Scientists soon to create something out of nothing

Originally posted by Devino
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.

This is false. Heat energy comes from motion on the microscopic level. When there is no motion, you are at absolute zero and cannot possibly get colder. Absolute zero is −273.15°C.

Now, whether it's possible to get matter to that point in reality is a different question.

Well, it would certainly help relieve a headache I have had for years trying to comprehend how the gases and matter responsible for the big bang came into existence, I mean they can't have always been there right? There must have been nothing at somepoint, even though there would have been an empty void, no, i'm gonna stop now before I start. Roll on with the experiment, it's got me interested.

reply to post by Astyanax


Are they manipulating particles or energies that are already there in space?

Or is it like ripping apart zeros into +1s and -1s, which is how I've always imagined matter originally came into being?

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
Heat energy comes from motion on the microscopic level. When there is no motion, you are at absolute zero and cannot possibly get colder. Absolute zero is −273.15°C.

Now, whether it's possible to get matter to that point in reality is a different question.

Since we are talking about reality here then this is the question. Absolute zero is a concept and not a "real" achievable measured temperature.

Heat energy is motion and motion is existence. Everything that is in existence is in motion of some kind or another. This is an understanding gained from relativity. There is no such thing as absolute rest.

Your thinking in conceptual terms with cold yet cold is not some quantifiable object that can be measured. Things do not get colder, what happens is heat energy is removed.

From this I predict that absolute zero cannot be achieved.
From this I also have simplified Newton's laws of motion pertaining to inertia.
-Inertia is the resistance to acceleration.-
Since nothing is ever absolutely at rest then no need for that part and since turning and stopping are angular and negative accelerations then, well,... there you go.

reply to post by Devino

You may be on to something here. I was not thinking relativistically and now I'm unsure of my whole concept of heat.

According to the Wiki article Absolute zero, temperature is apparently defined in terms of entropy rather than particle motion.

Miserable Fail

Scientists: 0
God:1

Only God is the creator of the big bang. Lmao...they think they can break the laws of physics

Originally posted by Devino
From this I predict that absolute zero cannot be achieved.

Maybe not now, though I've wondered if if the "big freeze" that will result in the future from dark energy might make it possible? I don't know. Perhaps until we get a better handle on dark energy, it's hard to say. But even lacking that knowledge, we believe things will get colder, much colder (or more absent of heat as you put it).

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Only God is the creator of the big bang. Lmao...they think they can break the laws of physics

What laws of physics would it break (if you ignore the misleading title and read the article)? I don't know of any.

On the other hand, it sounds pretty difficult so I'm of the position that I'll believe it when I see it.

Its almost like there is a layer of energy that we can not see, touch, or hear. They are on to something if they are spitting out particles from nothing.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I have often wondered if there are other states of energy in matter that are not related to heat (and achieving absolute zero would, I think, prove this point). However, I highly doubt it. This is the fundamental point of Einstein's equation. Energy can be converted into mass and vice versa, they are inseparable.

What laws of physics would it break (if you ignore the misleading title and read the article)? I don't know of any.

Pertaining to the big bang theory...How about the first law of thermodynamics;

The first law of thermodynamics is an expression of the principle of conservation of energy.

The law expresses that energy can be transformed, i.e. changed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed.

Wiki
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed yet this is just the beginning of the problems. The big bang theory is in violation to all of the laws of physics and the theory of relativity as we understand them. The big bang theory is a kin to saying, "God did it".

Originally posted by Devino

What laws of physics would it break (if you ignore the misleading title and read the article)? I don't know of any.

Pertaining to the big bang theory...How about the first law of thermodynamics;

I was referring to the thread topic, not the big bang.

The big bang is another issue. It's thought that at the earliest stage of the big bang, the universal laws we know of today weren't yet in place, so it didn't necessarily break laws that didn't exist yet (if that hypothesis is true, though the inflation theory is speculative).

And it's not a totally unreasonable speculation to suggest that since the temperatures, etc present at the big bang exceed our knowledge and understanding, different laws might have applied in those conditions.

This article (or the publicists of the researchers) are pulling your leg to make headlines.

The physicists KNOW that a vacuum is not "nothing". The vacuum is, in fact, something.

