foodchain

I promise I'm not trying to make a point with this. I'm just curious as to how you feel the scientific community should treat these two groups that oppose basically what it as a body is saying. Now obviously there are some global warming deniers (or anthropogenic global warming, or whatever semantic games you want to play) and even a few Creationists on this site, so perhaps you're going to have a different opinion than us drones, and I'd be interested to hear those too.

 

Is denying the scientific consensus on the origins and development of life and the universe analogous to denying the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change? Is one position more valid than the other? Does either group serve any more valid function than the other?

A creationist I would say holds somewhat an absolute opinion that all things are created by or done by or controlled by a super natural thing or a god. So anything contrary to this is damaging to such a worldview and typically is met with either hostility or base hatred really. Al Gore if memory serves claims to be a religious man, but he is not an extremist, in which a creationist really is an extremist religious type. If you will notice any detail lacking 100% factual empirical representation of reality is instantly sucked into this extremist vacuum and used for any nefarious ends to reach a goal for some agenda which is basically god did it or is doing it.

To add in one more aspect to such, its why I am weary of the military anymore. Who wants to fight for an officer or a president that thinks you will die and go to heaven, he or she might not be to careful with your life, but its just subjective on my part, or such a view is.

Tunnelling is just because the probability declines exponentially in barriers, when you solve the solutions for particles in quantum wells...

 

I don't see how this phenomenon could be larger?

 

Or how entanglement could be increased? Or really what that means, what quantities would be entangled? As soon as you interact with an entangled particle you destroy the entanglement....

This is a hybrid of what I currently know about physics compared to what I see in day to day living basically. What I think I am trying to say basically is something I would expect to be modeled as a quantum field theory combined with conservation of energy and possibly to some extent quantum foam basically, or at least I think so...

Anway, could it be said that any event physically could be looked upon as an instaton in a physical system? If such is true in any regard its a movement of energy in some form I would think, be it a leaf blowing in the wind or to boil water. It all takes some energy to motivate in time that action or event to occur. If left alone a system in time will work towards equilibrium. This is a part of what geology basically studies with planets. Why is this though? Is it somewhat the same reason why nucleosynthesis occurs? Without this nothing much changes, and to reach this change involves energy, to work against what?

A question to me is the higher the energy in a system the higher gravity it has? Like the difference in gravity from Saturn to Jupiter? If in probability that conservation of energy is absolute, how does this equate into vacuum states. I have no way to probe such right now I think save trying to equate an monatomic system as itself also a vacuum state. To make a jump then because I cant yet put the two together into words in regards to the middle, its just a vacuum effect of energy movement/differentiation that gives rise to gravity, this is why I think its paramount to solve for dark matter/dark energy because It think it plays a huge role from a QM perspective in cosmic evolution from the microscopic to any degree larger of course with respects to certain cutoffs which of course I cant define currently.

The problem to me is all physical differentiation is a product of current mathematical abilities combined with equipment based on such, which is sort of a paradox giving the idea quantum systems are not isolated nor really can you truly rid any event of item or bit of information from the environment, which I can only find to support more of a cosmic evolution of things going from available energy.

So basically what it comes down to in the most reduced forms I can think of is as a constant the visible universe as a quantum system is collectively operating as a vacuum, or such never stops, and such is what produces gravity because everything is it basically... As such degrees or scales of energy work in such a framework I could see it producing large scale phenomena such as the shapes of bodies in space.

The only way I think I could even begin to probe such an idea for any reality is on the basis of chemical behavior.

Say for instance that QM operates in nature on probability. I would like to say this probability is relation to a non static or dynamic environment, such as just more of the same. I would like to pull from string theory the idea of the primordial particle or thing, and simply call it “stuff” for the purpose of this thread. Now lets purpose that you have a bulk of this substance or stuff and of course not saying what laws do exist lets just go along with the probability. Now not knowing for sure the ramifications that quantum tunneling or entanglement has with respects to current definitions of time, I would like to think that such an environment would be pure chaos lacking any lasting form and or structure, and currently the laws of physics for our universe does not yet exist.

Now lets just say because of infinite probability that some event happens in a quantum soup for lack of better words. Such an event gives rise to some form of structure and or form. Could such an event hold a relational or environmental impact on the soup great enough to cause for instance a big bang? Basically what I am trying to state is QM gave rise via probability to a structure and or form that could become an instaton(or wave function) in which you would have either a very large false vacuum that could instantaneously bust off into many smaller versions.

