Something from Nothing

[c172]

Something from nothing and chicks for free. *sings loudly*

Banned, do you have any cod nipples? Can you make cod nipple sushi?

[Amarok]

Yay  someone else who thinks he going to land the hammer blow . And another 60 pages of bannings preaching .

[Ravenshire]

More precisely, the particles appear from what is known as a false vacuum. This is an actual state of the universe, but a state where there is nothing (no particles, etc) in the universe.

Perhaps the strangest part of this for the ordinary person is to think of 'nothing' as being a state of the universe where the laws of physics apply.

Yes, we need the laws of physics and we need a state of 'nothing'. Some people would claim those constitute 'something' as opposed to 'nothing', but let's face it, God didn't create from 'nothing' since God was supposed to be there.

The main difference is that physics doesn't assume a deity, but does assume laws of physics. But we know laws of physics exist.

It's not hard to think of a place where there is an absence of the laws of physics.
Just like it wasn't impossible to imagine the Higgs Boson before it was verified.

---

I'm speaking from foggy memory here, but I remember reading that matter/anti-matter particles are theorized to pop into existence and then subsequently annihilate one another. There is even an experiment involving two metal plates that suggests that this phenomenon may be real. Also, Hawking radiation from black holes is thought to be related to this phenomenon.

I'm not sure how much this relates to the "something from nothing" idea, but it does tend to suggest that there is more to "nothing" than we might immediately intuit.

A few of our elements on the atomic chart are like that, they can appear and disappear, living on the edge of matter so to speak.
Some of the elements discovered by fission are very unstable.

But who says that disappearing matter is no longer there?
It's another topic, but what if it's possible for matter to be spread out into either space or time or both. It could assemble or appear when the conditions are right.
And who is to say that all atoms don't share the same common physical cause, but that some atoms are more likely to dip in and out of that state than others?

---

This sounds like something Alan Watts would say. Something and nothing are distinct but of the same essence.... or something like that. 

Taking the eastern approach?

When we talk about nothing we sometimes mean negative energy, or perhaps a vacuum.
Since energy may be defined as a difference in activity or state, negative energy can be a source of actvity, just like a vacuum.

We see both components in matter - as a lot of eastern ideas present - the positive and negative etc.

It is possible that the oscillations of an atom are caused by a wave which bounces back and forth from positive to negative states of energy, and that matter isn't necessarily annihilated by those extremes, but that atoms are specific and varied animations due to the interplay between the two.

(emphasis is mine)

You really have no fucking clue about physics, do you?

[Brian37]

"God" "gods" "god" "deity, are all gap answers.

You are simply assuming a super cognition is required as a starting point. In reality the truth is humans make up those claims as a reflection of their own attributes in desire to control, desire to survive, desire for power and fear of death.

I do not see something or nothing in conflict when you split them between "on" and "off" like a light switch. Just like in school you learned a finite line can have an infinite number of points between the finite line ends.

If you can accept Poseidon isn't required to explain the existence off hurricanes, and you accept that Thor is not required to explain the existence of lightening, why do you think your pet flavor of sky wizard would be more credible?

I see "all this" as a giant weather pattern, not cognitive and not caring about humans. Just like Poseidon didn't exist as a human claim 4 billion years ago, just like our species did not exist 4 billion years ago. Humans are simply an outcome of countless cosmic conditions, and still ultimately a temporary blip in cosmic time.

I see the "off" and "on" being infinite but not caused, a mere fluctuation, "off" for a while, then a big bang, then "on" for a while until the energy burns out back to "off" then a quantum twitch leading to another "on".

But no, there is no Allah or Yahweh or Jesus or Hindu creator God Brhama needed to explain our universe.

Most humans simply get sold their religion at birth before they can formulate adult critical thinking skills.

[Edwardo Piet]

It's not really quite nothing. And Lawrence has been rightly criticized for the term 'nothing' by both philosophers and other physicists.

But I guess, "A Universe From Almost Entirely Empty Space Teeming With Quantum Activity" isn't as punchy of a book title.

[Brian37]

It's not really quite nothing. And Lawrence has been rightly criticized for the term 'nothing' by both philosophers and other physicists.

