Clever Physics Experiment That Produces “Something From Nothing”

Black Hole Event Horizon

New theory ‘detects’ light in the darkness of a vacuum.

Black holes are regions of space-time with huge amounts of gravity. Scientists originally thought that nothing could esca­­­­­pe the boundaries of these massive objects, including light.

The precise nature of black holes has been challenged ever since Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity gave rise to the possibility of their existence. Among the most famous findings was English physicist Stephen Hawking’s prediction that some particles are actually emitted at the edge of a black hole.

Physicists have also explored the workings of vacuums. In the early 1970s, as Hawking was describing how light can escape a black hole’s gravitational pull, Canadian physicist William Unruh proposed that a photodetector accelerated fast enough could “see” light in a vacuum.

New research from Dartmouth advances these theories by detailing a way to produce and detect light that was previously thought to be unobservable.


“In the proposed experiment, illustrated here, a postage stamp-sized synthetic diamond membrane containing nitrogen-based light detectors is suspended in a super-cooled metal box that creates a vacuum. The membrane, which acts like a tethered trampoline, is accelerated at massive rates, producing photons. Credit: Animation by LaDarius Dennison/Dartmouth College

“In an everyday sense, the findings seem to surprisingly suggest the ability to produce light from the empty vacuum,” said Miles Blencowe, the Eleanor and A. Kelvin Smith Distinguished Professor in Physics at Dartmouth and the study’s senior researcher. “We have, in essence produced something from nothing; the thought of that is just very cool.”

In classical physics, the vacuum is thought of as the absence of matter, light, and energy. In quantum physics, the vacuum is not so empty, but filled with photons that fluctuate in and out of existence. However, such light is virtually impossible to measure.

One part of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the “equivalence principle,” establishes a connection between Hawking’s prediction for radiating black holes and Unruh’s prediction for accelerating photodetectors seeing light. Equivalence says that gravity and acceleration are fundamentally indistinguishable: A person in a windowless, accelerating elevator would not be able to determine if they are being acted on by gravity, an inertial force, or both.

Therefore, if black hole gravity can create photons in a vacuum, so can acceleration.

With science already demonstrating that observation of light in a vacuum is possible, the Dartmouth team set out to find a practicable way to detect the photons.

Miles Blencowe and Hui Wang

Dartmouth’s Miles Blencowe, the Eleanor and A. Kelvin Smith Distinguished Professor in Physics, and Hui Wang, a postdoctoral researcher, have described an experiment that could allow researchers to produce and detect light in a vacuum. Credit: Robert Gill/Dartmouth College

The Dartmouth research theory, published in Nature Research’s Communications Physics, predicts that nitrogen-based imperfections in a rapidly accelerating diamond membrane can make the detection.

In the proposed experiment, a postage stamp-sized synthetic diamond containing the nitrogen-based light detectors is suspended in a super-cooled metal box that creates a vacuum. The membrane, which acts like a tethered trampoline, is accelerated at massive rates.

The research paper explains that the resulting photon production from the cavity vacuum is collectively enhanced and measurable, with the vacuum photon production undergoing a phase transition from a normal phase to “an enhanced superradiant-like, inverted lasing phase” when the detector number exceeds a critical value.

“The motion of the diamond produces photons,” said Hui Wang, a postdoctoral researcher who wrote the theoretical paper while a graduate student at Dartmouth. “In essence, all you need to do is shake something violently enough to produce entangled photons.”

The Dartmouth paper investigates using multiple photon detectors—the diamond defects—to amplify the acceleration of the membrane and increase detection sensitivity. Oscillating the diamond also allows the experiment to take place in a controllable space at intense rates of acceleration.

“Our work is the first to explore what happens when there are many accelerating photodetectors instead of one,” said Blencowe. “We discovered a quantum-enhanced amplification effect for light creation from vacuum, where the collective effect of the many accelerating detectors is greater than considering them individually.”

To confirm that the detected photons come from the vacuum rather than from the surrounding environment, the team demonstrates that the theory observes “entangled light,” a distinct feature of quantum mechanics that cannot originate from outside radiation.

