Something does come from nothing !!

[isaone]

Ok so one of the arguments I get from god believers is that the universe you cannot get something from nothing so there must be a God. My standard replay is the infinite regression issue that God is something therefore .....and of course they reply with Special Pleading.

Here is a nice simple explanation about even with our admittedly limited understanding of EVERYTHING we know that Something is being created from Nothing right now.

To summarrize

1. Create an absolute vacum
2. Evern in an absolute vacum there aer virtual particals coming into existence and then recombining to 'go away'. The proven existence of Cashmir forces proves this
3. Right at the event horizon of a black hole is it gauranteed that some of the virtual particles will be drawn into the black hole and some will escape (Hawking Radiation)
4. Thus out of the nothing we are currently getting reall live particles all the time

So can those of you who like the 'Cannot get something from nothing argument' please cease using it?

[Peter]

Thanks for that. I had heard about Hawking Radiation but never looked into it.

I've always imagined that the big bang was a supermassive black hole that got so big the singularity exceeded the size of the event horizon somehow. I know, not very scientific. Fun to speculate on though.

I also can't help but feel like we're being myopic by thinking that there's nothing "outside" our universe. I realize that the big bang and the energies from it dominate our "universe". I know that "time"- whatever that is - didn't exist before the big bang but I can't help imagining a supermassive concentration of matter at absolute zero (does time pass at absolute zero?) that gets hit with a shockwave from some big bang in another part of this odd "universe" and voila, our universe is born.

I kind of imagine a big room full of very dense, very cold matter and big bangs are going off all the time like firecrackers trading energies between them. The shockwaves from a couple of big bangs focus on a location and cause another big bang etc.

From my laymans perspective a scenario like that even explains why our universe is expanding at an increasing rate. If our universe was surrounded by super dense cold matter isn't that what we'd expect?

If our big bang happened in "nothing" shouldn't the background microwave radiation be absolutely uniform? It isn't. Are the irregularities because outside forces were acting on our big bang.

I know, I'm crazy. Pointless speculation is fun for me.

[isaone]

LOL I doubt that you are crazy but I do think that to study this stuff a person has to at least be able to suspend their brain.

[scholardude]

LOL I doubt that you are crazy but I do think that to study this stuff a person has to at least be able to suspend their brain.

That's sort of the breakthrough for me, realizing that the workings of the universe that your average savannah dwelling ape wouldn't normally come into contact with shouldn't really be expected to make sense to me.

[Thanatos]

Black holes are suspected of cheating. When they emit Hawking radiation, energy *should* be drawn out of the hole itself. Mass is equivalent to energy, so black holes should very slowly lose mass.

Err, nobody has ever actually observed Hawking radiation so nobody knows that for sure - but it's what the math (most of which I do not really get) says and it's been observed in black hole analogues.

Physicists may have observed Hawking radiation for the first time

[mind]

i don't really understand how someone knows for sure that there is nothing there, in there, in first place? just because one thinks there is nothing there, does not mean there isn't anything there. one must just assumes that there must not be anything there since we cannot be for sure that there is nothing there due to the limits of our current instruments have.

but ok, let us pretend that there is nothing there. and that from nothing this universe came to be. so from nothing we are here so intelligent that we know that there is nothing in a box when it is emptied. now lets keep on imaging that we came from nothing but now we are something, that is understandable. now, from this something we are capable of making something else. your wife gives birth to a child and that child sees you as a "god." he obeys you and tries to imitate everything that you do. he wants to be like you when he grows up. in fact, he grows up to be like you but he is not like you, he is more knowledgeable than you. he knows things that you did not know when you where his age. all of this knowledge, at present time and infinity, is over flowing for an aging brain to keep up with. but not for a young brain that wants to sip up everything it can take like a sponge.

now, multiply this by a couple of times and eventually the nothing understands the nothing. when that happens, the something can make something out of nothing easily. the creator creating something out of nothing becomes a god. and since you don't understand the "nothing" yet, there must be someone else who does and who has created something out of nothing-- us.

i am religious not because someone blindfolded me and told me to walk a path. i am religious because the path makes sense. you cannot deny what you feel when you practice what you preach. it is a feeling of hope and happiness and a lot of other positive things. now, this is due so we can follow gods path. to understand that we need to make our kids understand and to take care of them.

i'm a god believer and "proving" if something came out of nothing means nothing to me. though i haven't really said that nothing cannot come out of nothing to anyone.

note: this is just a believers point of view. i don't really understand what the article proposes.

[grandpa]

i don't really understand how someone knows for sure that
there is nothing there, in there, in first place?
just because one thinks there is nothing there, does not
mean there isn't anything there.

I find the context to be pathetic. Who is to say nothing is not something? This should be a valid point, whatever degree our intellectual autonomy.

Grandpa h.

[Anguspure]

The 'nothing' examples referred to are not really nothings at all but exist within the confines of our universe which is itself 'somthing'.
To say that an absolute vacuum within the universe contains nothing merely ignores the things that we have not yet observed and somwhat stretch the definition of the term.
In order to prove that somthing may come from nothing one must be able to model and observe a condition in which nothing actually exists.

[mind]

I find the context to be pathetic. Who is to say nothing is not something? This should be a valid point, whatever degree our intellectual autonomy.

i don't really understand the bold statement. if nothing is something, then nothing is not nothing but rather something that came from something which would make the nothing not be nothing but rather something. in order for something to come out of nothing, one needs to be 100% sure that there is nothing there in the first place. what is 100% sure?

if you look at your hand. you will think that there is nothing there. (besides your hand) but in reality, there is something there. (besides your hand) there are many germs and molecules and dead skin cells, or what have you, all over your hand. so just because you believe that there is nothing there, (besides your hand) does not mean that there is nothing there.

further more, the nothing cannot be nothing if it's inside something.

what is pathetic about that reasoning?

[Diogenes]

There exists no space where nothing exists...to even say that nothing ' exists ' is a contradiction in terms.

Also...it is not possible to create a ' perfect vacuum '...but if you should ever create one, and particles appear out of seemingly no place and are not existing particles trying to occupy the space...let me know.

[Thanatos]

There exists no space where nothing exists...to even say that nothing ' exists ' is a contradiction in terms.

Also...it is not possible to create a ' perfect vacuum '...but if you should ever create one, and particles appear out of seemingly no place and are not existing particles trying to occupy the space...let me know.

That's the thing about vacuum energy. Create a perfect vacuum, and bam, ghostly short-lived particles appear out of f'ing nowhere! They appear to be everywhere something else isn't.

The catch is they need energy to become fully "real" so they can persist over macroscopic timescales.

[Timmy2shoes]

So far, it seems that this discussion involves loads of faith and favor of speculation. I do agree that what most people believe to be nothing is actually something. Science may someday find answers concerning some of these quantum queries, but so far most of this discussion is laden with philosophical ideas. If there is any hope of a grounded and cogent discussion, perhaps we could address some principles/laws, or theories that provide substantial evidence.