Something can come from nothing.

Tank · November 17, 2011, 05:36:34 PM

Quote(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists at Chalmers University of Technology have succeeded in creating light from vacuum – observing an effect first predicted over 40 years ago. The results will be published tomorrow (Wednesday) in the journal Nature. In an innovative experiment, the scientists have managed to capture some of the photons that are constantly appearing and disappearing in the vacuum.

The experiment is based on one of the most counterintuitive, yet, one of the most important principles in quantum mechanics: that vacuum is by no means empty nothingness. In fact, the vacuum is full of various particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence. They appear, exist for a brief moment and then disappear again. Since their existence is so fleeting, they are usually referred to as virtual particles...

Evidence supporting Quantum Theory.

Recusant · November 17, 2011, 05:55:22 PM

Very cool! Thanks for posting that story, Tank. One of the standard quips used by Creationists in attempting to support their belief and "win" in discussions on the origin of the universe is looking less and less viable.

Tank · November 17, 2011, 05:58:10 PM

Quote from: Recusant on November 17, 2011, 05:55:22 PM
Very cool! Thanks for posting that story, Tank. One of the standard quips used by Creationists in attempting to support their belief and "win" in discussions on the origin of the universe is looking less and less viable.

Yep! *Does happy dance*

Ecurb Noselrub · November 17, 2011, 07:13:12 PM

From the article:

"The experiment is based on one of the most counterintuitive, yet, one of the most important principles in quantum mechanics: that vacuum is by no means empty nothingness. In fact, the vacuum is full of various particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence."

So, it's not really "nothing." We've known this for awhile. So the title of thread is slightly misleading. Something is coming from particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence. How such a situation came to be in our universe is unknown to any of us. So it doesn't answer whether or not there is an intelligent being behind the whole process. However, it is cool, and it does serve to confirm quantum theory.

Davin · November 17, 2011, 07:16:48 PM

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 17, 2011, 07:13:12 PM
From the article:

"The experiment is based on one of the most counterintuitive, yet, one of the most important principles in quantum mechanics: that vacuum is by no means empty nothingness. In fact, the vacuum is full of various particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence."

So, it's not really "nothing." We've known this for awhile. So the title of thread is slightly misleading. Something is coming from particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence. How such a situation came to be in our universe is unknown to any of us. So it doesn't answer whether or not there is an intelligent being behind the whole process. However, it is cool, and it does serve to confirm quantum theory.

Not so much as "misleading" as it is, using colloquial terms. Like when people say "said" in reference to things typed, not so much misleading (as inaccurate as it is), but the colloquial definition.

Tank · November 17, 2011, 07:41:11 PM

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 17, 2011, 07:13:12 PM
From the article:

"The experiment is based on one of the most counterintuitive, yet, one of the most important principles in quantum mechanics: that vacuum is by no means empty nothingness. In fact, the vacuum is full of various particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence."

So, it's not really "nothing." We've known this for awhile. So the title of thread is slightly misleading. Something is coming from particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence. How such a situation came to be in our universe is unknown to any of us. So it doesn't answer whether or not there is an intelligent being behind the whole process. However, it is cool, and it does serve to confirm quantum theory.

If you tried to extract any conventional stable matter from a pure vacuum you could not. If you want a definition of nothing that is a vacuum and has been since the word was created. It is that meaning of nothing that theist claim nothing can be created from. You're using a samantic argument and a disengenuious twisting of language to win your point at the expence of the truth, as usual.

Ecurb Noselrub · November 17, 2011, 07:57:32 PM

Quote from: Tank on November 17, 2011, 07:41:11 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 17, 2011, 07:13:12 PM
From the article:

"The experiment is based on one of the most counterintuitive, yet, one of the most important principles in quantum mechanics: that vacuum is by no means empty nothingness. In fact, the vacuum is full of various particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence."

So, it's not really "nothing." We've known this for awhile. So the title of thread is slightly misleading. Something is coming from particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence. How such a situation came to be in our universe is unknown to any of us. So it doesn't answer whether or not there is an intelligent being behind the whole process. However, it is cool, and it does serve to confirm quantum theory.
If you tried to extract any conventional stable matter from a pure vacuum you could not. If you want a definition of nothing that is a vacuum and has been since the word was created. It is that meaning of nothing that theist claim nothing can be created from. You're using a samantic argument and a disengenuious twisting of language to win your point at the expence of the truth, as usual.

My only argument is that a confirmation of quantum theory (which seems to be the effect of the experiment) does not eliminate the possibility of a creator god. The particles are coming from some set of circumstances, and what those circumstances are is unknown. Why the universe is set up the way it is, with the laws that it has, is unknown. Neither side can claim any triumph.

Tank · November 17, 2011, 08:08:32 PM

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 17, 2011, 07:57:32 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 17, 2011, 07:41:11 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 17, 2011, 07:13:12 PM
From the article:

"The experiment is based on one of the most counterintuitive, yet, one of the most important principles in quantum mechanics: that vacuum is by no means empty nothingness. In fact, the vacuum is full of various particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence."

