# Something From Nothing

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
A working thory does not have to reflect reality exactly, it has to predict measurable outcomes.
And a lightbulb doesn’t need to work, it just needs to look like it works. But then you need to figure out why it looks like it works.
The fact that you can create a rats nest of fields and photons doesn’t explain the results of any (let alone all) of the experiments that are consistent with virtual particles as physically real. If I’m wrong about that, you should be the first engineer to win a Nobel prize in physics.

This has been done. Google Lamb shift. Virtual Particles explain why atoms act as they do. Willis Lamb won the Nobel prize in physics in 1955 for his work on this
That was a fantastic little dive into some particle physics!

#### lostone

##### Member
A working theory is viewed as law until a theory comes up that describes reality better.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
A working thory does not have to reflect reality exactly, it has to predict measurable outcomes.
And a lightbulb doesn’t need to work, it just needs to look like it works. But then you need to figure out why it looks like it works.
The fact that you can create a rats nest of fields and photons doesn’t explain the results of any (let alone all) of the experiments that are consistent with virtual particles as physically real. If I’m wrong about that, you should be the first engineer to win a Nobel prize in physics.

This has been done. Google Lamb shift. Virtual Particles explain why atoms act as they do. Willis Lamb won the Nobel prize in physics in 1955 for his work on this
Long before quantum mechanics George Simon Ohm discoveed the relationship between voltage, current, and resistance in an electrical circuit.

Ohm's Law E = I * R. Voltage across a resistor equals current times resistance.

There were no electronics and digital meters. He made measurements using D'Arsonval electromechanical meters. The idea of a quantized electron was unheard of.

Ohm's Law today remains a cornerstone of diaily electronics. It is predictive in terms of instrumentation. It does not reflect what we now take to be a depper reality in terms of quantum mechanics.

A working theory does not have to be exactly correct as to reality. Newtonian mechanics and Newtonian gravity.

#### SIB

##### Member
Literally something from literally nothing would seem to be a physical impossibility. In the same fashion, a "first cause", to get stuff moving, would present the same problem. So, it would seem natural to conclude that "stuff-in-motion" has always been and always will be.

How long has this been going on? Well, the notion of "eternity" comes to mind. Eternity is infinite time. And, where would we find ourselves in this infinite time line? Right in the middle seems as reasonable as anywhere else, with one eternity behind us and another eternity in front of us. (Yep. 1/2 of eternity = eternity. Eternity is funny that way).

This would suggest that entropy is a purely local phenomena, and that, within infinity, no matter is ever added and no matter is ever lost. If matter were ever lost, then, given that an eternity has already past, it would all be gone by now. But, here we are, looking around, and seeing stuff in motion. So, stuff in motion must be eternal.

It would seem reasonable then that our universe (and any other universes too far away to see) would follow a Big Bounce cosmology, alternating eternally from a Big Bang of expansion into a new universe followed by a Big Crunch as matter is re-accumulated into a very large Black Hole that eventually reaches some tipping point and explodes into another Big Bang, ad infinitum.

But what about the accelerating expansion of our current universe? Perhaps that is a problem of relative viewpoint. We know that gravity causes acceleration as things fall toward each other. Perhaps, instead of expanding, we are accelerating back to the middle, the center of gravity from which we originally sprang. And we are not viewing the stars beyond us as moving away from us, but it is instead us, falling away from them, at an accelerating rate back toward the center, in a Big Crunch, and on our way to the next Big Bang.
I disagree. Sort of ...

We don't know enough to say that way. Changing it to "Since we have never seen something from nothing there is no reason to say it has." Or "We could have came from something or nothing. I think something because we have never seen something from nothing."

Either way, a deity and no god or gods of any type are the least reliable stances we have today. In terms of statement of belief about "something more" that is. to me anywayz.

#### SIB

##### Member
A working thory does not have to reflect reality exactly, it has to predict measurable outcomes.
And a lightbulb doesn’t need to work, it just needs to look like it works. But then you need to figure out why it looks like it works.
The fact that you can create a rats nest of fields and photons doesn’t explain the results of any (let alone all) of the experiments that are consistent with virtual particles as physically real. If I’m wrong about that, you should be the first engineer to win a Nobel prize in physics.

This has been done. Google Lamb shift. Virtual Particles explain why atoms act as they do. Willis Lamb won the Nobel prize in physics in 1955 for his work on this
Long before quantum mechanics George Simon Ohm discoveed the relationship between voltage, current, and resistance in an electrical circuit.

Ohm's Law E = I * R. Voltage across a resistor equals current times resistance.

There were no electronics and digital meters. He made measurements using D'Arsonval electromechanical meters. The idea of a quantized electron was unheard of.

Ohm's Law today remains a cornerstone of diaily electronics. It is predictive in terms of instrumentation. It does not reflect what we now take to be a depper reality in terms of quantum mechanics.

A working theory does not have to be exactly correct as to reality. Newtonian mechanics and Newtonian gravity.
exactly ... the cell phone is the tangle example of how we don;t know far more than we do know but its enough to say "Using what we know to describe what we do not know is more reliable than using what we don't know to describe what we don't know."

And maybe even more important is the "presupposition" trhat "Its ok, even required, to be allowed to change our minds when we get new information."

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
That's quite a tongue twsiter, but yes.

#### SIB

##### Member
The problem is some people can't sit down and sort out what is being said. Even worse, some people are using tong twisters as mind benders to mislead people. Atheist and theist a like in my opinion. I call them fundy think types and the word religion-ist fits.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
There is money to be made selling tongue twisters to theist and atheist alike.

