Replies

Simple math: (Something)+(-Something)=Zero. If you start with nothing and you have the inherent capability to create Something and the negative of Something (i.e. -Something) then you can indeed create Something from Nothing. Of course to prove that this actually happened you need to go out and find that -Something. We've seen bits and pieces (of anti-matter) but not, as far as I know, a full up universe full of the stuff.

For any lurkers who might be thinking this sounds like sheer science fiction, here are a couple of my prior posts on the topic:

Face it, matter appears out of nothingness all the time! /sarcasm off
It does -- check out "vacuum fluctuations" in any physics text. Continuous virtual particle-pair formation out of nothing was a theoretical result of the equations of quantum physics, and was shown to be real in Willis Lamb's work on the fine structure of the hydrogen atom (for which he won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1955), and as the source of the Casimir Effect
So since the reality of matter originating from nothing has been known since freaking NINETEEN FIFTY FIVE, perhaps you and the other anti-science blockheads could explain why you're *still* so ignorant of it that all you can do is spew unfounded sarcasm on the subject, as if you have any idea what in the hell you're talking about and are arrogantly qualified to ridicule the scientists (and science-literate Freepers) who do?

(That last question should be asked of sirchtruth as well...)

And:

What law of science creates something from nothing?
Here you go: Vacuum fluctuations. And: The Casimir effect: a force from nothing .
Or the whole Universe for that matter:
"There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero."
-- Steven Hawking, 1988, "1988. A Brief History of Time", p. 129

In a real sense, the "something" in our Universe is just a fancy arrangement of a whole lot of nothing.

Interesting quote from Hawking.

A couple of nitpicky questions, since it sounded like he was handwaving...

"The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. "

I was under the impression that the lifetime of the particle/antiparticle pairs was inversely related to their mass.

IF I remembered that correctly,
AND IF it applies in this context,

...how does such a massive universe have such a long lifetime?

"In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero."

This sounds like hand waving. How 'uniform' is 'approximately enough' uniform for the cancellation to be exact?

Did the uniformity of the Universe change since the big bang, due to inflation?

And (just to be annoying) what happens if the uniformity of the Universe exceeds the threshold for the cancellation of negative and positive energy? Do you get an analogy to the "time traveler shooting his own grandfather" paradox?

And two more questions, in the vain hopes of getting someone to post a picture of Lisa Randall:

1) Are these predictions affected at all by the number of extra dimensions predicted in various string theories (as certain dimensions are "rolled up" into really, really, tiny volumes)?

2) Why did inflation (apparently) only affect the specific macroscopic dimensions we see now, and not the others?

Full Disclosure: Yes,I'm procrastinating on my exercise again. Buhler?....Buhler?

Cheers!