Scientists soon to create something out of nothing

reply to post by Kailassa

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?

Don't know. The article seems to suggest it's both: first they do the ripping, then they generate other particles from the debris of nothingness.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

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.

I think this is the same idea that I had. To put it a bit more critically I think this proves how hard it is for men of science to admit that they do not know. These words are not hard to say and is rather therapeutic, "I don't know".

the Big Bang does not address the creation of the universe, only its evolution,

This was brought to my attention in another ATS thread and it caught me off guard. I thought the member that made this comment was joking. It has been my understanding and memory of the big bang theory as the theory that explains the origin or creation of the known Universe. It seems to me that the way in which the big bang theory has been explained over the decades is as a Universal creation theory. Now it appears that this is not true and it has become a theory of the evolution of the Universe only. Hmm, I don't know...

I would like to comment on some of your external quotes to make a point.

Most scientists now believe that we live in a finite expanding universe which has not existed forever

I would agree, the Universe is finite. Not only having a beginning and an end but also having measure.

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

We went from a finite Universe to an infinite origin. I see this as a contradiction. If the Universe is finite then so should this supposed singularity and its energy. I suppose we could say that an infinite amount of energy can spring fourth from within a finite Universe, or we could say God did it. I want to know from where this seemingly infinite amount of energy is coming from and what it has to do with a big bang.

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

I agree on both points yet I would replace the words "technically it does not exactly" with "it does not in any way".

Neither does it attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the Big Bang

I think that this is what the OP is attempting to explain but not in a matter of a big bang nor a single event. Perhaps periodic expansions of energy into space from an unseen force or, in this case, a seen and deliberately applied force.

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

There is no reason to assume that the laws of physics break down, this is only needed to try and explain the big bang theory. If there is no law of thermodynamics then there is no energy and no energy no Universe. This is circular reasoning and will get us no where. I think that what is needed is to remove the words 'big bang' from the big bang theory and we will progress much faster in our understanding of the Universe.

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.

I agree with you. I believe what we have here is a possible creation theory that does not need a big bang. I think this has the possibilities of some great discoveries.

This is not new.

The US fed has been creating something out of nothing for years.

This is awesome. You guys realize what this is, right? This is the Star Trek replicator. You can create anything you want.

Maybe this is old technology.

Maybe thats why the government isnt worried about spending us into oblivion, they knew this was coming. Who cares about how much debt there is when you can create all the gold you want?

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Kailassa

 

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?

Don't know. The article seems to suggest it's both: first they do the ripping, then they generate other particles from the debris of nothingness.

I have a thought.
Let's consider elementary particles, inertia and relativity for a minute. Elemetary particles could exist in the vacuum of space or elsewhere possibly without any direct reaction to atomic particles, i.e. normal mass, until some energy is applied. Theoretically they are not considered normal reactive mass yet they can be effected by energy.

If we were to apply energy, or a force, to some elementary or subatomic particles in the correct manner we could accelerate these particles. Upon accelerating any mass, subatomic or atomic, we would expect to increase the mass through inertia, or called inertial mass. The acceleration of these particles by a force would theoretically increase their mass and slow them down as they pop into existence as far as we are concerned.

The amount of force needed to accelerate these elementary particles might be very small but increases exponentially up to the point of becoming a particle, or an atom, and beyond.

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

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

There is no reason to assume that the laws of physics break down, this is only needed to try and explain the big bang theory. If there is no law of thermodynamics then there is no energy and no energy no Universe.

Good reply, referring to the whole post.

Regarding the laws of physics breaking down, I would rephrase that to say it's the "laws of physics as we know them" that cease to function at some point as we move closer to the instant of the big bang, and not any failure of nature to follow true natural laws.

We see galaxies moving apart. As we work backwards to the big bang, everything keeps getting closer together, more hot and more dense. The hottest temperature, pressure, density condition our KNOWN theories handle would be the planck temperaure

As for most other Planck units, a Planck temperature of 1 (unity) is a fundamental limit of quantum theory, in combination with gravitation, as presently understood. At temperatures greater than or equal to TP, current physical theory breaks down because we lack a theory of quantum gravity.

But just because our theory runs out of steam, so to speak, at the Planck temperature, doesn't mean the real physical laws of the universe do. The universe is not bound by our lack of understanding (of what happens above the Planck temperature, as we believe occurred during the big bang, for example).

So my postulate is as follows:

1. There are real physical laws of the universe. Our knowledge of these laws is incomplete, and possibly in some cases, nonexistent. They are never violated.

2. There are physical laws as we understand them. They are limited by our knowledge and understanding, have limitations, and may not even be correct in all cases (such as conditions during the first fraction of a second after the big bang). These laws can be violated because such violation may be only due to our lack of understanding, and not a real violation of a true natural law, as in #1

www.pbs.org...

the Planck temperature was reached 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang got under way. At that instant, known as one Planck time, the entire universe is thought to have been the Planck length, or 10^-35 meters.