#### Politesse

##### Lux Aeterna
In my experience, there are two kinds of folks: those who grok the reason religionists and mystics ask where everything came from, and those who don't. They are unable to communicate with one another, because both groupings tend to presume their favored epistemology is part of the question. The clever retort "WELL WHO MADE GOD THEN" sounds ridiculous to someone whose real question was why anything exists at all, and the clever retort "WELL WHO MADE THE BIG BANG HAPPEN THEN" sounds ridiculous to someone trying to explain why the material facts of the universe explain themselves without need for magic. The problem isn't that someone has "the answer" to the question and someone else does not, but that different worldviews lead to very different questions, even if they are stated in very similar or even identical terms.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
I grok, you grok, together we grok in fullness.....

#### Gospel

##### Unify Africa
"Virtual" particles are real, are experimentally demonstrated by the well known Casimir plates experiment, and arise spontaneously from quantum fluctuations in spacetime.

If you think that 'there is no possible experiment', then you're just wrong. The experiment was proposed in 1948, and has been performed with increasing accuracy by various teams between 1958 and the present day; The observed results match Casimir's predictions.

That's just mistaking not knowing where the virtual particles come from with them coming from nowhere (or nothing).
Nah, it's just dependent on your definition of 'nothing'.

If spacetime at its energy minimum is 'nothing' then virtual particles are something from nothing.

If spacetime itself is 'something', then 'nothing' is nowhere and never. It's hard to imagine how even a zero-point spacetime vacuum could arise from nowhere and never. 'From' doesn't even make sense in the absence of spacetime.

That's a metaphysical question, and perhaps even an interesting one; But denying the reality of "virtual" particles (as Steve does in his OP) isn't metaphysics, it's just erroneous physics.

My definition of nothing is that it itself does not exist. If there was a state of nothingness, nothing would exist (as crazy as that sounds). In my opinion, because there is something (always has and always will be) that makes nothingness not exist which is how it is to be. Yeah I know this sounds stupid.

Edit: to sound even crazier. We have something as a result of nothing. In order for nothing to be something must be. They have a very close nit relationship.

#### Tigers!

##### Veteran Member
Nothing can hurt me.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
I think there is enough observation on the nothing thread to say wothout a doubt something can come from nothing.

#### Elixir

They have a very close nit relationship.

I never pass up a chance to LITERALLY “nitpick”.

S/b “close knit relationship”.

#### lostone

##### Member
"Virtual" particles are real, are experimentally demonstrated by the well known Casimir plates experiment, and arise spontaneously from quantum fluctuations in spacetime.

If you think that 'there is no possible experiment', then you're just wrong. The experiment was proposed in 1948, and has been performed with increasing accuracy by various teams between 1958 and the present day; The observed results match Casimir's predictions.

That's just mistaking not knowing where the virtual particles come from with them coming from nowhere (or nothing).
Nah, it's just dependent on your definition of 'nothing'.

If spacetime at its energy minimum is 'nothing' then virtual particles are something from nothing.

If spacetime itself is 'something', then 'nothing' is nowhere and never. It's hard to imagine how even a zero-point spacetime vacuum could arise from nowhere and never. 'From' doesn't even make sense in the absence of spacetime.

That's a metaphysical question, and perhaps even an interesting one; But denying the reality of "virtual" particles (as Steve does in his OP) isn't metaphysics, it's just erroneous physics.

My definition of nothing is that it itself does not exist. If there was a state of nothingness, nothing would exist (as crazy as that sounds). In my opinion, because there is something (always has and always will be) that makes nothingness not exist which is how it is to be. Yeah I know this sounds stupid.

Edit: to sound even crazier. We have something as a result of nothing. In order for nothing to be something must be. They have a very close nit relationship.
I tend to agree. Existence is a property of everything that exists. 'nothing', if it existed, would be 'something ' lacking that property.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
The average occurrence of a post on nothing appearing from nothing is approximately .27 per day.

With more data I will be able to fit a provability distribution.

#### lostone

##### Member
An astute observation indeed. What conclusions can we draw from it? None, nothing?

#### Elixir

"Virtual" particles are real, are experimentally demonstrated by the well known Casimir plates experiment, and arise spontaneously from quantum fluctuations in spacetime.

If you think that 'there is no possible experiment', then you're just wrong. The experiment was proposed in 1948, and has been performed with increasing accuracy by various teams between 1958 and the present day; The observed results match Casimir's predictions.

That's just mistaking not knowing where the virtual particles come from with them coming from nowhere (or nothing).
Nah, it's just dependent on your definition of 'nothing'.

If spacetime at its energy minimum is 'nothing' then virtual particles are something from nothing.

If spacetime itself is 'something', then 'nothing' is nowhere and never. It's hard to imagine how even a zero-point spacetime vacuum could arise from nowhere and never. 'From' doesn't even make sense in the absence of spacetime.

That's a metaphysical question, and perhaps even an interesting one; But denying the reality of "virtual" particles (as Steve does in his OP) isn't metaphysics, it's just erroneous physics.

My definition of nothing is that it itself does not exist. If there was a state of nothingness, nothing would exist (as crazy as that sounds). In my opinion, because there is something (always has and always will be) that makes nothingness not exist which is how it is to be. Yeah I know this sounds stupid.

Edit: to sound even crazier. We have something as a result of nothing. In order for nothing to be something must be. They have a very close nit relationship.
I tend to agree. Existence is a property of everything that exists. 'nothing', if it existed, would be 'something ' lacking that property.
What we have here is something (existence) detectable by us, caused by nothing detectable by us. That’s as close to something from nothing as we can state with high confidence.
“Nothing is everything uhh-huuuh”

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
"Virtual" particles are real, are experimentally demonstrated by the well known Casimir plates experiment, and arise spontaneously from quantum fluctuations in spacetime.

If you think that 'there is no possible experiment', then you're just wrong. The experiment was proposed in 1948, and has been performed with increasing accuracy by various teams between 1958 and the present day; The observed results match Casimir's predictions.

That's just mistaking not knowing where the virtual particles come from with them coming from nowhere (or nothing).
Nah, it's just dependent on your definition of 'nothing'.