Now what I am trying to get at here is a possible theory of gravity, though of course I have no way to prove it.

When the first false vacuum existed it had to move into lower energy states via fracturing basically into many smaller vacuums. The definite paradigm here is that a finite amount of energy to do work or hold form exists in the universe, which goes directional along a wave function born of probability. When this occurs it draws in the probability and events into the vacuum. Thus such is a poorly defined and crude notion of gravity on my part. The vacuums also can come in many forms relation to a larger wave function that gives rise to current forms and structure, aka laws of physics. I think this delegates almost intrinsically that dark matter/energy is some form of movement in such a direction that can interact basically or weakly via the wave function but cant take form possible because of only so much energy which is conserved? So gravity becomes the local reality of a vacuums wave function on any level. Be it a particle to a solar system.

I have no idea how to test. I would need to be able to show a relational evolution of stuff from what I would gauge as dark matter, or dark energy to one or the other and then into the visible universe basically. It also implies a certain degree of selection born out of a soup based on probable that take the form of wave functions in which I would have to ground in Quantum events going cosmic basically and providing again the laws of physics as we know such, which are products again of the wave function operating in various vacuums which are born of such again to any scale, be it a galaxy to a solar system.

The idea though is gravity comes from basically then a larger degree of quantum entanglement/tunneling as a wave function I guess carrying out as a vacuum.

I also don’t have the first clue as to what maths I could use to even prove such false, or for that matter even try to put it into numbers.

Any input would be great, especially if someone could basically state its false and why so I don’t feel the need to carry out any academic or life activities on such.

*I wanted to post this in speculations but then I don’t think many people would look at it, more so those from the physics community here on the forums. If an admin feels the need to move this thread to such, go ahead I am fine with it.

What do people think of the accuracy of Wikipedia in science related articles?

I like it for an overview purpose. Such as if I am introduced to a new topic that I don’t hold any real previous understanding of. I think wiki helps me really find out more on the topic for the purpose of being a starting place. I don’t think really its something you should take for granted as in the truth on a subject, but a good general overview and place to start on a subject again.

IN time I could see wiki getting more refined with honest interpretations and factual representations, but for the longest time the opening paragraph on wiki for instance when you typed in physics stated physics had nothing to do basically with the life sciences. So it has its ills but it also has its own immune system which is feedback with its users and appointed guardians/admins.

Right, I don’t want to offend anyone as I know close to nothing of course but could that be somewhat the reality of why science cannot fully integrate QM with relativity? Personally as a gut feeling(be warned:D ) I think that QM does lead up to relativity as we understand it somehow. I also think all the little physical realities that make up basically everything share in this, be it playing tennis to the formation of galaxies.

So is the reality then as why we keep classical around is simply due to contemporary limitations for calculations? Is this somewhat a product of current models to any extent?

Will further advances in the understanding of quantum mechanics overtake classical views of the physical world at all levels eventually? Why or why not?

Or both really I don’t know. Simple question I think.

You take a surface, spray some water onto it say with a misting nozzle or what not. Eventually the beads of water will become so big that gravity for instance takes over and they move down.

Question splits to two parts and is derived from my limited understanding of QM.

Does the act of gravity on the movement of such bodies basically come from gaining a higher state of energy and attempting to lower such, and is the path such takes, which appears to be random, is actually coming also from the same behavior? Now I know surface has something to do with such, but I think it would not disturb the question to greatly and actually apply.

If I did not define the question good enough please let me know.

what are one's thought on perpetual motion? would it be possible using a machine that operated of strong magnets?

 

edit: i spelled perpetual wrong in the topic. whoops

If you draw out the forces involved with the appropriate equations you will see that energy required to sustain such cannot be reached. I have thought about such in the context of gravity, attempting to use gravity to supply such but I cant really think of any condition/environment in which such could become real, let alone useful.

I was playing around with my calculator trying to draw shapes on the graph and I have a question. As it enumerates through the various values, for say an equation that I graph, is there anyway after the fact of the equation to tackle any element in the list?

