TED Conversations

Christopher An

Student ,

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Can something come from nothing??

I was reading some articles on google and I found something very interesting.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-12/making-something-nothing-theory-says-matter-can-be-conjured-vacuum
This article says that matter can be conjured from vacuum now.
Then does that mean something can come from nothing??
Or is vacuum considered as something??
Also some following questions,
Is time classified as something??
How would you guys explain the first cause? (i.e God, BigBang)

0
Share:
progress indicator
  • Mar 19 2013: I suppose the question, "Does nothing exist?" is philosophical rather than scientific.

    From a strictly scientific, empirical, point of view, is it possible to determine that an environment contains absolutely nothing? No matter, no energy, no anything? The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. For example, neutrinos are much more difficult to detect than the theories first suggested. How could we possibly determine that an environment is free from neutrinos if we can detect only one in every quadrillion neutrinos, and then only with huge instruments? Similarly, we have no way of determining that an environment is free of dark matter. This might be one of those statements that cannot possibly be tested directly.
    • Mar 19 2013: Hi, Thanks for your answer.

      Yeah, I am aware that this is a very complicated, more of a philosophical kind of question here. My purpose of this question was to see people's opinion about this matter, I am very interested in reading people's interesting and informative comments.

      However, do you think human will ultimately find a way to test this matter directly in the future?
      • Mar 19 2013: No, I don't think so. I believe that there are inherent limits to knowledge. There are some questions that will never have answers, due to the very nature of the questions. This is one of those questions. Another such question is, Who am I? The quest for the answer changes the answer.
        • Mar 20 2013: Yeah I agree with you. I think there was a mathematical theory talking about questions that cannot be solved.
  • thumb

    Gail . 50+

    • +1
    Mar 17 2013: The thing about evidence is that it exists. If there is evidence, then as much as the evidence shows is true. And yes, it does appear (RELATIVE TO OUR FRAME OF REFERENCE) that something comes from nothing, but if nothing IS something, then it isn't true, is it?

    A man named Everett proposed a multi-world theory and supported it with math and science. He didn't invent the idea. I first began learning about it as a philosophy in the late 60s, but there was not enough scientific evidence to support the philosophy, so it wasn't a theory. It was an idea.

    If reality is multi-dimensional, then what we call nothing might well be something - especially if POTENTIAL energy is something.

    If you follow the physics, you will see that it does not allow the God of Abraham to exist as Biblicly defiined. It SUGGESTS that the founding singularity was sentient and when the Big Bang happened (whether by choice or not is not studied yet), the singularity fractured and that which held it together exists in superposition, where it is the total of our experiences. In other words, we create its present moment by moment. It has no power over us, but it is power - the power OF us.

    Take a photon, split it in half, and you really have 3 photons. Two small ones that you can see, and a third that is in superposition - invisible to us because it is probably extradimensional. Chang the spin on one photon, and no matter how far away the entangled twin is, its spin will instantaneously change (in zero time), meaning that information was shared - presumably by the superpositioned sentient "being" (as opposed to "a" being).

    That doesn't make it a God, but if you follow the science as far as you can, it does suggest that you are a god and we are gods.

    When you discard all that is not true, what you have left is true, no matter how unbelievable it is.
    • Mar 17 2013: Reading your comment triggered another question.
      Can there be anything such as nothing?? Once we define its name it surely has to be something. Same thing with vacuum, once we discovered that vacuum is consisted of matter and anti matter, it is something now.

      Also another follow up question, do you think human created God in our minds?
      • thumb
        Mar 18 2013: Is there a "nothing"? That is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

        Of course I believe that the God of Abraham is a man-made invention. I believe "evidence" and have learned how to think logically. I have also learned how to "walk through" my fears rather than react blindly to them.
    • thumb
      Mar 18 2013: Following the science does not suggest anyone being a god. It is your interpretation based on a lack of understanding of quantum mechanics due to its counter intuitive nature.

      If you disagree I'd like to hear your reasoning.
      • thumb
        Mar 19 2013: Faisel, we've been through this. I've given you abundant evidence of how what I suggest is possible. Yet you continue to criticize without ever offering your own evidence that you believe invalidates mine or even offering your own evidence-based opinion, as I have asked you to. I won't get into it with you.
        • thumb
          Mar 19 2013: 1) You have not provided an abundance of evidence. You have quoted studies which all fall into one of the following categories:
          - The researchers use paranormal explanations for phenomena that can easily be explained by basic psychology.
          - The researchers are so biased that they see "unexplainable anomalies" in data, when it's nothing more than statistical fluctuations that are well within the boundaries of our current statistical models.
          - The researchers present fraudulent claims.

          2) I haven't made any claims yet and therefore I don't need to offer any evidence. If you wish to know my stand on this subject you can look up the Copenhagen interpretation. (I am however working on an interpretation of QM that is compatible with the Copenhagen interpretation but can explain the phenomena that are left unexplained in the current model).