If spacetime at its energy minimum is 'nothing' then virtual particles are something from nothing.

If spacetime itself is 'something', then 'nothing' is nowhere and never. It's hard to imagine how even a zero-point spacetime vacuum could arise from nowhere and never. 'From' doesn't even make sense in the absence of spacetime.

That's a metaphysical question, and perhaps even an interesting one; But denying the reality of "virtual" particles (as Steve does in his OP) isn't metaphysics, it's just erroneous physics.

My definition of nothing is that it itself does not exist. If there was a state of nothingness, nothing would exist (as crazy as that sounds). In my opinion, because there is something (always has and always will be) that makes nothingness not exist which is how it is to be. Yeah I know this sounds stupid.

Edit: to sound even crazier. We have something as a result of nothing. In order for nothing to be something must be. They have a very close nit relationship.
I tend to agree. Existence is a property of everything that exists. 'nothing', if it existed, would be 'something ' lacking that property.
Look up the Axiom of Infinity some time. It essentially constructs the extension of the identification of 'the set of "nothing"' as 'something' to produce everything.

0 = {}.
The number 1 is the successor of 0:

1 = 0 ∪ {0} = {} ∪ {0} = {0} = {{}}.
Likewise, 2 is the successor of 1:

2 = 1 ∪ {1} = {0} ∪ {1} = {0,1} = { {}, {{}} },
and so on:

3 = {0,1,2} = { {}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}} };
4 = {0,1,2,3} = { {}, {{}}, { {}, {{}} }, { {}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}} } }

#### Gospel

##### Unify Africa
So if asked how do we get from 0 to 1 the simple answer is there is no 0.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Actually the invention of 0 in arithmetic in the day was a major breakthrough. The Arabs are credited with the innovation.

How do you get from 0 to 1?

Puck up 1 of something and put it in an empty bucket. The bucket has gone form 0 to 1.

Going from 1 to 2 su left as an exercise for the student.

0 to 1 is not something from nothing.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
Actually the invention of 0 in arithmetic in the day was a major breakthrough. The Arabs are credited with the innovation.

How do you get from 0 to 1?

Puck up 1 of something and put it in an empty bucket. The bucket has gone form 0 to 1.

Going from 1 to 2 su left as an exercise for the student.

0 to 1 is not something from nothing.
How do you go from 0 to 1? Well, it's easier than putting something in an empty bucket. You say "AN empty bucket". You already had one of something. You had 1 zero.

As you say, getting from 1 to 0 is a much bigger leap.

For that you need to have something else that isn't in the bucket.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Mathematics and especially counting and arithmetic arose out necessity to deal wiith real physical problems. Ipetrich can correct me if I am wrong, all quantative math ultimately comes down to counting.

Zero in counting and arithmetic does not mean non existence. It means a physical countor tally of zero.

#### Swammerdami

Staff member
I do not see a philosophical problem with "something from nothing." Was it not John von Neumann himself who derived first the counting numbers — and then all the rest of mathematics — from Ø, the symbol for nothing?
0 = Ø​
1 = {0}​
2 = {0, 1}​
...​
7 = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}​
...​

New matter from a vacuum doesn't violate conservation of mass-energy in the model. Incautiously, George Gamow presented this idea to Albert Einstein while they were crossing a road. Like shaving, road-crossing was an endeavor that put the great genius in danger.
As you know the Consensus is that the universe expanded from a singularity .. the Big Bang .. while the consensus says Dark Energy drives expansion. I believe Dark Energy is probably a reality .. but that there was no Singularity and no Big Bang .. rather cosmic Voids and Matter both arose from nothing due to Jordan's 'quantum fluctuations' across what became the space of what became the universe, matter arising from nothing an idea proposed by Jordan, who was said to have 'stunned' Einstein by his revelation that 'the stars arose from nothing.' Einstein is said to have 'stopped in his tracks' as he crossed a street in Princeton, when told of Jordan's revelation by George Gamow .. the theory now known as the Zero Energy Universe. "Pascual Jordan first suggested that since the positive energy of a star’s mass and the negative energy of its gravitational field together may have zero total energy, conservation of energy would not prevent a star being created by a quantum transition of the vacuum." George Gamow recounted putting this idea to Albert Einstein: “Einstein stopped in his tracks and, since we were crossing a street, several cars had to stop to avoid running us down."

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Null does not mean non existence. Semantics.

Drifting into IMO pseudo science.

Energy is always proportional to a magnitude squared, as such energy is always positive.

E = m*c^2 rest mass energy
E = .5m*v^2 kinetic energy
E = 0.5 v*c^2 energy stored in a capacitor

In SI units 1 Joule = 1kg*(meters/second)^2

Misusing math.

P1 The real number line is infinitely divisible.
p2 Based on the number line I can divide an object forever.
C The universe is infinitely divisible

P1 I always have both socks on when I get back home.
P2 When I do laundry sometimes I end up with a missing sock
P3 When I do laundry sometimes the missing sock appears to return
C Socks can go to and come from nothing

Philosophical speculation by scientists does not make speculation science. We dismiss such speculation by theists as nonsense.

There s no p[ossible way to determne if the appearance of a particle came from nothing.

Last edited:

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Null does not mean non existence. Semantics.

Drifting into IMO pseudo science.

Energy is always proportional to a magnitude squared, as such energy is always positive.

E = m*c^2 rest mass energy
E = .5m*v^2 kinetic energy
E = 0.5 v*c^2 energy stored in a capacitor

In SI units 1 Joule = 1kg*(meters/second)^2

Misusing math.

P1 The real number line is infinitely divisible.
p2 Based on the number line I can divide an object forever.
C The universe is infinitely divisible

P1 I always have both socks on when I get back home.
P2 When I do laundry sometimes I end up with a missing sock
P3 When I do laundry sometimes the missing sock appears to return
C Socks can go to and come from nothing

Philosophical speculation by scientists does not make speculation science. We dismiss such speculation by theists as nonsense.

There s no p[ossible way to determne if the appearance of a particle came from nothing.
Apart from the Casimir Effect, which you can test for yourself if you have access to a reasonably well equipped laboratory; And Hawking Radiation, which is a testable hypothesis, but requires extreme conditions and has yet to be observed. That's two ways just off the top of my head.

Particles come from nothing all the time, and can be observed doing so.

The Casimir effect was predicted in 1948, and experimentally demonstrated in 1997 - that's twenty five years ago. It's not philosophical speculation, it's an experimentally demonstrated real world event.

#### atrib

##### Veteran Member
Null does not mean non existence. Semantics.

Drifting into IMO pseudo science.

Energy is always proportional to a magnitude squared, as such energy is always positive.

E = m*c^2 rest mass energy
E = .5m*v^2 kinetic energy
E = 0.5 v*c^2 energy stored in a capacitor

In SI units 1 Joule = 1kg*(meters/second)^2

Misusing math.

P1 The real number line is infinitely divisible.
p2 Based on the number line I can divide an object forever.
C The universe is infinitely divisible

P1 I always have both socks on when I get back home.
P2 When I do laundry sometimes I end up with a missing sock
P3 When I do laundry sometimes the missing sock appears to return
C Socks can go to and come from nothing

Philosophical speculation by scientists does not make speculation science. We dismiss such speculation by theists as nonsense.

There s no p[ossible way to determne if the appearance of a particle came from nothing.
Apart from the Casimir Effect, which you can test for yourself if you have access to a reasonably well equipped laboratory; And Hawking Radiation, which is a testable hypothesis, but requires extreme conditions and has yet to be observed. That's two ways just off the top of my head.

Particles come from nothing all the time, and can be observed doing so.

The Casimir effect was predicted in 1948, and experimentally demonstrated in 1997 - that's twenty five years ago. It's not philosophical speculation, it's an experimentally demonstrated real world event.
He has you on ignore and can't see anything you post. Steve is stuck in the 19th century and clearly has made no effort to learn anything beyond what he picked in college physics 101. He posts random, irrelevant stuff from classical mechanics that has nothing to do with the subject, and declares with certainty that such and such is impossible. Dunning Kruger run amok.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Null does not mean non existence. Semantics.

Drifting into IMO pseudo science.

Energy is always proportional to a magnitude squared, as such energy is always positive.

E = m*c^2 rest mass energy
E = .5m*v^2 kinetic energy
E = 0.5 v*c^2 energy stored in a capacitor

In SI units 1 Joule = 1kg*(meters/second)^2

Misusing math.

P1 The real number line is infinitely divisible.
p2 Based on the number line I can divide an object forever.
C The universe is infinitely divisible

P1 I always have both socks on when I get back home.
P2 When I do laundry sometimes I end up with a missing sock
P3 When I do laundry sometimes the missing sock appears to return
C Socks can go to and come from nothing

Philosophical speculation by scientists does not make speculation science. We dismiss such speculation by theists as nonsense.

There s no p[ossible way to determne if the appearance of a particle came from nothing.
Apart from the Casimir Effect, which you can test for yourself if you have access to a reasonably well equipped laboratory; And Hawking Radiation, which is a testable hypothesis, but requires extreme conditions and has yet to be observed. That's two ways just off the top of my head.

Particles come from nothing all the time, and can be observed doing so.

The Casimir effect was predicted in 1948, and experimentally demonstrated in 1997 - that's twenty five years ago. It's not philosophical speculation, it's an experimentally demonstrated real world event.
He has you on ignore and can't see anything you post. Steve is stuck in the 19th century and clearly has made no effort to learn anything beyond what he picked in college physics 101. He posts random, irrelevant stuff from classical mechanics that has nothing to do with the subject, and declares with certainty that such and such is impossible. Dunning Kruger run amok.
So, negative energy is a demonstrated theory?

Same question I always ask. How would you demonste something came from nothing? A simple question.

As I said before nothing meaning non existence. No mass no energy to mass and energy.

One of favorite quotes from Kelvin. If you can't express what you are talking about with numbers then your knowledge is' of a meager and unsatisfactory kind'.

If you do not mind elaborating in your modern scientific mind what is energy and where does it come from? How do you test it? For me as an EE what energy 'is' was fundamntal.

If you answer I will give what in the day was an important example of testing for energy.

Cosmology uses science and math which separates it from theology, however neither are provable.

Wait a minute observation does no match theory. Uhhh..dark matter, yea that's it. Has to be dark matter. Point being when it comes to cosmolgy we have no way t know if and how much our models match reality. You can turn cosmology into theology and claim science is or can be absolutely right about cosmolgy. A;;
All's you have to do is what we ask the theists, just say we can never be certain. It is hunbris to think from our tiny biosphere using our tiny brains we can unravel the universe.

One of the few philosophers I found useful was Popper. To be properly called objective science it must be subject to experiment. He used the term instrumentalist. This means the only thing we can acept with certainty is the reslt of an experiment. All else is interpretation.

Sp,b ack to my question. You can run an expeimnt and you think something came from non existence. Can you prove it did?

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Sp,b ack to my question. You can run an expeimnt and you think something came from non existence. Can you prove it did?
The Casimir effect was predicted in 1948, and experimentally demonstrated in 1997
Oh, wait. You have me on ignore.

I suppose that's one effective way to maintain your ignorance; Simply ignore any evidence that doesn't match your prejudices. You would make an excellent religionist.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
Sp,b ack to my question. You can run an expeimnt and you think something came from non existence. Can you prove it did?
The Casimir effect was predicted in 1948, and experimentally demonstrated in 1997
Oh, wait. You have me on ignore.

