My theory on the universe.

[Choix]

Disclaimer: I am not a scientist, I do not read other peoples theories. These are my own ideas based on my own reasoning and my general knowledge of the universe. If my ideas are close to anything written by any famous scientist it is purely a coincidence and I have no intention to try and steal others ideas and claim them as my own. Remember it is possible for more than one person to think the same way.

 

My theory on understanding our universe.

 

 

First of all my theory assumes that there are two fundamental rules that make our universe:

 

Rule number 1:

You cannot have something without nothing and you cannot have nothing without something, think of this as space and matter.

 

Rule number 2:

Time is an illusion. For the same reason that you can't have nothing without something there could never have been a beginning and there will never be an ending. The reason for this is because if you assume there is a beginning you are assuming that before the beginning there was nothing and if you assume there is an end you are assuming that after the end there would also be nothing. This would contradict the 1st rule since there cannot be nothing without something and therefore I belive the universe is constant and there was never a beginning and there wont ever be an end.

 

The theory:

 

So I have established my rules now I will explain my theory that is based on them.

 

Without a beginning and end we have to assume that an event would cause a loop back to what we call the big bang at some point in the future.

 

My theory is that in the same way matter is pulled by gravity into a black hole eventually all matter will be pulled back into a single point. As more black holes appear throughout space and consume more of there surrounding matter they will become much larger in size until all that is left for them to consume is each other. At that point all matter in the universe would be packed together and the huge amount of gravity produced by this giant mass of everything will attempt to condense itself even further until a supernova like event takes place and matter is exploded back out into space to start the cycle once again.

 

 

This is the first time I have bothered to share my views with other people, the reason I wrote the disclaimer is because this seems so plausible to me that I would find it difficult to belive I was the first person to have this idea. Regardless please let me know what you think, thank you.

[woelen]

I have heard of this theory before, but newer insights make it highly unlikely.

 

Black holes do evaporate, albeit VERY slowly. Space-time produces pairs of virtual particles, which also quickly annihilate each other. The net effect is nothing, no energy, no matter. But on a micro-scale there is some noise.

 

If this happens near the horizon of a black hole (just in front of the border, where nothing can escape it, not even light), then it could happen that one of the virtual particles falls into the black hole, and the other particle remains outside. They cannot annihilate each other anymore, and the particle, which remains is not virtual anymore. It appears as radiation. The energy, represented by that particle effectively is subtracted as mass from the black hole. As a consequence, the black hole looses a mass E/c², with E being the energy of the newly created particle, and c the speed of light in vacuum. For very large black holes, this only happens infrequently, but the lower the mass of the black hole, the more this happens and black holes hence evaporate faster and faster. A sun's mass black hole would take zillions of zillions of years to evaporate (much more than the currently estimated age of the universe, which is appr. 14 billion years). But finally, all mass will evaporate into radiation and we will have a very cold and empty universe (in the meantime the universe will expand for ever and ever).

[Choix]

Ok you gave me a very scientific answer to my theory and while I must admit you lost me at parts I am understanding that you missed the main reasoning for my theory.

 

I talked about black holes and all mass coming together as one as an example to describe my loop theory, this example can be debated and I am not convinced on this theory myself.

 

The true point I was trying to make was more the life of the universe and the concept of the start and end.

 

I was trying to explain that there cannot be nothing at the end of the universe and the big bang could not have been the definitive start.

 

The big bang could not have happened without the existence of something to spark the reaction and if something existed before the big bang it had to come from somewhere this is where my the point of my theory comes in. The something that caused the big bang had to come from somewhere it couldn't just appear one day from nothing therefore is it not logical to assume that something was left behind from a pervious universe to create our universe and is it not also logical to assume that it is going to happen again? This is where the idea for my loop theory came from.

 

You seemed to prove my example of how the loop may happen wrong however I am still convinced the actual loop theory is correct I just don't have another theory on how it may happen just yet.

