Is it possible for something to come from nothing?

The problem is that these particles already have energy, which means the medium in which virtual particles/anti-particles have been created must also have/has the energy (no matter how small or undetectable this energy is), otherwise virtual particles/anti-particles would not be created in the first place since you don't have energy to create something/anything, if there was no energy at all.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You may want to read up on time-energy uncertainty.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The conclusion we can draw from there being no identifiable cause is that cause and effect as we know it does not apply to quantum fluctuations that's not enough to prove that something can come from nothing. It could only be scientific to say that we may never know what causes quantum fluctuations just like saying we may never observe particles in quantum superposition.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you hear yourself? Cause and effect NOT applying is definitely from nothing.

 

@Syne

Speaking colloquially it's from nothing and I said cause and effect as we know it.​

 

"As we know it" basically constitutes a science of the gaps. Whatever we cannot currently comprehend is believed to be available to science some indeterminable and possibly near-infinite time in the future.

 

By *as we know it* I mean something that we don't know of may be the case, it doesn't have to go to science of the gaps.

 

Ah, here we go. One of those theists who tries to make science out to be a religion. I believe you use the term "science of the gaps" later on.

What a joke.

 

No. But then I would assume that something can't go to nothing.

 

so you equate the term 'belief' with religion??

 

If "something we don't know of" isn't science of the gaps then it is an acceptance of mystery without any attempt at a parsimonious explanation.

There is no making science out to be a religion in observing the simple and obvious fact that some people make broad claims, even beyond the most speculative of science. If evidence doesn't not provide us with at least some reasonable inference then parsimony is the only guiding principle.

Parsimony requires that we don't just settle for some mysterious cause. That's a primary motivator for scientific progress.

 

I read about this on some other physics forum, but for everything I saw it does not say where this energy comes from.

 

Seriously, don't rely solely on forums and read up on Alan Guth's description of the universe as the "ultimate free lunch" and how it relates to the zero-energy universe hypothesis.

 

Another crackpot?

 

Can you explain what, exactly, in my quote can be considered crackpot? Everything mentioned is pretty ordinary in the standard model cosmology. Now you can have Guth's "ultimate free lunch" without a zero-energy universe, but then you are forced to rely on an infinite regression.

 

My mistake, I thought you were thinking Guth is an crackpot. Entirely wrong impression.

 

Objection: Then it not nothing.

Objection: it is not a tptal void or empty space.

Objection: Energy can convert into matter.

 

Well, I see space being a form of energy.

 

I disagree

space is not a form of energy , but rather ROOM for energy and matter to manifest

space doesn't interfer or contribute in any way with energy and matter

 

from another point of view you say that space came first , before energy and matter

the thing is though , what would bring space into existence in the absence of energy and matter ? and really be infinite in its existence