Q: Can one truly create something from nothing? If matter formed from energy (as in the Big Bang expansion), where did the energy come from?

Physicist: That right there is one of the great unsolved questions.  Every experiment that’s ever been done (on this subject) verifies the conservation of mass and energy.  While the amount of mass or the amount of energy may change (they can be interchanged), the sum of the two is absolutely invariant.

This naturally leads to the question above.  There are plenty of theories bouncing around, but without a couple more big bangs to do tests on, it’s unlikely we’ll ever know for sure.  As we learn, many of the theories will be ruled out, but we’ll probably never be for sure sure.  Here are some examples that almost certainly won’t pan out:

Spectacular Uncertainty: Energy and time cannot both be exactly known.  Over any time scale there is always a little energy error, but the larger the time scale the smaller the energy error.  Generally, this takes the form of one or two extra particles that last effectively no time.  For example; gluons (the carrier of the nuclear strong force) usually don’t even exist long enough to cross an atomic nucleus at the speed of light.  But maybe, just maybe, the unimaginable amount of matter in the universe is some kind of amazing quantum clerical error.  You could tie in the anthropic principle (if there weren’t lots of matter there would be no one around to see it, so since we can see it…) if you want, but still.  That shouldn’t explain there being any more matter than the absolute minimum amount needed to have observers.

It is what it is: Maybe mass/energy conservation only works for T>0, but doesn’t mean bupkis for T=0.  In other words, there’s an unexplainable asterisk on the law.

God/Goddess/Gods/Higher Power: Sure.

All this has happened before, and all this will happen again: Maybe the big bang wasn’t the beginning, but in fact the universe just goes through expansion, collapse, and re-expansion cycles.  This has the advantage of explaining the big bang, and also eliminates the question about conservation of mass/energy, but it does leave lots of other questions.  Maybe worse questions.  Also, the universe gives every sign of wanting to expand forever, making it less likely that a previous iteration would have collapsed.

Bubbles: It could be that our universe “bubbled” off of an even larger universe, that had plenty of mass and energy to spare.  This theory don’t answer the question, but it does push it back far enough that it’s hopeless to try and answer rigorously.

Keep in mind that none of these theories are technically scientific.  Scientific knowledge is nothing more than what we can learn from observation, inference, and experiment.  Beyond inference, we’ve got very little to work with as far as the big bang goes.

This entry was posted in -- By the Physicist, Philosophical, Physics, Quantum Theory. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Q: Can one truly create something from nothing? If matter formed from energy (as in the Big Bang expansion), where did the energy come from?

  1. Scott says:

    Radio check.

  2. Stoo says:

    What’s been bouncing around my head on this one is:

    for “something from nothing” to occur, don’t you need a point in time in which nothing exists? So maybe.. that was never the case. If matter\energy was already there at the start of time, something never came from nothing.

    Or am I talking nonsense here?

  3. The Physicist Physicist says:

    Go check.

  4. The Physicist Physicist says:

    That’s a big part of the thinking behind several of the theories.

  5. Priyul R Savani says:

    There is this Jain religion which explains very clearly that there are six substances which were neither created nor can they ever be destroyed: viz:- Matter (Atomic particles),
    The two mediums which assist us for motion and non-motion,
    Time and
    Soul (Spirit etc how ever one would like to call it).

    It describes that one which has qualities (attributes) and modifications is a substance. For instance, take matter. It has qualities of taste, color, smell, texture etc while today it might be in the form of an iron, then it might turn in to some other form of matter. (as we see in carbon cycle, how the food that we eat today might one day be absorbed as nutrient by the plant from the soil).

    For more info please see the following site:

    The idea is not to promote any faith but to put the view point which sounds so true to our logic, experience and reality.

  6. Scott says:


    This is what happens when philosophy attempts to explain things science and math do better. We know that space and time are part of the same whole, and uniform motion and rest are also identical. That list of 6 substances should be more like 4.5.

    Religion and philosophy used to attempt to explain the natural world, it’s history, and our place in it, because there was no better way to do it. There was no objective rigor, only thinking really hard. Because science requires measurable, repeatable, observable data to confirm a hypothesis, it is far better at explaining the natural world and it’s history than philosophy or religion. Soul’s are not observable repeatably, so they still belong to philosophy and religion.

  7. Matt says:

    What about the fact that the gravity of a mass has negative energy associated with it…namely -mc^2?