I suppose that's one effective way to maintain your ignorance; Simply ignore any evidence that doesn't match your prejudices. You would make an excellent religionist.
Doesn't have ME on ignore yet...

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
As to the Casimir effect, The force is measurable. It does not prove something from nothing. That a theory can explain an experiment does not mean the theory is correct. I do not question the actual experiment, I don't see where the experint proves smething from nothing. That would be a speculative conclusion, albeit based in math and science.

A well known effect is that if you put two very smooth metal surfaces together they will stick together. It is a problem in pres ion surfaces and mechanical gauge blocks.. On the old hard drives the read-write heads were ultra smooth ceramics. If you put them together you could not pull them apart.
What causes metals to stick together?

The electrons can move freely within these molecular orbitals, and so each electron becomes detached from its parent atom. The electrons are said to be delocalized. The metal is held together by the strong forces of attraction between the positive nuclei and the delocalized electrons (Figure 1).Aug 15, 2020

When I first read about the Casimir effect that is what came to mind.

Virtual particles do not have to actually exist, they can make a theory work.

In digital control systems sometimes you can not go directly from one state to another. It requires going first to a virtual state, a mathematical state tha does not physically manifest. In solid state theory there are holes and electrons. Does a hole exist? It is given properties which make the theory work. Meaning it allows prediction of transistor behaviour.

A virtual particle is a theoretical transient particle that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, while having its existence limited by the uncertainty principle.[vague] The concept of virtual particles arises in the perturbation theory of quantum field theory where interactions between ordinary particles are described in terms of exchanges of virtual particles. A process involving virtual particles can be described by a schematic representation known as a Feynman diagram, in which virtual particles are represented by internal lines.[1][2]

Virtual particles do not necessarily carry the same mass as the corresponding real particle, although they always conserve energy and momentum. The closer its characteristics come to those of ordinary particles, the longer the virtual particle exists. They are important in the physics of many processes, including particle scattering and Casimir forces. In quantum field theory, forces—such as the electromagnetic repulsion or attraction between two charges—can be thought of as due to the exchange of virtual photons between the charges. Virtual photons are the exchange particle for the electromagnetic interaction.

The term is somewhat loose and vaguely defined, in that it refers to the view that the world is made up of "real particles". "Real particles" are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields. Virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations of interactions, but never as asymptotic states or indices to the scattering matrix. The accuracy and use of virtual particles in calculations is firmly established, but as they cannot be detected in experiments, deciding how to precisely describe them is a topic of debate.[3] Although widely used, they are by no means a necessary feature of QFT, but rather are mathematical conveniences - as demonstrated by lattice field theory, which avoids using the concept altogether.

If you can measure a force, aka SI Newtons, then the phemona is real. How you explain theexperiment is theory. All that is required of a theory is that it is predictive.

The test for ergy is to experimentally do work.

Zero-point energy (ZPE) is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have. Unlike in classical mechanics, quantum systems constantly fluctuate in their lowest energy state as described by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.[1] Therefore, even at absolute zero, atoms and molecules retain some vibrational motion. Apart from atoms and molecules, the empty space of the vacuum also has these properties. According to quantum field theory, the universe can be thought of not as isolated particles but continuous fluctuating fields: matter fields, whose quanta are fermions (i.e., leptons and quarks), and force fields, whose quanta are bosons (e.g., photons and gluons). All these fields have zero-point energy.[2] These fluctuating zero-point fields lead to a kind of reintroduction of an aether in physics[1][3] since some systems can detect the existence of this energy. However, this aether cannot be thought of as a physical medium if it is to be Lorentz invariant such that there is no contradiction with Einstein's theory of special relativity.[1]

Zero-point energy (ZPE) is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have. Unlike in classical mechanics, quantum systems constantly fluctuate in their lowest energy state as described by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.[1] Therefore, even at absolute zero, atoms and molecules retain some vibrational motion. Apart from atoms and molecules, the empty space of the vacuum also has these properties. According to quantum field theory, the universe can be thought of not as isolated particles but continuous fluctuating fields: matter fields, whose quanta are fermions (i.e., leptons and quarks), and force fields, whose quanta are bosons (e.g., photons and gluons). All these fields have zero-point energy.[2] These fluctuating zero-point fields lead to a kind of reintroduction of an aether in physics[1][3] since some systems can detect the existence of this energy. However, this aether cannot be thought of as a physical medium if it is to be Lorentz invariant such that there is no contradiction with Einstein's theory of special relativity.[1]

The notion of a zero-point energy is also important for cosmology, and physics currently lacks a full theoretical model for understanding zero-point energy in this context; in particular, the discrepancy between theorized and observed vacuum energy in the universe is a source of major contention.[4] Physicists Richard Feynman and John Wheeler calculated the zero-point radiation of the vacuum to be an order of magnitude greater than nuclear energy, with a single light bulb containing enough energy to boil all the world's oceans.[5] Yet according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, any such energy would gravitate, and the experimental evidence from the expansion of the universe, dark energy and the Casimir effect shows any such energy to be exceptionally weak. A popular proposal that attempts to address this issue is to say that the fermion field has a negative zero-point energy, while the boson field has positive zero-point energy and thus these energies somehow cancel each other out.[6][7] This idea would be true if supersymmetry were an exact symmetry of nature; however, the LHC at CERN has so far found no evidence to support it. Moreover, it is known that if supersymmetry is valid at all, it is at most a broken symmetry, only true at very high energies, and no one has been able to show a theory where zero-point cancellations occur in the low-energy universe we observe today.[7] This discrepancy is known as the cosmological constant problem and it is one of the greatest unsolved mysteries

ZPE is theoretical.

So, nothing in Casimir Effect demonstrates experimentally something from or to non existence.

