Is it possible for something to come from nothing?

[Gravage]

Way back at post 18 was this remark:

which these folks missed:

The problem is that these particles already have energy, which means the medium in which virtual particles/anti-particles have been created must also have/has the energy (no matter how small or undetectable this energy is), otherwise virtual particles/anti-particles would not be created in the first place since you don't have energy to create something/anything, if there was no energy at all.

[Syne]

The problem is that these particles already have energy, which means the medium in which virtual particles/anti-particles have been created must also have/has the energy (no matter how small or undetectable this energy is), otherwise virtual particles/anti-particles would not be created in the first place since you don't have energy to create something/anything, if there was no energy at all.

You may want to read up on time-energy uncertainty.

[Big Chiller]

In other words, there is no identifiable cause. Nothing is not identifiable, in and of itself. The most we can say is that quantum fluctuations occur in the absence of every known possible cause.

Now you are free to believe that there may be some cause as yet undetectable, but that is belief not science.

The conclusion we can draw from there being no identifiable cause is that cause and effect as we know it does not apply to quantum fluctuations that's not enough to prove that something can come from nothing. It could only be scientific to say that we may never know what causes quantum fluctuations just like saying we may never observe particles in quantum superposition.

[Syne]

The conclusion we can draw from there being no identifiable cause is that cause and effect as we know it does not apply to quantum fluctuations that's not enough to prove that something can come from nothing.

Do you hear yourself? Cause and effect NOT applying is definitely from nothing.

[Big Chiller]

@Syne

Speaking colloquially it's from nothing and I said cause and effect as we know it.

[Syne]

Speaking colloquially it's from nothing and I said cause and effect as we know it.

"As we know it" basically constitutes a science of the gaps. Whatever we cannot currently comprehend is believed to be available to science some indeterminable and possibly near-infinite time in the future.

[Big Chiller]

By *as we know it* I mean something that we don't know of may be the case, it doesn't have to go to science of the gaps.

[Balerion]

Now you are free to believe that there may be some cause as yet undetectable, but that is belief not science.

Ah, here we go. One of those theists who tries to make science out to be a religion. I believe you use the term "science of the gaps" later on.

What a joke.

[kx000]

No. But then I would assume that something can't go to nothing.

[NMSquirrel]

Ah, here we go. One of those theists who tries to make science out to be a religion.

so you equate the term 'belief' with religion??

[Syne]

By *as we know it* I mean something that we don't know of may be the case, it doesn't have to go to science of the gaps.

If "something we don't know of" isn't science of the gaps then it is an acceptance of mystery without any attempt at a parsimonious explanation.

Ah, here we go. One of those theists who tries to make science out to be a religion. I believe you use the term "science of the gaps" later on.

What a joke.

There is no making science out to be a religion in observing the simple and obvious fact that some people make broad claims, even beyond the most speculative of science. If evidence doesn't not provide us with at least some reasonable inference then parsimony is the only guiding principle.

Parsimony requires that we don't just settle for some mysterious cause. That's a primary motivator for scientific progress.

[Gravage]

You may want to read up on time-energy uncertainty.

I read about this on some other physics forum, but for everything I saw it does not say where this energy comes from.

[Syne]

I read about this on some other physics forum, but for everything I saw it does not say where this energy comes from.

Seriously, don't rely solely on forums and read up on Alan Guth's description of the universe as the "ultimate free lunch" and how it relates to the zero-energy universe hypothesis.

[Gravage]

Seriously, don't rely solely on forums and read up on Alan Guth's description of the universe as the "ultimate free lunch" and how it relates to the zero-energy universe hypothesis.

Another crackpot?

[Syne]

Seriously, don't rely solely on forums and read up on Alan Guth's description of the universe as the "ultimate free lunch" and how it relates to the zero-energy universe hypothesis.

Another crackpot?

Can you explain what, exactly, in my quote can be considered crackpot? Everything mentioned is pretty ordinary in the standard model cosmology. Now you can have Guth's "ultimate free lunch" without a zero-energy universe, but then you are forced to rely on an infinite regression.

[Gravage]

Can you explain what, exactly, in my quote can be considered crackpot? Everything mentioned is pretty ordinary in the standard model cosmology. Now you can have Guth's "ultimate free lunch" without a zero-energy universe, but then you are forced to rely on an infinite regression.

My mistake, I thought you were thinking Guth is an crackpot. Entirely wrong impression.

[rcscwc]

yes

because space is a consequence of energy and matter

inotherwords energy and matter come first , energy and matter , produce space

Objection: Then it not nothing.

Objection: it is not a tptal void or empty space.

Objection: Energy can convert into matter.

[Gravage]

Objection: Then it not nothing.

Objection: it is not a tptal void or empty space.

Objection: Energy can convert into matter.

Well, I see space being a form of energy.

[river]

Well, I see space being a form of energy.

I disagree

space is not a form of energy , but rather ROOM for energy and matter to manifest

space doesn't interfer or contribute in any way with energy and matter

[river]

from another point of view you say that space came first , before energy and matter

the thing is though , what would bring space into existence in the absence of energy and matter ? and really be infinite in its existence