Off-topic Discussion Split from: Why is there something rather than nothing?

[Conjurer]

Nothing is unstable.  If you try to quantize nothing, you will find that anything less than the Planck Units of spacetime would still be considered nothing, since it has no detectable influence on the universe.  A point-like particle at rest could exist inside of the Planck Units of spacetime and still be considered nothing, because it would have no mass and energy.  There would be nothing to compare it's frame of reference to, so it could assume that it is traveling at any constant speed due to relativistic theory.  Therefore, it could then have mass and energy in another reference frame.  It could then interact with itself in time-like loops due to being in a state of superposition with an action at a distance.  Spacetime would have to expand, due to the Pauli Exclusion principle as it circled this Planck universe.  Boom!

It has it has been more recently discovered that a particle cannot be contained without exploding out of the container.  Any theory attempting to describe it breaks out into infinity, so none of them were ever accepted.  I believe the main reason this is the case is because, 1.  Action at a distance isn't fully understood, and 2. They don't consider the Pauli Exclusion principle to avoid points of infinite energy.  Basically, the universe can just come from quantum weirdness itself. 

Edited April 28, 2019 by Conjurer

[Strange]

On 4/28/2019 at 3:49 AM, Conjurer said:

Nothing is unstable.

Lots of things are unstable.

If you mean that "a state consisting of no mass or energy" is unstable, then you need to provide some evidence of this.

On 4/28/2019 at 3:49 AM, Conjurer said:

Spacetime would have to expand, due to the Pauli Exclusion principle

Are you saying that spacetime is fermionic? You will need to provide some evidence for this, too.

On 4/28/2019 at 3:49 AM, Conjurer said:

It has it has been more recently discovered that a particle cannot be contained without exploding out of the container. 

Citation needed.

 

[Conjurer]

On 4/28/2019 at 2:52 AM, Strange said:

Lots of things are unstable.

If you mean that "a state consisting of no mass or energy" is unstable, then you need to provide some evidence of this.

Are you saying that spacetime is sermonic? You will need to provide some evidence for this, too.

Citation needed.

 

I don't know how this is going to help you from anything else besides just restating my statement.  A truly pointlike particle at rest would have zero mass and energy, but according to the laws of physics a pointlike particle traveling at or close to the speed of light would have mass or energy.  If there are no other objects for the particle to compare its speed too, then it would have no way of knowing how fast it was traveling relative to anything.  The relativistic axiom of constant motion could then apply, and it could identify itself as traveling at a non-zero speed.  A pointlike particle at a non-zero speed has mass or energy according to the laws of quantum physics, and that is most likely why we have the laws of quantum physics that we have or there would just be nothing instead.

I am saying that spacetime is particulate, because Planck Length and Planck Time exist.  Then we would have to have Planck spacetime.  Max Planck already proved through experiment that if you try to measure any distance or amount of time smaller than the Planck Length and Planck Time it would require an infinite amount of energy concentrated on that point in order to obtain a measurable effect.  This is similar to Michio Kaku's theory about spacetime being like a foam.

It talks about particles not being able to be contained without exploding out of the container in the book The Big Picture by Sean Caroll.  It has also been explained as being a newly found experimental fact in multiple recent TV programs with Brain Greene and Neils Degrasse Tyson on the SYFY channel.  It should be common knowledge at this point.  

Edited April 30, 2019 by Conjurer

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

A truly pointlike particle at rest would have zero mass and energy, but according to the laws of physics a pointlike particle traveling at or close to the speed of light would have mass or energy. 

What do you base this claim on?

It is almost the exact opposite of what physics says. Electrons, for example, are point particles but have mass (even when at rest). Only particles with no mass can travel at the speed of light.

10 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

A pointlike particle at a non-zero speed has mass or energy according to the laws of quantum physics

What "laws of quantum physics" are you referring to?

10 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I am saying that spacetime is particulate, because Planck Length and Planck Time exist.

That doesn't make them particulate.

Things can be smaller than the Planck length or time.

11 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Max Planck already proved through experiment that if you try to measure any distance or amount of time smaller than the Planck Length and Planck Time it would require an infinite amount of energy concentrated on that point in order to obtain a measurable effect. 

Citation needed.

11 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I it talks about particles not being able to be contained without exploding out of the container in the book The Big Picture by Sean Caroll.  It has also been explained as being a newly found experimental fact in multiple recent TV programs with Brain Greene and Neils Degrasse Tyson on the SYFY channel.  It should be common knowledge at this point. 

I guess this is a very garbled version of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which says that the more you constrain the location of a particle the greater the uncertainty in its momentum becomes. This is not a new result. It has been known for about 100 years.

If this is not what you are talking about, then you need to be more specific that "some book I once read by some bloke".

13 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I don't know how this is going to help you from anything else besides just restating my statement.

Maybe you should find out what you are talking about instead of posting nonsense.

[Conjurer]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

What do you base this claim on?

It is almost the exact opposite of what physics says. Electrons, for example, are point particles but have mass (even when at rest). Only particles with no mass can travel at the speed of light.

I read a book a long time ago about light and electromagnetic energy, and it said that if you consider the velocity in the equations for particles like that and it is zero, then every property of the particle becomes zero due to the nature of the equations.

I don't believe an electron could be found to be at rest or be involved with other properties if it had a zero related to it in an equation for its velocity.  The more exact you consider the position of the electron the less exact the speed will be.  You can never know the exact speed and position of an electron.

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

What "laws of quantum physics" are you referring to?

The laws of quantum physics that actual physicist are working on besides you.

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

That doesn't make them particulate.

Things can be smaller than the Planck length or time.

If they can, then they could never be proven to exist via experiment according to Max Planck.  Such things would purely be hypothetical and abstract in any case and never be able to be proven to exist.

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

Citation needed.

It is the definition of the Planck Units.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck

"Planck made many contributions to theoretical physics, but his fame as a physicist rests primarily on his role as the originator of quantum theory,^[5] which revolutionized human understanding of atomic and subatomic processes."

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

I guess this is a very garbled version of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which says that the more you constrain the location of a particle the greater the uncertainty in its momentum becomes. This is not a new result. It has been known for about 100 years.

I believe it goes beyond the idea that it could just escape, and by preventing it's escape through quantum jumping, it would then have to break out of the container.

25 minutes ago, Strange said:

If this is not what you are talking about, then you need to be more specific that "some book I once read by some bloke".

Maybe you should find out what you are talking about instead of posting nonsense.

Yes, I believe that you have already explained to everyone here many times over that you are a pin head, already.  I don't think we need further examples of this.

[Strange]

37 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I read a book a long time ago about light and electromagnetic energy, and it said that if you consider the velocity in the equations for particles like that and it is zero, then every property of the particle becomes zero due to the nature of the equations.

That was either an appallingly bad or book or you misunderstood what it said.

37 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

It is the definition of the Planck Units.

And yet you didn't provide a definition that supports your claim.

The Planck mass is quite large; there are many things smaller than a Planck mass (a grain of sand, a human ovum, a yeast cell, viruses, proteins, ...). The Planck energy is even larger: enough to melt a tonne of steel. So obviously mass and energy aren't quantised by the Planck units. So there is no reason to think that length or time are either.

 

 

[Phi for All]

32 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Yes, I believe that you have already explained to everyone here many times over that you are a pin head, already.

!

Moderator Note

If you need to take a voluntary break and rediscover your civility, now would be an excellent time. 

 

[Conjurer]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

That was either an appallingly bad or book or you misunderstood what it said.

And yet you didn't provide a definition that supports your claim.

The Planck mass is quite large; there are many things smaller than a Planck mass (a grain of sand, a human ovum, a yeast cell, viruses, proteins, ...) 

 

Mass hasn't been quantized in quantum physics.  It isn't including in that definition.  That still remains a goal in quantum physics to link the theory to gravity.  You refuse to learn about physics from official sources, so you seem to only learn anything by applying the axiom of Dunning Kruger's disease.  It is appallingly obvious to anyone that has prior knowledge of the subject, which unfortunately isn't very many people.

The math that was involved in figuring out what the Planck Units should be focused primarily on how much energy it would take to measure smaller and smaller units.  He calculated that until he got an answer that was infinite, and those are the lengths and amount of times it would take to get infinity as an answer.  He did this originally, being the founder of quantum physics, because he needed to know how much power he would need to make a discovery using a particle accelerator.  He had to check to see if the equipment could be able to actually make a discovery about particles to begin with.   

[Strange]

Just now, Conjurer said:

Mass hasn't been quantized in quantum physics. 

Neither has length. That is why we don't have a theory of quantum gravity.

2 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

The math that was involved in figuring out what the Planck Units should be focused primarily on how much energy it would take to measure smaller and smaller units. 

Nope.

[Conjurer]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Neither has length. That is why we don't have a theory of quantum gravity.

Nope.

It sounds like you need to do more independent research on how quantum theory was founded and the background of how the use of particle accelerators started.  It is just too much information for me to teach you every single thing about it and reference every aspect of everything I say, when apparently you have such little knowledge about any of it.  I am not a quantum physics dictionary. 