 

My key argument: If there could have been nothing before the big bang then there never would have been anything to cause the big bang.

[Sequence]

All theorys need refinment, The Big Bang Theory doesn't expain everything. The way the big bang theory was explained to me was that all matter suddenly came into excistence. I agree that you can't get somthing from nothing, so, in conclusion, I don't know.

[bascule]

What if black holes create new universes?

[Edtharan]

You can get something from nothing and somthing can return to nothing.

 

In QM it allows a pair of particles to form (from nothing) and then anhialate with each other (returning to nothing). This violates your first rule. As you first rule is the basis of your theory, and has been shown to be an incorrect assumption, then your theory breaks down.

 

When proposing preopsition (rules) it is important to check that those prepositions are indeed true. In this case your first preposition was shown to be incorrect. You logic and resoning might be impecable, but if your starting premises are incorrect, then you will come to incorrect results.

[Bettina]

You can get something from nothing and somthing can return to nothing.

 

In QM it allows a pair of particles to form (from nothing) and then anhialate with each other (returning to nothing). This violates your first rule. As you first rule is the basis of your theory, and has been shown to be an incorrect assumption, then your theory breaks down.

 

When proposing preopsition (rules) it is important to check that those prepositions are indeed true. In this case your first preposition was shown to be incorrect. You logic and resoning might be impecable, but if your starting premises are incorrect, then you will come to incorrect results.

 

But you are making the assumption that QM is infallible.

 

Bee

[Edtharan]

But you are making the assumption that QM is infallible.

Not nessesarily. If it can be shown that, just once, QM allows this effect to occure it would invalidate his first preposition.

 

According to the Casimire effect, this creation of photons from nothing causes an imbalance between the outside and inside of the cavity and results in anet force that pushed the plates together. So this is s demonstration of this creation from nothing effect of QM and hence it violates Choix's first law rendering his preposition false.

[gib65]

Rule number 2:

Time is an illusion. For the same reason that you can't have nothing without something there could never have been a beginning and there will never be an ending. The reason for this is because if you assume there is a beginning you are assuming that before the beginning there was nothing and if you assume there is an end you are assuming that after the end there would also be nothing. This would contradict the 1st rule since there cannot be nothing without something and therefore I belive the universe is constant and there was never a beginning and there wont ever be an end.

 

I'm not so sure I follow. Wouldn't the existence of the universe from the time of the Big Bang to the time of the "big mass of everything", as you call it, account for the "something" that needs to coexist with the eternal span of nothingness?

 

Without a beginning and end we have to assume that an event would cause a loop back to what we call the big bang at some point in the future.

 

Not necessarily. I can imagine a universe whose existence stretches all the way back in time eternally. At some point, the Big Bang must have occurred creating all matter and energy, and if you'd like, space as well. What existed before the big bang? I don't know. Non-spatial/non-material stuff?

 

At that point all matter in the universe would be packed together and the huge amount of gravity produced by this giant mass of everything will attempt to condense itself even further until a supernova like event takes place and matter is exploded back out into space to start the cycle once again.

 

An explosion under those conditions would require some kind of force that's more powerful than the black hole's gravity. This actually brings up a question (anybody can answer it). Aren't the other 3 forces of nature (or 2 if you count the electro-weak force as one force) stronger than gravity? Is it possible that something occurs under gravitational pressures of that magnitude such that some of the other forces get relinquished - giving us Choix's Second Big Bang?

 

You know, Choix, I don't know about your theory. I think it needs to be fleshed out somewhat, but you just brought a whole slew of questions to my mind, and I think I'm going to have to start a few threads now. Thanks for getting me interested .

[Spyman]

You can get something from nothing and somthing can return to nothing.

Do you also belive in perpetuum mobiles and magic ?

In QM it allows a pair of particles to form (from nothing) and then anhialate with each other (returning to nothing).