Back in the 80s a reltaive worked at Brookhaven on the RHIC collider. I had a chance to walk part of the ring and the experiment chamber before the ring went cold. Actually detecting particles experimentally is part art.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
Sp,b ack to my question. You can run an expeimnt and you think something came from non existence. Can you prove it did?
The Casimir effect was predicted in 1948, and experimentally demonstrated in 1997
Oh, wait. You have me on ignore.

I suppose that's one effective way to maintain your ignorance; Simply ignore any evidence that doesn't match your prejudices. You would make an excellent religionist.
Doesn't have ME on ignore yet...
What I find silly is that after so many physicists did so much hard work to experimentally verify the reality of virtual particles as actual elements of reality, Steve tries their very hardest to ignore that evidence

#### Cheerful Charlie

##### Contributor
So if asked how do we get from 0 to 1 the simple answer is there is no 0.

Peano axioms. These are about mathematics. Numbers. In Peno's axioms, 0 is number. Consider 210. We have 2 hundreds, 1 ten, and no ones. 0 ones. Without 0 everyday math gets hard.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Sp,b ack to my question. You can run an expeimnt and you think something came from non existence. Can you prove it did?
The Casimir effect was predicted in 1948, and experimentally demonstrated in 1997
Oh, wait. You have me on ignore.

I suppose that's one effective way to maintain your ignorance; Simply ignore any evidence that doesn't match your prejudices. You would make an excellent religionist.
Doesn't have ME on ignore yet...
What I find silly is that after so many physicists did so much hard work to experimentally verify the reality of virtual particles as actual elements of reality, Steve tries their very hardest to ignore that evidence
And he attempts to take refuge in solipsism. "The existence of virtual particles is theoretical, therefore we shouldn't accept their reality" is not a tenable position, because the existence of fucking everything is theoretical.

Being theoretical (in the strict scientific sense, of "theoretical": 'Implied by unfalsified theories') is a reason to accept that something exists, not a reason to reject it.

Conflating this strict meaning of "theoretical" with the more common layman's definition: 'implied by hypothesis, conjecture or speculation', is the cause of much confusion, some of it deliberately generated by religionists and other opponents of knowledge and reason.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Sp,b ack to my question. You can run an expeimnt and you think something came from non existence. Can you prove it did?
The Casimir effect was predicted in 1948, and experimentally demonstrated in 1997
Oh, wait. You have me on ignore.

I suppose that's one effective way to maintain your ignorance; Simply ignore any evidence that doesn't match your prejudices. You would make an excellent religionist.
Doesn't have ME on ignore yet...
What I find silly is that after so many physicists did so much hard work to experimentally verify the reality of virtual particles as actual elements of reality, Steve tries their very hardest to ignore that evidence
What do you mean by 'verify he reality of virtual particles'? Be specific. Not just scientists worked hard. I am not questioning the work done by scientists I am questioning your understanding of the difference between a macro scale experiment and a theory.

You probably do not know who Carver Meade was . When asked whether an electron exists or not he said it does not matter. What I do know is I can do uswful things with the concept.

I doubt you have the experience to understand what I am saying.

I have Bilby om ignore for two reasons. He resorts to insults and ad homs. In the past I found he was arguing from science fiction on an issue.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
Sp,b ack to my question. You can run an expeimnt and you think something came from non existence. Can you prove it did?
The Casimir effect was predicted in 1948, and experimentally demonstrated in 1997
Oh, wait. You have me on ignore.

I suppose that's one effective way to maintain your ignorance; Simply ignore any evidence that doesn't match your prejudices. You would make an excellent religionist.
Doesn't have ME on ignore yet...
What I find silly is that after so many physicists did so much hard work to experimentally verify the reality of virtual particles as actual elements of reality, Steve tries their very hardest to ignore that evidence
What do you mean by 'verify he reality of virtual particles'? Be specific. Not just scientists worked hard. I am not questioning the work done by scientists I am questioning your understanding of the difference between a macro scale experiment and a theory.

You probably do not know who Carver Meade was . When asked whether an electron exists or not he said it does not matter. What I do know is I can do uswful things with the concept.

I doubt you have the experience to understand what I am saying.

I have Bilby om ignore for two reasons. He resorts to insults and ad homs. In the past I found he was arguing from science fiction on an issue.
You routinely argue from science disproven.

There are multiple posts here that strongly document the existence of virtual particles.

I would honestly prefer if you have bilby on ignore you put me on ignore too. At least then I wouldn't have to deal with the fact that you routinely drop into threads and spew bullshit all over them.

I expect you have them on ignore rather because you just don't want to contend with an even wider chorus of folks pointing out your routine use of arguments decades past their best-by date.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Sp,b ack to my question. You can run an expeimnt and you think something came from non existence. Can you prove it did?
The Casimir effect was predicted in 1948, and experimentally demonstrated in 1997
Oh, wait. You have me on ignore.

I suppose that's one effective way to maintain your ignorance; Simply ignore any evidence that doesn't match your prejudices. You would make an excellent religionist.
Doesn't have ME on ignore yet...
What I find silly is that after so many physicists did so much hard work to experimentally verify the reality of virtual particles as actual elements of reality, Steve tries their very hardest to ignore that evidence
What do you mean by 'verify he reality of virtual particles'? Be specific. Not just scientists worked hard. I am not questioning the work done by scientists I am questioning your understanding of the difference between a macro scale experiment and a theory.

You probably do not know who Carver Meade was . When asked whether an electron exists or not he said it does not matter. What I do know is I can do uswful things with the concept.

I doubt you have the experience to understand what I am saying.

I have Bilby om ignore for two reasons. He resorts to insults and ad homs. In the past I found he was arguing from science fiction on an issue.
You routinely argue from science disproven.

There are multiple posts here that strongly document the existence of virtual particles.

I would honestly prefer if you have bilby on ignore you put me on ignore too. At least then I wouldn't have to deal with the fact that you routinely drop into threads and spew bullshit all over them.

