Can some thing really come from no thing?

[seriously disabled]

My father is still convinced that some thing cannot come from no thing. He says that's the definition of no thing.

 

But is it true? Can some thing really come from no thing?

Is there even such a thing as a 'no thing'?

[Endy0816]

What did he say about the arguments presented previously?

[seriously disabled]

What did he say about the arguments presented previously?

He didn't say anything. He just said that the very definition of nothing is still nothing.

[Function]

Law of conservation of energy smites this theorem apart in a billion pieces.

 

Off-topic: we cannot understand the very definition of "nothing". I've always wondered what blind people saw, but not any professor in ophthalmology could answer me. Only blind (born; or by serious total damage to the visual cortices) people know what "nothing" looks like.

[Strange]

Law of conservation of energy smites this theorem apart in a billion pieces.

 

 

Not really. There is a "zero energy universe" hypothesis.

 

However, there is no evidence that something can (or did) come from nothing, so the whole question seems moot. You might as well argue about what colour unicorn eggs are.

[beecee]

 

 

Not really. There is a "zero energy universe" hypothesis.

 

However, there is no evidence that something can (or did) come from nothing, so the whole question seems moot. You might as well argue about what colour unicorn eggs are.

 

 

A correct scientific statement.

But I find the "universe from nothing" speculative scenario, not that hard to accept.

https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

 

Another relevant point in my opinion, and as mentioned earlier, is one's definition of "nothing"

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0143-0807/11/4/008/meta

 

Perhaps one day the advent of an observable "Quantum Gravity Theory" may shed more light on this so far rather interesting scientific speculation.

[Mordred]

You will probably enjoy this then

 

"Spontaneous creation of a universe from Nothing"

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207&ved=0ahUKEwjJ9sHz06PUAhUK5WMKHUMfDVgQFggjMAI&usg=AFQjCNFktncVqDNaSYL7UGEvKza6EJFvUw&sig2=sZ9jc3WP3_sBHzsik7D57A

[Thorham]

I've always wondered what blind people saw

 

That's easy: They simply don't see.

 

However, there is no evidence that something can (or did) come from nothing

 

Physically it doesn't seem to make sense that something can come from nothing, so there probably won't ever be evidence for that anyway.

[Endy0816]

Probably grasping at straws, but some of it makes me think some exotic form of negation could have occurred. Why and how I do not know though.

 

He didn't say anything. He just said that the very definition of nothing is still nothing.

 

Possibly showing him some of the links here might help him have a more open mindset as to the possibilities. Otherwise may be better to choose household harmony over trying to convince someone of something for years and years. We can't say definitively yea or nay.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Endy0816

[Function]

 

That's easy: They simply don't see.

 

That's not easy. If not, one of the hardest questions of all time. If they don't see, they see nothing. But that doesn't mean they see black or darkness as if we were to close our eyes. And they cannot explain to us what "nothing" looks like, because else it wouldn't be called "nothing".

 

It's a secret reserved for the blind.

[John Cuthber]

This sort of thing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

shows the real-world physical effects of the things that come from nothing.

[beecee]

You will probably enjoy this then

 

"Spontaneous creation of a universe from Nothing"

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207&ved=0ahUKEwjJ9sHz06PUAhUK5WMKHUMfDVgQFggjMAI&usg=AFQjCNFktncVqDNaSYL7UGEvKza6EJFvUw&sig2=sZ9jc3WP3_sBHzsik7D57A

Thanks...Interesting.

[Strange]

This sort of thing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

shows the real-world physical effects of the things that come from nothing.

 

 

Although, that comes from the (non-zero) zero-point energy of the vacuum. So, as someone else said, it depends on your definition of "nothing".

[Thorham]

 

But that doesn't mean they see black or darkness as if we were to close our eyes.

 

So you mean what they see in their minds? Also, I don't see only black when I close my eyes, either.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Thorham

[RAJ82]

Yes it is absolutely right to say nothing can come from nothing . Mathematically if there is 0 before equal, after equal will also be zero. Your question is valid.

[beecee]

Yes it is absolutely right to say nothing can come from nothing . Mathematically if there is 0 before equal, after equal will also be zero. Your question is valid.