How would you go on and prove that the energy for creating particle pairs really comes from nothing and then vanish when they annihilates ?

 

I find it very reasonable to think that even though we don't know all the mechanics about how it happends and from where the energy is "borrowed" and "returned", we will sometime find out and most problably it is from/to a physical existing source.

According to the Casimire effect, this creation of photons from nothing causes an imbalance between the outside and inside of the cavity and results in anet force that pushed the plates together.

In physics, the Casimir effect is a physical force exerted between separate objects, which is due to neither charge, gravity, nor the exchange of particles, but instead is due to resonance of all-pervasive energy fields in the intervening space between the objects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

 

Now, I am not an expert or have knowledge of QM, but "all-pervasive energy fields" sounds more like something than nothing, at least to me.

[timo]

Disclaimer: I am not a scientist, I do not read other people's theories.

Same here.

[Spyman]

I do not read other peoples theories.

I suggest you should read about other peoples theories:

 

Conservation law:

In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves.

 

The idea that some things remain unchanging throughout the evolution of the universe has been motivating philosophers and scientists alike for a long time.

 

In fact, quantities that are conserved, the invariants, seem to preserve what some would like to call some kind of a 'physical reality' and seem to have a more meaningful existence than many other physical quantities. These laws bring a great deal of simplicity into the structure of a physical theory. They are the ultimate basis for most solutions of the equations of physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law

 

Conservation of energy:

Conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy (in mechanics often expressed as the sum of kinetic energy and potential energy) in an isolated system remains constant. In other words, energy can be converted from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. In modern physics, all forms of energy exhibit mass and all mass is a form of energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

 

Causality:

One of the classic arguments for the existence of God is known as the "Cosmological argument" or "First cause" argument. It works from the premise that every natural event is the effect of a cause. If this is so, then the events that caused today's events must have had causes themselves, which must have had causes, and so forth. If the chain never ends, then one must uphold the hypothesis of an "actual infinite", which is often regarded as problematic, see Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel. If the chain does end, it must end with a non-natural or supernatural cause at the start of the natural world -- e.g. a creation by God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

 

Time:

According to some of the latest scientific theories, time began with the Big Bang, and any inquiry into what happened before the big bang is either meaningless or totally inaccessible to us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

 

Big Bang:

In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. The theory is based on the observations indicating the expansion of space (in accord with the Robertson-Walker model of general relativity) as indicated by the Hubble redshift of distant galaxies taken together with the cosmological principle.

 

Extrapolated into the past, these observations show that the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

 

Fate of the Universe:

The preponderance of evidence to date, based on measurements of the rate of expansion and the mass density, favors a universe that will not collapse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe

 

An explosion under those conditions would require some kind of force that's more powerful than the black hole's gravity. This actually brings up a question (anybody can answer it). Aren't the other 3 forces of nature (or 2 if you count the electro-weak force as one force) stronger than gravity? Is it possible that something occurs under gravitational pressures of that magnitude such that some of the other forces get relinquished - giving us Choix's Second Big Bang?

Maybe you missed this thread by Martin ?

http://www.scienceforums.net/showthread.php?t=21469

 

Same here.

Great post Atheist, just what a thoughtful newbie needs, to be encouraged to aquire new knowledge, develop a better understanding of the Universe and continue to post here...

[Edtharan]

Do you also belive in perpetuum mobiles and magic ?

I don't believe in those. To suggest that I do to present a counter argument is a logical fallacy (Ad hominum).

 

How would you go on and prove that the energy for creating particle pairs really comes from nothing and then vanish when they annihilates ?

If energy had entered the system, then it would have to go somewhere, there would be changes in other parts of the system. The energy needed to make an electron and positron is quite large and very easily detected as it disturbs the system. If you can't detect these signatures, then where would the energy from creating the particles have gone?

 

Also you can infer these "virtual" particles do exist as they do have influence on the system (much less than they would if it was due to the energy from "real" particles).

