Something From Nothing

[Gospel]

"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!]

Nothing can hurt me.

 

[steve_bank]

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]

"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]

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]

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.
Maybe it’s all about that ad for Skyrizi
“Nothing is everything uhh-huuuh”

 

[Jarhyn]

"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.

Axiom of infinity - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

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]

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

 

[steve_bank]

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]

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]

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]

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  Zero-energy_universe 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]

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.

 

[bilby]

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]

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]

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]

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

Can't you even read?

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]

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

Can't you even read?

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...