I expect you have them on ignore rather because you just don't want to contend with an even wider chorus of folks pointing out your routine use of arguments decades past their best-by date.
Again you dispaly your lack of undestanding by resorting to philosphial meamderings and ad homs.

I gace my respose including links to Casmir Effect and virtual partcles.

From the links the theories to explain the effect are not definite.

In practice I don't use tghe wrd theory, I use model. A model of reality may work well but it does not necessarily reflect reality as it is.

The term 'The map is not the countryside' applies.

You are like a theist defnding biblical interpretation.

The Casmir Effect does not experimentally prove something from ot to non existence. As I expained virtual partcles are a way to costruct a working tgerory, and I have no problem with that.

I categorically reject anything that violates conservation of mass, conservation of energy, and causality. If yuu abndon LOT than anything can be claimed, including gods.

From the link and a book I read on partcle physics to me it appears virtual partcles maintain a continuity through a Feynman Diagram.

There are other issues with a particle appearing from non existence with mass and energy, positive runaway feedback.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
Honestly steve, I don't give a rats ass what word you use. You use it in a way that doesn't comport with anything meaningful.

The fact is, @steve_bank , unlike you I actually accept that there's so much new stuff to learn that I actually do Google things occasionally.

I'm betting you didn't.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Everything in the end cones down to Laws Of Thermodynamics in one form of another. I learned that over time as I learned different psychs and engineering theory. The form of any theory is always the same, what is called a continuity equation. For any theory a continuity equation describes where the energy and mass goes in a system. The Casmir Effect experiment represents a system.

That it is called a virtual particle should be cause for some thought.

There was a time when I read Sci Amer every month. It became a pop science magazine. You are grasping at straws on the net.

As I have said I was a worker bee engineerr without any special distinction. That being said my path involved applying science on an ongoing basis.

You are using theist tactics. Something from non existence is analogous to the god of the gaps. A lot of people believe god exists so god does exist. People on the net say virtual particles are real therefore it must be true.

Does an electron exist as we imagine it? Search on Millikan Oil Drop Experiment. I used to have a copy of his book The Electron with all his data, set ups, and analysis. A good example of how models are developed.

You can try and cover up your lack of udestanding by quetioning mine, no sweat off my back. Not my problem.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
Everything in the end cones down to Laws Of Thermodynamics in one form of another. I learned that over time as I learned different psychs and engineering theory
No. it doesn't.

I picked Scientific American because the fact is, that's all I had confidence in you understanding.

The Lamb Shift, since you failed to Google the fucking thing, is about an energy level consistency problem that is solved dependently upon the position of a virtual particle.

There have been many experiments which demonstrate this and the numbers are available for you to check... You just don't.

You are a theist on thermodynamics.

Some people had a hard time stepping forward when Darwin published too.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Jaryb,

Given your posts especialy the ones on distribution of primes and control systems you really do not appear to have any scientifc or matematcal foundation.

Restating for clarity, any system which can be contained within a finite boundary must conform to LOT. That would include the Casmir experiment. Mass and energy within the system boundary can not appear from nothing without causality.

Thermodynamics breaks down when applied to cosmology.

Have you had a class or read books on thermodynamics? Or any science texts?

Photons go into existence at an LED and go out of existence when absorbed by a photo detector. That does not violate LOT.

Claiming virtual particles come from and go to non existence does violate LOT and as such I reject that interpretation. Virtual particles represented on a Feynman Diagram infer a causality. A genesis.

That a model with virtual particles works in a predictive way is not an issue. Virtual particles do not have to physically exist for the theory to work., There are other examples in other areas using virtual conditions. Do you grok?

Last edited:

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
...any system which can be contained within a finite boundary must conform to LOT. That would include the Casmir experiment. Mass and energy within the system boundary can not appear from nothing without causality.

This is a statement YOU take on faith. It's no different from a repackaged version of Kalam.

It's sad you cannot see it, but there it is.

QM has been central to physics for a long time, and it routinely demonstrates that the "laws of thermodynamics" about energy being created and destroyed are wrong, as we understand them.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
...any system which can be contained within a finite boundary must conform to LOT. That would include the Casmir experiment. Mass and energy within the system boundary can not appear from nothing without causality.

This is a statement YOU take on faith. It's no different from a repackaged version of Kalam.

It's sad you cannot see it, but there it is.

QM has been central to physics for a long time, and it routinely demonstrates that the "laws of thermodynamics" about energy being created and destroyed are wrong, as we understand them.
Okey Dokey.

As to QM I believe you are misinterpreting the theories. You are pobaly going by what people say on the net. Back in the 90s I took a night class in modern physics to come up speed on QM. I am welll aware of QM as applied to solid stae elctronics and other areas.

QM never violates causality. Probabilistic or stochastic systems do not violate causality.

In basic thermodynamics texts it is said LOT can never be proven as true, only that no exceptions have been demonstrated. You would know that if you actually read a text.

This is the text I used and it is a good overview. Llewelyn has some very good lectures on MIT's Open Course ware site and his own site, if he is still alive. Rather than net pages try e watching the vudeo classroom lectures on physics at MIT. They are free. I have used them in the past.

The Casmir Effect experiment itself does not violate LOT. To the op the fact that virtual particles work in the model is not proof virtual particles pop into and out of existence from nothing. That is an interpretation of a theory.

There are many interpretaions of QM, none of which are demonstrable.

I worked at a company where the PCB layout guy had a degree in physics. He got a BS in physics and spent several years teaching at a perp school. He wandered around doing different non technical jobs. He joined the company before me and ended up as the PCB layout guy. He was always arguing theory and design with the engineers but was too lazy to learn the theory he needed. He wanted to be accepted as an engineering peer. In general he was just a pain in ass to everyone. Know anybody like that?

