Hello, KZreadrs. The World Science Festival is looking for enthusiastic translation ambassadors for its KZread translation project. To get started, all you need is a Google account. Check out NOTHING: The Science of Emptiness to see how the process works: kzread.info_video?ref=share&v=BCUmeE8sIVo To create your translation, just type along with the video and save when done. Check out the full list of programs that you can contribute to here: kzread.info_cs_panel?c=UCShHFwKyhcDo3g7hr4f1R8A&tab=2 The World Science Festival strives to cultivate a general public that's informed and awed by science. Thanks to your contributions, we can continue to share the wonder of scientific discoveries with the world.

@tangoz811

5 жыл бұрын

I would like to do it.. But I think it's very dense and nearly impossible to translate because other languages do not have the same concepts imbedded in them

@jimwolfgang9433

5 жыл бұрын

How much are you paying? 😉

@howardchance9779

5 жыл бұрын

So , if time and space are the same thing then neither exist within nothing. Nothing cannot contain space, correct? what is time without reference? So could nothing be, for lack of a better vocabulary all encompassing or omnipresent as the religious may say. How can you incompass nothing without space and time? It must not be this or that ,though it seems it would have to have no shape ... So no limit that it is encompassed by. therefore to us within space and time ,we would have to deduce that it is infinite.. if such a thing is not true ..then nothing cannot be nothing...no? Is Nothing' infinite?

@richardkabaroff227

4 жыл бұрын

0

@tonyfernandes2342

4 жыл бұрын

The Universe is made of real things, particles which, on the other hand, are made up of atoms; Time and Space are imaginary reference systems, created to contextualize events that happen with real things. Both Time and Space systems of reference can be set to arbitrary origins and orientations, at any point in the Universe. So, that Space/Time theory created to explain gravity is just BS.

Best discussion about nothing that I have heard in a long time!

@jeffreybensley5790

3 жыл бұрын

Low hanging fruit.

@madkirk7431

3 жыл бұрын

Better than an award situation where someone doesn't know what you're talking about.

@madkirk7431

3 жыл бұрын

@@jeffreybensley5790 high hanging Clouds.

My salute to the moderator whose skill in the art of questioning and reflecting was excellent which perpetuated the discussion on the controversial and difficult subject to be enlightening and amicably entertaining not only for the audience but also for the discussants (guests/resource persons). The subject of nothingness had been pursued well by our scientists, and by listening to their intelligent discussions, I was able to appreciate the work of the scientific community especially the physicists who have been continually studying the sub-atomic particles of matter. Until I had seen this episode "Nothingness the science of emptiness", I was able to fully comprehend the implication of studying quantum physics, in the area of theology and philosophy.

All these scholars, extremely respectful, look like people from 60's TV shows. And they are all so friendly and smiley.

@grapy83

3 жыл бұрын

@AK6 Well, that discussion would be fun, if we can prove God's existence in non-ambiguous non-doubtful way.

@viperracing2889

3 жыл бұрын

That's because they haven't sat their foot outside the lab since the 60s. 😅

I enjoyed this talk very much. I think if we consider this universe as a part of the 10th dimension, it's impossible to achieve or have nothing within it. but then again, the idea of 'nothing' seems to be subjective. Anyway, I'm off to see the video on infinity! :D

We need to come to grips with the fact that everything that we perceive is quite literally inside of our minds. What you experience as reality is nothing more than the sum of everything you perceive through your senses, information which is processed in the brain. Reality could look completely different or it could simply not exist "out there". *Solipsism* suggests that we can never prove that reality exists independently of ourselves. It is impossible, *because the only tools we can use to figure that out are our senses and the brain, things that are made out of the reality we are trying to prove or disprove. It would be like trying to bite your own teeth*. When you dream, you do not question the dream, you simply accept that reality and live out the experience. It is only when you wake up that you realize it wasn't "real". But what is real? This moment is inside your head as much as the dream you had last night. That doesn't mean that it is not real. It doesn't mean that it does not matter. It is still a very real experience. Once you come to this conclusion you realize that the nature of reality is purely mental. Not materialistic and mechanical as we previously thought. If you think about it, matter isn't what we think it is. It is not physical. Think about the way physics breaks it down. Eventually you come to the physical world's "building blocks", very small particles that cannot be broken down anymore. Physics even comes to the conclusion that these very small particles are in turn made out of *point particles, which are particles that have no spatial extension, they are zero-dimensional, take up zero space*. Particles do not simply break down infinitely. There isn't an infinite amount of infinitely small particles. In other words, matter is made out of quite literally nothing. Logically we have to get to this nothingness eventually. Pure nothingness. You can say matter is made out of energy but this energy in turn must come from somewhere else. The Big Bang is no answer as we could ask the same question about it. Where did it come from? People don't even understand what energy really is. When most people think about energy they think about a substance, something tangible like fire. That is not it. Scientifically, *energy is described simply as potential*. The potential of a given system to do do work. *Not a substance*. That eliminates energy as an answer for the base of "physical" reality. Because the physical world is ultimately made of nothing, the only logical conclusion is that it is in fact mental, because the only way you and I experience it is mentally, and so do any other conscious beings that may exist. Ultimately, it is likely that the universe could be just a great thought, as many wise men have said. Following this logic, we can then come to the conclusion that you are the creator as much as the universe is your maker. Maybe the universe simply could not exist without your awareness of it. *This also doesn't mean that other people work the same way. Maybe other individuals are simply different points of view. Different perspectives on the world. The universe looking at itself from every possible point of view*. Obviously this only leads to more questions, like everything else. Does the world make you, or do you make it? If it makes you what makes it? I believe it is both. The universe depends on you as much as you depend on it. *The largest galaxies could not exist without you, and you would not exist without them*. You are dependent on the elements created in massive stars, yet to you, these stars would not exist, if you didn't exist. Don't think about this reality as "really out there", remember that we simply cannot prove that the things that we perceive are independent of ourselves. Like I said before, that would be like *tyring to bite your own teeth, or touching the fingertip of your finger with that same finger*. Makes no sense. Remember that *if matter is fundamentally empty, then it cannot be physical*. Ultimately everything is one. Clearly this is all hypothetical and unproved by science, but like I said, it simply cannot be proved by science. Never will be. But possible nonetheless. Too baked.