“The photons detected by the diamond are produced in pairs,” said Hui. “This production of paired, entangled photons is evidence that the photons are produced in vacuum and not from another source.”

The proposal to observe light in a vacuum does not have immediate applicability, but the research team hopes that it adds to the understanding of physical forces that contributes to society in the way other theoretical research has. In particular, the work may help shed experimental light on Hawking’s prediction for radiating black holes through the lens of Einstein’s equivalence principle.

“Part of the responsibility and joy of being theorists such as ourselves is to put ideas out there,” said Blencowe. “We are trying to show that it is feasible to do this experiment, to test something that has been until now extraordinarily difficult.”

A technical animation produced by the team depicts the creation of photons by the experiment. The detected light exists in microwave frequency, so is not visible to the human eye.

Reference: “Coherently amplifying photon production from vacuum with a dense cloud of accelerating photodetectors” by Hui Wang and Miles Blencowe, 10 June 2021, Communications Physics.
DOI: 10.1038/s42005-021-00622-3

The research was supported by the National Science Foundation.

102 Comments on "Clever Physics Experiment That Produces “Something From Nothing”"

  1. Paul Alexander Bravo | November 21, 2021 at 2:46 pm | Reply

    Miseading headline and should explain that the photons we’re not produced from nothing for at least two reasons: 1) the vacuum chamber was not empty so it can’t be said that the photons appeared from nothing (in fact they were radiated from the diamond); the diamond was oscillated and the detectors were accelerated which requires energy and precludes analysis of a closed system so it cannot be said that photons we’re created from nothing (in fact they were introduced as kinetic energy and conserved as radiation).

    • Maybe there is some misunderstanding due to the way this article is written. The paper describes a potential detector for conducting an experiment, not an actual experiment, so in that sense the headline is misleading. However, if the experiment is done, the photons detected wouldn’t be emitted from the diamond.

      According to the perturbation theory in quantum field theory, a vacuum contains the potential for creating virtual particle pairs. Perturbation theory predicts that particle-antiparticle pairs arise spontaneously in a vacuum, and instantly annihilate, returning the energy back to the vacuum potential.

      Hawking’s hypothesis about black holes predicts that if such a pair is produced right at the event horizon, with one arising inside the event horizon and the other outside, annihilation is prevented – the particle inside the event horizon is not able to escape and join the other one. In this case, the particle outside the event horizon would not be destroyed, and might escape, as “Hawking radiation.”

      The Unruh effect predicts that the same can happen with an accelerating detector. With sufficient acceleration, the detector would be able to detect one particle before the pair annihilate, consuming it in the process. This leaves the second, entangled particle, which the same detector or another could detect. This is what the proposed experiment would do.

  2. Robert Clifton Robinsons | November 21, 2021 at 6:10 pm | Reply

    If the purpose of this experiment is to impeach the idea that a universe can be created from nothing, it fails. When the universe began the vacuum of space did not exist. The densely compressed particle of pure energy that expanded into the universe, had no space to expand into. Time, space, and matter were all created simultaneously. The creation of gravity and electromagnetism, perfectly balanced within 1 part in 10^40, began at -430 Planck Time. The only possibility this could occur is if a Being with intelligence sufficient to control the precise expansion, had engineered this entire process. No natural process is capable of precisely balancing the 209 physical constants that resulted from this initial expansion, and ordered themselves in such a way that human life on earth could be possible 13.799 billion years later.

    • Yes, R Clifton R. it’s much better to have faith that a prehistoric god that can only be satiated by the blood of his own son created it with no explanation needed. Thanks for your enlightened point of view. You are really helping us understand this world much better. No natural process can balance 209 things at the same time? If a lock has a combination with 209 twists before it opens, does that make it theoretically impossible – or just hard for you to remember?

    • It’s painfully amusing to hear someone reasonably intelligent posit that since the human mind can’t absorb something, it can’t be. As if our limited bandwidth of awareness covers all possibilities. What if there was no starting point to all this, and the singularity from which the Big Bang supposedly grew was simply part of a cycle whose ebb was smallest at the singularity phase, and we’re in a never starting never ending loop? Oh. The mind can’t fathom something not linear, time and causation based? Well then it can’t be. And rather something intelligent, like us but more, built this from nothing. Problem solved.

