Scientists create matter from nothing in groundbreaking experiment - BGR

A article that doesn’t mention the word Trump.  Refreshing.

"A article that doesn’t mention the word Trump."

It doesn't mention Letitia Davis, either but creating something from nothing is old hat for her.

Hallelujah!!!

Matter (mass) and energy are interchangeable. Both are "something" rather than "nothing"

scientificamerican

WOW, a new frontier.

Shwinger worked with Oppenheimer and the theory's been around for a bit. These new developments are giving science a better understanding of matter and dark matter and how quantum physics applies to the makeup of the universe. 

In fact, scientists have spent decades trying to force matter from absolutely nothing. 

Why do people use this language?   Sensationalism?   This was not about creating matter from "absolutely nothing".   Going from a net-zero charge state to a particle and antiparticle is not creating something from "absolutely nothing".   The "absolute nothing" the author refers to is that which underlies quantum physics.   We do not understand what this is, but it most definitely is not "absolutely nothing".    

This experiment created matter from non-matter.   A brilliant and spectacular accomplishment.   It should be described properly.

Bottom line, a vacuum  ≠  absolute nothing.

Why do people use this language?

Because very few people understand particle physics or quantum field theory, including the author of the article. If they did they'd really be in an excited state (HA!) 

Bottom line, a vacuum  ≠  absolute nothing

One must redefine the word ' nothing ' to create something from it.

Correct.  The Big Think article referenced in this article clarifies the definition of "nothing" or "empty space" thusly:

In the Universe we inhabit, it’s truly impossible to create “nothing” in any sort of satisfactory way. Everything that exists, down at a fundamental level, can be decomposed into individual entities — quanta — that cannot be broken down further. These elementary particles include quarks, electrons, the electron’s heavier cousins (muons and taus), neutrinos, as well as all of their antimatter counterparts, plus photons, gluons, and the heavy bosons: the W+, W-, Z ⁰ , and the Higgs. If you take all of them away, however, the “empty space” that remains isn’t quite empty in many physical senses.

For one, even in the absence of particles, quantum fields remain. Just as we cannot take the laws of physics away from the Universe, we cannot take the quantum fields that permeate the Universe away from it.

For another, no matter how far away we move any sources of matter, there are two long-range forces whose effects will still remain: electromagnetism and gravitation. While we can make clever setups that ensure that the electromagnetic field strength in a region is zero, we cannot do that for gravitation; space cannot be “entirely emptied” in any real sense in this regard.

But even for the electromagnetic force — even if you completely zero out the electric and magnetic fields within a region of space — there’s an experiment you can perform to demonstrate that empty space isn’t truly empty. Even if you create a perfect vacuum, devoid of all particles and antiparticles of all types, where the electric and magnetic fields are zero, there’s clearly something that’s present in this region of what a physicist might call, from a physical perspective, “maximum nothingness.”

Good post!

This is very important:

For one, even in the absence of particles, quantum fields remain. 

Along with this:

Even if you create a perfect vacuum, devoid of all particles and antiparticles of all types, where the electric and magnetic fields are zero, there’s clearly something that’s present in this region of what a physicist might call, from a physical perspective, “maximum nothingness.”

I think the problem is that certain words in a scientific context mean something VERY different than in general conversation.  Theory being the best example IMO.

That is definitely the case with theory.   But the word 'nothing' became confusing because of scientists like Lawrence Krauss who likes to engage in sensationalism.   He uses the word 'nothing' knowing full well that 'nothing' in ordinary parlance means the absence of everything and then speaks of producing something from nothing where 'nothing' (as he actually is using the word) simply means a vacuum devoid of ordinary matter but still quite full of quantum 'something' (particles and forces).

Nothing can be created from nothing. It is impossible. Whatever the scientists are calling "nothing" this time, is not really nothing, just like all the other wishful thinkers who believe something can be created from nothing. 

The creation of something from nothing would be a supernatural achievement. Is science supernatural? 

Here is a pile of true nothing. Here is another pile of true nothing. (Because nothing can not be quantified this is an imaginary exercise). Add the two piles of true nothing together and you still have nothing. 

For some years now there has been an argument in some scientific circles claiming that the big bang developed from nothing. Impossible. When the claims are further examined it turns out the hypothesis does include "something" pre big bang, but something that some are eager to call nothing. 

So what would an entire universe worth of matter look like if it were all tiny particles of matter prior to flashing into actual solid matter?  It would look just the the vast empty space that exists out there now, yet it should look markedly different due to massive saturation of almost infinitely small pieces of what you are considering to be “matter”.  