@Human_Evolution-

7 жыл бұрын

The Chief Of The Kief I wanted to respond but there were just too many words. the brain not being able to see reality because it is reality like a tooth biting a tooth seems a bit off. you could say like teeth biting a lip.

@andersonm5889

7 жыл бұрын

Human Evolution. You misunderstand. It's not that the brain is not able to "see reality". We see reality. We perceive things. However we surely cannot perceive everything that really makes up reality. What I'm talking about is the act of proving that such reailty is really "out there". That is impossible. Because the things that you can use to attempt to prove that reality is really out there are part of said reality. So it becomes a paradox.

@exceltraining

7 жыл бұрын

excellent post Chief... I hope this doesn't turn into the ubiquitous list of rediculous comments.... something I often ask : who invented e=mc2 ? most people say it was einstein nope, he is creditted with discovering it - but who invented it ? who, or what, invented this axiom ? who made it so ? science didn't, science can't explain your infinity of infinitely small particles, as you quite rightly point out. again - an excellent post - thanks for taking the time

@Human_Evolution-

7 жыл бұрын

The Chief Of The Kief I don't know if that is logical. The scientific method and philosophical logic is about as close to reality as we can get. In a sense I get your point, the one ultimately seeing reality for what it truly is would have to be all knowing. I believe we can get close to understanding reality. The big bang, all life on Earth a product of evolution, etc.

@andersonm5889

7 жыл бұрын

Human Evolution, To some extent I agree with you, but I believe there is no such thing as "getting close" to understanding reality. There is only understanding reality more and more but never reaching absolute truth. I say this because you mentioned the Big Bang. Asking where the Big Bang came from is a pointless question. It is without a real anwer. Because once you really think about it, you realize that it must be the effect of a cause of a cause of a cause, ad infinitum. Eternity doesn't make sense, and neither does something materializing from nothingness (nothingness being a paradox, because nothing cannot be said to exist). Even if they are particles popping in and out of existence in the quantum field, what is the origin of said field? How does it exist? Saying the quantum field has always been there, and will always be there, is the equivalent of saying: "God made everything, and he has no maker, he has and will always be there." Maybe that's what's really going on. Existence may be eternal, and there is no such thing as "nothing". Reality may be a work of art without an artist. It's just hard to wrap one's head around such absurdity. What I really like about this way of looking at things is that if existence is without an end, there will always be something new for sentient, reasoning beings like us to discover. Endless discovery and wonder. Wouldn't you agree that the whole show would lose its meaning if some day we found "absolute truth" and the answers to everything? Nobody really has a clue what is going on. Cheers friend.

I really loved to ponder on nothingness and space and I'm glad you come up with this video. Space is related to emptiness or the absence of everything after you remove the visible universe and everything including energy. Space surround and houses emptiness. On the other hand if you remove space what was left is nothingness. It is easy to perceive empty space while difficult to even imagine nothingness without space. So there is something hidden in the property of space that physics doesn't know until today. If there are energy levels, there is also sime kind of different space levels related to molecular activity at different temperarure levels. Space is the foundation that define physical laws of matter.

My late husband was totally blind since birth. When we first met, I asked him what he "saw," such as if he saw black, clear, or white. His response was, "I see nothing." He had no point of reference whatsoever as to any type of visual matter

@jeffreybensley5790

3 жыл бұрын

That's because he's blind.

@turlacon5

3 жыл бұрын

If you want to know what your late husband saw(may the lord rest his soul). He saw what you see behind you head. That's what nothing looks like, not blackness.

@petostacy1771

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for sharing that. Being blind and having no reference must make you question life in general differently.. or enlighten you to so many other things..?

@petostacy1771

3 жыл бұрын

@@jeffreybensley5790 what a stupid cruel comment.

@petostacy1771

3 жыл бұрын

@@turlacon5 this woman shared something important, and you respond with stupidity..she deserves respect.

Enjoyed this because I've thought about the subject for years. And I've come to the conclusion that everything falls apart when you ask the questions "What is nothing?" or "Does nothing exist anywhere?" The bottom line ... you can't legitimately ask either question. After all discussion, the most you can say about nothing and still be accurate? "Nothing isn't"

Very intuitive but I'm not sure if It's possible to envision nothing because once you think about it becomes something,.. so in our reality nothing is somehow a subset of something.

@criticallook5162

7 жыл бұрын

+El Phelezino (Elzee) or... something is a subset of nothing or... something and nothing is one in the same or... we are not really here, hence nothing to talk about or... NOTHING is dreaming about what there might be if there was SOMETHING There is balance in the universe. • light - dark • hot - cold • North - South • pain - pleasure • Nothing - Something (to name a few) There are two sides to the coin, and an edge - which is the transition between the two. :

@chinemeremohaeri9100

7 жыл бұрын

I'll tell you what I know. You spoke of noting or something without identifying an object. so you meant everything, your answer should be an inverse of everything. this in itself is something but it is nothing because it does not exist in the known world. it is pointless.

@williamwhite999

7 жыл бұрын

nothing?

@kirkrussell9130

7 жыл бұрын

El Phelezino essence is the nature of mans liking....it is the subconcious state that produces a complexity of internal solitude of spirituality and external delight of curious "spookiness" known as quantum mechanics. One does exist in either direction, depending of the moment of clarity from the most well defined explanation of the individual. Perhaps contributing to the WHOLENESS of of exiatence.

@faulbees6486

7 жыл бұрын

Contrary to popular belief, no, the fact that you've thought about something/nothing doesn't change its composition.

Even if we never have the tech or the imagination to figure it all out, i just love learning about the things we can learn about. I'm no scientist by any stretch but I do love science and i'm thankful for the scientists we have. Having the internet and the ability to learn SO much at our fingertips... this is a truly exciting time for humanity. Extinction or evolution? humanity as an entire community, not separated by race, region, religion or culture needs to get their shit together!!

@user-tf2wd1eh3g

2 жыл бұрын

Yea, we ain't getting our shit together.

Thanks for the great panel. and John Hockenbery is a very entertaining moderator and generator of good questions.

What a great panel, including the host.

this was a really awesome talk! please bring these guys together again! :D

I got absolutely NOTHING from watching this video. Thanks!

consistently some of thE best content on the net !

@howardchance9779

5 жыл бұрын

I agree

@5kr3aminMunk33

3 жыл бұрын

E

@realcygnus

3 жыл бұрын

@@5kr3aminMunk33 yup

@TheNazpe

3 жыл бұрын

@@5kr3aminMunk33 lokololoolololooloolololo

"If your standards are low enough, you can never be wrong *makes dying goose sounds*" - this guy cracks me up, amazing genius individual :D

I learned quite a bit (for me, anyway..) from this lecture and discussion, I am very grateful that my ever-present curiosity has wonderful inspiring stuff like the WSF to feast upon.-I still struggle to understand most of what I hear but it sinks in slowly as I watch more and more.

@paulzenski

2 жыл бұрын

I feel the same way. Grateful to have mind expanding shows like this to watch. I feel a little smarter after watching these

@stevedabish9107

2 жыл бұрын

for me i rather have this kind of discussions to listen to even when i am busy instead of music or songs

♫ Nothing from nothing leaves nothing ... ♫

@slowburntm3584

3 жыл бұрын

🎶You gotta have something... if you want to be with me. 🎵

Thank you for great content!

Thanks. I love these episodes

Nothing is rather something, because to create "nothing" it needs to be absent of something (or "some things"), and this absence defines the nothing, and this nothing ends up being still something, defined by "what it is not".

@Truth_is_all_that_exists

8 жыл бұрын

+Alwin Arnold but definitions are things... so they can't be there if it's truly nothing. Labels and property's and characteristics are all things.. energy is a thing.. empty space is a thing... You can not give anything to 'nothing' because it isn't anything to have anything. You don't create nothing... if there was nothing it would still be, because anything.. anyone.. ever.. tries to say is the reason for nothing becoming something is forgetting a very, very important fact... whatever reason anyone has can not be the reason because if it was truly nothing then the 'reason' could not have been there or happened or existed in any way what so ever.. because if this supposed reason / idea / label / description / property was there ... then it wouldn't of been truly nothing.

@Alwin2007

8 жыл бұрын

Yes. What I'm saying is that true nothing, devoid of everything including itself, doesn't exist. Because if nothing is for instance 0, that would also mean it's not [any remaining number]. Some people picture nothing as white, others as black, but no matter how you look at it, nothing shouldn't be white or black because it's then still something. What I meant to say that no matter how you think of nothing, it's bound by it not being everything else. If it's truly nothing, it should include its oen nothingness and be completely nothing; Like trying to picture nothing as white and then trying to erase that white, and trying to erase that etc. I just can't think of something that is completely nothing without the "not-X" part. But you know, as far as I understood you, I agree with you. I was just trying to make clear "nothing" that's so nothing that it is definitely nothing without it ever not be not-something (or whatever it would have been if not nothing), doesn't exist. Like there is always something about it that ruins it: "Ah, I see, so you are something after all." If there is something as true nothingness, I would like to see it's face. Oh wait, I can't see it's face because it's nothing. :) Thanks for your reply, btw.

@Truth_is_all_that_exists

8 жыл бұрын

+Alwin Arnold Yeah no worries dude, and I see what you're saying too. And while I agree with what you're saying I do see the 2 as totally different concepts. Nothingness is not anything as you say,.. it never actually exists and does not have property's or anything at all.... ie: absolute nothingness And something is here... this universe... the whole of existence.. everything we know and don't know...it is 'something' and so as long as there is something then it's not nothing, so don't try to think of the nothingness as a 'thing' or conceptual framework.. because we can't.. it isn't anything it can't be thought of like that... It can be described, but even that requires us to reference the things it is not.. rather than the nothingness it's self, but that's all we can do.. because of the none-state of nothingness not having anything we can use to describe it. so don't :) If there was nothing, then it wouldn't have a description, it wouldn't have anything at all... period :) the absence of description.. the absence of property.. the absence of all. which is why I say it can not have ever ... ever been nothing, because it would still be, by definition. have a nice 1 :)

@Alwin2007

8 жыл бұрын

+Brian Connolly Yes, I totally understand. Maybe superfluous to say but "absolute nothingness" doesn't exist, right? I mean, really, can it ever exist? It's kind of bogus to be asking this. I would simply think it doesn't. But thanks. There are very few people who understand what I'm going on about. Like I'm expressing some kind of koan. But I must say I'm learning every day. There is always a blind spot I haven't considered and I must say I can be arrogant at certain moments (which is, you know, always something I realise afterwards). This learning process is a journey. Thanks ;)

@YourMajesty143

8 жыл бұрын

+Alwin Arnold _Because if nothing is for instance 0, that would also mean its not [any remaining number]._ Not true, 0 is the sum of all existing numbers. When looking at the number scale, we find 0 at the center while the negative numbers are to the left & positive numbers to the right. When combining all values, we get the sum of absolute zero. For instance, ~1 + 1 = 0, ~2 + 2 = 0, ~3 + 3 = 0, and so on. It can go to the infinitely large (~100n + 100n = 0) to the infinitely small (~.00002413 + .00002413 = 0). So the total sum of all the numbers on a number scale cancel each other out. Zero is not an exclusive number, the number zero doesnt even exist. Its merely an invention that reflects what happens when a negative combines with a positive, when antimatter meets matter, when an electron collides with a positron, etc. Within zero, all dualities/contrasts exist. We define "Nothing" as a void, but mathematically theres no such thing as a void. There is, however, a vacuum. We've been taught that nothing means "No-thing", when it actually represents "No *perceivable* thing". But just b/c we cant perceive something, doesnt mean we cant measure it. Emptiness doesnt imply that energy no longer exists. The law of conservation postulates that energy cannot be created, nor destroyed. Its pre-existing and everlasting. So within nothingness, energy is still measurable. This doesnt mean that we cant call empty space "nothing";. We certainly can, its merely a matter of semantics & misuse of scientific terms that prevents this understanding. When talking about subtractive colors, such as paint or crayon, white is the absence of color & black is the sum of all colors. each color represents the color it didnt absorb. For instance, Red paint absorbs all colors and reflects the red back to your eye, so that we see red. If you combine red, blue, and yellow, you'll get black b/c all the colors are absorbing each other & reflecting nothing back to your eyes. When talking about additive colors, such as light or camera/computer images, white is the presence of all colors, while black is the absence of them.White light is actually polychromatic & made of all of the colors of the rainbow because it contains all wavelengths. Black absorbs all the photons so your eyes cant perceive color. Ultimately, color is the interpretations your eyes make, much like how the word "nothing" is misconstrued when attempting to reconcile what absence is.