They didn't just blindly start building particle accelerators.  It could have ended up being a big waste of money, so he came up with a way to compare how much energy it was taking to probe smaller and smaller distances in time.  Then when they make better particle accelerators, they know how to plan to make them create enough energy to see what they are looking for.  That is the reason why we have Planck Units!

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Conjurer said:

 That is the reason why we have Planck Units!

As you are so confident of this "fact" it should be easy for to provide some evidence to support it. (On the other hand, as you haven't been able to support any of your other claims, I won't hold my breath!)

[Conjurer]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

As you are so confident of this "fact" it should be easy for to provide some evidence to support it. (On the other hand, as you haven't been able to support any of your other claims, I won't hold my breath!)

Unlike you, I didn't feel like I was too good to read books made by people who study historical physics.  That is most likely the only location you can obtain a source for this type of information.  If you are unwilling to learn, I cannot help you.  

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Neither has length. That is why we don't have a theory of quantum gravity.

The main reason there is no theory of quantum gravity is because particle accelerators are horrible at detecting mass.  It could take a particle accelerator an infinite amount of energy to directly detect a Planck Mass, but there are other methods that can be used to detect an amount of mass smaller than the Planck Mass.  Then it doesn't imply that the Planck Mass is fundamental.  Although, there is no better method to detect lengths in time smaller than the other Planck Units.  Then the other Planck Units being fundamental implies that there is no better method to measure lengths in time than particle accelerators.  Particle accelerators can reach the same energies that exist at the first moments of the Big Bang, so there would not exist conditions in nature where those units would have a measurable influence either.  

Edited April 30, 2019 by Conjurer

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Conjurer said:

It sounds like you need to do more independent research on how quantum theory was founded and the background of how the use of particle accelerators started.  It is just too much information for me to teach you every single thing about it and reference every aspect of everything I say, when apparently you have such little knowledge about any of it.  I am not a quantum physics dictionary. 

How about you cite a reliable source?

2 hours ago, Conjurer said:

They didn't just blindly start building particle accelerators.  It could have ended up being a big waste of money, so he came up with a way to compare how much energy it was taking to probe smaller and smaller distances in time.  Then when they make better particle accelerators, they know how to plan to make them create enough energy to see what they are looking for.  That is the reason why we have Planck Units!

Particle accelerators don’t probe at the Planck scale.

[Conjurer]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

How about you cite a reliable source?

I don't see why you operate under the delusion that a reliable source even exist pertaining to this subject matter on the internet.  Cern didn't invent the internet until almost a century after this work was done.  Then it was mostly overrun by pornography.

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

Particle accelerators don’t probe at the Planck scale.

Exactly, that is what I have been trying to say this whole time, and it is the entire basis of my point.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Conjurer said:

Cern didn't invent the internet until almost a century after this work was done. 

CERN didn’t invent the internet. It was developed by DARPA. 

[Conjurer]

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

CERN didn’t invent the internet. It was developed by DARPA. 

I mistakenly said CERN, when I actually meant FERMILAB.  In the universe I came from, Fermilab needed it to send massive amounts of data about its findings, and the internet was born.  Then the general public was only able to find massive amounts of pornography.

[Strange]

8 hours ago, Conjurer said:

I mistakenly said CERN, when I actually meant FERMILAB.  

Nope

https://www.internetsociety.org/internet/history-internet/brief-history-internet/

No mention of Fermilab there

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Conjurer said:

I don't see why you operate under the delusion that a reliable source even exist pertaining to this subject matter on the internet.  Cern didn't invent the internet until almost a century after this work was done.  Then it was mostly overrun by pornography.

People write books.

10 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Exactly, that is what I have been trying to say this whole time, and it is the entire basis of my point.

What you wrote kinda sounds the opposite of that. Why would you need Planck scale units if your accelerator isn't going to approach their level of utility? 

[Sensei]

11 hours ago, Strange said:

CERN didn’t invent the internet. It was developed by DARPA. 

He mistakenly made equality of Internet and WWW. For layman they can be synonyms though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee

Tim Berners-Lee worked at CERN and made the first ever HTTP server.

"info.cern.ch was the address of the world's first-ever website and web server, running on a NeXT computer at CERN. The first webpage address was http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html, which centred on information regarding the WWW project. Visitors could learn more about hypertext, technical details for creating their own webpage, and even an explanation on how to search the Web for information. There are no screenshots of this original page and, in any case, changes were made daily to the information available on the page as the WWW project developed. You may find a later copy (1992) on the World Wide Web Consortium website.[37]"

 

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, Sensei said:

He mistakenly made equality of Internet and WWW.

Most of his posts seem to be a confused mixture of half-remembered information.

[Conjurer]

12 hours ago, swansont said:

What you wrote kinda sounds the opposite of that. Why would you need Planck scale units if your accelerator isn't going to approach their level of utility? 

