It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientists soon to create something out of nothing

page: 1
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Under just the right conditions---which involve an ultra-high-intensity laser beam and a two-mile-long particle accelerator---it could be possible to create something out of nothing, according to University of Michigan researchers. The scientists and engineers have developed new equations that show how a high-energy electron beam combined with an intense laser pulse could rip apart a vacuum into its fundamental matter and antimatter components, and set off a cascade of events that generates additional pairs of particles and antiparticles.


Matter and antimatter destroy each other when they come into contact under normal conditions.

"But in a strong electromagnetic field, this annihilation, which is typically a sink mechanism, can be the source of new particles," Nees said, "In the course of the annihilation, gamma photons appear, which can produce additional electrons and positrons."


"The basic question what is a vacuum, and what is nothing, goes beyond science," he said. "It's embedded deeply in the base not only of theoretical physics, but of our philosophical perception of everything---of reality, of life, even the religious question of could the world have come from nothing."

Science News
edit on 12/8/2010 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by AnteBellum
 


Just wanted to note that one doesn't have to be a scientist to make something out of nothing, we atsers do it on a rather regular basis.


As far as the sci-phylosophical element of the discovery, it's going to take a little while to wrap that around the old noodle ... it is however a fascinating example that pretty much all intellectual pursuits, when deconstructed, seem to lead in the same existential questions.

Cheers for the info.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Flag on the field...

You cannot make something from nothing...Thermodynamics laughs at your feeble mortal attempt to do so...

however, it would be interesting to see this experiment overall. bit like ripping apart a cloth and yanking out its original threads if my exceptionally simple primate understanding of the concept is concerned.

I wonder though...is ripping a hole in space, no matter how small, a good idea?

I can offhand think of about 300 different sci-fi horror movies that could use that plot as a catalist for unholy hell...maybe that is what a black hole truely is...a freaking funnel to a different dimension by some jacktard civilization that poked a hole in the space bag we live in to see what happens.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
There is no such thing as nothing.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
"Accelerator-Tea, Earl Grey, hot!...."



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Flag on the field...

You cannot make something from nothing...Thermodynamics laughs at your feeble mortal attempt to do so...
True, but they may be mis-stating the experiment.

They mention the use of an ultra-high powered laser beam...which is energy. We know that mass can be converted into energy in an atomic or nuclear bomb, and this doesn't violate E=mc^2, it follows it.

What if they are just trying to reverse that equation and turn energy into matter (per E=mc^2)? I don't think it's physically impossible but it might be the first time anyone has done it, if they do it?



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Isen't this what Nikola Tesla was saying this whole time?



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   

What if they are just trying to reverse that equation and turn energy into matter (per E=mc^2)? I don't think it's physically impossible but it might be the first time anyone has done it, if they do it?


That's pretty much how it sounded to me too. The more intriguing thing for me, is that it sounds like there is mass to be found within the vacuum, as a result of the collision?



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
My God... they're just asking to summon Cthulhu.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
That's pretty much how it sounded to me too. The more intriguing thing for me, is that it sounds like there is mass to be found within the vacuum, as a result of the collision?
The Quantum foam theory says that

the uncertainty principle allows particles and energy to briefly come into existence, and then annihilate, without violating conservation laws.
So they pop into existence and must annihilate without any external energy source. Perhaps with an external energy source, conservation laws can still be maintained if the particles pop into existence and don't annihilate?

Exactly how that would work I don't know, but it would appear not to violate any laws of physics I know of.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Impossible.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   
A vacuum is something which is entirely empty.

So, a vacuum is not what scientists are hoping to create from, even if they would like to think so.

In fact, if space vacuums are full of this and that, they are not vacuums. So they are wrongly named.

Nothing can be created from nothing, whatever scientists think.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by catwhoknows
A vacuum is something which is entirely empty.
Maybe according to classical physics but not according to modern physics.
Vacuum

In quantum mechanics, the vacuum is defined as the state (i.e. solution to the equations of the theory) with the lowest energy. To first approximation, this is simply a state with no particles, hence the name.