Frank Wilczek is so funny his explanations are awesome too! lol

Absolutely brilliant. I don't understand it all but this is just perfect KZread content

I'm very happy of what John Barrow saids at 53:00.

don't look at the comments... don't look at the comments... ARGGHHHH!!! Done it again!

@user-lq7lg5jt4k

8 жыл бұрын

+Ofisil incredibly sad :(

@samuelclark8881

8 жыл бұрын

+Clone Protocol something cannot come from nothing there has to be a beginning somewhere if god created the univérse god is still therefore something which has come from nothing? what was there before God?

@keyboarddancers7751

7 жыл бұрын

+Samuel Clark. I think the South African professor was trying to say that the concept of there being a "before" does not really hold in this context. Also the Nobel prize winner was trying to explain that our current or previous notions of nothingness rested on the premise that "nothing" i.e. the absence of anything/everything else, can indeed exist in certain circumstances e.g. the vacuum in a jar or in interstellar space. However we now recognise that the vacuum in these environments is not in fact "empty" as the term "nothing" would suggest; it can be demonstrated that interactions are taking place in the jar-vacuum at a sub-atomic or quantum level as well as in the more obvious sphere of electromagnetism and radiation and of course in space we now infer through elaborate prediction and thorough testing of theoretical models, the existence of dark matter and dark energy without which the universe as we know it would not exist. In short, our previous notions of nothingness are having to be continually revised in the face of emerging evidence and to simply propose the statement "something cannot come from nothing" is to avoid entirely joining the deeply fascinating, exciting and unquestionably complex search for answers (and I daresay inevitably further questions) which in some way account for the very existence of our universe and for the myriad ways in which its constituent materials and forces interact. To say "there has to be a beginning somewhere" is like leaving the table before the main course of an ornate gourmet meal has arrived in order to rush to the nearest KFC or McDuffs!

@fornavnefternavn5480

7 жыл бұрын

sorry sorry sorry sorry don't like my comment pls I promise I won't do it again

@megamindvs2514

3 жыл бұрын

Never see this section, just go.

Why does this moderator ALWAYS talk SO much? He should really stop!

Fascinating discussion. Nothing is more energetic than something. Can't wait to find out what happens at LHC after it's upgrade.

A step up for me! Very absorbing, a lot of ideas I had never heard before ... Darkness, Nothing, Vacuums, Ether, No-Man's Land, Here Be Dragons, Langoliers Were Here, Half the YinYang ... Just words for things we have yet to learn more about ... When we finally see it, then it's not so Dark, not so Empty ... there will always be more to learn ... Better questions to ask ... My new favorite phrase ... Thought Experiment! Sounds so much better than Wool-Gathering ... :D Worked for Einstein! ;)

I wished the host would stop interrupting. Frank Wilczek lost his train of thought at one point, and I found it condescending on the host's part - as if we the rabble need his constant attempts at illuminating the discussion and showing us how clever he is. Stop it!. ;)

I realize that presentations like this probably need a mediator but Hockenberry interrupts too often and often at inappropriate times. Great discussion otherwise.

This is by far the most profound video on KZread if you can grasp Lee Smolin

1:25:18 talk about "nothing" incredible !

An hour and a half of people talking about nothing.

@koalabear4884

8 жыл бұрын

It's really good too.

@kelligwamtwa3958

7 жыл бұрын

+Koala Bear it really is!

@killsobmeanie2300

7 жыл бұрын

but are they really?

@KarmicBeats

7 жыл бұрын

I watched a thing about nothing. I took nothing away from it 0-0=0 Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin' You gotta have somethin' if you want to be with me... 😁😁😁

@EconAtheist

7 жыл бұрын

Fuck, guys - I'm so high.

Ace work on that John Cage joke. I was laughing out loud at home my geeky friend.

@ns88ster

3 жыл бұрын

Big Bang Theory is your favourite show.

@DatM135i

3 жыл бұрын

@@ns88ster it maybe but my channel is your favourite channel to watch too

@ns88ster

3 жыл бұрын

@@DatM135i fact checkers have already debunked that, so you're wrong.

@DatM135i

3 жыл бұрын

@@ns88ster what

Great discussion..for me time is always linear..but like when we are enjoying life or in a discussion it seems to travel....

1:02:50 "Will it affect New York first?" Hahaha. ♥

You! Yes, you, reading this comment. Do yourself a favor, stop right here, and scroll right back up. Just pretend this comment section doesn't exist. You're welcome...

@agimasoschandir

9 жыл бұрын

Onward and on, no time to stop, not now, there may be trolls in dem there comments...

@thraxx9442

9 жыл бұрын

I took your advice and didn't even bother reading the comments. I'm sure it's filled of plenty of people trying to pretend they know what they are talking about.

@eideticex

9 жыл бұрын

You don't know nothing... But if you scroll up as suggested you might learn something.

@Tethloach1

9 жыл бұрын

how did you know lol.

@cosmicwakes6443

9 жыл бұрын

Tethloach1 Easy.

When John Hockenberry finally stops clapping into his darn microphone, we will probably have achieved true nothingness.

@donmcgibbon6575

2 жыл бұрын

The Sound of One Hand Slapping One's Head

I enjoyed these minds gathered together and being able to laugh at their lives work.

A Very interesting Video 👌🏻👍🏻

the part when he was talking about colliding particles into very extreme temperatures creating empty space just to see space fill that void to see what happens had me thinking. at that moment, was it really an empty void? or was the void they thought to be just filled with extremely high energy expanding space around it mistaken as an void?