Again, one's definition of "nothing" is important here.....The cosmological Singularity from whence the universe and associated matter and energy arose from a fluctuation in the quantum foam....Is this pre BB quantum vacuum nothing?

Empty space that we may chose to examine is not really empty but filled with spacetime and seething with virtual particles popping in and out of existence.

The following link explains it much better then my own amateurish attempt...

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html

quote from the above link........

"With respect to the origin of the Universe, the quantum vacuum must have been the source of the laws of Nature and the properties that we observe today. How those laws and properties emerge is unknown at this time.

Quantum Fluctuations :

The fact that the Universe exists should not be a surprise in the context of what we know about quantum physics. The uncertainty and unpredictability of the quantum world is manifested in the fact that whatever can happen, doeshappen (this is often called the principle of totalitarianism, that if a quantum mechanical process is not strictly forbidden, then it must occur)".

[RAJ82]

Nothing means absence of anything which has physical properties

If any thing matter, energy ,force or anything else has physical properties it is not nothing.

[beecee]

Nothing means absence of anything which has physical properties

If any thing matter, energy ,force or anything else has physical properties it is not nothing.

 

 

Facts though are we, the Universe/spacetime are here....And unless some definition of nothing as detailed here...http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html, has existed for an infinite amount of time, the something from nothing hypothesis[ https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/ ] [ https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf ] is the only scientific answer available.

Edited June 12, 2017 by beecee

[Thorham]

Nothing means absence of anything which has physical properties

If any thing matter, energy ,force or anything else has physical properties it is not nothing.

 

You're absolutely right. Science needs to start naming things properly instead of Big Bangs that aren't bangs and aren't big, and nothings that aren't nothing.

[Phi for All]

Science needs to start naming things properly instead of Big Bangs that aren't bangs and aren't big, and nothings that aren't nothing.

 

Science does. Lambda Cold Dark Matter model.

 

Popular science reporting is your culprit. They often use analogy and sensationalism that people take too far.

[StringJunky]

 

Science does. Lambda Cold Dark Matter model.

 

Popular science reporting is your culprit. They often use analogy and sensationalism that people take too far.

People need to learn what the terms actually mean to scientists.

[icarus2]

I apologize for my poor English.

 

We can propose two models as an example for Zero Energy Universe (ZEU) model.

 

Model-1.

[math]

{E_T} = 0 = ( + E) + ( - E) = \sum { + m{c^2}} + \sum { - \frac{{G{m_i}{m_j}}}{{{r_{ij}}}}} = 0[/size]

 

[/math][/size][/font]

 

 

 

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fPi-bdH0mr8/V_Jo0OclCxI/AAAAAAAAAqg/7v4AaF91PFUexRC_y9i4pXrqqs_tTee8wCLcB/s1600/something%2Bfrom%2Bthe%2Bnothing-icarus2-1.jpg

 

Fig.1. Zero Energy Universe Model-1. Model that considers gravitational potential energy only as negative energy.

 

“ [math] E_{T} = 0 [/math] ” represents "Nothing" state. (State equation of the Nothing)

 

Mass appears in “ [math]\sum { + m{c^2}}[/math] " stage, which suggests the state of “Something''.

 

In other words, “Nothing” produces a negative energy of the same size as that of a positive energy and can produce “Something” while keeping the state of “nothing” in the entire process (" [math]E_{T} = 0[/math] ” is kept both in the beginning of and in the end of the process).

 

Model-1 is a model that the total energy of the universe is zero, matters have a positive energy, and only gravitational potential energy is considered as a negative energy to offset this positive energy.

 

 

Model-2.

[math][/size]

{E_T} = 0 = ( + E) + ( - E) = \sum { + {m_ + }{c^2}} + \sum { - {m_ - }{c^2}} + \sum U = 0[/size]

 

[/math][/size]

 

 

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IF5YpIl0sEY/V_Jo0Pt78EI/AAAAAAAAAqk/gkCSQmSaaE4PrTYxTM9ZcFdlmKZd8TybQCLcB/s1600/something%2Bfrom%2Bthe%2Bnothing-icarus2-2.jpg

 

Fig.2. Zero Energy Universe model-2. Model that considers negative mass as negative energy. Simply put, negative mass indicates that energy can be locally distributed and has characteristics as particle.

