The Carina Nebula, from the Hubble Space Telescope

In an earlier article, I proposed a scientific and logical answer to what has been called the Primordial Existential Question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"(1) While that article took the reader through a 5-step process of explanation, the answer in a nutshell was this: The state of "nothing" and the state of "something" are dependent on each other, in both a relativistic and a quantum mechanical manner. Therefore, it is a logical impossibility to have one of the states without the other. (For more detail, you'll have to read the article.)

There seems to be plenty of evidence for the existence of "something." In fact, that there is "something" would seem to be self-evident – whether that something is concrete, illusory or consciousness-inspired. But is there any evidence for the reality of a state of "nothing"? While it seems that most of the universe is comprised of "nothing," that may simply be the result of our own limits of detection; we can't see or otherwise detect anything in the vast space between objects. On a macro scale, most of the universe seems to be empty space. Even the so-called dark matter and dark energy that is speculated to exist would not come close to filling up all that space. On a micro scale as well, atoms are mostly empty space; the total of all the protons, neutrons and electrons comprise a tiny fraction of the overall size of the atom. For example, if the nucleus of an atom were a pea in the middle of a football field, the nearest electron would be outside the stadium.

So, does all that empty space define our state of "nothing"? I suspect that it's part of the answer. Space is not a medium through which objects travel on their incessant journeys. Space is "created" by the reality of objects and by their movements with respect to each other. The space of our universe is created by the expansion of the universe. As such it is definable and characterizable as an intrinsic and necessary part of reality as we can understand the term. Objects need space in which to exist, and space need objects to create and define it. And certainly there is an "outside of our universe" which may be defined as nothing. Some scientists would insist that that "outside" has no meaning or relevance to us, but perhaps that attitude actually informs the question. Such a lack of relevance may be another definition of "nothingness."

However, I suspect there is more to this than just space between objects and a void outside our universe. Perhaps there is another more fundamental way of describing "nothing." A most common way of describing the physical universe is by dividing space into 3 (actually 4) dimensions. The 0 dimension is a point, the 1st dimension a line, the 2nd dimension a plane and the 3rd dimension is what we generally think of as the length, width and depth of space that we operate within. We can think of a line as an infinite number of points aligned one after another in one direction. Similarly, a plane can be imagined as an infinite number of lines placed side-by-side. But there is a little problem with this characterization. A line has no width; therefore, if the lines are butted up against each other, the resulting structure will still have no width. An infinite number of zeroes still add up to zero. This means that in order for the plane to be formed out of parallel lines, there will have to be some minimum amount of separation between them. That unit of separation could be really small, but must amount to some actuality of distance. If the lines of 1-dimensional space are "something," that necessary separation between them becomes our "nothing."

Fig. 1: Rotating a 2-dimensional plane around a 1-dimensional axis will define 3-dimensional space

The same truth holds for points making up a line and for parallel planes creating 3-dimensional space. And here's where it gets really interesting. Rather than stacking planes like a layered cake, let's define 3-dimensional space in a slightly different manner. On a vertical plane, select an arbitrary line as an axis. Then rotate the plane around that axis to define the 3-dimensional space (Figure 1 is a 2-dimensional representation of this). A full 360-degrees of rotation defines all of 3-dimensional space. Now, while the plane has length and width, because it has no depth, there must be a minimum amount of rotation for the 3rd dimension to become defined. A very small distance, but some amount nevertheless.

 

 

Fig. 2: Recognizing that the plane must rotate some minimum amount, where is that minimum found?

 

Looking at our rotated plane (Figure 2, the minimum rotation exaggerated for illustrative purposes), the question becomes immediately apparent: where do we find that minimum distance of rotation? Is it from points a to b? Or points c to d? Closer in; further out? In this model, with the height of our plane extending to infinity, exactly where is that minimum rotation? Is it found at a corresponding minimum distance from the axis? How can the vast distances further out be considered the result of a minimum amount of rotation?

 

 

 

Fig. 3: A revised rotation suggesting curved space also presents other challenges

 

A possible solution is that our rotation looks more like the one in Figure 3 (again with the minimum exaggerated) and is suggestive of curved space. Certainly a possibility, but then what the heck is happening there in the circled area? (Perhaps some sort of quantum weirdness?) Whatever is happening there, it does seem that in order for the lower dimension of space to "add up" to the higher dimensions, there must be some sort of non-space separation between the pieces. That separation, I would think, would be evidence of a state of "nothing" that is integral to the existence of our (or any) universe.

 

This same sort of minimum separation may also be a requirement for the reality of Time. Some physicists(2) have speculated that Time can be seen as a series of instances (like snapshots of all Space that correspond to that particular instance of Time). In order for each of those instants to have definition and to portray the movement of history, there must be some minimum separation between it and the instants immediately before and after. So Time becomes a series of snapshot instants, each separated by moments of nothing (however brief). Time and Space both, it would seem, need the ongoing interaction of "something" and "nothing" for either to be real.