There is no Zero
The Incredible Shrinking Man is a science fiction film made in 1957. If you haven’t seen it before its title will probably make you think it’s a downmarket B-movie, but it’s far from that. In fact it was very well received by film critics when it was first released and in 2009 was added to the Library of Congress list of films considered to be culturally, historically or aesthetically significant. The special effects used to portray the main character reducing in size were remarkable in its day, but for me the film is worth it for the wonderful ending shown in the clip:
I first saw this film on TV when I was at school and the final monologue made such an impression on me that it keeps popping into my mind, as it just did. The field of astroparticle physics encompasses cosmology, the study of the Universe on the largest scales accessible to observation (many billions of light years) as well as the smallest dimensions we can probe using the techniques of particle physics. As the Incredible Shrinking Man realises, these are just two aspects of the same underlying unity. There’s nothing specifically new about this line of reasoning, however; I posted a poem a while ago that dates from 1675 which has a similar theme.
I decided to put the clip up now for two reasons. One is that the phrase “there is no zero” (which has passed me by on previous occasions I’ve watched the clip) reminds of some stuff I wrote recently for a book that I’m struggling to finish, about how there’s no such thing as nothing in physics. Space is much more than the absence of matter and even empty space isn’t the same thing as nothing at all. Zero is also just the flip side of infinity and I don’t think infinity exists in nature either. When infinity appears in our theories it’s just a flag to tell us we don’t know what we’re doing. Many others have thought this thought: both Gauss and, later, Hilbert argued against the possibility of there being realised infinities in nature. My old friend and erstwhile collaborator George Ellis adheres to this view too.
The other reason for posting it is that, in these days of the Incredible Shrinking Science Budget, it’s important that we recognize and nurture the deep connections between things by supporting science in all its forms. Once we start trying to unpick its strands, the web of knowledge will all too quickly unravel.
In the Dark 
October 1, 2010 at 6:18 am
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Garth Godsman and Richard Burrows, Peter Coles. Peter Coles said: There is no Zero: http://wp.me/pko9D-1UZ […]
October 1, 2010 at 6:55 am
If infinity doesn’t exist in nature, then how many points are in 1 meter?
October 1, 2010 at 8:11 am
Points don’t exist in nature…
July 12, 2014 at 11:31 pm
However many indivisible lengths are required to make 1 meter. Could be around 10^27. Not necessarily Planck lengths though, just indivisible lengths. We don’t know how many but it must be finite.
October 1, 2010 at 9:01 am
I agree empty space is different to nothing – but empty space still isn’t “something” – the pain that the phrase of the “fabric of space-time” can cause.
October 1, 2010 at 9:30 am
I don’t like that phrase either, but there’s no denying that space possesses attributes of various kinds so it is a “something” of some sort.
July 12, 2014 at 11:37 pm
I’m not sure that can be proved. You do tests on the vacuum with equipment but it could be the equipment producing the results not the vacuum itself. Space could be our mind filling in the gaps between real objects.
October 1, 2010 at 10:09 am
I’ve had long chats (and published on) the properties that empty space possesses – attributing space with material qualities is not a good idea.
October 1, 2010 at 10:34 am
Agreed, but if it’s not nothing and it’s not something we need to find a new word for what it is. Because I’m sure it is…
October 1, 2010 at 12:00 pm
You’re sure space is? Not so easy for Dr Johnson to give it a kick, alas. But just so long as we don’t start talking about it expanding….
October 1, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Yes, lets keep away from the rubber sheets for the time being.
October 1, 2010 at 12:19 pm
or bending….
October 1, 2010 at 3:00 pm
I think one of you guys should write a guest post on why space isn’t expanding or bending.
October 1, 2010 at 3:12 pm
I believe we have both written papers (or at least comments) on it.
John’s is here;
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4573
Some comments are made on the usefulness or otherwise of the concept of `expanding space’ in cosmology. These notes are an expanded version of material first published in 2001 but not previously available online except at http://www.roe.ac.uk/japwww. Since that personal webpage has been referred to in published work, it seems sensible to give these notes a more permanent home.
October 1, 2010 at 3:32 pm
I see John has recordings of his clarinet playing on his web page. Perhaps I should put mine up?
October 1, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Sean Carroll blogged about this back in 2008: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/06/does-space-expand/
October 1, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Yeah – I think Sean got the wrong end of the stick somewhat. The argument is that attributing “space” with physical properties is not a good one.