The Planck temperature is the highest temperature in conventional physics because conventional physics breaks down at that temperature. Above 10^32 K—that is, earlier than one Planck time—calculations show that strange things, unknown things, begin to happen to phenomena we hold near and dear, like space and time. Theory predicts that particle energies become so large that the gravitational forces between them become as strong as any other forces. That is, gravity and the other three fundamental forces of the universe—electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces—become a single unified force. Knowing how that happens, the so-called "theory of everything," is the holy grail of theoretical physics today.

So perhaps as that suggests, the elusive "Theory of everything" will describe how the big bang might have followed natural laws prior to 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. But until we have that explanation, it's not as absurd as you suggest to say that the big bang might have been following some natural laws that we just don't know about.

That really shouldn't be too surprising, as we can't conceivably duplicate those conditions, so how can we study them to determine the applicable laws?

But I'm ok with saying "we don't know" what happened prior to 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. The article confirms this is the case:

"We do not know enough about the quantum nature of gravitation even to speculate intelligently about the history of the universe before this time," writes Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg about this up-against-a-brick-wall instant in his book The First Three Minutes. "Thus, whatever other veils may have been lifted, there is one veil, at a temperature of 1032 K, that still obscures our view of the earliest times." Until someone comes up with a widely accepted quantum theory of gravity, the Planck temperature, for conventional physicists like Steven Weinberg, will remain the highest temperature...

How about a boundlessly high temperature? Great! After all, classical general relativity calls for an infinitely high temperature at the very start of the universe, as well as in the centermost point, the singularity, of black holes.

I struggle as much as you do with the infinite temperatures and densities claimed to have been present prior to 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. My brain evolved to figure out how to attach 2 sticks together to knock a banana out of a tree, not understand infinite density.

I'll leave you with this quote from the story in the OP:

"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."

I wouldnt say they are creating something from nothing. A two mile long device that costs more than my whole neighborhood will make in their whole life is not nothing. And that is the deepest thought around,what is nothing. Is that possible? even if you have just air around you thier is oxygen and maybe germs or airborne micro organisms in it. So,what is nothing. Something like it sure doesnt exist on earth.

The whole premise of this article is based on faulty thinking. The article clearly states that you need:
1. Ultra High intensity laser
2. Two-mile-long particle accelerator
Since when did those objects get reduced to nothing?

Hey guys, I can create something out of nothing too. All I need is 1 bottled water and 1 rope. I can create a slingshot! Amazing! no?

reply to post by Devino

I have a thought.

And I, as I have already said, do not know. In my humble opinion, anyone who dares to speculate about bleeding-edge theoretical physics is either a respected theoretical physicist or is acting... bravely.

Sad that no one can see that the 'nothing' is referring to the extra quantum dimensions of our 3 + 1 space-time universe. The extra dimensions where particle components disappear to, and reappear from, during collider particle collisions. The extra closed quantum dimensions that are included in the aether zero-point-field quantum foam underlying our universe. Seems that there are no fans of the Extended Heim Theory (of everything) to be found here.

reply to post by AnteBellum




but isn't this the final step that John Dee said the 'Macrobes' told him humanity needed to discover before they would allow us to communicate with them on 'the level' ?

to turn energy into matter?


if anyone knows what I'm referring to ... thumbs up to you!...

-

Originally posted by bdb818888
There is no such thing as nothing.

There is only the absence of something.

"Let there be light" and 7o4 saw the light, that it was 7oo4:

Seriously the origins of the universe are a religious interpretation. The zero point energy crowd that preach classic wave theory have my support. Creating matter from energy in the zero point energy field should give us a little more insight into the interface between human experience and the Quantum vacuum. If that helps us eventually build more accurate clocks or some other real tangible gain then I'm all for spending the money.

Making electron/positron pairs from high intensity E&M fields is not making "something" out of "nothing".

It's making "something" out of "something".

The point being that even massless photons are every bit as physically real as fermions and have been included in fundamental equations of quantum mechanics since, oh Albert Einstein's time.

reply to post by mbkennel
Right.

I have no idea where the OP got the thread title "Scientists soon to create something out of nothing,", but the title of the article linked to the OP is:

"Theoretical breakthrough: Generating matter and antimatter from the vacuum"

As many people have pointed out, a vacuum isn't nothing, so the title of the thread is wrong. Maybe the OP should have used the same title as in the story they linked to.

I'm not sure I'm following the article correctly - or if the people writing it are using the correct terminology.

This has long been speculated that a violation of Planck energy would create a 'spray' of particle radiation. Although the energy densities required are absolutely enormous. This is nothing really all that new of an idea - some have even postulated that this would be a method of peering into a parallel dimension (or bringing energy into/out of said dimension). This is, of course, speculative.

What the article seems to imply is that the initial 'punch' would be made that would create a chain-reaction that could be controlled in a manner that results in over-unity. A sort of "mini-big-bang," if you will.

Or that is how I read it. It is very speculative, and bound to be very controversial - but it is an area of physics I am very interested in. However, I could also be projecting my own interests and theories onto this article and missing the point.