    • Yes, Being.

    • If you “believe” that (and the word is believe, faith… The word is not fact nor truth, but I digress).

      What would happen if any of these factors were out of balance? Yes you guessed it, this universe wouldn’t exist. So do you know for a fact (no not believe, know for a fact) that some form of big bang occurred many many many times where these things weren’t perfect, they just didn’t exist and you aren’t there to witness them, you know, because those universe didn’t exist, duh. Just because some ‘is’, it is not a proof of creator. If anything, your understanding of God is puny. Sadly you are ready to accept a answer without proof than be brave enough to say, I don’t know, but I am willing to find out, that’s what science does everyday. I don’t know, science doesn’t know, but the fact is you don’t know either, you “believe” without proof and that’s the distinction that lets religion create terrorist in the name of “faith”. I cannot stress enough, faith is not proof, by it’s very definition it’s inspite of proof.

    • For us to think that the universe is so finely tuned to be supportive of our existence that it can only have been the product of intelligent guidance is akin to denizens of a puddle thinking that the ground supporting their puddle can only have been the product of intelligent guidance because it fits the water with such exquisite precision. We are what would be, given what was–just like the puddle, and we, like the denizens of the puddle, fancy ourselves the point of everything to date.

    • Cavemen, 40,000 BCE – “I can’t understand lightning, so it must be god.”
      Robert Clifton Robinsons, 2021 CE – “I can’t understand physics, so it mys be god.”

    • Now, if we can only find out who created that being… Because, that being must be infinitely more complex than this universe, so that being couldn’t have arisen out of nothing, right? I mean, that dude could handle, like, 209 things, right?

  3. Hallelujah! Praise the Lord!

  4. Yet another group of scientists that don’t understand reality. Light is NOT a particle and never was! It’s a WAVE produced by the excitation of “space”. Photons do not travel through space. Space propagates a WAVE just like ocean water. The fact that “space” is not made of matter and therefore “nothing” has no bearing on this. The inability to describe space/time does not mean it has no impact. Einstein said space/time can be bent. How can “nothing” (as in an absence of all reality) possibly “bend”? If it can “bend” and it can wrap and it can distort, then it’s more than just a lack of matter. We can’t detect dark matter either (although some say it doesn’t exist and is a misunderstanding of gravity on a larger scale), but that alone doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

    All this contraption is actually doing is exciting waves in space the same way a boat engine and propeller makes waves in a body of water and it’s doing it with a membrane made of diamond for god’s sake! How is a diamond membrane “nothing” when it’s made of carbon?

    Of course, mainstream scientists will not accept or believe this because they have been brainwashed to believe that a “theory” is LAW. The fact we cannot and do not understand gravity (even with the so-called “God Particle” that has produced ZERO new understanding of gravity and a colossal waste of money that could have been put to better use to say save the planet from frying or feed the hungry), we still do not comprehend gravity and thus how to control it so we can stop using the equivalent of “caveman tech” to explore the Universe and actually warp, or better yet FOLD our way through space rather than using slow explosive devices to send rockets moving at speeds that would take many many centuries to reach our nearest neighboring star system.

    • How is a diamond membrane “nothing” when it’s made of carbon? Maybe it’s oxidized carbon and if we make enough for our energy needs it will destroy the civilization it created?

    • Embarrassing and cringeworthy barely scratch the surface.

    • Did someone leave the computer at your… umm… mental health rehabilitation institute unattended?

    • …The fact we cannot and do not understand gravity (even with the so-called “God Particle” that has produced ZERO new understanding of gravity…
      ————————
      Gravity is the reactive thrust of ordinary electromagnetic waves.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFUM3vAlaGc
      And the false Higgs boson, gravitational waves, the Big Bang, dark matter and dark energy, curved space and curved time must be thrown into the dustbin of history.

      • Yeah, because some loony posted a YouTube video. If some moron rants on YouTube it must be true! Throw away your textbooks!

