Quote:Vacuums were never considered to not be a thing as far as I know, just simply a truly empty region of space.
I do sympathise with Krauss in many ways. We really are delving into semantics:
From Webster on-line
Full Definition of VACUUM
1
: emptiness of space
2
a : a space absolutely devoid of matter
b : a space partially exhausted (as to the highest degree possible) by artificial means (as an air pump)
c : a degree of rarefaction below atmospheric pressure
3
a : a state or condition resembling a vacuum : void <the power vacuum in Indochina after the departure of the French — Norman Cousins>
b : a state of isolation from outside influences <people who live in a vacuum…so that the world outside them is of no moment — W. S. Maugham>
4
: a device creating or utilizing a partial vacuum; especially : vacuum cleaner
See vacuum defined for English-language learners »
See vacuum defined for kids »
When I was a kid a vacuum was a space with nothing in it. Look at the terms in the definition void, deviod of...
Things were objects and there were non in there. They could be particles, and sub-particles but no-one ever said they could be fields or energy. This to me is the meaning of no-thing. That it has now changed to include the non physical I can accept but again I don't think Krauss or the other physicists were at fault. I really don't believe they were trying to pull a fast one.
Just to repeat - I think this is all a blind alley anyway. If nothingness cannot exist - which is what the physicists are saying then the universe coming from nothing defaults to the nearest thing to nothing that can exist, or, we come up with a new term.
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
