Ask a Question
or
Create a Poll
  1. Home /
  2. Questions /
  3. Science
  4. / Physical Sciences
  5. / Space And Astronomy
  6. / Cosmology
  7. / Big Bang

by -O-uknow on October 30th, 2011

-O-uknow

Question

Help answer this question below.

Can there be any such thing as "nothing" out of which something comes that is not fallacy beginning with definition?

  • Like
  • Report
Share:
Other

Answers. 5 helpful answers below.

  • by Crowsnest on October 31st, 2011

    Crowsnest

    Phylosophy, pseudosciences or oppinions could give you answers, but I'll try to start from actual knowledge, that is the only thing, a logic explanation could start from.

    May be true or not, you could agree or not, but at least, I'll try to build a logic chain, from what is known nowadays.

    Nothing could be defined as a null space portion with an absolute temperature of 0ºK.
    At first sight, no matter, no energy, would mean nothing. But, if this state is studied with a higher detail, amazing things can be obtained.
    From the Uncertainty Satement (Heisenberg) Its impossible to know the possition and the momentum of a particle at the same time.
    From the classic physics it seems to be quite a single concept, that is understood as a fail in our skills for observing a system with no interferences. This is the explanation given at secondary school levels and even at higher levels too. But its meaning is different and a lot deeper.
    The real thing, is that a particle does not have a real possition, neither a real momentum, but a wide distribution of them at the same time. From this point of view, regadless we could measure with no interferences, the indetermination would remain. Its not a consequence of observation, but an intrinsic property of the particles.
    Applying this concept, the "nothing" would be a fixed, unique state, that can not exist.
    Even inside this Null portion of space, with a theoretical null energy, an Uncertainty would have to exist.
    From another point of view, this empty, cold and null portion of space, due to the Uncertainty statement, would necessarily have an amount of energy, the vacuum energy, that was demonstrated to exist, by Casimir and Polder.
    From the quantic point of view, vacuum is nothing else than an special wave function, that can be imagined as an infinite joint of oscillating points, that move in such a way, that the total energy equals zero, and that the total motion equals zero as well.
    Imagine two identical balls. Each one is joined to an identical spring. When one is moving up, the other one moves down at the same speed. If both balls are taken and computed at the same time, no motion would result, and no energy could be computed.
    Our Null portion of space, would have infinite "balls" inside it. (The model allows for infinite "balls", regardless the size of the sample volume).
    But as we have taken a discrete portion of space, and not a closed infinite portion, there would exist a border, limiting the Null portion.
    Then, our "balls" would not be balanced, becouse those located at the "border", would have no balls out , and infinite inside of them. Hence, neither energy nor total momentum, would be zero.
    This way, even in the "Nothing", there would exist an amount of energy, and hence, things could happen starting from this nothing.
    Lets assume a particle is born inside our nothing, due to this vacuum energy. One particle, with fixed properties, would attempt against the Uncertainty statement (Heisenberg), then a pair of particles will be created, that following the Pauli exclusion statement, will have different properties ......
    This way, from the "Nothing", energy and matter could appear.

    As a corollari. It can be easily deduced, that the effective temperature of such a Null portion of space would be over 0ºK.


    Regards

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by purplecows on May 2nd, 2012

    purplecows

    Yes, if something comes out of nothing, we can always redefine that nothing as something.

    So first we must define "thing" as contrasted with the absence of that thing.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Anonymous on October 31st, 2011

    Anonymous

    ex nihilo nihil fit (no exceptions).

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by playdoo on October 31st, 2011

    playdoo

    nothing implies absence. we know zero plus zero equals zero. If you are refering to the big bang nothing is the best unrefined definition we have of what we cannot define. However now we are beginning to understand our understanding of space as nothing is in reality very wrong. There are exotic realities far removed from our experience The other issue relates to our understanding of time. I suspect much more is hidden then yet discovered. Only time will tell.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by skep on October 31st, 2011

    skep

    Here's an idea, if you do not have the education to understand evolution, just deny it and be happy, for god's sake.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

You're reading Can there be any such thing as "nothing" out of which something comes that is not fallacy beginning with definition?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

Answerbag

a Demand Media company