        • Don’t make science a cult. There are many intelligent people on Earth. Judging by your comments, you are engaged in washing tubes at the institute, or other work, which in terms of mental load takes second place after pulling the rope. ))

  5. Producing something from nothing? Politicians have been doing that for years…printing money..and maybe a few votes?

  6. If light can be produced by acceleration and the expansion of the universe involves acceleration, as would seem the case from the red-shift getting more towards the infra-red as we observe older galaxies at greater distances from us etc, then what? The universe is clearly glowing more brightly in the dark the further it gets away from us. I would be grateful for some enlightenment!

    • Hey Rob. Acceleration doesn’t produce light, and neither does gravity. Please read my reply to Paul Alexander Bravo above. Vacuum photon production only happens when something prevents a virtual particle pair from annihilating – it could be a steep gravity well, like at the edge of an event horizon, or an accelerating detector that snags one of the particles. So the acceleration due to the expansion of the universe doesn’t fulfill those criteria.

    • Your question triggered an interesting thought, and brought me back to this article.

      The rate of expansion of the universe TODAY cannot create photons from vacuum potential. However, during the hypothesized rapid inflationary phase of the big bang, where the expansion of space time was extremely rapid, it could have happened.

      Imagine during the period between 10^-36 seconds after big bang to 10^-33 seconds, a pair of virtual particles arise out of the vacuum. Those two particles would not be able to reunite and annihilate, as the space between them expands faster than a particle could cross it even at the speed of light. The unimaginably rapid acceleration of space itself tears the particles away from each other.

      So that means, all virtual particles created during the rapid inflationary epoch did not annihilate. Interesting.

  7. Is this from when it felt like Satan has his grasp on me and i did not mark my hands but turned to the exact page and read from scripture then kept flipping as if talking ask and forth with his majesty even him proclaiming me as his son <desendant and then I read when the saints heard this they were saying this is impossible then I said with man it is impossible but with the lord anything is possible and he drew me as if from deep black water and brought me back to light without anyone knowing what took place I w as s even temted to the walking of coals and kept to thy lords word the miraculous thing the verse of the day that daybi looked after was the saints believing that it was immpossible but with God Anything Is Possible I think I failed to take an action yesterday because I know not what I need to do other than read learn and try to guide I have many pictures I'd love to share

  8. Paul Alexander Bravo

    Sir, thank you for putting so concisely the points I wished to make.

  9. very interesting. The amplification effect is weird, I wonder if it has anything to do with losses. a good way to find out is repeating the experiment with increasing the number of detectors and seeing if amplification increases indefinitely or reaches a limit.

    for those commenters saying this is a waste of time; research is not considered a waste of time even if the findings are not immediately useful.

    The article is well written and title is fine; however I think I found a typo. “diamond defects” should be “detect”.
    I also wasn’t able to understand what the “therefore” was referring to in “if black hole’s gravity can create photons in a vacuum, so can acceleration”.

  10. Cynthia Binder | November 22, 2021 at 4:12 am | Reply

    First is there a black hole on earth… theory right. One hugh disappearing act. Can’t find the right answers 😕, it theory enjoy the getting to the bottom of the big bang theory. Love reading this topics. Yes I am 👩‍🦰female…gentleman 🕴️🍕pizza is 🔵 🟡 🟢 🟣 🟠 ⭕ a circle. So is a black hole. connect Space vs on Earth. Have a slice 😋 😉 😜 chow go back to work

    • To find the right answers, you need to ask the right questions. To ask the right questions, you need to understand what we know up to now. To understand knowledge we have, you need to learn to read and write. And then you need to learn to formulate proper sentences without those fancy hieroglyphs, so that people can understand what you are asking. Start from the beginning, it’s never too late.

  11. The Golden Ratio…. If it’s a light absorbing diamond, could the light be emanating from inside the stone?

  12. Lol pizza can also be squared… As far as your, “is there a black hole in earth” question goes, maybe not now but if there ever was one, it would come from the hadron collider particle accelerator in CERN…. Cynthia, should we be conCERNed? 🤔 🤯. Pun intended.

  13. … well, if everything gives of all of its energy and is way far apart… then something might fly in, but from where and when…

  14. Raymond Stewart | November 22, 2021 at 7:19 am | Reply

    This raises a lot of questions. If this apparatus is actually producing entangled light from the vacuum of space, how much light can be produced? Can that light be used to produce work?