On the flip side in the 80s I worked with a guy who had degree in philosophy, then went to a two year tech school to get an associate degree in electronics so he could get a job.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
He was always arguing theory and design with the [physicists] but was too lazy to learn the theory he needed. He wanted to be accepted as a [physics] peer. In general he was just a pain in ass to everyone. Know anybody like that?
I certainly know someone like that.

#### atrib

##### Veteran Member
Energy is always proportional to a magnitude squared, as such energy is always positive.

E = m*c^2 rest mass energy
E = .5m*v^2 kinetic energy
E = 0.5 v*c^2 energy stored in a capacitor
Wrong. You forgot about gravitational potential. A rock of mass M located at an elevation H above some datum has potential energy (using AP101 terminology that you understand) that can be quantified as MgH. The energy is directly proportional to the mass and the height of the object, no squares involved. You also forgot about the strong and the weak nuclear force. You forgot about electromagnetism.

A photon has velocity (c) but no mass. According to your proclamation, photons have no energy, Do you feel embarrassed when you are shown to be wrong over and over?

So, negative energy is a demonstrated theory?
Yes. Electrons and positrons. Matter and anti-matter. Positive and Negative energy. A mass M located at a height (-H) below a datum has negative potential energy of -MgH. Negative fucking energy. Its negative relative to some datum. If you had Hawking's book you would know this. But you know steam tables and all about Wheatstone fucking Bridges, so you can't even be bothered to look up anything else.

Same question I always ask. How would you demonste something came from nothing? A simple question.
It happens all the fucking time. Bilby and others have provided information. Why are you so scared to actually do some reading?

Cosmology uses science and math which separates it from theology, however neither are provable.
Many aspects of modern cosmology are absolutely provable. General relativity, which is the backbone of modern cosmology, and the tool that is used to model the universe, has been demonstrated to be accurate in many experiments. You just don't know about the proof because you haven't bothered to read a book in 50 years since you took AP101.

Wait a minute observation does no match theory. Uhhh..dark matter, yea that's it. Has to be dark matter.
Another statement that exposes your ignorance. Dark matter is not speculation, we have demonstrated its existence in many, many experiments. Look up gravitational lensing. Look up general relativity and how GR is used to measure the mass of visible galaxies. Look up research where we use GR to demonstrate the existence of dark matter. We KNOW there is more dark matter in the universe than regular matter, because we have actually gone out an measured it. Why do you not know any of this? Because you stopped learning 50 years ago.

I have Bilby om ignore for two reasons. He resorts to insults and ad homs. In the past I found he was arguing from science fiction on an issue.
You have him on ignore because you don't want to learn about the things he talks about. Learning can be scary, especially when it threatens to blow up the models that have ossified in your brain, models that are two centuries old at this point.

I categorically reject anything that violates conservation of mass, conservation of energy, and causality. If yuu abndon LOT than anything can be claimed, including gods.
Something from nothing does NOT violate LOT. And, more importantly, the laws of thermodynamics do not describe the physics of the very early universe. Neither does classical or relativistic physics for that matter. You CANNOT describe the behavior of the early universe using steam tables, or the concepts used to create steam tables.

Everything in the end cones down to Laws Of Thermodynamics in one form of another.
No, it doesn't. It comes down to the wave function of the universe. And even if it did, you can still have something from nothing without violating the LOT. As I explained in my last post, that you conveniently ignored. You ignore everything that does not fit in with whatever hazy memory remains of your AP101 college physics class from 50 years ago.

You behave just like a flat-earther. You will not look at evidence even when it is served up on a platter. You simply continue to bleat on that the earth is flat.

Last edited:

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Hand waving.

As this is phiosphy.

You are walking along and an object appears from nowher and hits you between tghe eyes.

1. Did it come from non existence with mass and velocity.
2. Did it came from abother dimension or reality.
3. Did it came form an ET specship usng a Star Tek kind of trasport system.

There is no experimentt that yiu can run to prove any of options.

A claim that a particle comes from non existence is not provable. Apparently virtual particles are part of one explanation of Casmir Effect, but there are other explanations.

Atomic partcles like electrons and nuclear radiation particles can be detected.

The macro scale Casmir Effect experiment in no way proves existence of particles from and to non existence.

#### Cheerful Charlie

##### Contributor
VPs do not come from nothing.there is an unstable energy field that exists that is the source of false vacuum energy.

This has been known for almost a century. Direc's attempts to expailn why electrons don't spontaneously dump their enegy to a uniform low state. Direc's Sea Of Electrons. Which failed as a theory. OK, a sea of energy then. Heisenberg hypothesized that such energy field would be unstable and could create virtual particles. Hendrick Casamir from basic principles worked out the details. And has been proven correct. Alan Guth has demonstrated inflation. Which starts with virtual particle smaller than a proton, weighing 45 kilograms. Science marches on.

#### atrib

##### Veteran Member
Science marches on.
Yet we still have people claiming the virtual particles aren't real, the expansion of space isn't real, dark matter isn't real, modern cosmology/relativity is purely speculation, energy is always associated with the square of velocity and so on. Oh, and the earth is flat, and all you need to understand the universe is a steam table.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
The expanding un9verse is real?

Well, at one time observation showed conclusively that the universe revolevd around te Erath.

The ie dea that any cosmology is absolutely true based on observation is abit absurd.

Conservation based on our ability to detect EM radiation. What does the universe look like if you are at the limit of our obervations?

Still have not seen any offer of an exerimnt that can prove something with mass and egy comes from non existence.

Or how virtual partcles are directly dtecd by ex[eriment.

Put two metal plates very close together, pull a vacuum, and how exactly do you detect the occurence of virtual partcles from nothing?

This is like debating with unscientific theists. Ignore the question and claim truth.

#### lostone

##### Member
In any case, even if the vacuum does contain enough energy to create virtual particles, those particles are created from the energy of the vacuum, not from nothing.