 

So yes, you can "detect" them, just not directly.

 

Now, I am not an expert or have knowledge of QM, but "all-pervasive energy fields" sounds more like something than nothing, at least to me.

Those "all-pervasive energy fields" might be there, but the energy that constitutes a disturbance in them (particles) is what I am talking about. What gives the energy to cause these disturbances? According to QM, then these "fields" are subject to random and uncaused fluctuations. These fluctuations do have an effect on real objects (they give use things like gravity and magnetism, etc) and the energy to cause them comes from nothing.

[timo]

Great post Atheist, just what a thoughtful newbie needs, to be encouraged to aquire new knowledge, develop a better understanding of the Universe and continue to post here...

It is indeed what a thoughtful newbie needs: A pointer to the most fundamental flaw in his approach/theory/whatever.

 

I still claim that the day the people that present their private theory of how everything works will start to listen to each other then there is a chance that something usefull might come out of it.

[Spyman]

If energy had entered the system, then it would have to go somewhere, there would be changes in other parts of the system. The energy needed to make an electron and positron is quite large and very easily detected as it disturbs the system. If you can't detect these signatures, then where would the energy from creating the particles have gone?

Thats only prof of that we lack understanding and knowledge of where to and how the energy disappears.

 

It is not prof of energy returning to nothing.

 

Those "all-pervasive energy fields" might be there, but the energy that constitutes a disturbance in them (particles) is what I am talking about. What gives the energy to cause these disturbances? According to QM, then these "fields" are subject to random and uncaused fluctuations. These fluctuations do have an effect on real objects (they give use things like gravity and magnetism, etc) and the energy to cause them comes from nothing.

Here you are trying to prove that QM is unable to explain the cause and mechanism for these fluctuations. I don't know QM so I am not going to argue about that.

 

But if a theory (QM) fails to explain a measured fenomena thats only proving that the theory fails to explain it.

 

It is not prof of energy entering from nothing.

 

Any experiment will either find a physical existing source or fail to find a source. Failing to find a source is not prof of a nonexistent source. Neither is lack of knowledge or lack of explaining.

 

A prof of a nonexistent source from which energy enters/disappears inside the Universe would break the Conservation Law.

 

Energy can be converted from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

 

So now I ask again: Is it possible to prove that something can be created from nothing ?

 

It is indeed what a thoughtful newbie needs: A pointer to the most fundamental flaw in his approach/theory/whatever.

OK, but sometimes an experienced member also needs a pointer to the most fundamental flaw in his approach/theory/whatever.

[gib65]

But if a theory (QM) fails to explain a measured fenomena thats only proving that the theory fails to explain it.

 

It is not prof of energy entering from nothing.

 

Any experiment will either find a physical existing source or fail to find a source. Failing to find a source is not prof of a nonexistent source. Neither is lack of knowledge or lack of explaining.

 

I actually started a thread on this very topic not too long ago:

http://www.scienceforums.net/showthread.php?t=23424

[Edtharan]

Thats only prof of that we lack understanding and knowledge of where to and how the energy disappears.

But the energies involved in the creation and annihilation of Matter/Antimatter is huge (compared to the sensitivity of the equipment we have). When you normally annihilate matter and antimatter it produces two gamma ray photons. It is hard to miss these. And if you repeat the experiment then this will also allow you to detect any that just didn't happen to hit a detector (or got absorbed by part of the detector housings).

 

So any lack of knowledge of this kind of missing energy would leave some big and obvious holes in the experiment that would easily be picked up by any competant experimenter.

 

Here you are trying to prove that QM is unable to explain the cause and mechanism for these fluctuations. I don't know QM so I am not going to argue about that.

Then you have misunderstood what I was saying. QM states that there are uncaused and random fluctuation that occur in these fields. These can exist for very brief times and then must be cancelled out. In fact QM has a very tight relationship between the amount of energy and the time it can be "borrowed" for. The greater the energy the shorter the period of time and is encapsulated by Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) where as the quantities are "Energy" and "Time".

