Maybe so. Maybe Not. But if that creation idea is denied or ignoref, it makes no difference whatsoever.
I struggled with where, what forum (Science or Religion and Ethics), to put this: "Belief in a God, the existence of a higher power, and the concept of an afterlife. Science or Religion?"
Here we are...
Somebody said "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."(1)
I believe some people unknowingly, and some people purposefully conflate spontaneous creation with spontaneous generation, which takes any discussion of scientific theories into debating religion as somehow being just another scientific theory. There exits no science behind claims religions make for why we and the universe exists.
We now have scientists claiming they've created matter from nothing in a groundbreaking experiment. If they have, their claims can be proven by successfully repeating any experiment.
Scientists create matter from nothing in groundbreaking experiment
Scientists have managed to create matter out of nothing, a quantum physics feat previously thought impossible.bgr.com
70-year-old quantum prediction comes true, as something is created from nothing
In our common experience, you can't get something for nothing. In the quantum realm, something really can emerge from nothing.bigthink.com
1: Stephen Hawking
Gotta follow the links. It's piggy back reporting.
Nerds Have a Fetish for NothingnessMissing Link: and there's audio.
70-year-old quantum prediction comes true, as something is created from nothing
In our common experience, you can't get something for nothing. In the quantum realm, something really can emerge from nothing.
Key Takeaways
- There are all sorts of conservation laws in the Universe: for energy, momentum, charge, and more. Many properties of all physical systems are conserved: where things cannot be created or destroyed.
- We've learned how to create matter under specific, explicit conditions: by colliding two quanta together at high enough energies so that equal amounts of matter and antimatter can emerge, so long as E = mc² allows it to happen.
- For the first time, we've managed to create particles without any collisions or precursor particles at all: through strong electromagnetic fields and the Schwinger effect. Here's how.
I read the report. The work supposedly was done by scientists. If you know the names, tell the rest of us what those names are.
The matter wasn't created from nothing, it was created from energy. As Einstein showed, matter is 'frozen' energy. I think we're finding that 95% of the mass of the universe is in the form of energy.I struggled with where, what forum (Science or Religion and Ethics), to put this: "Belief in a God, the existence of a higher power, and the concept of an afterlife. Science or Religion?"
Here we are...
Somebody said "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."(1)
I believe some people unknowingly, and some people purposefully conflate spontaneous creation with spontaneous generation, which takes any discussion of scientific theories into debating religion as somehow being just another scientific theory. There exits no science behind claims religions make for why we and the universe exists.
We now have scientists claiming they've created matter from nothing in a groundbreaking experiment. If they have, their claims can be proven by successfully repeating any experiment.
Scientists create matter from nothing in groundbreaking experiment
Scientists have managed to create matter out of nothing, a quantum physics feat previously thought impossible.
70-year-old quantum prediction comes true, as something is created from nothing
In our common experience, you can't get something for nothing. In the quantum realm, something really can emerge from nothing.
1: Stephen Hawking
Or you can follow the link to the article he piggybacked off of. It's pretty easy to do.
The net energy was zero. No energy input. Result was net zero energy between the particles. That's kind of the entire point.
Translated. I have no idea of the name. So chase this rabbit yourself down the rabbit hole.
I'm not the one complaining. If you think I am going to spoonfeed anything to you, you are mistaken.
That means nothing.
Actually, if you cared you would know and tell us the name of this scientist(s)
Like KneeJerk (formerly known as BackAgain), you haven't read the OP, or you have and struggle with reading and comprehension.
www.usmessageboard.com
And the first part is "technology".
*to you, because you don't understand any of this
No, that doesn't follow, sorry.