    Ignore silly over unity foolishness. It need not produce more work than you put in. But can it produce any work and how much?

    If so, what does that mean for the energy state of the local vacuum? If you can produce work from vacuum energy… and if the result is negative energy states in the local vacuum, lots of interesting things become a topic of discussion.

    • It would indeed produce work. One of the virtual particle that is captured imparts its energy to the detector, and the other particle that escapes carries its energy with it. In this sense, energy is produced out of “nothing” (where the “nothing” is actually vacuum potential). So your question is indeed interesting – what happens when that energy debt accumulates in the vacuum potential? Is there a limit up to which we can “borrow” (ie. a limit to the “insulation”)? And most importantly, what happens when that limit is reached?

  15. It’s important to remember that TRYING to understand isn’t understanding. Personally, I believe the entire observable universe is heading into a super gigantic black hole. That’s why the most distant observable objects appear to be moving away from us at increasing speed, and the “big bang” is what happens when we come out the other side. I’m probably not right. Maybe it really is “turtles, all the way down.”

    • What you believe is not important. What is important is trying to understand. Understanding doesn’t come in one step. Science progresses by understanding step by step, and not by stating dogma.

  16. Lest my previous comment be misunderstood, I do believe trying to understand something is a very worthwhile endeavor, and keeping an open mind is crucial.

  17. Guillermo Davila | November 22, 2021 at 7:46 am | Reply

    Does this then explain sonoluminescence?

    • No. Sonoluminescence does not involve vacuum potential. Sonoluminescence is well explained, if you would care to read up.

  18. @ Ryan Smith. When did Mr Clifton talk about the Christian God? He simply on made a point on why an Intelligent mind posses a better explanation for the Universe’s origin, that’s it.

    Also, when you say that “If a lock has a combination with 209 twists before it opens, does that make it theoretically impossible – or just hard for you to remember?” Doesn’t that defeat your entire argument since a functional lock had to be made by something or someone that built 209 different twists to open it? My question to you would be, Where did the lock come from? 🙈🙈

    • It didn’t have to be your god. He could have taken any of the 9000+ imaginary gods and the result would have been the same. I get that you are upset that your imaginary friend got picked out of that 9000+.

      He didn’t make any claim in his lock metaphor that the lock came to being spontaneously. That was not the point of the metaphor. The point was to show that 209 things is not so complex that we can’t understand. So my question is – where did your strawman come from?

  19. For all you Christians out there, atheists don’t believe in absolutes, so according to their own religion and “logic”, they can’t be sure of, or know anything. God will deal with their hearts in his own time. Until then they will keep their reprobate minds like Pharo. Even he had a purpose in God’s plan.

  20. Any of you know what unruh radiation even is? I see no one here with a clue wtf this article is talking about. Moving against quantum fluctuations at relativistic speeds creates photons.

    • Yeah. Today’s culture seems to be – “read the headline and head to the comments to show how smart I am and/or babble about my imaginary friend.”

      Reading comprehension is for chumps, it seems. Welcome to #InstagramWorld

  21. There are many great statements and facts in the comments. Being made from nothing is a little too much stated in the “ experiment “. It is not factual law. Using the carbon based diamond, knowing light of any kind is a wave factor, our lack of knowledge to a relative extent and other inclusive factors being “waves” of light not visible does not mean they are not there ever.. interesting, but so much more to discover.

    • So your takeaway from this whole thing was the ramblings from unqualified (myself included) noobs? You skipped the article (also written by an unqualified, but possibly better informed noob), and the linked paper (written by well qualified physicists), and the wealth of information available for free on wikipedia, and came to the comments get enlightened? No wonder you are so confused.

  22. Very interesting find. Now scientists have proved that something can be created from nothing. Centuries ago light was assumed to be generated only from Sun. Later science has stepped in and explained that the light emitted from Sun is due to the occurrence of nuclear chain-reaction. In fact, the chain reaction causes an electron to jump from a higher orbit to a lower orbit which eventually emits photons. The experiment posted in this article states that accelerating a diamond membrane in a vacuum produces photons. Does that mean acceleration makes the electrons jump from a higher orbit to a lower orbit in the diamond membrane? This creates a great opportunity for further research to be conducted.

