>No, he specifically says "there is nothing in the vacuum (no
>matter or radiation at all)", but that "uncertainty allows a
>nonzero energy to exist for short intervals of time" - i.e.
>something (nonzero energy) comes from nothing (vacuum with
>no matter or radiation at all). The particles are coming
>from energy, but that energy itself is coming from nothing.
>I can see where the wording gets a little tricky to follow
>though, and this stuff is pretty hard to comprehend
>anyway... it still confuses the hell out of me.

Response: Yeah, the wording is really trickey. He is not writting this article for the laymen at all. Ok, so you are saying that the energy is what is coming from nothing. Hmmm, thats very interesting. I wonder how in the world that is taking place?
>
>
>There is actually nothing inside of the vaccuum, but because
>of the uncertainty principle you can never actually observe
>that there is exactly zero energy at an exact time, all you
>can say is that the average energy over a discrete time is
>zero; however you can know for sure that there is nothing
>inside of the vacuum, otherwise the average energy would not
>be zero.

Response: that makes sense. I'd like to read some more about this ( don't know if I can completely follow it) but I'd like to do some more research. If you have a link or something in which I can read something I'd appreciate it.


>>No, the particles are coming from energy fluctuations within
>a vacuum that come from nothing. The "uncertainties of
>energy" that he is talking about are energy fluctuations
>that arise out of the uncertainties in energy defined by the
>uncertainty principle: "there is always a slight uncertainty
>in the energy, dE. This small uncertainty allows a nonzero
>energy to exist for short intervals of time (energy
>fluctuation) defined by dT = (h/2pi) / dE". But this
>nonzero energy fluctuation is arising out of a vacuum with
>no matter or radiation, therefore the particles created from
>it are coming from nothing.

Response: Man, now that is unique. I wonder how they observed all of this? Now too my knowledge Stephen Hawkin and Guth disagree on the creation of the earth correct? Hawkins believes that the earth has always been here and Guth believes in a big bang sort of deal. This is what I have heard but not sure if I am correct.
>
>Well, you are reading it wrong, but it's not really your
>fault because the terminology is kind of misleading: the
>"virtual" particles are in fact real, they actually exist
>for a very short time and then disappear before they can be
>directly observed, and so are called "virtual". The "real"
>particles are created when an outside source of high energy
>photons adds enough energy to the virtual particles that
>they can stay in existence long enough to be directly
>observed, and so are called "real". This doesn't mean that
>the virtual particles don't actually exist, just that they
>disappear back into the vacuum before they can be directly
>observed. So the wording is kind of tricky, but he is
>indeed saying that something comes from nothing.

Response: Ok, I follow this. Yeah give me some info if you have some. I'd like to read a little more about this stuff.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos