2006-08-02 07:21:26 · 4 answers · asked by lhmocus 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
Space has a fundamental potential energy that
allows spontaneous creation of particle-antiparticle
pairs which then quickly annihilate. This has effects
on everything traveling through it (well, more noticeable
on small things).
Space is very busy. Nothing isn't.
2006-08-02 08:19:56 · answer #1 · answered by PoohP 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, yes, I'd say, sematically there is a great deal of difference.
If we're talking about empty space (as in whatever is between the galaxies) and even if we assume there's nothing in it (ie no particles, energy, etc) then we still define that volume to be part of space-time. The difference is that it's still a medium, light and matter *can* travel through it and affect it, so it's still something. Nothing is almost always defined as the absence of everything, so this would seem to contradict this.
2006-08-02 16:38:15 · answer #2 · answered by kain2396 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, space by definition must have boundries, that is liimits, and "empty" is an adjective describing such space. "Nothing", on the other hand, has no boundries or limits.
2006-08-02 14:31:41 · answer #3 · answered by kfreidline@sbcglobal.net 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think so as "empty" space can have fields and such in it.
2006-08-02 14:27:47 · answer #4 · answered by Daniel H 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