    • In this case, the photons are not produced by the carbon atoms in the diamond, but by preventing virtual particle pairs from annihilating. So the photons are created from the vacuum potential.

  23. Christopher Hogan | November 22, 2021 at 1:18 pm | Reply

    I clearly lack the deep physics background of many of the commenters here. But I was sufficiently puzzled by the ambiguous wording of this writeup that I read the original research.

    What this writeup completely and totally fails to make clear — or what I somehow totally missed in the actual research paper — is that these researchers didn’t actually build this gizmo. They did not, in fact, actually manage to produce photons out of the vacuum.

    Instead, this research just provided a solvable mathematical model showing that the gizmo in question (a rapidly vibrating diamond sheet with defects that act as photon detectors, tuned to the vibrational frequency of the enclosed evacuated cavity) should be able to detect such photons without the ludicrous and un-achievable rate of acceleration required for a single detector to do so, owing to its ability to perform in a fashion analogous to a laser.

    In other words, this was just a mathematical model — including justification for numerous simplifications — that predicts what ought to happen, if somebody were to build and fire up the device in question.

    They did not, contrary to the headling, literally produce photons out of the vacuum. They just described how they believe it could feasibly be done.

    • Congratulations, Sir, you just won the interwebs. Out of all the commenters here, you are the only one who read the article, and read the paper (which, apparently, even the author of this article didn’t do). I wish there were more people like you in this world.

  24. Hey Ryan Smith, do you actually think natural processes created your combination lock? It took intelligence to create that. Just like it took intelligence to create the universe. Your response is weak. You probably think natural processes made mount Rushmore also,lol

  25. Hey Ryan Smith, those faces on Mount Rushmore, it took intelligence, just like your Combination lock, not natural processes.

  26. What are the facts? What can you learn from they experiment other than that for which it was intended? Maby life is law just like gravity.

    • Yeah… Why bother to understand anything? Me hungry. Me need food. Right, caveman?

      Science progresses in steps. The device you used to post your dumb comment on is the result of multiple theoretical physics experiments, that you are too dumb to understand. Want a banana?

  27. Can you all please stop arguing? I want to actually learn something, not be subjected to a comments section full of vitriol.

    • What’s an internet comment section for, if not for trolling, self-aggrandization, spreading of misinformation and/or god propaganda, and spewing vitriol? Join in dude, you are missing out on all the fun.

  28. One ring to rule them all
    and in the darkness bind them.

  29. BibhutibhusanPatel | November 23, 2021 at 4:23 am | Reply

    Einstein’s equivalence principle is applied to which categories of bodies is important.This can not predict about super massive black hole,other black holes.ln other words acceleration of a material body and transformation of this to gravity is strictly limited for common sized specimen.This can not be appĺied to celestial bodies with its own accord.Different kind of science is present for SMBH and so other black holes.Einstein’s equivalence principle for change in gravity can not be calculated directly.But however,by gravitational wave increase in mass of black holes in merge has been recorded for only few seconds relates the truth about different science.Einstein’s theory is confined to milky way.

    • You state your opinions as if they are absolutes, without any explanation, reference or logic. It makes as much sense as a sentence like, “The sky cannot be blue because the color blue cannot be applied to an object as big as the sky.”

  30. BibhutibhusanPatel | November 23, 2021 at 4:26 am | Reply

    Einstein’s equivalence principle is applied to which categories of bodies is important.This can not predict about super massive black hole,other black holes.ln other words acceleration of a material body and transformation of this to gravity is strictly limited for common sized specimen.This can not be appĺied to celestial bodies with its own accord.Different kind of science is present for SMBH and so other black holes.Einstein’s equivalence principle for change in gravity can not be calculated directly.But however,by gravitational wave increase in mass of black holes in merge has been recorded for only few seconds relates the truth about different science.Einstein’s theory is confined to milky way.
    There is no reason that all the galaxies follow our rules.