 

But if a theory (QM) fails to explain a measured fenomena thats only proving that the theory fails to explain it.

But the theory of QM does include where this comes from -> Nothing. It states that this energy comes from nothing and returns to nothing, but can have real effects (as in the Casimir effect).

 

In the case of the Casimir effect the only explanation for the attraction of the plates is there is less potential for virtual photons (photos that get their energy from nothing and then return to nothing in a limited period of time) to exist between the plates that outside. It is the pressure of these virtual photons that causes the plates to move together. Although the pressure is caused by the virtual photons, the energy required for those photons to exist has come from nothing. So something (the movement of the plates) has come from nothing. It is real, it has been measured and no source capable of exerting that force has not be excluded from the experiment. Since there is no source for that energy, except the vacuum fluctuations that QM and the uncertainty principle states exists and the mathematics of these correlate with the observed data, then I can say with confidence (although I can't be 100% - but closer to 99.9999...% correct) that this is something from nothing.

 

The theory fits, the data fits and no other outside effect of enough energy can not be accounted for or eliminated.

 

A prof of a nonexistent source from which energy enters/disappears inside the Universe would break the Conservation Law.

 

Energy can be converted from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

 

So now I ask again: Is it possible to prove that something can be created from nothing ?

Although the energy created by the uncertainty principle seems to violate the conservation of energy, it doesn't. There is strict limits on what it can do and how it occurs. And as the energy involved has to return to 0 after the interaction, there is no net gain or loss of energy from the universe, but for that brief period, there is more energy in the universe than there was before and after it.

[gib65]

But the theory of QM does include where this comes from -> Nothing. It states that this energy comes from nothing and returns to nothing, but can have real effects (as in the Casimir effect).

 

This is what the theory says, and I have no reason to doubt it. But I don't have a reason to accept it either. I've always wondered how one could be absolutely sure that there is "nothing" there. It's one thing to say you've detected nothing with your measuring instruments, and it's another to say there is nothing.

[Spyman]

But the energies involved in the creation and annihilation of Matter/Antimatter is huge (compared to the sensitivity of the equipment we have). When you normally annihilate matter and antimatter it produces two gamma ray photons. It is hard to miss these. And if you repeat the experiment then this will also allow you to detect any that just didn't happen to hit a detector (or got absorbed by part of the detector housings).

Well since we don't know where the energy goes we can't know if the equipment is sensitive enough, can we ?

 

I agree that they don't create gamma rays and that the equipment is sensitive enough to detect that.

 

No prof of nothing becoming something.

 

So any lack of knowledge of this kind of missing energy would leave some big and obvious holes in the experiment that would easily be picked up by any competant experimenter.

Obviously it not that easily since no competant experimenter has been able to prove where the energy comes from yet.

 

I repeat: Any experiment will either find a physical existing source or fail to find a source. Failing to find a source is not prof of a nonexistent source. Neither is lack of knowledge or lack of explaining.

 

Then you have misunderstood what I was saying.

No I think it is the other way around, I am not trying to disprove QM nor the Casimire effect.

 

But the theory of QM does include where this comes from -> Nothing. It states that this energy comes from nothing and returns to nothing, but can have real effects (as in the Casimir effect).

And when (if) we find the source QM will adapt, but what QM has to say or not is irrelevant, QM is not Universe, QM is a theory describing some, not all, effects in Universe, that (if) QM states that this energy comes from nothing is not prof of that the energy comes from nothing.