    Wait, what? That means that mass can appear out of nothing with it’s gravitational field balancing it out – the total energy is zero!

    In fact physicists reckon the total energy of the universe IS zero (providing it’s flat) and therefore could easily come out of nothing.

  8. The Physicist Physicist says:

    That is a pretty cool idea. But the energy tied up in the (gravitational) curvature of space is positive. If it were negative and equal to the energy of the matter that caused it, then we wouldn’t have inertia (As opposed to the tiny extra energy-tied-up-in-the-field that gets moved around when you move any object, which ever-so-slightly increases the inertia).
    Also, gravitational fields create more gravitational fields. In all but the most extreme cases (e.g., black holes) this extra field is tiny, and very ignorable.
    Since the curvature of space has an associated positive energy, it in turn creates it’s own gravitational field, that adds to the field already present (much as the positive energy mass created the field in the first place). If the field had an associated negative energy, you’d expect that this correction term would subtract (do the opposite of what the positive mass does).
    I hope that made more than zero sense.

  9. Pingback: Religion - Page 165 - Music Forums - The Definitive Music Discussion Board

  10. Robert Harvey says:

    I have to say that I am not a scientist, astro physicist, mathmetician, or anything close to resembling any of those. I have racked my brain tho as a fairly reasonable “average Joe” to grasp the idea that time doesnt have a beginning or that energy and matter simply always were. I completely believe that you cannot ever create something from nothing and know I will never be convinced otherwise. EVERY single person trying to get famous or win that argument ALWAYS uses some external force or “thing” to arrive to the conclusion something CAN come from nothing. Whether it be energy, mass, vacuum, black holes, worm holes, gravitation, quantum mechanics, speed of light, matter/anti-matter, universe expansion or whatever! Something is ALWAYS used and I have yet to hear anyone explain “something” coming from true “nothingness”. Anyway, since my brain tries to split wide open at the question if God DID do all of this then who created Him and who created Him and so on, Im not sure where to go. My faith says that THAT is what makes God so wonderful in that He truly IS the only thing that has always been but I know thats not science. Science will NEVER prove that God doesnt exist and I cant prove He does. It really is easier for me tho to believe that God is simply the only way we could be here instead of theories that dont hold up. Idk, it seems make believe to some but no one can give me a better “theory” so I go with the one that makes most sense to me, and the benefits to that might be really great one day! Atheists laugh like Im an idiot but you know, I struggle to think Im actually writing this comment on my computer because of a vaccum or big bang or anything else, God or something/someone much bigger than me did this!

  11. Juror Number 8 says:

    Robert Harvey, I second your entire statement. I do not second it because I am biased, I second it because it contains no logical gaps. “Science can’t explain ‘nothing from something’ with any certainty at this point.” This is essentially what you have said. Now, let me hit you with a piece of knowledge that I have found whilst racking my brain as of late… You asked, “Who created GOD, and who created him, and so on?” Consider this: To believe in a creationist GOD is to believe in a being who can operate outside the realm and constraints of science. Now, if this GOD can in fact do so, then he would not be required to have a “creator”, nor a beginning, nor an end. I have thought this through, and I really cannot think of any logical holes in it. Yes, it necessarily boils down to “God is magic”, but I mean… isn’t he?

  12. Juror Number Zero says:

    Branching from Robert Harvey and #8’s comments, “a being who can operate outside the realm and constraints of science” must have been created, though. Science is the study of the physical world and is all we have to work with.

    I recently read 0 = (1) + (-1) and this brought up an invariant idea; however the physical construct of negative and positive is debatable. What if “nothing” isn’t stable?
    What law or force could tear apart nothing into two separate entities, without being composed of physical energy?
    Gravity is denoted by greater mass impacting lesser mass. Gravity can be increased by rotation of greater mass.
    The Big Bang Theory of a singular concentrated energy would be subject to the rules of gravity within the perimeter of said energy. The perimeter of this universe has been expanded by the pressure (anti-gravity) of positive velocity.
    If the pressure outside the singularity was lesser than the pressure inside (meaning the area outside perimeter was previously created), then there could be a converse reaction that drew the energy into the singularity; however, our universe is currently expanding and could only contract by the effects of gravity and anti-gravity.