  31. This how you end up manifesting otherworldly horrors in like 6 different movies and video games

  32. Interesting how this article created a debate over religion and who’s religion should be recognized as the end all of silly stories.
    When I say religion, I’m not just referring to the son’s of Abraham – Einstein’s followers are a sect of religion too in my humble opinion. Imaginary objects like the biblical god and a black hole are equally undetectable by any means, one suggests that their almighty deity created and controls all by sheer will; the other claims there is some absolutely dense object at the center of a black hole that holds galaxies in check & bordering on Manson family incoherence overwhelm the magnetic fields that we can actually measure.
    Oyea the same magnetic fields that researchers failed to identify as present in the “vacuum” and exist everywhere, did I mention that we can measure them with calibrated instruments, manipulate them to a level that gives those religious people the LHC so they can look for “god particles” – yep yep yep.
    If you’re view of nature/cosmos doesn’t include a force you can actually measure – by definition you’re religious.

    • You forgot the include the Electric Universe Loonytoons religion. I hear there’s a lot of publications on it these days – if you consider incoherent ramblings posted on YouTube as publications.

      I get that you are pissed because you people don’t get taken seriously by the scientific community – but that’s because you haven’t published anything other than rants, and haven’t provided any falsifiable hypotheses. General Theory of Relativity is falsifiable. Your Electric Universe thingy is not.

  33. God said ( LET THERE BE LIGHT) and there was. Know one has to believe but……

    • Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
      Psalm 137 verse 9.

      That’s also from the Old Testament of your imaginary sky buddy.

  34. Well, good day to all ,as for theory, what if all are waves ? And all things are relevant to each other! Just a thought! Not
    Think! STOP following!

    • What if all were invisible pink unicorns? Nah, I’ll just take evidence over your ‘shroom fantasies.

      • it is not a shroom fantasy. Its literally the heart of quantum field theory. We know from the double slit experiment that when observed light acts as a particle. With no observer it acts as a wave. Observation effects matter, causing a collapse of the probability field if you will, and forcing the observed phenomenon to pick a state. This phenomenon is well known, but not well understood. Please look into it.

  35. Can someone please tell me where in the known universe did they go to complete this experiment as there is no where in the universe where there is nothing? Also did they use nothing to conduct the experience? I’m gonna call B’s on this one!

    • He who doesn’t read an article and jumps straight to comment on it is a bigger fool than he makes himself appear to be in the comments.
      – Confucius

  36. William R Marchbanks | November 23, 2021 at 6:31 pm | Reply

    Can someone please tell me where in the known universe did they go to complete this experiment as there is no where in the universe where there is nothing? Also did they use nothing to conduct the experiment? I’m gonna call BS on this one!

    • He who doesn’t read an article and jumps straight to comment on it is a bigger fool than he makes himself appear to be in the comments. Especially when he posts his dumb comment twice.
      – Confucius

  37. The experiment amounted to producing the Piezo effect in diamond.

    • No, it didn’t. And also – there was no experiment. The article is about a paper that proposes a detector for the experiment, which is yet to be done.

  38. I predict that hitting a piece of diamond would produce the same “light”.

  39. I am not a scientist nor do I have an above average IQ but I do have the ability to understand that science has become a god to many and that is what they worship & praise & place their trust in. Even sacrificing all their time, energy, body & even their children to trials & experiments in the name of science. I have yet to see an explosion create a house from the ground up or even give us the building blocks of its foundations. Scientists have always only been able to work with what they were given. The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. If you haven’t already, you should look into the Harvard scientists who found God’s name written inside our DNA. God bless all of you.

    • Hey, you people running the asylum! Lock up the darn PC would you? Too many loonies getting on the ‘net tonight.

  40. There can never be nothing. There is always something. You can infinitely zoom into any point in space and this would give rise to infinite possibilities of something existing along the infinite zooming in. So nothingness itself is a nonexistent term. We might not even be able to detect or sense a lot of things that exist around us.

    • That’s exactly the premise behind vacuum photons. The premise of quantum field theory is that even a perfect vacuum holds an energy potential.

