Creation Ex Nihilo- Without God

[Illuminaughty]

Creation Ex Nihilo- Without God. Is it possible?

Can Something Come from Nothing?

To most people, the claim that something cannot come from nothing is a truism. However, most physicists disagree. Against the claim, they often cite what are variously known as quantum vacuum fluctuations or virtual particles. These are particle-antiparticle pairs that come into existence in otherwise empty space for very brief periods of time, in agreement with the Heisenberg uncertainty relations. [Q1] [Q2] They produce measurable effects, such as the Lamb shift and the Casimir-Polder force.[Q3] [Q4] These particles are not anomalies; they are so common that some physicists argue that if we think of empty space as nothing, then there is no such thing as nothing, because space never is empty—it is always filled with virtual particles.[Q5] In short, if we follow most people in thinking of empty space as nothing, then we have at least one pervasive example of something that can come from nothing.

Can the Universe Come from Nothing?

Virtual particles are constrained to have short lives because they represent an increase in the energy of the universe; Heisenberg's uncertainty principle affords room for sufficiently short-lived virtual particles, but long-lived ones appearing in a universe such as ours would violate the first law of thermodynamics. One might think, then, that quantum vacuum fluctuations cannot have any relevance for the origin of the universe. On the contrary, some physicists, going back at least to Tryon (1973) believe that the entire universe might be a massive quantum vacuum fluctuation.[Q6] The key feature of the universe that would make this possible would be a total energy of zero. You might wonder how the universe could have a total energy of zero. The answer is that gravitational energy is negative—when summed with the positive energy of the matter in the universe, the two quantities may cancel out.[Q7] [Q8] Neither Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, nor the first law of thermodynamics, place any limit on the length of time a quantum vacuum fluctuation of zero total energy could persist, so the longevity of our universe does not rule out a quantum vacuum fluctuation origin.[Q9] The proposal is not that the entire universe appeared in one shot, but that a quantum vacuum fluctuation served as the seed for a local expansion of spacetime, which would automatically generate matter as a side-effect.[Q10] [Q11]


In these kinds of proposals, the quantum vacuum fluctuations occur in empty spacetime. Other proposals, most notably that of Alex Vilenkin, do not involve a preexisting spacetime at all, and rely upon quantum tunneling rather than vacuum fluctuation.[Q12]
....​

You can read the whole thing here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html

Here is another article on the topic:
http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

 

[ElijahW]

It sounds like word abuse to me. Nothing doesn't mean nothing any longer. It is something with properties that is incorrectly labeled as nothing.

 

[florida2]

The answer is that gravitational energy is negative—when summed with the positive energy of the matter in the universe, the two quantities may cancel out.

What on Earth are you talking about?

Why would gravity have negative energy?

 

[juvenissun]

Creation Ex Nihilo- Without God. Is it possible?

OK, it is possible to have something from nothing.
Why add the condition "without God"? What's wrong if it is "With God"?

What you described fits perfectly with the description "God creates".

 

[Gadarene]

It sounds like word abuse to me. Nothing doesn't mean nothing any longer. It is something with properties that is incorrectly labeled as nothing.

Well, no, I think it's more that traditionally people have had a very hard time letting go of the notion of a vacuum as "nothing".

 

[Illuminaughty]

Well, no, I think it's more that traditionally people have had a very hard time letting go of the notion of a vacuum as "nothing".

You might be right about that. It's precisely the issue of what constitutes a *thing* that made the article interesting to me. Many people would classify the virtual particles that temporarily pop "out of" the vacuum as things but is the vacuum itself a thing or is it an uncalled for reification to speak that way? If the Vaccum is a thing what is it made of? Lots of strangeness when you think about it.

Would it be a "thing" according to this defenition of the term:

"The real or concrete substance of an entity"

It seems there is no substance to speak of.

