question for the y.e.c

Originally posted by RJHinds
From nothing only nothing is the result. Something has never come from nothing. Quantum mechanics requires something, so it does not come from nothing, numbnuts.

The Instructor

It will be a cold day in hell when you can tell me something about Quantum Mechanics.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
It will be a cold day in hell when you can tell me something about Quantum Mechanics.

Can you define nothing for me?
Kelly

Originally posted by lemon lime
But according to many scientists the universe itself came from nothing...

That is a rather gross mischaracterization that makes me doubt you've done much serious reading on the matter. The Big Bang theory posits that the universe began as a singularity of some kind, and does not contend that this singularity came "from nothing." There are many hypotheses concerning whence the singularity came from, but nobody is getting grant money by saying "it came from nothing."

Originally posted by KellyJay
Can you define nothing for me?
Kelly

If you told me the context; yes.
And if you were interested I would.
But we both know you are not interested.

Originally posted by Soothfast
That is a rather gross mischaracterization that makes me doubt you've done much serious reading on the matter. The Big Bang theory posits that the universe began as a singularity of some kind, and does not contend that this singularity came "from nothing." There are many hypotheses concerning whence the singularity came from, but nobody is getting grant money by saying "it came from nothing."

That is why I say that there isn't any, and I mean anything that touches
on where the universe comes from outside of God creating it. You cannot
say the universe came from the singularity, because when you boil that
down the universe is the singularity just condensed, so the question has
not ever been addressed outside of something from nothing.
Kelly

Originally posted by wolfgang59
If you told me the context; yes.
And if you were interested I would.
But we both know you are not interested.

Context, you need context to describe nothing?
Kelly

Originally posted by wolfgang59
If you told me the context; yes.
And if you were interested I would.
But we both know you are not interested.

I have asked you twice now, I'm interested.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
That is why I say that there isn't any, and I mean anything that touches
on where the universe comes from outside of God creating it. You cannot
say the universe came from the singularity, because when you boil that
down the universe is the singularity just condensed, so the question has
not ever been addressed outside of something from nothing.
Kelly

In the article http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/science/something-from-nothing-is-a-quantum-possibility posted by Wolfgang, it says this:

Some theorists now think they can go even further, and use the physics of something for nothing to explain the origin of literally everything. They claim that the Big Bang from which the entire universe emerged was the result of convulsions in the quantum vacuum which took place around 14 billion years ago. New theoretical work on the nature of matter suggests we may now have to regard even ourselves to be manifestations of the quantum vacuum.

Even here, despite the unfortunate use of the phrase "something from nothing" in the title, there is no contention that the universe really came from absolutely nothing at all. A "quantum vacuum" is still something.

What's this god thing you're rambling on about? Are you a dyslexic canine aficionado? As has been doubtless said thousands of times before here, god is just a cop-out. Really, it's getting tired: "Infinite regress! You need a beginning, and that beginning must be god. QED." Right, and how did god begin? "He always was." Okay, well, how about just cutting out the middleman and saying energy always was? "No way! That's totally irrational!"

Please. Brush the Cheeto dust off your man boobs and go out and get some fresh air.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
If you told me the context; yes.
And if you were interested I would.
But we both know you are not interested.

Well, he is more interested than RJ.....

Originally posted by KellyJay
Context, you need context to describe nothing?
Kelly

Context? Of course!
For instance there is the nothing of Space, the nothing in my back pocket, the nothing inside RJHinds' head and the nothing in my son's savings account. All different.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Context? Of course!
For instance there is the nothing of Space, the nothing in my back pocket, the nothing inside RJHinds' head and the nothing in my son's savings account. All different.

For crying out loud, do you know how to define nothing or no?
Put it in the context we have been using the word!
Kelly

Originally posted by Soothfast
In the article http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/science/something-from-nothing-is-a-quantum-possibility posted by Wolfgang, it says this:
[quote]Some theorists now think they can go even further, and use the physics of something for nothing to explain the origin of literally everything. They claim that the Big Bang from which the entire universe em ...[text shortened]... tional!"

Please. Brush the Cheeto dust off your man boobs and go out and get some fresh air.

Are you suggesting that energy is eternal and at some point in the history of
all things it did something that caused the universe we see today?
Kelly

Originally posted by Soothfast
That is a rather gross mischaracterization that makes me doubt you've done much serious reading on the matter. The Big Bang theory posits that the universe began as a singularity of some kind, and does not contend that this singularity came "from nothing." There are many hypotheses concerning whence the singularity came from, but nobody is getting grant money by saying "it came from nothing."

You are referring to one of the something from something theories. I was talking about the theories that literally contend something was able to come from nothing. Hawking explained one of those theories, it briefly goes like this: Nothing somehow split into two separate material values, one negative and one positive. For the time being they are separated (by what I don't know) and if they ever interact with one another the two realities would cancel each other out, bringing it all back to nothing again. Hawking doesn't claim to subscribe to this theory, but maybe you should take this up with him if you think he got it wrong.

I don't understand why you would assume I was talking about a something from something theory when I was clearly talking about something from nothing. Would you care to explain how you could have made that mistake?

Originally posted by KellyJay
For crying out loud, do you know how to define nothing or no?
Put it in the context we have been using the word!
Kelly

Hey! Leave the poor duffus alone! If he don't know nothing then what can you do? Some people you just can't explain nothing to... they never get it. 😕😛

Originally posted by KellyJay
Care to define nothing for me?

As I define it, it is the lack of all things.
It is not a place holder for all things, because that would be something.
Nor is it a field of this, that, and the other things, where much of
everything else was, because all of those things would be something.
Nothing to even describe it gives it shape making it something. ...[text shortened]...
at least in my humble opinion much more magical than suggesting that
God eternal acted.
Kelly

The problem there is that you defined nothing as being without place or time, and then announced that it changing into something is nonsensical. You are correct, with that definition of nothing, change becomes nonsensical.
However, most ideas regarding the beginning of the universe either postulate the existence of something prior to the universe, or they truly consider the possibility of something from nothing, but rather than calling it 'from' or 'changed into' it is better to simply say there is no before.