@stevedabish9107

2 жыл бұрын

that's the description of what happens in the black hole .I think

[Q] What came before the Big Bang? [A] Cuddling. :

@dulciamoutinho2418

7 жыл бұрын

Critical Look 😂

@1234nateman

7 жыл бұрын

Critical Look it's called the Big Wang in China.

@TheEmaonedunn

6 жыл бұрын

GOD...the one in the bible...the one that all ways been...it's in a bible...which this dude are learning ...what has been said looking ago....

@TheEmaonedunn

6 жыл бұрын

This priest of modern science cult are learning from ANCIENT Greeks that learned from ANCIENT Egypt that learned from ANCIENT etc...it's all in a book called the Bible....it all there...TRUTH

@TheEmaonedunn

3 жыл бұрын

@Aditya Singh earth is a cylinder....flat and round....lol

34:00 brilliant analogy

Please share these brief videos with others. Thanks!

Nothing simply means absent of something. So, there always has to be something. Only when we take out SOMETHING, whats remain is Nothing. In reality, Nothing is not possible. For e.g when someone take away or ate up all the apple that were placed on the table, whats remain on the table is nothing. But we can't say now there is only nothing, there is the table then and when the table is taken away, there is the room itself, inside which the table was present. And so on.....

@ajaykumarsingh702

7 жыл бұрын

Yes. According to physics, Universe can't emerge from 'Nothingness'.

@redace6649

4 жыл бұрын

And when you remove the room, then what is left? And when you remove the house, what's left? Remove Earth, what's left? Remove the spacetime continuum, what's left?

who is this moderator? the dude keeps butting in with his wisecracks when he should be litenining

at the end 1:22:50 where John says he worries about the possibility that we won't be able to come up with a spot on T.O.E because there may be other properties of space time that are infinitely weak or almost inconsequential and hard to discover or test is something that I have often thought about myself. It is by no means unreasonable to have this suspicion given that one of the forces that we know governs the universe,gravity, is very weak, and we also have particles that are very inert and hard to detect and also maybe the opposite, particles that may only reveal themselves at extreme conditions, we have no clue about some of the universe's most extreme environments like the center of stars or black holes or for that matter even planets ! it is frustrating also that some of these conditions are (for now) impossible to simulate and study in a lab

Loved it... The negative energy-black hole evaporation- heat secretion thing. Is it taking the ingredients for anti matter out of nothingness? Leaving the positive energy that would have winked out?

"Nothing"is the absence of movement or vibration of any kind.

@stevennovakovich2525

4 жыл бұрын

But even space itself is something.

@fragileomniscience7647

2 жыл бұрын

@@stevennovakovich2525 Even more: Space and time are equivalent. If there was empty space, there must have been a standstill of time, by an infinite stretch of spacetime. And nope, no such thing. You know why? Because of thermodynamics: a colder object tends to equate out with a hotter object due to entropy. But: an absolute zero then would require infinite sequences of adjacent particles at absolute zero. And that can either happen if there is no time - hence no space (contradiction), or, if time around the particle was infinitely stretched out to let the energy density tend to zero (contradiction). So, there really can't be "nothing". "Nothing" is a n+1st order predicate acting upon a n-th order logic to refer to what object locally in the n-order logic does fulfill the law of excluded middle. I.e. in the set of planets (1st order quantization), there is nothing planetary between (2nd order quantization, since we say that for any two planet set elements, you can not construct/measure anything that also is a planet, thereby constructing a predicate over a predicate).

the looks on these guys' faces is quite interesting. It's as if they all know that what they are attempting to do here isn't a thing that's possible. Like they know they can't explain to us what a vacuum is without either taking years to explain it so are using metaphors and analogies which they know are not satisfactory or sufficient. They appear to be quite amused by the entire process.

@jvincent6548

3 жыл бұрын

A vacuum is not the same thing as 'nothing'. Vacuums can not exist as we think they exist. On earth there is and can no be any such thing as a vacuum which has no 'substance' in it.

one of the best wsf episodes... and also the funniest:)))

This topic along with Infinity should have a second round at the Science Festival. Both topics are the most fundamental conceptual problems to require debating the deficiencies of contemporary Physics and Mathematics. No leap forward without clarifying what they mean precisely and what they cannot mean. My position in a sentence is that there is no Infinity and that there is nothing to nothingness. As for spacetime it may well be emergent but there will be need of some sort of ordering background no matter what it might be. You can't have events of any kind, nor structure, nor information, anything, without some sort of abstract space, ordering medium.

Nothing does not exist. Everything exists.

@SyMpByBG

8 жыл бұрын

yea :D thats fckin weird

@dogwithwigwamz.7320

8 жыл бұрын

+Daniel Woodward Amazing. Simply amazing. `Probably the best comment I have ever read in matters such as these.

@DonSSanders

8 жыл бұрын

+Daniel Woodward In the land of nowhere....you will find lots of nothing.

@stepan_doan

8 жыл бұрын

+Daniel Woodward if everything exists then also nothing exists.

@SyMpByBG

8 жыл бұрын

naaah dats the point of nothing its not there

Two one inch plates with nothing between them is equivalent to one two inch plate. That is the definition of nothing.

@Truth_is_all_that_exists

8 жыл бұрын

+LogicalBelief Finally! Someone who actually understands the concept of nothingness. Energy is in empty space huh? Well that probably because both energy and space are both things.. so it was never nothing at all.

@jvincent6548

3 жыл бұрын

@@Truth_is_all_that_exists The 'two plates' illustration is a metaphor - a way to help mortal humans understand tough philosophical concepts. Premise: If nothingness exists then nothing (not a single thing, by definition) would exist to comprehend it. It follows: If an intelligent, conscious and reflective entity (man, say) exists to contemplate the concept of 'nothingness' then 'nothingness' can not exist, for then the premise is false. Assertion: 'Nothingness' is and can only be a concept that exists in the 'minds' of man.