Or this definition of term:

"An individual object"


The author of the article answers one of the accusations regarding "thingness" here:

(i) First off, the reason most people affirm the proposition that something cannot come from nothing is because they do not see things coming into existence out of the empty space around them. They are willing to equate empty space with nothingness. Hence, showing that particles do, and universes might, spontaneously arise from empty space, does address the intent behind popular claims that the universe could not have come into existence from nothing. Once one has shown that universes can arise from empty space, not many people will remain so secure about their metaphysical intuitions that they will insist that empty spacetime itself must have come from something.


(ii) Second, even if we do count spacetime as something, this would have no bearing on Vilenkin-type proposals. At this point, critics contend that Vilenkin's proposal requires quantum mechanics, and that the laws of quantum mechanics are "something." This is a strange claim, for two reasons: (1) It seems as though the critics wish to reify natural laws, which are not things, but just descriptions of the way things work. It is unclear why one should regard the fact (if it is one) that universes come into existence from time to time in a manner describable by quantum mechanics, as a thing. (2) If if one does count facts as things, then nothingness is a logical impossibility: if nothing existed, then it would be a fact that nothing existed, meaning that at least one thing (the fact that nothing exists) exists, which would, in turn, contradict the original hypothesis. Consequently, if one counts facts as things, then some fact must obtain; but, if at least one fact must obtain, why should it not be the fact that quantum mechanics applies?​

 

[Illuminaughty]

Why would gravity have negative energy?

Stephen Hawkings;

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking 1988: 129)

 

[Illuminaughty]

OK, it is possible to have something from nothing.
Why add the condition "without God"? What's wrong if it is "With God"?

Nothing wrong with it. I just thought it was interesting that an atheist could also posit creation ex nihilo of some sort.

 

[jayem]

These particles are not anomalies; they are so common that some physicists argue that if we think of empty space as nothing, then there is no such thing as nothing, because space never is empty—it is always filled with virtual particles.

I know this is different, but isn't empty space also filled with neutrinos?

 

[Michael]

Creation Ex Nihilo- Without God. Is it possible?

Can Something Come from Nothing?

To most people, the claim that something cannot come from nothing is a truism. However, most physicists disagree. Against the claim, they often cite what are variously known as quantum vacuum fluctuations or virtual particles. These are particle-antiparticle pairs that come into existence in otherwise empty space for very brief periods of time, in agreement with the Heisenberg uncertainty relations. [Q1] [Q2] They produce measurable effects, such as the Lamb shift and the Casimir-Polder force.[Q3] [Q4] These particles are not anomalies; they are so common that some physicists argue that if we think of empty space as nothing, then there is no such thing as nothing, because space never is empty—it is always filled with virtual particles.[Q5] In short, if we follow most people in thinking of empty space as nothing, then we have at least one pervasive example of something that can come from nothing.

Can the Universe Come from Nothing?

Virtual particles are constrained to have short lives because they represent an increase in the energy of the universe; Heisenberg's uncertainty principle affords room for sufficiently short-lived virtual particles, but long-lived ones appearing in a universe such as ours would violate the first law of thermodynamics. One might think, then, that quantum vacuum fluctuations cannot have any relevance for the origin of the universe. On the contrary, some physicists, going back at least to Tryon (1973) believe that the entire universe might be a massive quantum vacuum fluctuation.[Q6] The key feature of the universe that would make this possible would be a total energy of zero. You might wonder how the universe could have a total energy of zero. The answer is that gravitational energy is negative—when summed with the positive energy of the matter in the universe, the two quantities may cancel out.[Q7] [Q8] Neither Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, nor the first law of thermodynamics, place any limit on the length of time a quantum vacuum fluctuation of zero total energy could persist, so the longevity of our universe does not rule out a quantum vacuum fluctuation origin.[Q9] The proposal is not that the entire universe appeared in one shot, but that a quantum vacuum fluctuation served as the seed for a local expansion of spacetime, which would automatically generate matter as a side-effect.[Q10] [Q11]


In these kinds of proposals, the quantum vacuum fluctuations occur in empty spacetime. Other proposals, most notably that of Alex Vilenkin, do not involve a preexisting spacetime at all, and rely upon quantum tunneling rather than vacuum fluctuation.[Q12]
....​