With these fields, the researchers were able to enable the spontaneous creation of particle-antiparticle pairs from nothing at all.

Using "fields" the researchers were able to enable spontaneous creation. 

Since when is a "field" nothing ? 

Fields were only the tool(s) used. Nothing else.

This one popped up in my news feed.  A more complete description is provided by the Big Think article referenced in the seed.

Big Think: 70-year-old quantum prediction comes true, as something is created from nothing

As the Big Think article explains, matter really was created from something other than existing matter and energy.  The created matter was not observed as a transition from energy to matter or vice versa .  The observations suggest that matter can be created from the fabric of space-time.  But there is also a possibility that matter can be created from a fundamental force (strong, weak, gravity, magnetic (or electromagnetic)).  IMO these results seem to suggest a connection between the fabric of space-time and fundamental forces of the universe.

There have been other observations in particle physics that raises questions about conservation of matter and energy.  There have been observations of collisions increasing the mass of the system (creating matter).  And based upon our current understanding, that increased mass was created from absolutely nothing.

Laurence Kraus discussed this in detail a decade ago in his book A Universe From Nothing.  But there will always be those who claim from their scientific armchairs that matter can only come from other matter unless a sky fairy is involved.

And even so the "sky fairy" is something: BOOM!

Good point.

matter can only come from other matter

I dont know if matter must be created from other matter but I do know that something cannot be created from nothing.

The "nothing" that Kraus talks about is actually not "nothing". That is the problem. 

That’s kind of like pointing out that the word “nothing” isn’t nothing because you can see seven letters.  

Laurence Kraus discussed this in detail a decade ago in his book A Universe From Nothing.  But there will always be those who claim from their scientific armchairs that matter can only come from other matter unless a sky fairy is involved.

The ability to create matter from nothing (as we understand it) is one attribute of a sky fairy, isn't it?  The ancients didn't have artificial intelligence; they had to rely on the real thing.  Philosophy is more powerful than causal materialists wish to acknowledge.

Einstein's GTR provides some clues.  E = Mc²  where E is energy, M is matter, and c² is a measure of space-time.  We now know that space-time can be compressed from observations of black holes.  What happens if 300,000 meters is compressed to 1 meter?  From our observation outside the system the speed of light would be 1 meter/sec.  From our relative point of view outside the system, energy and matter would become equivalent.

Our discovery and observation of the presence of black holes really does suggests that physics is not the same everywhere in the universe.  

The "nothing" that Kraus talks about is actually not "nothing".

Until it can be quantified and measured "nothing" will be the best definition 99.9% of people will understand. The experiment the article touches on gets us a small step forward in understanding.

Well, if you want to call a "field" nothing, I guess that is up to you. I'm not going to. 

Well, if you want to call a "field" nothing, I guess that is up to you. I'm not going to. 

Where does the increased mass come from?  A field?  A force?  Space?  The ideas of conservation of matter and energy falls apart.  The increased mass was not created by a transformation of energy or matter.

If increased mass is not created from energy or matter then that increased mass has come from nothing according to our understanding of physics.  The conservation of mass and energy has been broken.  That means the mass of the universe is a variable that cannot be described by the amount of matter and energy in the universe.  The results of this observed increase in mass questions the existence of dark matter and dark energy.

Until it can be quantified and measured "nothing" will be the best definition 99.9% of people will understand.

I disagree. Most people will go by the common sense definition of "nothing", which is "nothing", not something that we will describe as nothing for the purpose of this theory. 

I dont know if matter must be created from other matter but I do know that something cannot be created from nothing. The "nothing" that Kraus talks about is actually not "nothing". That is the problem. 

In physics, nothing is a convention that relates to the idea of conservation of matter and energy.  The conservation principle means that all matter and energy represent a closed system whereby the present state of matter and energy is explained by a transformation of state.  All there is is all there is and there cannot be more or less than what is.  The form changes but there cannot be more or less of what is.  The emergence of matter or energy that cannot be explained by the conservation principle means emergence from no existing energy and no existing matter, i.e. no observed thing of matter and energy which is nothing. 

In physics 'nothing' has a very specific definition embedded in causality and is not the same thing as a metaphysical 'nothing'.  Within the context of the physical meaning of 'nothing' constrained by the conservation principle and causality, the claim of something emerging from nothing is accurate.

And even so the "sky fairy" is something: BOOM!