@Truth_is_all_that_exists

3 жыл бұрын

@@jvincent6548 dude... No. Nothing is a none state . It does not have a definition... It is precisely a complete lack of definition that's required for the none state of nothing to not be. Technically noting is always 'not here' There has always been and will always be a totality of all things .. And nothing is always not sitting there right not beside it not having all the none things that don't exist. You think you are teaching me about the concept of nothingness. But actually you are just regurgitation other well known ideas and assuming I don't know them. Riddle me this... If it were ever true that there had been at some point the none state we call nothing... Or.. If it became true at some point that ALL THHINGS had stopped existing... If there was truly the none state of absence... Then it would be true that there are no things .. That would instantly create the truthfull description vof the absence of the none state Truth is a 'thing' So out of nothing comes something....truth If it were true that it was nothing then would it be true that it nothing.

@jvincent6548

3 жыл бұрын

@@Truth_is_all_that_exists Er ...um... I'm sorry to have to be the oner to break this to you....I know of no other way to say it, and so I'll just say it. You just defined it ! (thus consequently contradicting yourself). And you were doing so well for the first 12 characters ! Uh huh - yeah...I know...It's a tough one isn't it...and the imprecision of our language is just so inadequate....

@Truth_is_all_that_exists

3 жыл бұрын

@@jvincent6548 no, I did not define it. I defined what it is not. The distinction matters.. Defining the absence of characteristics is not the same as defining the absence. Words have definitions... And nothing is a word used, as is absence, none, zero, they all have definitions .. But, they are labells for that which is unlabelleble in essence. You can not define a thing that is not. You can only say what is and then state that the nothingness is not any of those things. Unless you decide that the term 'unknown' has such a specific category that it can be used as a definition, even in this case? Nothing is unknown and so defined as an unknown... That's cheating, blatent cheating. We both speak English, we have agreed upon the base definitions of most terms... That circular self defining nonesense won't fly here. No.... I did not define the nothingness . I sated things that it is not... And supposed concequences and logical self evidences as a result of nothingness being a none thing with no attributes etc.

Thank you.

"What are you watching?" Nothing. "I mean, what are they talking about?" LITERALLY NOTHING

"nothing" - what a stone dreams about

Brilliant!

I kind of figured when I was in the 4th grade that infinity in terms of space is a straight line that never ends, no matter how far you go, even if there is no matter at some point being in the area. Perhaps over the past 70 years that straight vector might have a very slight curvature to it. There may be energy or matter or both, no matter how far travels from a starting point in the universe. Mathematical formulae may have added a lot to what infinity is. Don't forget that the Beatles say that, "...nothing to get hung about...strawberry fields forever." AF

@tiemiahu9947

2 жыл бұрын

Infinity by my unqualified definition, involves all of everything that ever existed, and all of everything that ever will exist throughout all the entire eternal future. And it exists as one being: The Eternal Infinite Universal; God from where all things come forth in their due season......... The Urantia Book,com

I just killed my vacuum cleaner

@jessevos3986

8 жыл бұрын

OH NO!!!!!

@rickyrico80

8 жыл бұрын

I know its a long time ago, but how is the vacuum cleaner situation now? A dying vacuum really sucks.

@YnseSchaap

8 жыл бұрын

RickyRicardo80 It does

@qqqqqqqqqq7488

7 жыл бұрын

How does one go about cleaning a vacuum?

Nice Hair Einstein!

These scientists are brilliant.

finished it.. And it was Gold.

Nothing to see here, move along people.

@madLphnt

7 жыл бұрын

ha haaaaa...nice

@DirkBBB

7 жыл бұрын

You didn't get the POINT, did you (grin) ? Very interesting historical overview, though... How Aristotle was wrong (in fact, Aristotle was wrong about almost evereything ("all animals have 4 legs"), and his theories, promoted by the Church, kept us in darkness for TWO MILLENNIA !!! )... Kill Aristotle !!!

@josephjt051194

7 жыл бұрын

I know, these aren't the drones I'm looking for.

@ghiribizzi

7 жыл бұрын

ok mr. "being" policeman

@nedalelmsadsi3484

7 жыл бұрын

These is the yellow suit

I cannot avoid asking myself every time: who are the "thumbs-down" people! There are always between 4% and 10% naysayers for every science documentary! Finally I realized that they are the...Christians! Or the Muslims or the orthodox Jews! Abraham's people!

@blairschirmerx1711

7 жыл бұрын

Some will be those who feel the format is very poor. Tthe equivalent of a tape lecture? Barely an hour of discussion? And that disastrous narrator? It's easy to see the discontent. Hockenberry seems to think his job is to interrupt at the most interesting points.

@mihaihosu5210

5 жыл бұрын

There are people like you who think that if they read an article on a scientific journal they know how the universe works and are quick to call others ignorant, but in fact they are every bit as ignorant. Typical debates between Christians and "wannabe scientists" go like this: Christian: - God created the universe. Scientist: - Well then who created God? Christian: - Nobody, God is eternal. Scientist: - That's ridiculous, let me tell you how it all happened. There's a predefined, incredibly complex transcendent framework, with internal structure and positive energy, with pre-existing, transcendent laws of physics that give rise to quantum fluctuations, and THAT gave birth to the universe. Christian: - And who created that framework with that particular internal structure, where does its energy come from, who created those particular laws of physics that make this vacuum (which is something, not nothing) unstable? Scientist: - Nobody, they are all pre-existing and transcendent. Christian: - So if I assume the notion of God as a transcendent entity, I'm wrong, because I can't answer the question of who created God, but your incredibly complex pre-existing, transcendent framework is ok to "just be there", it doesn't need a creator and it doesn't have to answer the same questions? Scientist: - ... Since you're every bit as ignorant as the others and whatever you think you know has got exactly the same fundamental flaws as you claim creationism has, I think you should refrain from insulting religious groups.

I like how these times tickle my brain.

Interesting point about Aristotle near the end, I'm sure he'd have plenty to say about the accuracy of the writings that've survived thus far, and how people've interpreted them.

The first speaker (not the host), is he wearing an obvious toupée? Or is it just a really bad hairstyle made to look like a toupée? I know I shouldn't care about such nonsense in a program about complicated subjects but I can't unsee it. Nor can I get this insidious question out of my head.

