It is possible for matter and energy to come from nothing? Also why is there something rather than..

Is it possible for energy and matter to have come from nothing?

Also why is there something rather than nothing?

I know that matter and energy are interchangeable (one can be converted into the other) but can matter and energy come from nothing?

Did the universe come from nothing or is there something which is eternal and this eternal thing is the cause of everything?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why would you automatically conclude that the Universe came from something "eternal"?

You came from your parents, are your parents eternal?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is Our Universe the Ultimate Free Lunch?
The inflationary model (described in my previous post, “What Did Go ‘Bang’ in the Big Bang?”) suggested an elegant solution to the puzzle of why our universe is expanding. The model relies on the fact that a region of space filled with a peculiar state called “false vacuum” experiences rapid expansion due to a repulsive gravitational force. But what happened before that? How did the universe get to that state? Naïvely, one would expect that a universe which began from a singularity—a state of infinite matter density and infinite curvature—would collapse rather than expand, since the gravitational attraction of the matter would overwhelm the repulsive force. Before the 1980s, the prevailing views were that the universe was already expanding (albeit in a more leisurely manner) even before inflation, thus diluting matter to the point where the false vacuum started to dominate. However, this was not a satisfactory picture, since it required an unexplained expansion that existed before inflation. We can understand the problem with a simple model of a closed, spherical universe, which is filled with vacuum energy (that generates repulsive gravity) and matter (that creates attractive gravity). Let’s examine this universe when it is momentarily at rest—neither expanding nor contracting. Cosmic evolution from there on will depend crucially on the size of the universe at that instant. According to Einstein’s General Relativity, if the cosmic radius is very small, attractive gravity will win and this universe will collapse to a point. If the radius is very large, repulsive gravity will have the upper hand, and inflation will ensue. In classical physics, the universe could not pass from a collapsing state to an inflating one without the infusion of some energy into it (which the assumption of a pre-inflation expansion attempted to do). However, in 1982 my colleague Alex Vilenkin, a physicist at Tufts University, suddenly had a brilliant realization. In quantum mechanics—the theory of the subatomic world—even processes that are forbidden by classical physics have a certain probability of occurring. This phenomenon is known as quantum tunneling, and it is being routinely observed in radioactive decays and in solid-state physics. Because of its probabilistic nature, quantum mechanics reveals that even a universe that would have been destined to collapse in classical General Relativity could actually tunnel (albeit with a small probability) to the other side, and emerge as an inflating universe. That is, our universe could have started out as a speck doomed to collapse to a singularity, but instead it tunneled through the energy barrier to a larger radius, initiating inflation (Figure 1). But this was not all. Vilenkin demonstrated mathematically that the probability for tunneling did not vanish even when he took the initial size of the universe to be zero. In other words, the universe could tunnel to some radius that allowed it to inflate from literally nothing!

There is something I need to explain here. “Nothing” is not the same as the vacuum. The physical vacuum, or empty space, is very rich. It has energy, and virtual particles and antiparticles continually appear and disappear in it. Einstein taught us that it can also warp and stretch. By “nothing” I mean that neither space nor time exist. Put differently, if we were to go back in time from the present, Vilenkin’s scenario demonstrated that we would reach a beginning—a point beyond which spacetime did not exist.

Two questions immediately arise: (1) What about conservation of energy? (2) Why did the universe appear at all? As it turns out, conservation of energy is not a problem. While all the mass in our universe has positive energy, the gravitational attraction has a negative energy associated with it, which precisely balances the positive one. The total energy of our universe is precisely zero, so that there is no problem with the universe materializing out of nothing. Why did the universe appear? Because the laws of physics allowed it to. In quantum mechanics, any process has a certain probability of occurring, and no cause is needed. You will notice, however, that we do have to assume that the laws of physics continue to apply even when there is nothing. I shall return to this assumption in a future post.

I do not want to leave you with the impression that Vilenkin’s scenario of spacetime tunneling from nothingness into existence is an established fact. At this point it is no more than an attractive speculation that is consistent with the laws of physics. But it addresses what is arguably the biggest question of them all: How did it allbegin?

https://blogs.stsci.edu/livio/2012/11/13/is-our-universe-the-ultimate-free-lunch/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
A Universe from Nothing
by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff

Insights from modern physics suggest that our wondrous universe may be the ultimate free lunch.

Adapted from The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millennium, 1st edition, by Jay M. Pasachoff and Alex Filippenko, © 2001. Reprinted with permission of Brooks/Cole, an imprint of the Wadsworth Group, a division of Thomson Learning.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Courtesy of AURA/NOAO/NSF.