I don’t have any real clue as to how to go about such or even if its possible. Does the graph just proceed and or execute from the opening argument with no ability to grab an element in the list after the fact. I mean in comp sci you have operators that can allow you such a luxury so I think they would exist in math. Would it be only possible by the constructing your initial equation or equations for that matter? Such as if I wanted to draw a curve but halfway through the curve for instance I wanted it to make a square, do I have to specify this in the equations specifically? I imagine I would half to anyways so to further refine and hopefully communicate my question how do I make an equation to grab a certain value, do something, and then carry on back before that value was reached?

"Abstract

Telomerase activity is one of the most important factors that have been linked to multiple developmental processes, including cell proliferation, differentiation, aging and senescence. Dysregulation of telomerase has often been found in developmental abnormalities, such as cancer, loss of function in the hematopoietic system, and low success rate of somatic cloning. A comprehensive network of transcription factors has been shown to be involved in the genetic control of telomerase expression and activity. Epigenetic mechanisms have recently been shown to provide an additional level of regulation, and may be responsible for the diverse expression status of telomerase that is manifested in a tissue and cell-type-dependent manner. This article summarizes the recent developments in the field of telomerase research with a focus on the coregulation of the telomerase gene by both genetic and epigenetic pathways. Developmental consequences of aberrant telomerase activity will also be summarized and discussed."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T39-4CY5KX2-1&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F29%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=94956ad6b1ed53d57b5a856510bfa3e6

Right so the pressure inside the bubble would have to match depth which would most fatal to humans is what you are getting at. I don’t know how I would combat this. The gel is simply to provide a water tight pocket with the carbon tubes(of course all hypothetical) to provide structural integrity of the bubble. The bubble also needs to be able to filter in oxygen or molecular oxygen right and get rid of CO2. I need something that can be used as an endosome and a lysosome in that regard:D Which I thought I would make part in my imaginative concept as part of the overall mesh(gel/tubes).

I know water cant freeze because of the pressure in nano tubes or carbon ones. Would there be any way to route various forces onto them and use some composite material that would push back equally, or somewhat close to take up some of the work?

Did you even read anything that was said before? Telomers are about your cells aging, not you. Because your cells age each time they reproduce, a mutant cell that reproduces uncontrollably will age and die, preventing cancer. A cancer only happens when the cell becomes immortal and reproduces uncontrollably. If all your cells were immortal, every tumor would be a cancer. You might get cancer when you are about 5 years old instead of 75, way before you get to reproductive age. Cell aging just means you need two mutations instead of one to get cancer.

Right but the same reality of a telomeres in context of multicellular beings operating in concert can also be found in developmental processes. Such as how much of a certain cell type or for how long. Which goes into molecular clocks as being described here. The issue is that the role of telomeres is being brought up as an ends to cancer in which study on the subject can find telomere behavior related to various negative health conditions that go outside of the scope of being cancer related or even combating cancer. So what is the value again? Also would it simply be just as equal to say that the evolution of various behaviors such as cell division, molecular clocks and the control of morphogenesis be enough to explain while such aspects of an organism persist, and lastly I still cant see any physical connection and or evidence past logical deduction.

The only avenue in which I could agree with telomeres being related to combating cancer has more to do with mutation and or reorganization of the genome. For instance when bacteria are culture in experiments to force evolution. If life per say experiences such and tends to leave normal fixed traits behind I could see this pertaining to telomere behavior in regards to placement of such for stabilization purposes. The other issue though is evolution wont occur if the species does not reproduce, which also means the parents have to say alive and or cancer free long enough to do this. So again the only avenue I could see to test such for empirical means would to be relating phylogeny time wise to various species to telomere behavior in the face of adaptation and selective pressures.

Personally I just don’t see anything from a molecular/cellular viewpoint up to whole species to support this. Humans are a perfect example with a good deviation of mean lifespan, to just about any other specie really. I just don’t see telomeres behavior and or use indicative of combating cancer, but more or less just as aspect of biology that has not been made extinct from selective pressures, such as simply being able to function. I mean if you develop cancer and become sick, odds are that natural selection will be combating such a phenotype in the development of a genome or organism. Not that the body does not have various means to retain fitness such as DNA repari mechanisms to killer cells to behavior to combat short strings of RNA being introduced, just that I don’t see past logical deduction any evidence really to support the hypothesis.

c6h12o6 is the chemical formula of glucose

Right, sorry. I was thinking that the formula looks familiar in relation to the bonding to other chemical formulas from the 6,12,6 part.

Cancer is indeed naturally occuring, and it is more likely to happen the longer you live; aka, your cells have divided more and more allowing more and more chances for a mutation to occur. And since cancer can kill you and can most certainly impede your ability to both have children and successfully raise them, it makes sense the we may have evolved mechanisms to counteract oncogenesis.

Its not only that but the reality that the specific aspect in question is present in such a diverse amount of eukaryotic life but yet the concept of life span at least in the wild does not suggest heavy activity of this item in the concept of aging as a mode to combat cancer primarily at least. I mean do some species of turtles and or plants just somehow molecular wise know that they are cancer proof or something?

I don’t know the extent of function as single entity can take on overall but I just currently don’t see a lot of merit supporting such as a strong factor in ageing in reference to combating cancer. Plus the activity of such is not zero in somatic cells lacking cancerous traits, for however also such is to know why difference is equal to cancer on a cellular/molecular scale.

Humans did not evolve to travel into space I would say, but they do anyways. I guess the point I am trying to make is how do you determine to an exact amount the impact of natural selection, such as weak to strong selective pressures in any regard to the reason of existence for aspects of a biological entity. I mean what if we could turn off stress in a human mind? Stress also has negative health consequences but currently seems to be needed I would imagine.

Something I have noticed is if I reduce on artificial flora on my own property and allow native forms of such to return, so does many species of the local fauna, which I am sure has a molecular basis right?

The expression 'false vacuum' usually is referring to a local minimum of a potential rather than a global one. By that, I mean it is a physical situation where the universe (or physical system) is in a state which is not the lowest energy state, but is stable to small fluctuations. So for example, there could be a potential barrier between the local minimum and the true global lowest energy state.

 

Lately there has been interest in models where the universe is actually supersymmetric, with a lowest energy state (vacuum) which is at zero energy, but which also has other local minima separated from the true vacuum by potential barriers. The maths of supersymmetry is such that these 'false vacua' would exhibit broken supersymmetry, and many believe that this is the state we are sitting in.

 

If this is true, then every second there is a finite, non-zero probability that our quantum state will tunnel through the barrier to the true vacuum and the world as we know it will end. Fortunately, since the universe has survived for 13.7 billion years already, this probability must be very small.

As you state such could such be part of the phenomena of behavior of larger bodies in the universe, such as moment of galaxies?

No.

 

The "false vacuum" is a hypothesis that makes no verifiable prediction and cannot be proven. Personally I think there are major issues with the concept but let's leave that to one side.

 

Saying that electrons attempt to achieve the lowest possible energy state is potentially confusing. They don't attempt anything, and the statement applies to an electron atomic orbital. But then again, it applies to any system. That's how things work. Energy tends to spread.

Right but the energy spreading out certainly cannot be all of it or else how would hydrogen ever become something more then itself or for itself not to simply fizz out?

Well the nano based frame or even the gel composite could possibly be modified by either physical or chemical means or both to operate somewhat like lung books. I know that there would be plenty of oxygen in the environment. I would think exchange processes could even be used to somewhat support the structure. I am sure energy waste would be something deadly to such an environment so any part of it would have to be incorporated into an overall scheme that supported its geometry and function.

How to acquire the oxygen would be complex without a doubt, not to mention the means to adequately circulate such and keep CO2, though I have not spent much time trying to figure out applications of the CO2. I don’t know how many different types of exchange channels you could make in the mesh, plus the obvious reality that such a dome might provide a surface suitable to support life which in turn could come to strangle the bubble unless one was to avoid physical and chemical means of environmental support in a non living format and went to support some sort of symbiotic relationship with GMO based life which could pick up some of the function and even have chemical or what not messaging. Such as turning colors based on environmental conditions which could allow the mesh to pump out something or what not. Then again I think genetics has more applications then currently envisioned like such.

I keep thinking of how to use vibrational frequencies though I have no idea past just that sentence.

C6H12O6 This looks very familiar does it not represent a group or something? With the 6,12,6?

If a blackhole hypothetically speaking could be some form of a phenomena similar to a false vacuum I have two questions.

1) If per say these two items are related, and supposing a different quantum universe or event(or events) is then on a receiving end is there anyways to gauge whether the behavior of a blackhole is the way it is because the two events physics don’t match?