    Maybe the point-of-perspective is focusing as time increases. Drawing closer to the center of singularity in time, simulating expansion within a static sphere. Maybe we can judge When our PoP is, by how far away everything else appears from us.

    …Still doesn’t answer what started it all.

  13. Marco says:

    “I recently read 0 = (1) + (-1)” … it’s still zero…. I want to know how 0+1=2

  14. Clem says:

    Just a thought: Matter and energy are interchangeable. Therefore there can never be true nothingness, as there is radiation, radio waves and light – however distant, everywhere in the universe. So the point or question is moot.

  15. CHTCHEGLOV Ilia says:

    Hello everybody,

    Like other people I choosed to believe in God rather than in theories trying to explain how matter with no will, no intellect, can appear out of absolutely nothing.

    And I think it’s illogical to say that matter always existed because it’s like someone entering in a room, sees an object and says it have always been there.

    I think there was nothing before the existence of the matter.
    Nothing, total vacuum.
    I mean at time T(-1) there was nothing and at time T(0) God created matter.

    So who created God ? It’s a logical fallacy to say : “If God created matter, who created God ?” because it’s assuming that God is made of matter.

    If God was made of matter He would be impacted by wind, black holes, space, time, etc…

    I think God is eternal and isn’t made of matter. If God wasn’t eternal He would have a beginning, and a creator. I think the beginning of everything is God who doesn’t have a beginning.

    I prefer to believe in God rather than in theories saying matter with no will and no intellect appeared out of absolutely nothing and with forces there was a big-bang that led to the creation of the Earth and with chance non-living matter began to live and evolved through millions of years.

    And it annoys me that people talk about evolution theory on TV and at school like it had been proven true while there are many problems in datation methods accuracy, methods used to date fossils, methods used to date geological layers, lack of transitional fossils, etc…


  16. Brett Salisbury says:

    Go read the greatest physics book of all time. The Kybalion. ENERGY NEVER DIES. Nothing does create nothing however, a force from a higher power created quantum physics which states that “nothing can create nothing.” In a facinating way the book proves that GODs have lived to create everything we know. Never believed in God until i read the Kybalion written when the pyramids were written and comes straight from egypt. The book is 138 pages and is Einstein and Stephen Hawkin on Steroids.

  17. Brett Salisbury says:

    The Principle of Cause and Effect explains that there is a cause for every effect, and an effect for every cause. It also states that there is no such thing as chance, that chance is merely a term indicating extant causes not recognized or perceived. The Principle is clarified in the chapter Causation in the Kybalion.

    FYI: The “Three Initiates” who authored The Kybalion chose to remain anonymous. As a result, a great deal of speculation has been made about who actually wrote the book. I find great pleasure in know this because it’s no longer about writing a book for money or fame, just to prove how 2+2 really is 4 and not 5.

  18. somewhat confused says:

    It just might be that all of this mind-boggling phenomena of cosmology and quantum physics have confused me a bit, but I see an issue with the assumption that the universe was created in some way.
    The problem is, if you say that an extra-universal physical thing or a metaphysical thing such as a ‘god’ (or whatever your explanation is) has caused the universe to exist, this implies that the universe could be affected (caused to do something, ie begin to exist) even before it existed. I don’t see how this is supposed to work…can anyone think of an example where something has actually been caused to exist? And by caused to exist, I don’t mean a transformation of something into a different form (eg matter -> energy) but the creation of something whose ingredients/composite parts have not existed before.

    I’d assume that maybe whatever has caused the big bang to happen was essentially a different form of our universe…maybe something ‘bubbling’ off another universe, or maybe ‘nothing’ is really a state our universe can be in.
    As I said, I might be all wrong and confused, but I guess that’s a part of really getting to know things.

  19. frustrated beyond belief says:

    Instead of wasting our time as well as theirs, why can’t these brainy people simply stick to explaining how things began FROM the primal atom, and stop trying to explain how that atom came from complete nothingness. Humans are simply not “geared” to understand such things. As a species, we never will be. Maybe, just maybe after a few evolutionary steps (several hundred million years or so) we may evolve into something that can grasp the complexities of this impossible scenario. Maybe.

  20. Thinker says:

    Seems to me, regarding the “who created God question”, that it is moot at a fundamental level. Space and Time are given existence at the point of the Big Bang. Time and thus causation itself are phenomena given existence by God. The God Theory requires no God Creator as there is no time elapsing and thus no causation that generates His being. God is an infinite. God just is.