          3) All I'm asking that you back up your extraordinary claim that if you follow the science it suggests that we are Gods.
        • Mar 20 2013: Well frankly speaking, I do not think that these questions are answerable. It is somewhat like a ultimate goal of a human being. Figure out why we were made, why we exist, or if we are God or not. This level, I think everything should be considered as a philosophical theory since no one can prove it.
      • thumb
        Mar 20 2013: Faisel, I offered experiments that are the standard of physics. From the Twin Slit Experiment to the most recent CERN discoveries. My view is not alone among quantum physicists and those who, because of what has been learned in QM, are involved in studies of "mind" or consciousness. You offer lies, rude attacks, and nothing of value to this conversation. Good bye.
        • thumb
          Mar 20 2013: 1) Stop making it into a personal matter. I merely ask of you to back up your claim that science suggests that we are "gods".

          2) In what way does the double slit experiment or any experiment at CERN suggest that we are "gods"?

          3) I'm sure there are quantum physicist who believe in obscure things. It doesn't make it more valid.

          4) You keep mentioning studies in mind and consciousness, yet none of them stand the test of scrutiny. You haven't mentioned a single experiment that doesn't fall into one of the above mentioned categories.

          5) I ask you one simple question again: In what way does the science suggest that we are gods? If you make such a claim in a public forum such as this, I believe you should be able to back it up with evidence. You failing to do so leads to the inevitable conclusion that you're just making it up. Yet you are the one accusing me of lying...
    • Mar 19 2013: Belief in God and Science are not mutually exclusive, nor the same thing.
      Religion is a belief in a religious being, science is the search for proof to events or beliefs. Science could possibly find evidence for the existance of God, but I am certain that it can't prove a religion. Religion is largely a question of honoring traditions. You can't quantify that. You can't 'prove' that.
      I deny that science and relgion are mutually exclusive on the basis that they serve different purposes. One seeks to understand the external universe, and one speaks more to the internal one.
  • thumb
    Mar 16 2013: Yes, according to the latest astrophysical theory, random changes in the quantum state can create matter from nothing.

    http://phys.org/news/2010-12-theoretical-physics-breakthrough-antimatter-vacuum.html

    For those who would wish to object on theological grounds - this does not try to replace God. It simply means that God created a universe in which this can happen.
    • Mar 16 2013: Hi Lawren, thanks for your response

      When they are doing this, it's not just random state they require a laser to rip through vacuum.
      Laser is something right?
      Vacuum is nothing.

      Then when something goes into nothing, they become something.
      I am not sure if this proves anything because stream of laser going through this is something, a stream of energy.
    • thumb
      Mar 17 2013: The power to create-from-nothing is an essential component of any cosmogony. The Holy Bible relies on the power of God, as the uncaused cause, to speak things into existence. The Big Bang Theory relies on the Higgs Boson to cause that which is massless and does not take-up space to suddenly have mass and take-up space. That is why the Higgs Boson is known, colloquially, as the God Particle. The Holy Bible declares that God has no cause, "In the beginning God...". Does Science declare the Higgs Boson has no cause? If not, the search for the beginning must continue.
  • thumb
    Mar 16 2013: Hi, Christopher. Remember what you will find here is typically popular opinion rather than expert opinion. For expert opinion, look to answers that will offer you authoritative links to verify the claims people make. There is a lot of incorrect information out there that lots of people take as solid.

    The American Physical Society is an organization of real scientists that can direct you to Ask a Physicist sites.
    • thumb
      Mar 17 2013: Fritzie, you give the same advice to all who ask about the new and fascinating discoveries in science, thus discrediting out of hand - without having knowledge yourself - those with whom you disagree. That is unfair and condescending.

      Your advice would be fine if physicists were not split on the matter that the given link addresses. The split is nearly 50/50. That advice would also be fine if physics sites did not allow so many amateur physicists to participate. When I say amateur, I do not mean less educated about the matter. I mean that they do not work in the field of physics, but they pursue physics as a hobby and are very up to date, but in your terms, unqualified to have an evidence-based opinion. These physics sites also tend to speak in the language of math, which is well beyond the ability of the casual questioner to understand.

      You could send casual questioners to homework sites to bypass the language problem, but then you still run into the problem of people who are not up-to-date giving advice, or you find the same philosophical split and inconsistent answers.

      This site is as good as any to discuss these amazing ideas. I know that TED doesn't approve, but if people who make branding decisions were even slightly knowledgeable about the stunning discoveries in many new fields of science - fields that compliment one another - they wouldn't be so quick to squelch the very ideas that hold the potential to end all of our social ills - including the use of a title to demean others and their ideas.
      • thumb
        Mar 17 2013: My intent is only to alert people new to TED Conversations that this is not a reliable forum to get accurate information about science, because some claims about what science says or what scientists believe are grossly incorrect and often without links to authoritative sources.
        I have had serious quantum scientists at the top of their field at major universities review these explanations who have told me the representations here in Conversations about what new findings in science now indicates, what scientists believe, or how mechanisms work are often entirely incorrect in the sense that NO actual scientists trained in the field would adopt that interpretation.