Just read from this wikipedia article on Zero-point energy:

Vacuum energy is the zero-point energy of all the fields in space, which in the Standard Model includes the electromagnetic field, other gauge fields, fermionic fields, and the Higgs field. It is the energy of the vacuum, which in quantum field theory is defined not as empty space but as the ground state of the fields.

Did you read that underlined part?

It says that the vacuum is not "empty space". So these scientists wouldn't be making something out of "nothing" - they would be making something out of something new they did not know of before.

reply to post by BioChemMatt

Good point.
Well over a century ago this was referred to as an Aetherial energy or simply the aether. This concept was abandoned back then because it could not be measured and since then I think we have been heading down a dead end road. I think it is making a come back. Call it what you will, dark energy or dark matter...fine (I prefer Aether), but call it something and let's get on with some real science.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I was referring to the thread topic, not the big bang.

That's what I thought and I didn't want to get off topic but I thought the big bang theory is conducive to the OP. I mean this is not a matter of proving whether the big bang happened or not but actually how one can create something out of what appears to be nothing. Well, that and our misconceptions of scientific terms.

It's thought that at the earliest stage of the big bang, the universal laws we know of today weren't yet in place, so it didn't necessarily break laws that didn't exist yet...

This is a big non sequitur. Remove all of the universal laws that we know of (i.e. the known universal forces) to explain the big bang event yet, what then is the cause the big bang in the first place? Since these known Universal laws are said to have caused the big bang event, if we remove them then we remove the cause of this very event and therefore remove any possibility of the actual event from ever happening.

It sounds like they are just taking something and breaking it into smaller pieces of something, and causing smaller pieces to "magically" appear, but those pieces were probably already there in some form already too. I don't believe that nothing exists.

Originally posted by Devino

I was referring to the thread topic, not the big bang.

That's what I thought and I didn't want to get off topic but I thought the big bang theory is conducive to the OP.

Let's hope the mod agrees since I'm responding

Originally posted by Devino
what then is the cause the big bang in the first place?

you answered that with the wiki quote:

Originally posted by Devino
Wiki
The big bang theory is in violation to all of the laws of physics and the theory of relativity as we understand them. The big bang theory is a kin to saying, "God did it".

Until we can experimentally duplicate the conditions present, I don't have a problem with that approach.

Since these known Universal laws are said to have caused the big bang event

That's not what I heard. Who said that?

It's unlikely we will be able to achieve big bang pressures and temperatures in the near or foreseeable future since they far exceed our experimental capability. The "mini big bang" reference at the LHC is an understatement, it really comes nowhere near big bang conditions during say the hypothesized period of inflation.

reply to post by harrytuttle

I also picked up on that. They say there is nothing but then there is something, yet they are little somethings but are really nothing... It all gets real confusing. Why not simply say there is something there we just don't know what it is?

From the link in NewlyAwakened's post.

Absolute zero is the theoretical temperature at which entropy reaches its minimum value. The laws of thermodynamics state that absolute zero cannot be reached using only thermodynamic means.

Interesting, does this hint at another form of energy at play here unrelated to heat?

A system at absolute zero still possesses quantum mechanical zero-point energy, the energy of its ground state. The kinetic energy of the ground state cannot be removed. However, in the classical interpretation it is zero and the thermal energy of matter vanishes.

This appears to contradict itself. Absolute zero is a point at which a system can no longer release energy. But what is "Zero-point energy"?

Zero-point energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have; it is the energy of its ground state.

So from this point it cannot release any energy, right?

All quantum mechanical systems undergo fluctuations even in their ground state and have an associated zero-point energy, a consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Fluctuations? This means it moves thus releasing energy.

Herein lies the contradiction I mentioned.

Because of the uncertainty principle all physical systems, even at absolute zero temperature, have a zero-point energy that is greater than zero.

This is starting to remind me of Abbott and Costello's Who's on first. It's a never ending comedy!

There is matter in a vacuum?

Will the results reinforce the Stochastic Electrodynamics (SEED) or the quantum electrodynamics (QED) explanations of the zero-point fields?

reply to post by Arbitrageur

You know, I now realize how much I have missed these discussions of ours.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Devino
what then is the cause the big bang in the first place?

you answered that with the wiki quote:
...

Wiki

We cannot have heat without mass. Heat energy is conserved in mass, it does not and can not exist outside of mass. They are synonymous.
If we have mass during the early big bang event then we have other problems. Like relativity, i.e. nothing can escape a black hole including light and especially including mass escaping from a Universal singularity!