2) I also don’t understand exactly what all can escape a blackhole, but just like in first question what would come through if anything?

To elaborate if needed. The laws of physics as we understand them have been postulated by some as a product only existing in this universe if this universe is but one of many such possible realities. So if a blackhole is a product of this so some extent like a false vacuum, its reality would have to be able to bridge any such universes or events. Plus if such a bridge was made, it would probably be dealing with physical environments and physical laws or even constants drastically if not totally different from our own. I think this could apply to such concepts even such as cosmic inflation or expansion. It also somewhat points to me that maybe issues found in relativity could be higher tiers of behavior much like a concept of a brane.

Maybe dark matter is related and thusly while still impacted by some extent by gravity, I don’t know about time.

So does my hypothesis have any merit in reality:D

Amway’s it could make a neat short sci-fi about a town that gets nuked but lives in a quantum event afterwards because of tunneling or what not.

[bold added by me]

 

Ah, so they are speculation then, just as I suspected. My BS meter is usually pretty reliable.

 

That's a pathetically small wiki article, with just one source. It is full of maybes and possibly's. A search on the web shows only 3000 results, which also seem to be speculation. The metabolism mentioned in the wiki seems to require feeding with adensine diphosphate, hardly a natural food. Much mention about taking enzymes from living cells and putting them in the mix. Cheaters, cheaters, those things are hard to make.

 

In my humble opinion, it is the fact that so many of the proponents of evolution are obviously biased that makes people doubt their claims.

They are not speculation, they exist. There role in abiogenesis is what is speculation, but then again some don’t favor jumping the gun along with insults.

Teleomeres are basically just a way for cells to count how many times they have reproduced, and to make sure that they stop reproducing after so many generations. The mechanism is pathetically simple. Telomers are chucked off every time a cell reproduces, and when it runs out of telomers it starts loosing coding DNA. Then it will die out or be noticed a mutant by the immune system or itself. An enzyme called telomerese will regenerate the telomers in some cell lines so your kids don't die of old age at birth.

 

So if a single cell becomes tumerous but does not regenerate telomers, it will start to reproduce uncontrollably, but will lose telomers. The number of telomers it has specifies how many times it can reproduce, and therefore how big it can grow, before it runs out of telomers and dies. If one of these starts regenerating telomers, you get cancer that won't stop growing.

 

As for prokaryotes and eukaryotes, they are built differently. Eukaryotes have some independent organelles, some of which have their own DNA separate from your own DNA. So us eukaryotes are more modular, so it would make sense that they could be easier to modify without killing. Prokaryotes are also tiny and (I think) faster reproducing, so that could have an effect too. Prokaryotes have a huge pressure to reproduce as fast as possible.

The behavior of what you are talking about is weakly active in somatic cells to a larger degree then what you are alluding to. The other reality again is you say ageing is to combat cancer and that’s why telomeres exist. I say how can you know this?

I say with just about as much proof because I am just saying it that telomeres and ageing is just a normal part of biological processes that came about and have not been selected against directly. This is a rather core aspect do DNA and seems to be prevalent even while the behavior of telomeres can vary in species. So its just as easy to assume that ageing or how a genome was operating with this procedure never had that particular aspect selected against, or that ageing was never selected against. For instance a octopus has a very short lifespan? Does this mean the octopus is highly cancerous or cancer prone? Or simply did natural selection again not really act on this process directly, or even allowed it.

As for pro to eu, the reality as I see it is you don’t see any species like a duck or a boar or anything larger then a single cell really that is prokaryote based on a cellular level. That means something occurred obviously from pro to eu that allowed for multicellular, thusly I think a prime factor of current evolution of life on earth. So using evolution to figure this out could probably help explain a lot, such as what was it on the cellular/molecular scale exactly?

There is an enzyme which rebuilds telomeres, called telomerase. However, in most normal cells, it is not expressed; the gene for telomerase is turned off. In cancer cells, the gene gets turned on. The gene is also turned on in embryonic stem cells and in other cell lines that need to divide very often, but other than that, most somatic cells do not express it.

Yes but how does the telomeres again respond exactly to killing cancer and how does it know to do this as proposed?

Abstract

Untangling the complex pathways underlying the major cancer phenotypes remains a significant challenge, but deregulated expression of a single multi-component enzyme, telomerase, is implicated as a causative factor for immortalization in the vast majority of human tumors. This review highlights the potential of telomerase as a target for novel cancer gene therapies.