But I guess, "A Universe From Almost Entirely Empty Space Teeming With Quantum Activity" isn't as punchy of a book title.

Well to be fair to Lawrence, scientists throughout history get misunderstood when laypeople confuse their use of the same word.

Theists constantly confuse the word "law" as needing a "law giver, law maker". In scientific language they are not talking about a super cognition writing a law like you would through congress. In scientific language "law" is a description of scientific observations that get confirmed over long periods of testing, and peer review. 

Einstein is also constantly misunderstood when he used the word "God". It was not a literal super natural being, but his own idea of the natural behavior of the universe. It was metaphor.

But, even si fi fans fall for misunderstanding what real scientists say. A few years ago NASA wrote an article about the possibility of the "warp drive" as depicted in Star Trek. The part they ignored was "ON PAPER ONLY", but if they had not ignored the article, it said it was highly impractical and unlikely because of the amount of energy it would take to do.

The same mistake is made even with doctors who believe in claiming a patient "came back from the dead."  Clinical death only means the staff cannot detect activity, it is possible to fly under the radar and still have just enough undetected activity to allow you a full recovery if you pull out of it. BUT, once enough of your cells break down beyond repair you DONT come back.

Lawrence is basically saying at the QM level the variables are "under the radar" as far as we can measure at this point. 

I don't think it is inconsistent to say "nothing is unstable". 

It is simply far more reasonable to say that, than to cling to the comic book super heros of old mythology in all the world's religions.

If one is going to claim their God came from nothing or did not have a start, then the universe itself could be explained with that as well, without the problem of infinite regress.

As I said in my prior post, infinite vs finite can both exist when it is broken up between "off" and "on". The off can be finite, the on can be finite, but the fluctuation between the two can be infinite. In any case a super cognition would not be required as a gap answer in either case.

[polymath257]

Of course it's difficult to cover the subject in such a short time, but note that matter and anti matter 'particles' appear from nothing. 1:08.

What happens to "nothing" if it is discovered how this happens?

I'm speaking from foggy memory here, but I remember reading that matter/anti-matter particles are theorized to pop into existence and then subsequently annihilate one another. There is even an experiment involving two metal plates that suggests that this phenomenon may be real. Also, Hawking radiation from black holes is thought to be related to this phenomenon.

I'm not sure how much this relates to the "something from nothing" idea, but it does tend to suggest that there is more to "nothing" than we might immediately intuit.

It's called the Casimir effect. Yes, it has been measured and is due to quantum fluctuations like you said.

---

A few of our elements on the atomic chart are like that, they can appear and disappear, living on the edge of matter so to speak.
Some of the elements discovered by fission are very unstable.

Thisisn't quite accurate. Many of the heavier elements have very small half-lives, so they decay. But when they decay, what happens is the nucleus splits and we get two or more other nuclei: the matter didn't disappear. These heavy nuclei are formed by colliding two other large nuclei together. They don't just 'appear'.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well to be fair to Lawrence, scientists throughout history get misunderstood when laypeople confuse their use of the same word.

He's pulled this one out of his ass all by himself though lol.

It's one thing when someone says they're using a scientific definition and they make that clear, and then theists go ahead and keep equivocating anyway.... it's another thing when someone like Lawrence insists that "No it really is nothing" and doesn't make it clear that he's redefining the word at all.

[popeyespappy]

When people like Krauss and Hawking talk about a universe from nothing or it makes no sense to talk about before the Big Bang they are being a bit deceitful. They are being deceitful because while they believe it is possible maybe even probable that our particular X, Y, Z, + T observable universe began with the Big Bang they also believe there was probably a background something that it came from.

String Theory is currently the leading theory on what that something is. Krauss even believes that if String Theory is true then a multiverse is probable. If a multiverse is true then there are other spacetime universes besides ours.

String Theory isn’t the only possibility though, and the Big Bang is far from confirmed. Other possibilities include our universe is cyclic. expanding and collapsing over and over again. Another possibility is it could be the result of the collapse of the false vacuum of a previous higher energy vacuum.

Krauss himself talks about some of this in this short article about the limits of knowledge.

[LadyForCamus]

@Banned

Explain how god created the universe without quoting the Bible.