In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.

Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.

If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours.
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


Just deleted my previous link as in my mad haste I linked the wrong link!!
That has now been rectified.

 

Even nothing is something. Just because you can't see particles in space doesn't mean they aren't there.

 

To expand on what cosmic traveler said:

If "Nothing" is defined as the perfect superposition of infinite counter-opposed forces (including forces like gravity), then yes, it is obviously possible for something to be produced from nothing from an appropriately located reference frame at rest inside or outside its event horizon. Not only may nothing may be something; it may literally be everything.

Just because you can't observe something doesn't mean there is literally nothing there. An infinite amount of energy could be radiating away from you right now, and unless at some point it reflected from something already out there, you'd never see any of it again, even if you tried following it at the speed of light. Much more of the universe and the events taking place in it is hidden from us by this mechanism than the much smaller number of events we will ever know or observe.

A black hole consisting of ALL matter and energy past and present in the known and extended universe might be (or might have been) mistaken for nothing. And it would still be a black hole now as viewed from somewhere outside of its event horizon even if it began expansion or internal accretion.

 

That's only one theory since we can't see what occurred before the BB>

 

This is why I don't like cosmology since Carl Sagan passed away. He was not given to exaggerated claims about the BB or cosmology based on ideas impossible either to verify or observe.

Speculating about cosmology or the BB is akin to a religious obsession with the book of revelations. No matter how many times the events of the book of revelations have already been fulfilled, people seem to believe that somehow they will be fulfilled again. This leads to all sorts of kooky self-fulfilling prophesies. It wouldn't make any difference to these people if you burned every copy of the damned thing, they'd still believe it was the divinely inspired and unerring prophesy of the end times. Just another opportunity for the religion obsessed to make an idol out of something. And a lot of money from the renewed interest.

If the BB ever happened, it's over and you missed it, so get over it. Better luck next time. Same with revelations, and religious revivals based on it.

 

See thats the problem here Fraggle , is that people like you think that this a rational response to cosmics' post above , it's not .

You can't say " Well sure " and then at the same time totally disagree

Cosmictravelers' post above is completely correct , rational and logically

 

Yes it is. Firstly it is what the BB claims...secondly what could possibly exist before t=0....the beginning of time and consequently space, as we know them.
That's science...anything beyond is speculation, and as much as I also love to speculate, you need to see the difference.
Even in the future, if we formulate a validated QGT, it is certain to entail the BB. Even if let's say the old Oscillating theory was shown to be valid, that also entails what we now see as the BB....Both will just extend beyond the BBs present parameters.

We are still finding it "difficult"to understand various cosmological concepts...including me. Tell me the Universe is infinite in extent...and the mind boggles! tell me that the Universe is finite...and it's still mind boggling. I mean then the obvious questions re edges etc spring to mind...BHs themselves, a favourite topic of mine are just as mind boggingly hard to accept. Time dilation and length contraction and the obvious inferences.
Because a specific model or scenario is difficult at this time to understand, does not make it impossible, if the current theories predict it.
We'll keep searching, researching data, and theorising likely scenarios, while accepting what our models now tell us...If there is any tweeking to be done, any modifications, it will be done, but certainly not by someone from out left field somewhere, without access to Planck, WMAP, the HST, and the many many other state of the art instrumentalities.

 

↑

No its not , its not rational nor therefore logical

Really , thats it ?

So really you have know conception of what I'm talking about ? You don't

Well thats something new

 

Yes it is. Just because you are unable to understand something, or even collectively if the community can not understand something, does not mean it is not reality, or a reasonable facsimile thereof.
Actually physics/cosmology and its goals are to read observational data, interpret the results of our experiments, make some logical assumptions based on that and apply the theory or model intending it to be as close to "reality/truth"as possible.

Sure I do...the big question is do you know what you are talking about.

 

↑

No its not rational nor logical

So its about community thinking ...then I see your perspective , limited as it is

 

Of course it is, as detailed by the BB, observational and experimental data.
Although your view is not really that credible, considering you accept without evidence, giants, Alien origin UFO's and goblins and ghosts.

Not necesarilly, since I did say that in general the general community does not understand it. Science progresses as I have detailed, and drags the reluctants like yourself, into the 21st century, kicking and screaming, and as best as is able.
You have much to be thankful for, although obviously there is still a fair way to go.

 

What experimental data tells us that the Universe came from " nothing " ?

 

We don't have a theory about where the Universe came from.
We have a theory of the Universe/spacetime evolving from a hot dense state in what we call a singularity.

 

There is no experiment that shows the Universe came from nothing , pad