        My recommendation to people is therefore that they check sites like the American Physical Society as well as considering what is presented here often anonymously and without citation to reliable sources. Lawrence Berkeley Lab, Lawrence Hall of Science, NASA, and others are similarly reliable.
        • thumb
          Mar 20 2013: Now that I have seen the Sheldrake / Graham controversy, I understand what you are doing. You are supporting TED's newly announced ideological purity agenda. You are the thought police.

          Neuroscience is not pseudoscience as TED now claims. Science is science. The world has changed, whether you are ready or not.

          By "alerting" those new to TED that we cannot be trusted to give accurate information, insults not only those who can and do, but it insults the newcomer, who is probably smart enough to figure it out for him/her self if the person finds TED in the first place.

          We don't need thought police - especially a thought police person who is thoroughly unacquainted with all of the amazing and exciting discoveries in QM and neuroscience that have the ability to change the world, and who doesn't include links or names of places where such information and studies/research is found. It's a subtle and tricky ploy that suits TED's now known agenda.

          And now that you know that though it was not your "intent" to insult us, it was insulting, perhaps you can abstain from further uninformed and self-promoting pronouncements. And now I know what your intent really was.
  • Mar 23 2013: Strictly speaking, since all things come from God, and God is omnipresent, then nothing could come into existence that does not come from God. However, I am no expert in science, and would not claim to know what matter there was at the time of creation. From what I've heard, it seems there must have been some form of energy to start creation, that which we would call God. As Aquinas would prove, there must be something to bring this contingent world, which we know is in a state of existence, from nonexistence into existence. That being, which is from another realm of existence than this one that we know is called God. God is the first cause of everything; it is that simple. And to read it more eloquently than I could ever write, look to Aquinas Five Ways in the Summa.
  • Mar 18 2013: Words/ideas have creative powers. At first this could seem like something coming out of nothing, but it is not.
  • thumb
    Mar 18 2013: Is there a "nothing"? That is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

    Of course I believe that the God of Abraham is a man-made invention. I have learned to believe "evidence" and how to think logially. I have also learned how to "walk through" my fears rather than react blindly to them.
  • Mar 18 2013: No,I think something is from another something:)I am not competent to confirm or deny what u said is right or wrong.But I know if I want to teach others sth I must learn myself at first.If I am hungry now,I need to be ready food for my stomach,if not,can my empty stomach be full with nothing?LOLI wish It could be so.
  • Mar 17 2013: Chris,
    Hello, thanks for your question. If you take a look at what composes a human being in terms of mass and matter, we are primarily composed of nothing;(a tiny bit of matter, a lot of empty space and electromagnetism to be specific). Yet we, being nearly nothing, think, work, create, motivate and build our reality. There is great cerebral wealth reserved for those that contemplate such bold ideas about reality.

    Good luck
    Jason
  • thumb
    Mar 17 2013: Kind of interested in light. Light is almost nothing, and yet it's really substantial at the same time.
    • Mar 17 2013: Well if light is almost nothing, it's still something right? That makes a huge difference..

      Nothing vs something that is nearly nothing = Nothing vs something

      Although case of light is really interesting too.
  • thumb
    Mar 17 2013: In part it depends on how you define these words, something, nothing, time. vacuum, space, existing etc.

    Its funny, some deists and theists argue something can not come from nothing. But then contradict themselves and say god(s) can make the universe from nothing. And the gods themselves didn't need to come from anything. A few fallacies wrapped up in there I guess,

    I suggest as a species we don't have all the answers. In fact we are discussing a field that is not easy understood and the science may be speculative in some parts.

    Saying god did it, doesn't really explain how and what happened. Its like saying it was magic.
    • Mar 17 2013: In truth, I guess humans cannot really explain anything about the God question. People who think God is unreal cannot explain physically God's non-existence. People who think God is real cannot explain physically if God exists.(Although Christians say that we know God's existence by sacramental moments and with our heart)

      Is humanity going to be able to find the answer for this God question?? Or is this question going to remain unsolved?? That's the biggest question...
  • Mar 17 2013: Isn't this like everything? Spend 20 years tthinking and learning you will either be fortunate or unfortunate.
    Isn't that just like religion or everything else. Nothing is that simple.
  • Mar 16 2013: now as far as human knowledge goes no nothing cannot create something but a really cool theory a professor told me was this
    Imagine the universe is like it's a wave in water it starts out flat (absence of anything) and a wave starts now from its original state there are now two parts of the wave the top and bottom one being the opposite of the other so if we think about the big bang like this matter is created and a opposite opposing matter is also created (aka this would imply there is an anti universe) and that our universe is just the energy of that wave and it will eventually level out and die returning to its original state of nothingness when it pairs with the anti universe now there's no way to actually prove this theory in our lifetime but it's still non the less interesting