents of the theory of permanent existence of universe can easily deny impossibility of complete fading away, i.e. they have great advantage over their opponents (adherents of theory of nothing).
We can only assume that nothing existed before, and if that was really so, and the universe arose from nothing, then this world must contain the code of it on all levels. Let’s make such assumption and follow it, i.e. let’s analyze from our position credibility of this assertion. Actually, nobody can restrain us from it.
The first we have to analyze, i.e. the first question is:
Has nothing any probability of change? I myself wouldn’t like to prove anything to anybody, but my position is definite:
The only kind of change that can happen with nothing, is its splitting, separation into opposite equal phenomena (how many pluses, so many minuses, what kind of pluses, the same kind of minuses qualitatively) and almost everybody disagree with it…
But if I'm right, then must exist some mechanism based on nothing and experiment with it would be a perfect prove...

[Marketa]

"We can only assume that nothing existed before" - how? And WHEN? Because, if you assume that "nothing" is "no time, etc." and at the same time you claim that nothing is able to change, then this is a contradiction: any change is a process and therefore it happens in time...