@mkrulic517439

9 жыл бұрын

thats a hat esse.

Thank God this guys used comedy in this talk.

Frank Wilczek really tests your patience in this discussion.

I would like to have heard a quick synopsis of axiomatics by the panel .

If you realized that nothing is actually sometihing, then why call it nothing?

@5kr3aminMunk33

3 жыл бұрын

Cuz there's already something

@goranvuksa1220

3 жыл бұрын

@@5kr3aminMunk33 something which is not nothing unlike something that is nothing

One thing is certain : nothing dos not exists.

@bremmermandrake

9 жыл бұрын

What about the space that holds nothing, even with nothing there is still space Whether it holds nothing or not, space is space even if nothing exist you would need space to prove that there is nothing there. I have been to nothing and there was something there.so nothing does exist. Peace and love to all

@7Earthsky

9 жыл бұрын

Bremmer Mandrake Your describing the same thing so it doesn't make sense..What your saying is the same as asking ''what about the colour that holds paint''?

@bremmermandrake

9 жыл бұрын

7Earthsky This is your misunderstanding color does not hold paint, Paint holds the color, when you go buy paint they have the paint then you tell them what color you want. they add the color. peace and love to all

@7Earthsky

9 жыл бұрын

Bremmer Mandrake This is your misunderstanding of my analogy...It has nothing to do with the semantics of a paint purchase by an individual...You simply cannot separate a paint from its colour...Paint no more holds the colour than the colour holds the paint..They hold each other...How a human describes the colour in or of a paint has nothing to do with it and is mearly semantics..You can only add to a paint to change its colour by mixing (warping) said paint with something added...In the same way, you cannot separate time from space. You can only warp space/time by adding mass.

@bremmermandrake

9 жыл бұрын

7Earthsky Change your analogy from paint I was in the painters Union for years so I know much about paint. However if it was said differently it would give me a better understanding. as your understanding of paint is way off. Peace and love to all

thank you so very much for putting these online I should be studying but hey

I like this video - as authentic as human (scientists here) minds can be. I have been studying the structure of the empty space and realized that everything tangible is the result of the empty space being overflowing with property. In this sense, Aether does exist and it exists in the form of the property of the empty space, not in the form of matter medium.

Nothing Does Not Exists, or none of us and the Universe would have been here, Nothing cannot create anything, not a zilch! Nothing only exists in our minds and in mathamatics and counting systems, in the Universal language it has absolutely no existence. So what this means is that instead of Nothing, Something is everywhere and has always existed in one form or another. This "something" can even be said to be God since vast majority of the occupants of our planet believes in a Creator, who or which created everything that is there in our universe, scientists might prefer to call this something as Quantum Mechanics, I prefer to call it God or just Energy, whatever one calls this Something that has always existed and has transformed some of itself into physical matter to form our Universe, and its physical laws, and in forms of many many different things, today we know all that substance that there is in our univeres came from one single common source, not only is this so Obvious but a whole lot Logical. One does not need big Hadron Collider to detect this Invisible thing that we refer to it as Nothing or emptiness, just because we cannot see it or feel it; with our own sensory organs or glands, but indeed we can detect some of this Invisible something by sophisticated instruments, Scientist just hate naming this Something as God, scientist are allergic to the name of God. Thousands of years ago, we did not know much about science, we called this thing as God who created everything, but today we can break down this thing into its individual components and intricate structure, and study them in detail how we got here, what created us, and our Universe, This something (God or Energy) exists in every nook and cranny, it exists in vacuum, it is present everywhere, it has no limit, it is formless and infinite, only the physical matter that this something created out of some of itself,that we can see and feel and smell, it is just not possible for us to otherwise see this Something that is in a non-physical transformation, thus it is invisible to us and we then wrongly think that there is Nothing between physical objects, it, but yes we have come up with detectors to to see this Something, which appears like Nothing but it is not Nothing, as I said Nothing could have never existed, or else the universe would not have taken a birth, let alone none of us would have been ever here. So isn't this Something (God) so beautiful, and mighty and powerful, just imagine the size of our Universe, how many billions of galaxies each with trillions of stars, it is unfathomable, Praise be to that Something, Quantum Mechanic will no doubt help us all to understand our Master, the creator, the ultimate truth of our creation, and the numerous processes and time over which it took Universe to form and evolve to our present being, God really is great, no doubt without Him Nothing would ever exists.

@bobaldo2339

9 жыл бұрын

"Nothing" is a concept without a referent - just a product of language.

@ericwinter2083

9 жыл бұрын

i agree that nothing doesnt exist, but i'd also go so far as to say even talking about nothing existing doesnt make any sense because nothing cant be what it isnt. So for nothing to exist, it would then be a thing, which is obviously a contradiction. I don't see why you assume something had to create the universe or cause it to exist. Given that the big bang is the most accurate model of the universe we have today, it doesnt make sense to talk about before the big bang/the universe. So you could say that the universe is all that there ever was. If you want to say that something outside of the universe "exists" and caused the existence of the universe, first you need to demonstrate that this "realm" "exists".

@yashaouchan

9 жыл бұрын

Great.. not another religious nut....

@bluband2

9 жыл бұрын

The universe once meant "all there is". Now with concepts like the multiverse the term universe has gotten more limited, which in itself may be wrong, but lets use this term in it's pure meaning: all there is. Obviously there is something (i think therefor i am) so there is a, lets call it structure or entitie, for fun's sake one could even add spititual supernaturalities, gods realm, or whatever, containing all there is, the boundaries and nature of which will however likely never be completely known. This is 100 percent logical reality, there is such a complex of everything. How does nothing fit in to this? simple: Nothing is what's excluded by everything, which is nothing. This does sound a bit incomplete though, but actually it isn't, it's the everyday usage of nothing (what's in the box? nothing) that kind of tricks us in wanting to make nothing more then it is: nothing.