  21. person says:

    The ‘who created god’ question is indeed a bad objection to theistic arguments, but the fact that some people use bad objections doesn’t make theism more reasonable or valid.
    The existence of a being such as a ‘god’ has never been implied or suggested by any evidence which simply gives us no good reason to believe it. Of course this doesn’t prove theism wrong, but then again: Who is the burden of proof on? It’s the theists who introduce a new variable and make positive claims, so the burden of proof most definitely lies on them. As long as there is no good justification supported by a good amount of reliable evidence that suggests the existence of such a being, rejecting theism is logical and justified.

  22. Answer to : “person”.

    I have no evidence that you are a real person and not a computer program automatically posting flawed arguments against God’s existence. Is it reasonnable to think you’re not an human ?


  23. person says:

    The fact that you have no evidence right now does not mean that it would impossible to gather evidence if you tried…And that’s your real problem: I, as a person, have several thoroughly defined features that can without doubt lead to testable hypotheses you can use to determine whether I am really a human being. Such hypotheses are possible to test at this moment and it is possible to gather evidence for me being human now; your analogy is flawed!
    If I claim that I am human, the burden of proof is on me as I’m making a positive claim, but since sufficient evidence about my humanity is easily obtained, questioning my human existence isn’t exactly reasonable doubt.
    The point is that ‘god’ is usually defined in such a way that gathering solid evidence about it and/or forming testable hypotheses about its related truth claims are impossible at this point in time. Doubting the existence of some ambiguously defined and evidence-less concept of a deity is definitely more reasonable than assuming theism to be true.

  24. sam says:

    The different equations of -1 + 1, 2+2= 4 not 5, and 0+1=2 people use are just confusing. In all simplicity there is the first and basic equation you need to ponder.. nothing is 0, nothing is nonexistent. How can anything exist from nonexistent? When will 0+0 ever equal 1 or anything other than 0? Gah!!

  25. Redrum says:

    IMHO if we were beings that were in a position to better understand time, it would make more sense. I feel that in some way, to put it simply, things exist because they exist. Maybe time is circular, or maybe (if you’re a futurama or family guy fan) at some time in the future some deranged scientist messing with space-time will create the universe accidentally (cause the Big Bang) sort of like the reverse of the grandfather paradox.

    It makes sense if you know the “futurama” or “family guy” espisodes I’m referring too, or if you were me, sorry I’ve never been that articulate

    Tl;dr : understand “time”, understand “creation”

  26. Ruoss says:

    Many of you are making an error by thinking of time as a fluid construct. Your error is moot however, because time has no relevance to this discussion. If you must think of time as a “thing”, the arguement remains the same. How did it begin? Whether you are speaking of time or the universe or both, you still arrive at the same conundrum. If we try answering the question by assuming, if the universe could not have been born from nothing, then it must have always been, we are ignoring the basis of the problem. If the universe is infinitly old, how was it started? That sounds contradictory, but as we have concluded thus far… something never comes from nothing. To reiterate my point, here are some more math analogies

    Universe came from nothing: 0+v=1

    You could state the the variable v= God, but then you could just take this discussion and replace the word universe with God.

    Universe infinite: 1/time=1

    In this instance you could replace the word universe with 1, and repeat the arguement.

    Universe as part of a multiverse or larger whole: … This really just repeats the arguement on a physically larger scale, though since we speaking theoretically, the scale is irrelevant.

    I am aware that I haven’t contributed to answering the question, but if we are to find a viable solution, we mustnt dwell on fallacy. I am in no way attacking those of you who are religious. I am simply stating, by arguing that God can exist without a beginning, you are inadvertently proposing that the universe could exist without a beginning. Which would make the existence of God possibly irrelevant to the existence of the universe.

  27. Priyul says:

    Can’t it be that the matter is in existence since beginning less time….that is to say that it has been in existence forever and shall exist in future forever..

    I think every living being, every spirit is potentially god…

  28. If every spirit is a God then that eplains why there are so many universes being God they need to create one it is their nature………..HA.!

  29. Kethpriya says:

    Will there be an end to this universe and why?
    What happense if the universe stops moving?
    Will there be an another big bang?

