Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E. T. who wrote (70624)	9/23/2003 12:09:57 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

He asked a question about the nature of the universe (i.e. whether something can appear out of nothing), and I replied to it. The answer is "Yes". I made a small mistake in my reply to Fred, which you quoted - particles appearing in vacuum is called "quantum fluctuation". "Casimir Effect" is one observable proof of this, perhaps the most widely known to laymen like ourselves. the "nothing" in a vacuum is different from the nothing that existed before the universe came into being Interesting. I have not heard of any such argument within the realm of physics (which is not to say it does not exist, as my knowledge in this matter, a hobby, is not exhaustive), but it is an interesting philosophical argument anyway. This begs the question "What is 'the universe'?" Is it the collection of mass, their velocity, etc and the rules governing those bodies? Or what? In any case, I am not sure if you can argue convincingly that the nothingness before Big Bang is any different than the nothingness in a vacuum today. Vacuum = Nothing to start with, no particles, NOTHING. Take a look at Big Bang theories. They are quite interesting, and pretty much all involve quantum fluctuations in one way or another. The latter particle would truly come from nothing, whereas the former appears out of "nowhere" but is of this universe. So when it is said, something appears from nothing, that is not exactly correct unless that "something" is a new addition or mass that did not exist in the universe before. Hm. How is it "of this universe" if it suddenly appears out of nowhere, say, in a test tube that was completely void of any particles just moments ago? And it does seem like it is a new addition of mass (unless there is another, mirror fluctuation in some other corner of the universe, but I am going beyond my depth here :-) In any case, this is an area where even the most qualified scientists are practically groping in the dark. If one thing is certain, though, it is that particles do appear out of nowhere in a vacuum. Hence the answer to that guy's question is "Yes". I love it when you share your physics knowledge. Thanks. That's kind of you. It is a hobby for me, one I enjoy reading about, but that's about it. At least, I know that "singularity" is not "a particle". "Physicist", indeed...

To: E. T. who wrote (70624)	10/1/2003 11:51:19 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 70976

Actually, I have read arguments for something being created out of nothing and it had nothing to do with "it" coming from somewhere else. The basis of these arguments is along the lines if you were to mix matter with anti-matter you get nothing therefore it must be possible to move the other way around. Reality as we know is simply an illusion. The universe is in a constant state of flux. I think it was Hawking (may be Penrose?) who argued these fluctuations around the boundary of a black hole can create something out of nothing because one of the twine pairs can be sucked into the black hole before it can find its twin counterpart and annihilate it. I think there is some experimental data to support these arguments. But you may very well be right about the the "nothing" in a vacuum is different from the nothing that existed before the universe came into being for different reasons. Stated simply, the laws of physics as we know them did not apply at the moment of Big Bang. So it is possible and perhaps even likely that there was a very different "nothingness" then than our present variety. ST