@msgcheckout

9 жыл бұрын

***** Indeed how so True, 100%, it is not only common sense but so logical too, most people cannot comprehend this reality, that instead of Nothing, something has always existed, even Nothing itself is something, that is because it is in a different shape and format, not a physical format, we cannot see it or detect it or feel it, so on this bases, that Nothing is something, then we could say universe came or it can come from nothing, - but Absolute Nothing does not exists. in other words any matter or energy that exists cannot be destroyed to absolute Nothing, nor can it be created, tell me who has created any matter or energy? and by matter i mean solid matter not a fig of imagination in the form of one or two protons that scientists claim they may have managed to create a couple of protons from vast amounts of energy, Not one person in the whole universe has so far managed to create an ounce of anything! and therefore something cannot come from Absolute Nothing, in other words Absolute Nothing simply does not exist, and cannot come from Something, and so something has always prevailed and shall prevail.

Everything is YinYang. Our universe is made up of positive and negative energy. Yingyang reaches balance you perceived, you will feel peace and nothing. Or maybe just your mind make 'nothing' become +&- of something.

Stringer's defense of not having any experimental verification is that they have so many pretty hypothesizes. Great job if you can get it.

Thanks

They're trying to discover nothing at CERN? well they doing great so far ;p

@jcn3722

8 жыл бұрын

+sinisa majetic Except that they discovered the HIggs lol...FAIL.

@soldatheero

8 жыл бұрын

+JCN 3 kinda hard to believe they even discovered "the higgs" they saw some data on a screen and call it a discovery.

@jcn3722

8 жыл бұрын

soldatheero OH, you don't know shit about how science works...ok, that explains a lot. They made a documentary on it. The data they discovered translates into real world findings...oh, who cares. Stay ignorant. It's non of my concern.

@sinisamajetic

8 жыл бұрын

JCN 3 even Steven Weinberg said something to that effect as soldatheero

@soldatheero

8 жыл бұрын

Well I will admit I do not know too much about what they actually found I wouldn't say I don't know shit about science. I just don't agree with the premise of what they are doing, they say they have discovered a particle that correlates with gravity or some field associated with gravity. I simply do not agree with the philosophy and ontology of modern physics which is greek atomism and materialism. They believe the world to be a material entity and want to reduce everything down into particle like balls ie) greek atomism. To me it is a joke because I know the real nature of reality is consciousness and mind and that looking for particles to explain everything is futile and dumbfounded.

nothing is when you die, its an end of your existence, thats nothing.

@digitalbread4574

9 жыл бұрын

How do you know?? in order to do good science to confirm your theory you would have to die and be nothing but then since your nothing you cant confirm your theory because you have no conscious. there for your assuming. FYI i have know idea. i don't even know if its possible to imagine NOTHING!..

@digitalbread4574

9 жыл бұрын

All my logic and reason says yes.But at the same time i can not know are prove it to be true because i'm not there to confirm the reality of the sound.I also can not rule out the possibility that the tree, forest, and sounds are constructions of my mind and how it evolves.

@Atheist603

9 жыл бұрын

wes taylor Before I was born I didn't exist,..which is most likely happens to me when I die...The atoms that make me still exist in the worms that eat my body..

@Atheist603

9 жыл бұрын

wes taylor I didn't exist before I was born, same thing is most likely happen when I die...all the energy that make up my body will go back to the environment that sustained me throughout my whole life...You probably have atoms that once was in Jesus's or Sir Isaac Newton's body...

@nuimaleko7

9 жыл бұрын

I had a heart attack last month. I was dead for about 3 minutes. You can not really experience nothing, so my memory of the experience was one of simple blackness and peace, very much like what I imagine it was before I was born.

Thanks from Denmark

Poor Frank Wilczek: One of the most important physicists of our time interviewed by a Journalist, whos Ego seemingly is much bigger than his knowledge of physics.

Great host.

@frederickj.7702

7 жыл бұрын

+ Blatend Crude... This is sarcasm, right?

the "host" should give up on his efforts at humour , then again most nerds should.

@jkang471

5 жыл бұрын

Indeed He is very annoying.

Deriving The mathematical equations for singularity state is really a genius and Nobel prize will be awarded.

I never thought I'd be listening to a video about nothing.

The important/interesting question is how to keep/prevent something (life) from becoming nothing.

Davies, commenting on Wilczek's fish analogy (40:55) says there's no analogy for the water's friction for particles. I say there is and it's light's speed limit.

I like this host of WSF............

1:17:00 this brings up my current favourite topic, colour ONLY exists in the brain, wavelengths of light have no intrinsic colour, our brain assigns this imaginary thing called colour to these wavelengths, but for the time being there is no way to know if what i label "red" and "see" as red in my mind corresponds to what you label "red" in your mind - you might see red as blue. likewise sound only gets realised in the brain, sound again is wavelengths travelling through a medium, the waves have no sound, our brain converts the compressions into something we call noise/sound. so if a tree falls and no one is around, nope, it makes no sound.

@JeffSmith03

3 жыл бұрын

From what you point out, there is no such thing as seeing red as blue.

Great!!!!! 😊

Can’t believe he didn’t play some Philip Glass in that intro. Missed opportunity

You dont have to look outside to know reality on its deepest level. You can experience all by yourself turnig inside. Never thought this is an experiece you can have as a human until i have experieced it myself. Your personality is like the lense youre watching through. If you get rid of your person you can experience reality as it is. The way you can think about how reality works cant fit reality itself because it is just a part of reality. But you yourself your apperance IS reality itself so you can go through the doors of perception and become the answer and not searchin for it.

@2msvalkyrie529

2 жыл бұрын

You have a point Chris. One that needs unwrapping more slowly.

This is the best show about nothing since Seinfeld.

@frederickj.7702

7 жыл бұрын

...And the worst moderator since Kramer. Or ever...

Dang, funny slam on Fox at 1:13

lol @ 2:50 "the classics of the genre.... ... ... ... ... ... you don't recognize John Cage?" lmao i cracked up for a good 5 minutes

@ns88ster

3 жыл бұрын

No you didn't, ya fucking hippy.

John Hockenberry should get his own show... So that no-one can watch it and the rest of us can watch the panellists who we want to hear from talk in peace. It's like having to step the conversation down 5 levels just so that the lowest common denominator (John Hockenberry) can still participate.

This talk is not about nothing as the lack of anything but rather a physics talk about vacuum states in physics