  41. Once the experiment has concluded and the results in, what will the results achieve in further understanding our universe. The idea sounds like a, oh we did it but now what, if you could make solar power from a vacuum powered by potato chips then you would be onto a winner.

    • Says the guy who typed his comment to a forum on the internet using an electronic device… all of which required people doing things that had no direct application.

      Not everything has to be about “me hungry, me want food.”

  42. Can i do this experiment by putting extra sensitive photons doctor in microwave making negative pressure inside and start my experiment?
    Will i get any photans?
    If yes then how i will know these are entangled photans generated inside not from other sources

    • You do realize that a microwave oven emits photons, right? Those photons have nothing to do with photons produced by interrupting virtual pair annihilation in a vacuum.

  43. That is not possible, they just claim ed

  44. We can see if there are any changes in diamond shield to see if photons were radiated from it or not

  45. It can be tested that if photons were radiated from diamond shield by again testing it

  46. David Allen Breaux | November 26, 2021 at 6:24 pm | Reply

    First no one has proved that there is nothing in the black hole or in a vacuum. So getting light from nothing I sa your flawed from the start PROVE there is no light to begin with then we shall move on.

    • There’s a light detector in the box, dude. If there is light before the detector accelerates, it would be detected. The people who design these experiments aren’t total idiots, like you.

  47. Still does not explain why ezisitance is. A vacuum is. It has set parameters, it exists. Nonexistence is actually unfathomable. Existence is, has always been abd will always be. By the way using the Roman alphebet to write the self existenct one in Hebrew you get YHWH.

    • John, here’s my advice. Do what other god-freaks do – stick fingers in your ears, close your eyes tightly and yell “goddidit, goddidit” until the science goes away. The only thing is – it won’t.

  48. The Universe is Balanced by Opposites – Pure Void: Empty Space and Visualized Matter, “Visualized” is Used to Include “Mental Images” – Which are Not Physical Matter. First there is Nothing and then there is an Idea. Ideas, as Represented by “Symbols”: 1,2,3…etc, are Actually Finite Points Defined by a Converging of “Facts”: Fragments of Information…In Brief: I Proclaim that a Black Hole Draws in on One End and Funnels Through Space to an Opposing End…

  49. …Nebula…Black Holes Draw in Matter from One “Layer”:Fold of Space and Push Matter Out in Another “Dimension”: “Layer” of Space in the Form of Nebula…

  50. It is a misleading headline and here’s why. It is not an empty vacuum as they say because they have the detector inside the box. They are not making something from nothing as the scientist says, because the detector they put in the box is the thing making the light. All matter with produce light if oscillated quickly enough as all matter IS light. So the may as well have put a flashlight in the vacuum and turned it on, ‘see we detected light in a vacuum. It’s like we made something from nothing.’ Just because its higher tech doesn’t change anything.

    • Matter is not light. Matter can be converted to energy, and energy can be converted to photons, which are electromagnetic field carriers. Where did you read that matter produces light if oscillated quickly enough? If you can provide any reference (please, no more YouTube videos), I would be very grateful, as this is a profound revelation, if correct.

      You seem to have missed the whole premise of the experiment. The mass of the detector in the vacuum is immaterial. What the experiment might show is that vacuum is a quantum field potential (and therefor, not empty).

      Think of it this way. 0 is nothing, right? Well, it looks like nothing, but it’s actually +1 + (-1). That means, zero is not nothing – it’s a potential for something.

      Imagine that a zero is sitting in space – it’s nothing. Imagine that every once in a while, that zero splits in to a +1 and a -1 spontaneously, and then within the tiniest fraction of a second, recombine and produce zero.

      Now, imagine that during that teensiest fraction of a second, an accelerating diamond membrane comes along and snags the +1. Now, instead of a zero, you have a -1. In effect, you have produced something out of zero.

      That’s what this experiment is about.

  51. WOW! They put energy into asystem and got energy out of the system as a result??? AMAZING! They’ve completely defied the laws of physics! … OH, wait …

    • Wow, you didn’t understand the article at all and rushed to post an uneducated comment? AMAZING! You completely validated your mail-order diploma!… OH, wait…

Leave a comment

Email address is optional. If provided, your email will not be published or shared.