You can read the whole thing here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html

Here is another article on the topic:
ASP: A Universe from Nothing

These "something from nothing" claims have been "debunked" so many times now, I've lost count. "Space" is not empty, it's never been empty, and it never will be empty. It's full of all kinds of kinetic energy in the form of neutrinos and photons. Sometimes that kinetic energy "interacts" with other things and other kinetic energy in space, forming temporary "fluxes" at a certain point in the non empty space. No energy is created or destroyed in such interactions, kinetic energy simply 'changes forms" from one form (kinetic) to another form (probably also kinetic) for short periods of time. Space isn't "nothing' to begin with, it's *something*, so you can't get something from a "nothing' that does not exist.

The laws of physics insist that energy can only change forms, it cannot be created or destroyed. Mass can form from other types of energy. For instance, photons can decay into electrons and positrons in some particle formation interactions.

Gravity however does not, and cannot "offset" other types of 'energy' that also exist in this universe, most of it exists in "kinetic" form. That "gravity offsets other energy" concept/claim fails to account for the use of 'energy use over time', and it ignores the vast quantities of energy being consumed on a daily basis. I'm almost tired of whipping that dead horse it's so dead.

 

[Michael]

Nothing wrong with it. I just thought it was interesting that an atheist could also posit creation ex nihilo of some sort.

It just demonstrates that they can be as gullible as any theists.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Where do the virtual particles come from? I'm pretty sure the author understood the fact that such particles arise in the vacuum. In fact the theory of vacuum genesis depends on that very thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where do the virtual particles come from? I'm pretty sure the author understood the fact that such particles arise in the vacuum. In fact the theory of vacuum genesis depends on that very thing.

As I understand it, there is no such thing as 'empty space' per se.

Take any one cubic block of space ... any size ... and it is teeming with energy and gravity.

Sometimes, energy reaches MC[sup]2[/sup] and will produce an actual particle, but to sustain this particle for any length of time can't be done, and the particle reverts back to energy form.

 

[Illuminaughty]

In other words do they arise from another substantial thing?

 

[AV1611VET]

In other words do they arise from another substantial thing?

Not a 'thing' ... energy.

 

[Illuminaughty]

According to good ol Wikipedia "A quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearence of energetic particles out of empty space as allowed by the uncertainty principle." It also claims that they "pop out of the vacuum. ". The question remains is the vacuum a substance and thus a thing?

 

[ElijahW]

Well, no, I think it's more that traditionally people have had a very hard time letting go of the notion of a vacuum as "nothing".

I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me about the reification of nothing being a fallacy.

According to good ol Wikipedia "A quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearence of energetic particles out of empty space as allowed by the uncertainty principle." It also claims that they "pop out of the vacuum. ". The question remains is the vacuum a substance and thus a thing?

If it has any identity at all then it isn't nothing. Remember A=A.

 

[Illuminaughty]

The virtual particles are energy but do they arise out of some other energy?

I don't think I totally buy into this theory but it is thought provoking. Personally I think a better solution might be to abandon the idea of substance all together and replace it with process. There is literally no substance in existence to explain in the first place.

edit..... please forgive my typos all I have is a little cell phone keyboard. That's also why I'm not using quotes.

 

[Illuminaughty]

certainly you could say it exists as a concept that you can compare and contrast to things but then again you could say the same about nothing. It's not a thing in terms of the first definition I was talking about above though because there is no substance to speak of. You are getting apparent substance from no substance. In that sense thing from no thing.

 

[ElijahW]

certainly you could say it exists as a concept that you can compare and contrast to things but then again you could say the same about nothing. It's not a thing in terms of the first definition I was talking about above though because there is no substance to speak of. You are getting apparent substance from no substance.

No, it exists as an actual thing with an identity if it has any properties at all. It may not be considered substance but that doesn't mean it doesn't have existence or it is nothing.