So, it's not really "nothing." We've known this for awhile. So the title of thread is slightly misleading. Something is coming from particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence. How such a situation came to be in our universe is unknown to any of us. So it doesn't answer whether or not there is an intelligent being behind the whole process. However, it is cool, and it does serve to confirm quantum theory.
If you tried to extract any conventional stable matter from a pure vacuum you could not. If you want a definition of nothing that is a vacuum and has been since the word was created. It is that meaning of nothing that theist claim nothing can be created from. You're using a samantic argument and a disengenuious twisting of language to win your point at the expence of the truth, as usual.

My only argument is that a confirmation of quantum theory (which seems to be the effect of the experiment) does not eliminate the possibility of a creator god. The particles are coming from some set of circumstances, and what those circumstances are is unknown. Why the universe is set up the way it is, with the laws that it has, is unknown. Neither side can claim any triumph.

Bruce nothing can eliminate the possibility of a personal fantasy, particularly one that has taken decades to fabricate. You can believe what you like, it's your right. If you want to live in a fantasy it's your choice. And no you can't claim triumph, so why on Earth do you and people like you continue to base your entire world view on something you can't even accurately describe let alone agree on?

There is no objective, repeatable, testable evidence for the existance of the supernatural in any form, so sorry but because of this I feel quite at liberty to dismiss the existance of the supernatural and all that that entails.

joeactor · November 17, 2011, 09:05:45 PM

Quote from: Recusant on November 17, 2011, 05:55:22 PM
Very cool! Thanks for posting that story, Tank. One of the standard quips used by Creationists in attempting to support their belief and "win" in discussions on the origin of the universe is looking less and less viable.

... actually, they'll probably jump on this one as more proof.

Consider:

1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
*** Given ***
1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void;
*** So, Particles in flux... in a void or vacuum ***
1:3 - And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
*** Boom! God just made something out of nothing! ***

We're just now figuring out how correct the bible is...

(no, I'm not serious... but they will be),
JoeActor

Ecurb Noselrub · November 17, 2011, 09:07:12 PM

Quote from: Tank on November 17, 2011, 08:08:32 PM
Bruce nothing can eliminate the possibility of a personal fantasy, particularly one that has taken decades to fabricate. You can believe what you like, it's your right. If you want to live in a fantasy it's your choice. And no you can't claim triumph, so why on Earth do you and people like you continue to base your entire world view on something you can't even accurately describe let alone agree on? There is no objective, repeatable, testable evidence for the existance of the supernatural in any form, so sorry but because of this I feel quite at liberty to dismiss the existance of the supernatural and all that that entails.

Nothing can stop you from describing faith in God as a personal fantasy, and nothing can stop you from deciding to limit reality to those things that you can repeatably test. But there are others who have different experiences than you do, and who have concluded that those personal experiences point toward another aspect of reality that folks such as yourself reject a priori. I see no need to reject science or the empirical findings of those who work in the realm of objective, repeatable testing of hypotheses. But I also see no need to reject other sources of information about reality that are not subject to the scientific method, and that may lead to faith as opposed to knowledge. Our difference is epistemological.

Recusant · November 17, 2011, 09:13:06 PM

Quote from: joeactor on November 17, 2011, 09:05:45 PM

... actually, they'll probably jump on this one as more proof.

Consider:

1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
*** Given ***
1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void;
*** So, Particles in flux... in a void or vacuum ***
1:3 - And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
*** Boom! God just made something out of nothing! ***

We're just now figuring out how correct the bible is...

(no, I'm not serious... but they will be),
JoeActor

You make an excellent point. I should never underestimate the ingenuity of Creationists.

joeactor · November 17, 2011, 09:20:11 PM

Quote from: Recusant on November 17, 2011, 09:13:06 PMYou make an excellent point. I should never underestimate the ingenuity of Creationists.

Yeppers - intelligence, like many things, can be used for good or, uh, not so good...

After hearing all the other excuses to shoehorn facts into the myth, I've come to expect it.

Grand Canyon and the flood - oh puuuleeeeaaase!

Stevil · November 17, 2011, 10:33:52 PM

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 17, 2011, 09:07:12 PM
But I also see no need to reject other sources of information about reality that are not subject to the scientific method, and that may lead to faith as opposed to knowledge. Our difference is epistemological.

Do you reject the Qu'ran, the Torah, the Hindi scriptures?

xSilverPhinx · November 17, 2011, 10:36:09 PM

One thing I don't get though is why creationists, deists or whatever believe that there was a time when 'nothing' in the pure sense of the word actually existed (or...didn't exist since as long as ''something' exists there can never be 'nothing') ???

There's a good documentary by Lawrence Krauss called "The Universe From Nothing", available for free on Youtube. If anybody hasn't watched it already, I recommend it.

Stevil · November 17, 2011, 10:40:36 PM

A couple of issues.
1. People have a preconcieved idea of what nothing is. It seems that nothing is the answer to infinite regress. This is a platform from which something begins to exist and it is impossible to stop this process. You can never just find nothing without something popping in and out of existence.
2. Theists just pose a lazy and high level position that god is infinite regress and hence all existence originates from god. With this approach they don't have to prove anything and they don't have to state what it is that god actually creates. They say god created the Universe, but then science says that the Universe comes from the Big Bang, so they say god created the big bang, but then science says that matter/energy comes from nothing via quantum fluctuations so they say god created the conditions of quantum fluctuations. There is no level of effort on the theists, they just keep differing scientific advancement, without having to give any detail of what it is that a creator god did.

News:

Something can come from nothing.