 

In the case of the Casimir effect the only explanation for the attraction of the plates is there is less potential for virtual photons (photos that get their energy from nothing and then return to nothing in a limited period of time) to exist between the plates that outside. It is the pressure of these virtual photons that causes the plates to move together. Although the pressure is caused by the virtual photons, the energy required for those photons to exist has come from nothing. So something (the movement of the plates) has come from nothing. It is real, it has been measured and no source capable of exerting that force has not be excluded from the experiment. Since there is no source for that energy, except the vacuum fluctuations that QM and the uncertainty principle states exists and the mathematics of these correlate with the observed data, then I can say with confidence (although I can't be 100% - but closer to 99.9999...% correct) that this is something from nothing.

The only known explanation, only known sources.

 

I repeat: Any experiment will either find a physical existing source or fail to find a source. Failing to find a source is not prof of a nonexistent source. Neither is lack of knowledge or lack of explaining.

 

The theory fits, the data fits and no other outside effect of enough energy can not be accounted for or eliminated.

The theory does not show where the energy comes from, and no other known outside effect of enough energy can not be accounted for or eliminated.

 

I repeat: Any experiment will either find a physical existing source or fail to find a source. Failing to find a source is not prof of a nonexistent source. Neither is lack of knowledge or lack of explaining.

 

Although the energy created by the uncertainty principle seems to violate the conservation of energy, it doesn't. There is strict limits on what it can do and how it occurs. And as the energy involved has to return to 0 after the interaction, there is no net gain or loss of energy from the universe, but for that brief period, there is more energy in the universe than there was before and after it.

There is no experiment done that can prove that for a brief period there was more or less energy in the Universe. How would you go about to measure the total amount of energy in the Universe ?

(With such good sensitivity that you can distinguish separate creations/annihilations of particles.)

 

This is getting ridiculous, I like what swansont is saying: if you can have something from nothing then nothing is something, thus you no longer have something from nothing.

 

Secondly it is impossible to physically by experiment prove something from nothing, because then your prof must also include that the source is not from outside Universe, from other dimensions, from unknown forces or from a omnipotent supernatural creature and so on...

 

So if you like you are allowed to have a personal opinion (faith) in something from nothing.

 

But AFAIK it is not a scientific physical fact proven by experiments.

 

I ask for the third time: Is it possible to prove that something can be created from nothing ?

(Hopefully you get what I am trying to say this time.)

[Edtharan]

I repeat: Any experiment will either find a physical existing source or fail to find a source. Failing to find a source is not prof of a nonexistent source. Neither is lack of knowledge or lack of explaining.

Ok my proof is the temperature 0 Kelvin. This can not be reached. Why? Because there is always some energy that causes the object to vibrate, even if you eliminate all other sources of energy. What is causing this energy, it is not from something. If it is not from something, then it is form nothing. Therefore this partial is being disturbed by energy that has come from no possible source. It is has come form nothing. Please note this is not adding energy to the universe, but is just causing the particle to be disturbed by random jostling of virtual partials.

 

These virtual partials are a result of the uncertainty principle. They don't have a source. There is nothing that "produces" them. They come from nothing.

 

You can;t see them directly, but you can see their effects on the cooled particles (the reason we don;t see this at higher temperatures is that the normal jostling of the particles swamps the data).

 

QM theory states that these jostling do not come from any source and are uncaused. If this was not true, then much of QM would break down.

 

I repeat: Any experiment will either find a physical existing source or fail to find a source. Failing to find a source is not prof of a nonexistent source. Neither is lack of knowledge or lack of explaining.

It is not for lack of understanding. The theory specifies that these are uncaused and come from nothing. It is not through failing to find a source and then declaring that no source exists, it is that the theory states that no source exists so therefore no experiment will be able to find one (and not for lack of trying). You have it backwards, the theory came first that required there to be no source for that energy, and then the experiments were constructed to disprove it. They are still looking, and they still haven't found it or any evidence that there are sources.

[gib65]

What is causing this energy, it is not from something. If it is not from something, then it is form nothing.

 

I don't see how this is proof. You're just stating that it doesn't come from something. I don't see why there couldn't be a something that caused and sustained it (Doesn't this energy originate from the Big Bang?)