Rapid advances in our understanding of the molecular basis of cancer development and progression over the past three decades have led to the design of new potential cancer therapies. High throughput target validation and expression studies are expected to yield a powerful arsenal of new cancer treatments, but untangling the complex pathways underlying the major cancer phenotypes remains a significant challenge. A considerable body of evidence in recent years implicates deregulated expression of a single multi-component enzyme, telomerase, as a causative factor at the heart of immortalization in the vast majority of human tumors. This review highlights the potential of telomerase as a target for novel cancer therapies. The potential of exploiting the selectivity of the telomerase family of genes within cancer cells to develop gene therapy strategies is discussed, and the progress towards translating these novel therapeutics from the laboratory to the clinic is reviewed.

http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/982/

The only idea I can get is overall ageing then is to be a product to end cancer as "normal" genetic or genomic produces go about. I don’t see how the connection can really be made as prokaryotes also die out and thusly does all life. Which of course this whole process then has to apply to reproduction to a great deal. Also there seems to be more then one strategy to combat cancer by the body.

That's a fairly impressive claim. I would have expected this to be trumpeted from every newspaper and science magazine if it were true, but I've never heard of this. Further, if that were true, I would have also expected to hear about "new life from scratch in a test tube". I thought abiogenesis was still a mostly unsolved problem.

 

Is this empirical or speculation? Any links?

Protobionts are not speculator. You can find all the info you want on them from the web. They do reproduce in that the split. In the case of what you are asking for such as the exact claim its already been giving to you. Here is a brief link on Protobionts from wiki of course.

Protobionts are organisms that are controversially considered to have possibly been the precursors to prokaryotic cells.

A protobiont is an aggregate of abiotically produced organic molecules surrounded by a membrane or a membrane-like structure. It has been proven that protobionts could have spontaneously formed early in the earth's development, according to the laws of physics and chemistry. Protobionts exhibit some of the properties associated with life, including simple reproduction and metabolism, as well as the maintenance of an internal chemical environment different from that of their surroundings. It has been suggested that they are a key step in the origin of life on earth. Experiments by Sidney W. Fox and Aleksandr Oparin have demonstrated that they may be formed spontaneously, in conditions much like what the early Earth is thought to have been like. These experiments formed liposomes and microspheres, which have membrane structure similar to the phospholipid bilayer found in cells.

The resetting of a molecular clock so to speak occurs also in developmental processes. The problem I have with this is it explains something that can be reflected by behavior not of just this aspect of an organism with such if it exists for that purpose. The problem I see then is why so many similar behaviors that vary a little of course but go along the same lines of thought being put forward here exist in some form in differing aspects. So what is that to mean, did this aspects carry on similar function or face similar selection pressures and in short become what they are by a means of co-evolution? A simple example is a natural killer cell here with a quote from wiki.

"Natural killer cells (or NK cells) are a type of cytotoxic lymphocyte which constitute a major component of the innate immune system. NK cells play a major role in the rejection of tumors and cells infected by viruses. The cells kill by releasing small cytoplasmic granules of proteins called perforin and granzyme that cause the target cell to die by apoptosis."

Thusly named little beasties. So how does this relate to the topic at hand as somatic cells can also undergo variation all through the body over a lifespan, in which case I don’t doubt some become cancerous, but how does a telomere then react to such a situation? Does the telomere actually do anything special at that point in time, and again how does it know.

If per say by the simple fact its involved in aging as related to DNA and its processes, well some species it would seem telomere has varying degrees of effectiveness in roles commonly talked about here.

In reference to mr.skeptic the pro to eu was a multifaceted response. In that such behavior seems similar to plasmid behavior and or introns if related. so I was going on about such in it might have something to do with telomeres existence. The other point is that prokaryotes don’t evolve like eukaryotes, and why exactly?

In reply my definition was a bit shabby but I don’t have the vocab of a physicist. Instead of spawned I guess a better term should have gone something like "lead to the idea by some people"?

As for the spymans post, thanks I think I got the message in the second paragraph. I thought that they kept tunneling and vacuum apart for the scales involved is all, thus separate terms.

A false vacuum is a possible reality spawned by the study of QM that is analogous to quantum tunneling?