Ah, but what something?  That's the rub.  What has been reported is that matter was created; matter was not transformed from other matter and energy.  That violates our understanding of causality.  While obviously not yet understood, the observation is that matter can pop into existence without being made from available matter and energy. 

That's the stuff of sky fairies, pixie dust, and multiverses.

What are you going on about? I replied to SOMETHING stated by Hal in context to which he has positively replied. It has little to nothing to do with "understanding of causality, per se. As for "sky fairies"-when you see one and can question it-ask it about its 'birth' and creation. . .until then it shall remain not yet understood.

  "There have been observations of collisions increasing the mass of the system (creating matter)." 

If this matter then decayed, the net gain in matter is zero

If this matter then decayed, the net gain in matter is zero

Well, the observations do suggest creation of a matter/antimatter pair (a description that lacks precision).  What was observed has been an increase in mass as newly formed matter.  The matter may transform into energy but the net result is still that the system has become greater than its original parts.

A crude analog would be like snapping your fingers and another finger appears.  Five fingers becomes six fingers by snapping your fingers.  The amount of energy involved in snapping the fingers doesn't account for the appearance of a sixth finger.

God help us (them) all when the time comes that humans can create something from nothing at all: Hold on to your five senses!

Something from nothing is impossible ... by definition.   One must redefine the word 'nothing' to create something from it.

Agreed. And yet here is the writer in his own words:

With these fields, the researchers were able to enable the spontaneous creation of particle-antiparticle pairs from nothing at all. This proved that creating matter from nothing is indeed possible, a theory first proposed by Julian Schwinger, one of the founders of quantum field theory. And with that knowledge, we can hopefully better understand how the universe makes something from nothing.

Writer reinforces his "nothing" statement over and over and over again!

I know, that is what I commented on.   I asked why the author would use such language.

Agreed.

Ooo!  I'm gonna make myself a new car.  ...  and a boat.

It really would be nice/good/lovely/stellar/[insert word here] to learn/know where all this matter and such in the cosmos hails from originally, because people have exploited life as we know it up the ying-yang for eons! It is all so very frustrating and tiring. Billions dead over humanity's inhumanity due to lack of first 'things' first. We desperately need to know who/what/how the cosmos runs if only so we can align ourselves with its intentions!

Science continues to make progress to that end.

It would really be nice if humanity dedicated itself to the task, instead of all these STUPID/HATEFUL/VENGEFUL 'planetary' feuds this world's people indulge themselves in; tripping backwards at any given juncture on the road to getting our collective 'hit together! Here's to one big "progressive" leap for all humanity which stands on the precipice (afraid to jump into the oblivion of 'oneness').  We could be 'all scientists now' and get some universal understanding done! One big SIGH! 

We desperately need to know who/what/how the cosmos runs if only so we can align ourselves with its intentions!

Be careful what you wish for.  Your preferred outcome may be that there is a god, and that humanity is its paramount focus.  But it is equally possible that it’s paramount focus is only that which exhales oxygen, and the only reason humanity exists is to serve as subservient staff to its true goal - the proliferation of plant life.

Why would I have a issue with whomever/whatever "the" creator/s is? I shall not!

You used the word “desperately”.  Sounds like you may have an issue.

Yes Hal! In-spite of a life lived secularly ('worldly') for a generation and another life lived 'faithfully' whereas my faith has caused controversy over attitudes and cultural sexuality (we have a majority heterosexual exclusivity in this country) and a world full of racial and ethnic feudings and 'tribal wars' - I am mentally, physically, emotionally, psychologically "pooped out" and as I grow older I have to 'recharge' more often just to keep level.

Now then, would it not have been for humanity's best (relative to the grand scheme for humanity, that is) if whomever/whatever started the cosmos-clearly intelligent- come out and declare what its purposes and plans are?

For example, I am going through an at-length. . . "experience" with a relative who is unblinkingly turning out to be a utter homophobe . . . against me . . . someone who is not sexually active ! What is all this about?

Why? Because 'they' can (attack) based on some pathetic moral code prevalent in many parts of the world. Oh, and through exploiting the vagueness and ambiguity of. . . texts.

I stand my ground: toe to toe with that one, nevertheless. Still, in many ways, I have been defending myself ("shields up") from 'otherizing' all my waking days and nights!

Additionally it really is a waste for humanity how much time, energy, and lifetimes, plural, we dedicate to keeping one or another's 'foot' off our necks, backs, butts, and heads! All the 'human-hours' wasted on futile concerns-interests-and deaths. (I do not mean to go philosophical on your article, but it comes out of me at these times.)