 

It is not for lack of understanding. The theory specifies that these are uncaused and come from nothing. It is not through failing to find a source and then declaring that no source exists' date=' it is that the theory states that no source exists so therefore no experiment will be able to find one (and not for lack of trying). You have it backwards, the theory came first that required there to be no source for that energy, and then the experiments were constructed to disprove it. They are still looking, and they still haven't found it or any evidence that there are sources.[/quote']

 

Ah, this is the old falsifiability principle: you can't prove a scientific theory, you can only falsify it. But if you can't prove it, this is more or less what Spyman was saying all along (and what I'm inclined to agree with).

[Edtharan]

Ok, I have been thinking about an experiment that would "prove" that energy has come from nothing and gone back to nothing, but has definitely existed for a short time.

 

Here is the set-up:

You have an electron gun that can fire single electrons at precise velocities. This electron gun is aimed at a negatively changed plate with a hole in it.

 

This situation will allow you to fire the electrons (with precise velocities) at the hole in the plate. If the electron is travelling fast enough it will be able to overcome the repulsion from the negatively charged plate and pass through the hole. If the electron does not have enough velocity it will be deflected back towards the electron gun.

 

Now what you do is tune the electron gun to fire electrons with enough velocity that they will almost make it through the hole, but will not have enough velocity to pass through it. The closer you can get it to the point where it would be able to pass through the better.

 

Now what you need to do is set up a detector on the other side of the charged plate that will be able to detect the electrons and also measure the velocity of them.

 

Now if Energy can't come from nothing, then you would not expect to find any electrons make it passed the charged plate (as you haven;t given them enough energy in the first place). However, to account for outside sources of energy giving the electrons an extra push (say a stray photon striking the electron and giving it the energy needed), you use the detector on the other side of the charged plate to measure the velocities of any electrons that are detected. If the velocity of these electrons is enough to make it through the charged plate, then you can exclude them as they will have interacted with an outside source of energy and are not the particles that you are looking for.

 

Occasionally you will detect an electron that seems to have travelled through the hole in the plate that, when it's velocity is measured, does not have the energy/velocity to make it through. You can calculate the precise velocities, of the electrons emitted by the electron gun, that the electrons should have when the reach the detector, so it would allow you to account for any unknown source of energy (as those electrons would have different velocities).

 

Where does these electrons that make it through with velocities too low to do so get the energy to make it passed the charged plate? Where does this energy go?

 

Quantum mechanics explains it by the fact that there are random and uncaused fluctuations in the energy of the system. This is represented by the Uncertainty Principle. It means that the electron "borrowed" some energy from nothing, and then later "paid" it back into nothing. This experiment proves that the energy could not have come from an unknown source as if it did the electron would have a high enough velocity to pass the barrier. The electrons that are detected and do not have enough velocity to pass the barrier must have got the energy to do so from nothing and then paid it back (because every other situation is accounted for).

 

QM also states that the nearer the electrons velocity is to the velocity that would allow it to pass through the hole in the charged plate, the more electrons you will detect on the other side that don't have the necessary velocity. The further the velocity is from the critical velocity the less electrons will be detected. The probability of the electrons that should be detected can be calculated quite precisely and experimental data does match this.

 

There are even devices that you can buy (not sure of the price or general availability, but they are available) called "Scanning Tunnelling Microscopes" that use this exact phenomena to operate. this really does occur and it disproves the claim that something can not come from nothing.

[Spyman]

QM theory states that these jostling do not come from any source and are uncaused. If this was not true, then much of QM would break down.

So you do belive that QM is the Ethernal Final Theory for humankind for an infinite future time, not only because we will fail to aquire further knowledge, but also because QM is the only true knowledge of nature which perfectly describes everything there is to know ?

(In the case of these jostlings from nothing.)

 

The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be. (Issac Asimov)

 

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence and something from nothing is extraordinary, thus your prof must include prof of a total infallible knowledge and understanding of everything inside Universe.