Even an ideal vacuum, thought of as the complete absence of anything, will not in practice remain empty. Consider a vacuum chamber that has been completely evacuated, so that the (classical) particle concentration is zero. The walls of the chamber will emit light in the form of black body radiation.



In fact, if space vacuums are full of this and that, they are not vacuums. So they are wrongly named.

I think it would be more accurate to say that you have refused to accept the definitions that are commonly in use.


Nothing can be created from nothing, whatever scientists think.
They said create from a vacuum. You would like people to stop using the word vacuum but wanting it to be so doesn't make it so.

They are going to keep using the word vacuum to describe something which is empty of all matter, but yet is not completely empty nonetheless. Your complaining about the common use of that word isn't going to change anything. Maybe you should accept it?

Besides, according to your definition of a vacuum which is absolutely nothing, it doesn't exist in our universe, so why would we need such a word for something that doesn't exist?
edit on 9-12-2010 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Physics is an unchangeable fact.

Modern physics has therefore misused the word 'vacuum'.

Therefore, so-called vacuums known today are not vacuums, therefore scientists should rename them as non-vacuums - so they are not going to discover anything out of nothing, a true vacuum.

So, I repeat, nothing comes from nothing in the scientific world.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by catwhoknows
 
So let me see if I understand your proposal:
1. stop using the word vacuum since there's no such thing.
2. Space with no matter in it should be called a non-vacuum.
3. space with matter in it is also called a non-vacuum.

Then would you coin a new word to describe space with no matter in it? How do you distinguish the non-vacuum containing matter from the non-vacuum containing no matter, when writing papers, etc. What word should they use? "non-vacuum" won't cut it.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yes.

I would say to scientists exactly this:

"Stop lying that vacuums contain absolutely nothing, since you are now going in there and using xyz particles - these are NOT vacuums."

"Use a new name for anything containing totally nothing." Of which there is nothing.

"Admit that there is nothing whatsoever anywhere in the universe which is made of nothing."



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


So they pop into existence and must annihilate without any external energy source. Perhaps with an external energy source, conservation laws can still be maintained if the particles pop into existence and don't annihilate?

One trick would be to remove a member of each particle pair from the scene so that the other has nothing to annhilate with. Event horizons do this niftily, which is why black holes emit Hawking radiation.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by catwhoknows
 


Nothing can be created from nothing

This is correct, and furthermore "Nothing" is the only thing that can be created from nothing. After all "Nothing" is actually no-thing. It is that which does not exist.

Our understanding of science is full of misconceptions and therefore requires one to constantly translate what is being said. Creating something out of nothing actually means creating something out of stuff that we did not know was there before. So when we read certain words like these a little translation can go a long way.

A Vacuum is space that has less pressure than a so called non-vacuum or normal atmospheric pressure.
There is no such thing as an absolute vacuum.

Cold is that which has a less amount of heat than something else.
There is no such thing as absolute zero or a state of absolutely no heat energy.

The same thing goes for such words as darkness, negative electricity and even death. There is the existence of a thing and there is the absence of the existence of a thing yet once a thing comes into existence it will forever have been and never will it have not been. I hope that makes sense.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
One trick would be to remove a member of each particle pair from the scene so that the other has nothing to annhilate with. Event horizons do this niftily, which is why black holes emit Hawking radiation.
So remove one of the pair by zapping it with a high powered laser? Will that work? It sounds plausible but I never heard of anyone doing it.

Yes the black hole takes care of one particle when it creates hawking radiation, that's right!



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   
To those who say this is impossible:

Why? Because to date no one has been able to do it?

Because people say it cant be done based on theories?

One thing we shold recognize is just how wrong we can be. We are still trying to understand our existance and how it all works together. Saying something is impossible because someone had a thought that says its impossible, does not make it so.

If we conducted research on the basis tha something is impossible or possible, we would still be traveling around in sailing vessels and horse drawn wagons.




top topics



 
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join