  30. s vasu says:

    I think there is a source of energy for the formation of the chip or what ever it is that created the universe. There was something which absorbed this energy and created this wonder. Instead of reaching the for the far beyond I think we have to learn more about the atom and sub-atomic particles may be it can give us a clue of what might have been the thing which absorbed the energy from the source and created the universe

  31. Mary Redwood says:

    According to the laws of thermodynamics (Conservation of mass and energy, in particular), energy can neither be created, nor be destroyed.

    If that is so, then energy must be finite.

    According to the theory, mass and energy was compacted together. The Universe was very dense. Then there was a cataclysmic explosion.

    If mass and energy fills up those spaces when the Universe metrically expands, shouldn’t most areas of the Universe have no energy and mass?

    Just asking.

  32. The Physicist The Physicist says:

    You’re right; the overwhelming majority of the universe is almost perfectly empty.

  33. anon says:

    well something can NOT come from nothing. I know perfectly well I am not a science geek of any thing like that but may I ask you to look at a theary or a fully trust worthy book that has 66 books and was written by 40 authers and they all say the same thing.
    1 The Big Bang theary they say that nothingness exploded in to the whole universe*.
    no if you have the equipment take a hammer and start hitting something examen the results nothing right? ok now if you have it take a firecracker light it, then examen the results. again nothing right? ok now the book but first lets take a look at the star again * universe ok what dose that tell you? 1 verse Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” a lot of scientists try to get away from this but what dose uni really mean? 1 right? verse is like a sentence right? but look at this.
    1st sentence. 1st sentence in the Bible. ok now back to what we were talking about, can someone create something from nothing? no


    The bible says everything was created ex-nihilo out of nothing.

  35. Gerry says:

    Not all phenomenon are subject to physics. Take these: thoughts (where are they? They have a temporal but not a matter element) . Consciousness (of) (seems to not be subject to temporality (just is). Ideas (like thoughts but more repeatable, can be written down but need not be and if they are they induce more (nonphysical) thoughts/ideas.

    These things exist but not in the same way as material objects that we have determined are a result of some combination of matter and energy and perhaps velocity. Force yes but thoughts have force and power too. How? Mind’s the other side of you matter questions regarding “the” universe.

    So what is the relationship….no dealing with questions of matter without mind….experience is always of something that is “thingy”, has lots of out thereness. But outthereness is an assumption by mind, mind doing the splits, providing in thereness (thoughts) and outthereness (things)….but as the Zen Masters say…there is nothing but mind…

  36. richreitz says:

    If there is no Creator, and the universe started with cosmic dust or a single primordial atom, where did they come from? If the Big Bang is accepted as the “logical” explanation for the existance of the universe, why is it still considered a THEORY?
    If the universe is expanding outward, what is it expanding into? (SCIENCE was created by mankind to try to explain HUMAN observations.)
    Infinity goes in BOTH directions!
    What is the smallest thing there is? Subatomic particles? That’s only the smallest thing that we can observe at the present time. It has been said by scientists that the Earth is like a speck of dust in the entire universe. Then could that speck of dust we see floating around in the house be someone else’s entire universe?
    Is a person’s soul energy? Where does your energy go when you die? Where does a star’s energy go when it dies? Any connection? They are both born, grow, and die. When a person dies, could that energy become a new star?
    On Evolution: How could so many species of plants, animals, insects, vertebrates and invertibrates, evolve from a single atom that began the universe? Plant and animal cells are totally different. We learned that in high school biology. Or as George Carlin put it, “If we are descended from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?”
    Science doesn’t have all the answers. Have a little faith!

  37. Xerenarcy says:

    a theory is always the best working guess that can be tested in some way. GOD isn’t a theory because it cannot be proved or disproved, in fact he dislikes being tested, so i’ve heard. and now to stay way clear of that issue…

    it is possible, that the universe always was and always will be, with the big bang being an observational limit of our ability to look backwards into time. at the moment there are theories debating the mechanics of the big bang or if there even was a ‘bang’ at all.

    LQG (loop quantum gravity) suggests that the big bang was not a singularity, but definitely was very tightly compressed – it predicts some black holes may have survived the big crunch/bang episode.