Reading through these comments one would have to conclude that there’s actually no such thing as a universal nothing.  Nothing is just a relative term that is always tied to whatever something the word nothing is being applied to.  Good discussion, but you still should be in awe of the fact that a something called graphene has been empirically precipitated from the closest thing to “nothing” that humanity can currently perceive of.

...you still should be in awe of the fact that a something called graphene has been empirically precipitated from the closest thing to “nothing” that humanity can currently perceive of.

It's pretty astounding to see in action something first thought up as a mathematical theorem in 1962. 

A screen snip from wiki -

Also it's not graphene. Graphene is an allotrope of single atoms arranged in a 2D honeycomb layer lattice. They were talking 1 particle and 1 anti-particle...

a group of researchers created strong enough electric fields in their laboratory to level the unique properties of a material known as graphene.

I guess that’s how I interpreted that statement.  There I go playing armchair quantum physicist …

This article is really, really basic and mis-states how the experiment was conducted. 

sciencetimes  

According to in the science times

The authors of this study used a superlattice, a graphene-based structure, to apply an electric field . It produced a behavior in which electrons from lower, fully occupied bands joined the flow and those from the highest partially occupied energy state as part of the material's conduction. 

The ST article makes the whole concept even more exciting...

...the Schwinger effect was observed for the first time. Instead of producing positrons and electrons, it created "holes," which occur when one electron in a lattice is missing and flows in the opposite direction of the electron flow.  The details of this new process of spontaneous synthesis of electrons and "holes," which was required to explain the observed currents, were in line with Schwinger's predictions since its inception .

the Schwinger effect was observed for the first time.

Nah, I saw it several times on Wayne's World!

Schwing! 

Hahaha!

Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have somethin' if you wanna be with me
Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have somethin' if you wanna be with me …

After reading the article and the comments I'm going with Professor Erwin Corey on something from nothing. 

''If you have nothing, you might have something or perhaps you only have something and or a small perhaps. If the perhaps is nothing then we have something.'' 

Professor Erwin Corey on Something from Nothing Sept. 22nd, 2022 from the grave where he is currently nothing or maybe a bit of something.

Well, friend Kavika-clearly the 'good' professor is something: A memory! It's. . . something. . . worth thinking about! And "thinking" is something amazing!

I get my money for nothin' and my chicks for free!

That touches my soul. The rich sounds of a band named Dire Straits !

we really can create matter out of absolutely nothing.

The ultimate free lunch, free chicken for all.

We've previously turned matter invisible.

Talk about writing vague. . . what does this writer (really) mean with the above?

...what does this writer (really) mean with the above?

It's talking about Pauli blocking - which is a means of scattering light in quantum physics. 

Pauli blocking

Thank you!

What you (aided me in learning today):

Physics 18 November 2021

By Leah Crane

Blue laser light being used to measure how quantum effects can influence light scattering in an ultracold gas of strontium atoms Christian Sanner, Ye labs/JILA

If you get a dense quantum gas cloud cold enough, you can see right through it. This phenomenon, called Pauli blocking, happens because of the same effects that give atoms their structure, and now it has been observed for the first time.

“This has been a theoretical prediction for more than three decades,” says Amita Deb at the University of Otago in New Zealand, a member of one of three teams that have now independently seen this. “This is the first time this been proven experimentally.”

Pauli blocking occurs in gases made up of a type of particle called a fermion , a category that includes the protons, neutrons and electrons that make up all atoms. These particles obey a rule called the Pauli exclusion principle, which dictates that no two identical fermions can occupy the same quantum state in a given system.

“The same effect is responsible for why you don’t fall through the floor,” says Brian DeMarco at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who wasn’t a member of any of the three teams that spotted it. “This physics, which is very difficult to observe, is all around you and helps determine the structure and stability of matter.”

Pauli blocking occurs when fermions in a gas are packed so closely together that all of the available quantum states are filled, in a form of matter called a Fermi sea. When that is the case, the particles become unable to move, so light can’t impart momentum to them. Because light that is absorbed by the particles or bounces off them will impart momentum, the light is forced to shine right through without interacting with the gas.

Take our expert-led quantum physics course and discover the principles that underpin modern physics

“This is a very basic phenomenon, but it’s sort of a devil to see,” says Yair Margalit at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a member of one of the three teams. “You need these extreme conditions to be able to see it – high densities and ultra-low temperatures – and it is difficult to get both of these at once.”

newscientist

Trump has been doing this for decades.

It's why he's going to jail.