It was used to determine what level of utility an accelerator would be able to obtain to make a particle discovery.  So, it was then known that you wouldn't need or be capable of making an accelerator that would probe below the Planck Scale.  It is, more simply, the limit of a particle accelerators capabilities.  Then you wouldn't want to try to go beyond what is possibly capable for an accelerator to obtain information.  That was done by comparing what capabilities of particle accelerator experiments had at the time, given the amount of energies put into them.  I am not sure if these experiments where ever repeated or verified with better technology, and I don't see how/why it ever would, given that no one seems to know about it besides me.

The only theory I know of that uses the Planck Scale Units was from more recent work done on finding a more accurate solution to the cosmological constant or the expansion rate of the universe.  They then won a noble prize for discovering that the rate of acceleration itself is actually increasing.  Around the time that was done, I was explaining to people how the cosmological constant wasn't actually wrong from discoveries they didn't seem to know about, and I also explained to them things about the Planck Scale.  I don't know why they chose the Planck Scale to describe it in their theory, because it creates ridiculously high numbers for describing it which cannot be found to relate to anything.  There is also no reason why anyone should ever assume that cosmological inflation should be that localized.  

Edited May 1, 2019 by Conjurer

[Strange]

52 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

It was used to determine what level of utility an accelerator would be able to obtain to make a particle discovery. 

You don't need to use Planck units to do that. You could use any system of units: pounds and feet, kilograms and meters, etc. It doesn't make any difference. They are just units of measurement.

52 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

The only theory I know of that uses the Planck Scale Units was from more recent work done on finding a more accurate solution to the cosmological constant or the expansion rate of the universe. 

I assume you are not going to be able to provide a reference to this work?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Conjurer said:

It was used to determine what level of utility an accelerator would be able to obtain to make a particle discovery.  So, it was then known that you wouldn't need or be capable of making an accelerator that would probe below the Planck Scale.  It is, more simply, the limit of a particle accelerators capabilities.  Then you wouldn't want to try to go beyond what is possibly capable for an accelerator to obtain information.  That was done by comparing what capabilities of particle accelerator experiments had at the time, given the amount of energies put into them.  I am not sure if these experiments where ever repeated or verified with better technology, and I don't see how/why it ever would, given that no one seems to know about it besides me.

You would not get within spitting distance of Plank scale units. They would simply not come into play.

If you disagree, respond with some actual science. 

 

[Conjurer]

20 hours ago, Strange said:

You don't need to use Planck units to do that. You could use any system of units: pounds and feet, kilograms and meters, etc. It doesn't make any difference. They are just units of measurement.

Max Planck didn't use Planck units to discover that.  The Planck Scale was the discovery he made from doing preliminary experiments used to determine how to make particle accelerators while using different units.

 

20 hours ago, Strange said:

I assume you are not going to be able to provide a reference to this work?

It was the 2014 Nobel Prize in cosmology was awarded for it.  Sean Carroll's recent books goes into a lot of detail about it.  You could easily search for it on the internet.  Just search for 2014 Nobel Prize in cosmology.

 

20 hours ago, swansont said:

You would not get within spitting distance of Plank scale units. They would simply not come into play.

If you disagree, respond with some actual science. 

 

  The goal of Big Bang cosmology is to be able to describe the Big Bang closer and closer to the moment it started.  The title of this thread was "why is there something rather than nothing".  Then the question was asked, "why is nothing unstable", at the start of the thread.  Then I stated that it has been attempted already to try to quantize nothing.  In order to do that, Planck Units would have to be involved, unless you know of some better method or idea.  That is the closest you can get to nothing in physics which can make physical predictions about the universe.  The new idea, which has already been going around in physics, is that a point like particle in the Planck Scale blows up into infinity according to the current laws of physics.  

The alternative theory is that particle pairs come into existence out of nothing to create something from nothing, but we have already had a long discussion on how you don't agree with that theory already a while back ago.  It was the most popular reason for many years among the top Big Bang cosmologist. 

Edited May 2, 2019 by Conjurer

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

The Planck Scale was the discovery he made from doing preliminary experiments used to determine how to make particle accelerators.

It is more of an invention or definition than a "discovery". It had nothing to do with particle accelerators (which hadn't been invented in 1899).

11 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

It was the 2014 Nobel Prize in cosmology was awarded for it.

There is no Nobel Prize in cosmology.

The nearest would be physics. The 2014 Nobel Prize in Physics was for the invention of blue LEDs: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/13/nobel-prizes-2014-the-winners

So, any chance you could provide a reference to this "more recent work done on finding a more accurate solution to the cosmological constant"?