    Existics and other theories pose the ‘tired light’ approach, suggesting that photons cannot travel forever and gradually redshift (in some frames of reference spontaneously create more photons, recovering the CMBR), explaining the apparent expansion of the universe and avoiding the conundrum of dark matter.

    there are hundreds of theories out there. some assume the big bang as gospel, some assume gospel, and others hold no prisoners and claim we are deluded for thinking our place in the universe, spatially or temporally, is in any way special.

    that aside, there was an experiment done where an electromagnetic field was cycled at such high frequency as to be proportional to the speed of light in the resulting oscillation velocity. this is sort of like shaking a mirror back and forth at relativistic rates / speeds – you would knock virtual photons away from their initial position with considerable momentum, and they would continue to exist despite having a virtual origin in the time-energy uncertainty.

  38. Okieprof says:

    After almost twenty years of studying science and over thirty years of teaching chemistry etc., I take great pleasure in reading your comments. It is so refreshing to observe young folk (I have read enough class reports to realize many of you appear to be young students of science) who are so intelligent and full of enthusiasm to explore yet question to some extent what you are told. Scientific knowledge is constantly expanding and to some lesser degree changing. It is like a “giant jig-saw puzzle” which is starting to look like a picture but has many pieces missing, positioned incorrectly, and that do not even belong. Each generation will continue to try to complete the “puzzle”, and it is obvious that you and your peers will continue this effort.
    Like many scientists, I have have tried to make sense of the nature of God (or “supreme entity”) and the universe. When I was freshman at the University of Tennessee, I began to realize this conflict interfered with my learning process as well as crushing my beliefs in God. I confided to a compassionate science professor, and he stated that I was not alone with my problem and introduced me to a group of educators/students who helped students in my position. I wish there was time for me to discuss all the experiences and help I obtained from joining this group. However, the essence of what we accomplished was that to keep religion and scientific studies separate … but not to eliminate either one. I now have surpassed three college degrees in science, but I have never stopped believing in God. Scientific research searches for more evidence and certainly increases validation, but it never completely proves anything … so what really is a scientific “fact”?. Most religions are based on love/goodness, prayer (spiritual meditation), and faith/spiritual belief … these are entities I’m sure we’re not meant to fall within the facets of scientific research or the judgment by man. If science did prove God was real, would this “screw up” the judgement day concept?

  39. TP says:

    As a scientist would like to inject some points.
    1 – Never over think something you know nothing about. It then becomes fiction for the movies. Facts can be created from dreams but until they are; they are still dreams not fact. Everything is govern by laws. Fact
    2 – Energy has either been the alpha or it was created. Fact.
    3 – You cannot have material substance without energy. Fact
    4 – Any one that teaches you something as fact that has not been proven, is someone on the same scale as mind control dictators. Remember we are talking science not religion another concept.
    5 – Their is scientific fact, if it is not, it is fantasy until proven, the word theory is often replaced with the concept of fact. Remember the physical laws are not interested in what you believe. Anyone of you who has gone up against the law of physics understand this concept.

  40. Okieprof says:

    TP. I am a retired science instructor (35 years of teaching), and I really dislike being critical of others except when they disrespect the rights of others to express their thoughts freely or misrepresent their own professional status. I always avoided telling students they were wrong directly (but through appropriate discourse bring it to their attention), and I love students who are “free thinkers” for they sometimes see things some of us (with a more rigid knowledge of science) miss. These people and the creation of science fiction multimedia have provided significant contributions to science. However, I do believe that when a person states something about science publicly even in a class or forum that they attempt to classify information appropriately. Many of my colleagues and I dislike using the concept “scientific fact”…all data is subject for continued testing and discussion. During the early portion of the last century, many scientists were reluctant to publish or state new scientific ideas publicly. This was because so many people attempt to inappropriately critique one’s ideas before the individual has had the opportunity to validate his thoughts. When Abert Einstein passed away, things changed “for the better” because many of his friends and colleagues believed information was lost by his and others death. Scientists started bouncing their ideas around more publicly with less fear of being shamed or defamed. So promote free thought and discussion but state the scientific validity (I dislike “scientific fact”) when appropriate using terms or phases that are indicative of scientific validation.

  41. Harrison says:

    What I meant as 0 = 1 + -1, is basically a metaphor for annihilation and fusion of positive ands negative forms of energy.

    If you combine a positive and negative of the same number, it equates to zero; thus, a priori suggests that “nothing” can be divided into something. It’s really an elementary concept.

    The real question is, when was entrophy born?