 

Ok, I have been thinking about an experiment that would "prove" that energy has come from nothing and gone back to nothing, but has definitely existed for a short time.

No offence, but you have only proved that some energy definately have existed for a short period of time, (again). You have not accounted for the unknown.

[gib65]

Edtharan,

 

The experiment you sited definitely limits the range of possible explanation, but it does not extinguish it completely. This is the point I'm trying to make. I don't think you can extinguish it complete. The closer you come to doing so, the more creative one has to be in order to think of alternate explanations. For example, what if the extra energy those electrons were getting came from elsewhere in the universe - let's suppose an electron 10 billion light years away spontaneously lost exactly the amount of energy that the electron in the experiment gained. In other words, perhaps (and I don't have any proof of this, but there is no reason why this could not be possible) energy was taken from the electron 10 billion years away and instantly was given to the electron in the experiment (and then given back). Wouldn't this mean the energy didn't come from nothing? I know nothing can travel faster than light, but doesn't particle entanglement prove Bell's Theorem which states that objects can interact over huge distances at FTL speeds?

[Edtharan]

The experiment you sited definitely limits the range of possible explanation, but it does not extinguish it completely. This is the point I'm trying to make. I don't think you can extinguish it complete. The closer you come to doing so, the more creative one has to be in order to think of alternate explanations. For example, what if the extra energy those electrons were getting came from elsewhere in the universe - let's suppose an electron 10 billion light years away spontaneously lost exactly the amount of energy that the electron in the experiment gained. In other words, perhaps (and I don't have any proof of this, but there is no reason why this could not be possible) energy was taken from the electron 10 billion years away and instantly was given to the electron in the experiment (and then given back). Wouldn't this mean the energy didn't come from nothing? I know nothing can travel faster than light, but doesn't particle entanglement prove Bell's Theorem which states that objects can interact over huge distances at FTL speeds?

Entanglement does seem to violate the light speed limit, but it, its self has limits. One of which is that no information can be transmitted via it. If the extra energy of the electron cam from an entangled electron some light years away, then this could be used to transmit information.

 

Here is how:

Do the experiment I described above, but use only electron (Electrons A)that are entangled with other electrons (Electrons B). Now if you made sure that the energy that Electrons B had would not be enough to get Electrons A passed the gap, then if the energy from Electrons B were to be given to A through the entanglement, then they still would not be able to make it through. This could be called a "0".

 

Now you then feed enough energy to Electrons B so that Electrons A would be able to easily make it though the barrier if the entanglement would allow this energy to be passed on. This would allow the electrons to pass through the gap and be detected. We would call this 1.

 

Now as the people several light years away can control the energy levels of the B electrons they can modulate the energy to send a signal to the people at Electrons A. This violates the principles of entanglement so can not be possible (or we would see FTL signalling in the universe).

 

This means you can exclude all sources that fall within a certain distance from the device. This would in fact be the distance that light would travel in the time it takes the electron to be emitted and then later received at the detector. Because of this it is possible to eliminate all potential sources, simply by having the experiment occur in a small enough area that you can account for all objects within the set distance, and also by accelerating the electrons to high velocities, this region can be very small.

 

So yes, it would be possible to eliminate all outside energy sources because no information or energy can travel faster than the speed of light.

 

So you do belive that QM is the Ethernal Final Theory for humankind for an infinite future time, not only because we will fail to aquire further knowledge, but also because QM is the only true knowledge of nature which perfectly describes everything there is to know ?

(In the case of these jostlings from nothing.)

No I do not think that QM is the "Final Theory", just that any future theory must account for all currently observed phenomena and be consistent with what we observe.

 

Even if I did, this line of argument is a Logical Fallacy (Ad Hominim - Argument against the person not the argument).

 

Regardless of my beliefs in the matter, this is the observations that have been made and any future theory must account for them.