Originally posted by Devino
The big bang theory is in violation to all of the laws of physics and the theory of relativity as we understand them. The big bang theory is a kin to saying, "God did it".

Until we can experimentally duplicate the conditions present, I don't have a problem with that approach.

What approach, that God did it? I have a big problem with this. I don't have a problem with the idea of God running around making Big Bangs and such but to use this as a wild card whenever an accepted theory gets into a bind is not good science.

Originally posted by Devino
Since these known Universal laws are said to have caused the big bang event

That's not what I heard. Who said that?

OK, I give up. What have you heard? Perhaps the force that caused the big bang was magic? All of the big explosions I can think of rely on some force or another, i.e. chemical reaction, gravitational, EM energy or atomic energy.

If we remove all of the forces in the Universe to explain the big bang what force is left to create said big bang?

Originally posted by Devino
You know, I now realize how much I have missed these discussions of ours.

Yes we've had some interesting and thought provoking discussions.

Originally posted by Devino
The big bang theory is in violation to all of the laws of physics and the theory of relativity as we understand them. The big bang theory is a kin to saying, "God did it".

Until we can experimentally duplicate the conditions present, I don't have a problem with that approach.

What approach, that God did it?

akin to saying "God did it" doesn't necessarily mean God did it, but it means currently either unknowable or beyond the scope of science.

Originally posted by Devino
Since these known Universal laws are said to have caused the big bang event

That's not what I heard. Who said that?

OK, I give up. What have you heard? Perhaps the force that caused the big bang was magic?

I think "akin to saying god did it" is about where we're at, though apparently Hawking thinks it can be explained. But it might be clearer to say unknown or beyond the scope of science.

Here's what I heard:
www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...

Most scientists now believe that we live in a finite expanding universe which has not existed forever, and that all the matter, energy and space in the universe was once squeezed into an infinitesimally small volume, which erupted in a cataclysmic "explosion" which has become known as the Big Bang.

Thus, space, time, energy and matter all came into being at an infinitely dense, infinitely hot gravitational singularity, and began expanding everywhere at once.

The Big Bang is usually considered to be a theory of the birth of the universe, although technically it does not exactly describe the origin of the universe, but rather attempts to explain how the universe developed from a very tiny, dense state into what it is today.

That's background info leading up to the answer to your question here:

Neither does it attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the Big Bang, or even what lies outside the universe. All of this is generally considered to be outside the remit of physics, and more the concern of philosophy. Given that time and space as we understand it began with the Big Bang, the phase “before the Big Bang” is as meaningless as “north of the North Pole”.

So this is why "akin to saying God did it" applies, it's unknown and for now presumed unknowable. But don't misinterpret that to mean that it's saying God did it. Interpret it to mean beyond the current scope of our scientific understanding.

Now regarding the creation of laws and the supposed violation of those laws, here's what I heard:

Therefore, to those who claim that the very idea of a Big Bang violates the First Law of Thermodynamics (also known as the Law of Conservation of Energy) that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, proponents respond that the Big Bang does not address the creation of the universe, only its evolution, and that, as the laws of science break down anyway as we approach the creation of the universe, there is no reason to believe that the First Law of Thermodynamics would apply.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, on the other hand, lends theoretical (albeit inconclusive) support to the idea of a finite universe originating in a Big Bang type event. If disorder and entropy in the universe as a whole is constantly increasing until it reaches thermodynamic equilibrium, as the Law suggests, then it follows that the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have reached its equilibrium end state an infinite time ago, our Sun would have exhausted its fuel reserves and died long ago, and the constant cycle of death and rebirth of stars would have ground to a halt after an eternity of dissipation of energy, losses of material to black holes, etc.

In contrast, the proposed action in the OP is not a big bang like effect, it could theoretically be achieved within the laws of physics as I understand them. But since "the laws of science break down anyway as we approach the creation of the universe" I'm not sure we can describe what caused the big bang with a known law.

Stephen Hawking may think otherwise:

God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, says Hawking
I don't know how many other scientists share that view the Big Bang origin is within the scope of science. It's not my view and I think my earlier source may represent the mainstream view but I'm not 100% sure where the majority of cosmologists are at now with regard to this topic.