 

“ E_T = 0 " represents "Nothing" state.

 

Mass appears in “ [math]\sum { + {m_ + }{c^2}}[/math] ” and “ [math]\sum { - {m_ - }{c^2}}[/math] ” stage, which suggests the state of “Something''.

 

In other words,”Nothing'' can produce “Something'' while being preserved in the entire process, by pair creating positive mass and negative mass.

 

Model-2 is also a model that the total energy of the universe is zero, there exist positive energy and negative energy in matter or energy, and gravitational potential energy that both energies produce has both +. 0, - .

 

The above model has a philosophy of the birth of the universe and hints at the birth of the universe.

 

It changes, but does not change!

It changes not to change!

 

 

 

Negative mass and negative energy can exist stably in our universe.

 

All this time, the field of Physics did not seriously consider the possibility of existence of negative mass (energy) in a general state. The standard explanation of negative mass is that the state of low energy is stable when a negative energy level exists and that the lowest state of energy is minus infinity. Thus, this means that all positive mass emits energy and it will transit to the energy level of minus infinity and the universe will collapse.

 

However, at the present, our universe exists without collapsing, so the explanation for this has become strong proof of the nonexistence of the negative mass and negative energy level of. Thus, we have considered this to be obvious common sense and have taught this to students. At the center of this background, there is the fundamental principle that “State of low energy is stable”.

 

In this article, we will reveal that this principle is an incomplete, and that it is stable at a low energy state in the case of positive mass. However, it is stable at a high energy state in the case of negative mass. Due to this, “the problem of transition to minus infinite energy level” does not occur, and the existence of negative mass is therefore possible.

 

Moreover, we will show that negative mass provides an explanation for dark matter and dark energy, which are the biggest issues posed to cosmology at the present.

 

~~~~~~~~

 

5. Negative Mass Is Stable at the State of High Energy.

 

If negative mass exists, is it stable at a lower energy state?

 

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fCUBOuqQNhU/UAM7xswWAMI/AAAAAAAAAV0/grClV9ZMCVM/s320/negative+mass.jpg

 

Fig.3

 

F = (-m_) a (m_ > 0)

 

a = - ( F/m_ )

 

The acceleration of negative mass is opposite to the direction of force. Therefore, the negative mass has harmonic oscillation at the maximum point and it is also stable at the maximum point.

 

In the case of positive mass, it was stable at the minimum point at which energy is the low. However, in case of negative mass, stable equilibrium is a point of maximum value, not a point of minimum value.

 

~~~~~~~~

 

As we have examined above, “the problem of transition to minus infinite energy level” does not occur, and thus positive mass and negative mass can exist in the same space-time. This is a very important result because it means that negative mass and negative energy can exist stably in our universe.

 

Negative energy(mass) can provides an explanation for dark energy, dark matter and the origin of energy of universe. Negative energy is the demand and outcome of the law of conservation of energy.

 

========

# Paper on Model-2.

1.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287217009

2.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263468413

Edited June 13, 2017 by imatfaal
Trying to sort out latex errors - they really bug me

[imatfaal]

[latex]E_T = 0 = ( + E) + ( - E) = \sum { + m{c^2}} + \sum { - \frac{{G{m_i}{m_j}}}{{{r_{ij}}}}} = 0[/latex]
This is the first equation

 

---

and this is the second

[latex]{E_T} = 0 = ( + E) + ( - E) = \sum { + {m_ + }{c^2}} + \sum { - {m_ - }{c^2}} + \sum U = 0[/latex]

[MigL]

Don't have a problem with the zero sum energy model, but there are various issues associated with the negative mass model.

[Thorham]

Popular science reporting is your culprit. They often use analogy and sensationalism that people take too far.

 

Good point. Wish they stopped doing that, though, because now religious people think that we think that everything came from absolute nothingness physically, which is of course nonsense.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Thorham