  42. Just Me says:

    I really enjoy watching people try to figure things out.
    I am not a scientist but as many of you I enjoy learning.
    I would like to address the problem I notice in the conversation of something coming from nothing.
    The Bible does not one time says HaShem (God ) made anything from nothing.
    Consider the Laws HaShem has assigned to visible and invisible things, my believe its all is living energy here is why Ezekiel 1 , Revelation 4, Matthew 28:3 , Daniel 7:9, Psalm 104:4, Isaiah 6 and so on. There are so many witnesses, verses about HaShem being Life and making life. Think about this is there anywhere in the Bible it says HaShem or Yeshua made something from nothing? I have been reading the bible for over 26 years and found not one indication. Yeshua turned water into wine, Moses hand diseased then healed it again Aarons dead almond wood staff budded and blossomed and so on. He is the Life “not a nothing”, no one can make HaShem He sustains all things by Himself he has always been, we are finite and have such small vision or understanding. Man or beast may hurt the living but cannot put and end to HaShem.
    Hope this helps.

  43. Just Me says:

    Sorry about my grammar and opp’s

  44. cmon guys... says:

    The Hubble telescope shows us creation which matches up perfectly with genesis. What other evidence do we need? Well the 2nd law of thermodynamics states “In any closed system, a process proceeds in a direction such that the unavailable energy (the entropy) increases.” In other words, in any closed system, the amount of disorder always increases with time. Meaning that energy slowly dies down. So as the stars and suns energy dies down (which is exactly what this law says) our universe is headed to an inevitable “death”. This law puts an end to any argument saying that the energy was always here because the 1st law of thermodynamics says the law can’t work back words. For example When the coffee is hot, there is available energy because of the temperature difference between the coffee and the air. As the coffee cools down, the available energy is slowly turned to unavailable energy. At last, when the coffee is room temperature, there is no temperature difference between the coffee and the air, i.e. the energy is all in an unavailable state. The question is… who heated up the cup of cofee.

  45. ion says:

    In theses debates it usually boils down to the observation that energy is neither created or destroyed and you can’t create something from nothing therefore god makes more sense than the current scientific theories. Meh, I don’t really care about god or metaphysics by definition metaphysics is outside the domain of reality as we know it as such entertaining it is an incredible waste of time and effort. If mankind settled on metaphysical answers to every problem we didn’t understand we would never understand anything.

    Anyway, I think the nature of nothingness it’s self is very interesting question.
    Where has the possibly infinite amount of nothingness/ empty space come from what explains are there for all that empty space?

  46. Pst291 says:

    They say you cant create something from nothing which is arguably true.

    I have researched this in depth in relation to markets and i found eventually that you can start with a specific amount and without a movement in the market create excess money/stock etc etc.Took me 2 years to prove it.

  47. Ben says:

    Nothing is a word, but has no place in reality. If there is a 1, then 0 does not exist. Nothing (a status of non-existence) does not exist. If there is something now, then there always was. God says “I am”. People seem to find it easy to disbelieve something they cannot see, until they experience some other form of perception, like gravity.
    No, energy doesn’t just “dissipate into thin air”, or die, it “recycles”: ‘energy cannot be created nor destroyed’. See cannot be created. Energy, however, can be transfered into multiple forms and put to use (i.e. creation). Energy must preexist that for which it is required. Obviously, if there is no motivation for the energy to be put to use, then it will not be.
    So where does that motivation come from, when nothing at this point has resulted in any kind of change? There must be some kind of action to make a change. The only logical explanation for there to be any kind of change is choice because there is no other existing motivator for the energy to work. The energy, being only that which exists, must also be self-aware and intelligent for choice to happen.
    The problem you now have is the why. Why create? 1+1=2 The cure to loneliness. So you say, “Ok, then where does God come from?” Firstly, by self-definition, God has no beginning, if He, and the energy required for things to “become in existence”, are bonded in a kind of energy-based life-form. It really becomes pointless to question, because that is the nature of things, God has no beginning. (Energy cannot be created) He did not come from something(by scientific law/nature), and so it is. God is, was, and always will be. See energy cannot be destroyed.
    So you want proof now? That’s fine, but by the time we are able to prove it, it will be far too late. Even when people do have proof of things, they still will choose to do ignorant or wrong things, that’s our own homemade nature. You ever done something that you knew was wrong? Believe me, the proof/evidence of God is everywhere when you look at things. That’s why most of you have come to the same conclusion, that something cannot come from “nothing”. Good luck in your search for answers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>