Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Nothing from nothing

  1. Oct 14, 2004 #1
    "nothing from nothing"

    Did "something" come from "nothing" or has "something" always been here? Maybe "something" is composed of "nothing", if that is possible.
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 14, 2004 #2
    Something can not be composed of nothing. Although that might vary depending on what you mean by "nothing".

    Physically, something cannot come out of nothing.

    Metaphysically, it is theoretically possible. Although theory is not always valid.
  4. Oct 14, 2004 #3
    Where did it come from?

    Where did the "material" universe come from? Did it come from the vacuum as current theory speculates? Was "material" always here? Why is there something instead of nothing?
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2004
  5. Oct 15, 2004 #4
    It's good that you ask this question separately as this is what I have been battling with in most of my responses to questions that directly or indirectly presuppose this. My own investigation of this issue suggests that 'Something' has always been without the notion of nothingness. I still insist that there has never been any causal or clarifying relation between the two. And since this is the case, none can give rise to the other. But the outstanding problem with there being something and something only is the problem of change. Something has a 'metaform' attached to change.......that is, the change of something from one form to another. This automatically raises the fundamental question as to whether something can take a permanent form.

    Can anything change for as many times as it likes but subsequently take a 'FINAL UNCHANGING FORM'?
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2004
  6. Oct 15, 2004 #5
    I just had a thought

    Is it a physical thing ???

    I feel it so i believe it is

    I know I'll have another one

    see I was right

    or was I

  7. Oct 19, 2004 #6
    Dimensionless universe

    Time and space is an illusion. I know I have talked about this before but I will say it again. Time and space is an illusion. That means that the center of the universe is everywhere. You are the center of the universe and so is everyone else. Motion is an illusion as well. When walking down the street you are constantly walking into the center of the universe. How can you go anywhere? Locally yes, you are going somewhere but on a universal scale we never go anywhere. Time is a measurement of motion and if things never go “anywhere” then time too is an illusion. The universe is dimensionless. The universe is a circle who's center is everywhere and circumference is nowhere.
  8. Oct 22, 2004 #7
    RAD4921 you have given several plain premises, yet no arguments
  9. Oct 22, 2004 #8
    Both statements are equivalent by the standards of logic. Saying that something has always existed, still does not answer the question of "Why has it always existed?" or "Why does eternity exist?" "Where did eternity come from?" In fact, by definition eternity comes from nothing.

    Existence is demonstrably paradoxical, that is, no matter what explanation you can come up with, they all defy observation. If eternity or infinity exists, no one can prove it. If something from nothing occurs, as quantum mechanics implies, no one can prove it precisely because such things are supernatural by definition. If it were otherwise, there would not be all the religious and philosophical disagrement around the subject.

    For me, existence is the only miracle I need. Whether it is a supernatural miracle or just an awe inspiring event makes no difference to me. I literally just cannot live without it, and I am grateful for experience even if I never know for sure. :tongue2:
  10. Oct 24, 2004 #9
    something had to have come from something. it couldn't come from nothing because there wouldn't be anthing to cause the change of it into something.
  11. Oct 27, 2004 #10
    out on a limb:smile::

    imagine nothing. if you cannot then it cannot even theoretically exist using the closest tool you have.

    if you can, then it is a figment of the imagination and it does exist, subjectively observed. (if everybody can honestly think of nothing (high level of meditation) then could it be thought of as 'objective'?

    if it can only be proven using mathematics and logic, one may argue that the language of maths/logic constructed the concept, therefore making it culturally dependent.
  12. Dec 3, 2004 #11
    You guys need to study some physics. Ever heard of the Schwinger mechanism? It is also referred to as spontaneous pair production.

    The QED vacuum is unstable in the presence of a strong electro-magnetic background field. Such a deformed vacuum state decays by emitting pairs of particles. This theoretical prediction of spontaneous particle creation was made many decades ago and is often referred to as the Schwinger Mechanism. Since then a variety of interesting aspects has been explored ranging from black hole quantum evaporation, to particle production in ultra-relativistic heavy ion collisions and in early universe physics.
  13. Dec 3, 2004 #12
    Not even an illusion can exist without something to prop it up.
  14. Dec 3, 2004 #13

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Oh nonsense! :rolleyes: First of all, the vacuum is hardly a vacuum. What we like to call the vacuum is simply how we project our inability to perceive what's there onto reality. It was a "vacuum" before someone supposed the Higgs field or dark energy, and perceived virtual particles or gravity waiting to constrict at the slightest presence of mass or acceleration . . . how exactly is that nothing?

    You are of course free to believe physical processes will one day explain all of reality and its origin, but as of now there are no known physical principles that explain where physicalness itself came from. Did it come from nothing or something?
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2004
  15. Dec 4, 2004 #14
    I agree. Quantum cosmology does not imply that something arises from nothing, it implies that it arose from something that is beyond quantum cosmology.

    There are three possibilities. Either something comes from nothing, or something has always existed, or we make a mistake when we assume that everything that is can be classified as being either something or nothing. The latter is my choice. Something and nothing are 'classical' or 'dual' terms, based on underlying assumptions, that cannot be properly applied to what is ultimate, just as 'wave' or 'particle' cannot be properly applied to what a wavicle really is.
  16. Dec 4, 2004 #15
    I can't disagree with that, and it seems to be more or less the current scientific view, with the possible exception of the last sentence. I suppose the problem is in specifying exactly what you mean by 'illusion'. I take it to mean 'not fundamental', or 'epiphenomenal'. Perhaps the Buddhist idea of 'dependent existence' is relevant. Everything that science studies has only a dependent existence, and the more science we do the clearer this becomes.
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2004
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook