My theory on the universe.

[Spyman]

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).

Yeah, right, "wrong argument", but since you have been very persistent in avoiding the true argument, I had to turn the discussion around somehow...

 

True argument:

But you are making the assumption that QM is infallible.

 

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

I agree that any future theory must account for observations that has been made. But it is fully possible that a future understanding may change that QM statement and still account for every observation.

 

Your prof must either contain experimantal prof of energy conversion from/to nothing or include prof that there is none possible future theory which is enable to explain the phenomena without nothingness.

 

There is no observations of energy being created or destroyed.

 

We only have observations of energy that definately have existed for a short period of time, there is no observations of the transference from Universe to nothing or from nothing to Universe, since it's impossible to observe the nothingness.

 

The only support you have showed so far is what QM states but the Conservation law has much more credibility than QM, infact QM yields to it, which you also have admitted.

 

Without the assumption that QM is infallible, you have nothing.

 

And the QM statement doesn't prove anything as long as the Conversation law is not disproved.

[gib65]

Well Edtharan,

 

I was pretty sure Bell's Non-Locality Theorem stated that you could have instant effects across vast distances, but I'm not a physicist and you probably are, so I won't argue with you on this front. But I still stand behind my more general point which is that it just takes a bit more creativity in thinking of possible scenarios to refute the idea of something coming from nothing. I think the experiment you're siting closes off any possibility of something physical giving these electrons the extra boost they need to make it through the hole, so if I was to maintain that the energy still came from something, I'd have to go into metaphysics. I personally wouldn't hesitate to do this, but I have a feeling others on this forum would roll their eyes at me, and this is quite appreciable being a science forum and all. So I won't go there.

 

Nevertheless, my point is a purely logical one, not a scientific one. That is, I'm saying that one cannot prove logically that something comes from nothing and visa-versa. Keeping that in mind, I don't think it matters whether we use scientific examples or metaphysical ones or whatever.

 

BTW, can you answer another question for me? Could we say that the electron gained extra energy from a local electron in the room? Say, from the walls, or the air, or the equipment, etc.? Quantum entanglement doesn't have to be set by an experimenter, does it?

[Edtharan]

I agree that any future theory must account for observations that has been made. But it is fully possible that a future understanding may change that QM statement and still account for every observation.

I will concede this, but but only to this: From our current understanding and observations, it appears as if the energy comes from nothing and returns to nothing. All attempts to determine a non local source for this energy can not fully account for it.

 

Your prof must either contain experimantal prof of energy conversion from/to nothing or include prof that there is none possible future theory which is enable to explain the phenomena without nothingness.

The only way to do this is to prove that no other source could be giving energy to the system. This would mean performing the experiment under as many different conditions as possible and not just limiting the experiment to electrons.

 

Again, this would not prove the proposition (it just makes it very likely).

 

We only have observations of energy that definately have existed for a short period of time, there is no observations of the transference from Universe to nothing or from nothing to Universe, since it's impossible to observe the nothingness.

Actually we don't even have any observations of "energy". We have observations of it's influence on other objects, but nothing that actually show the existence of energy.

 

In fact, without those objects that energy acts on, energy it's self does not exist. There is no such thing as "Pure Energy".

 

The only support you have showed so far is what QM states but the Conservation law has much more credibility than QM, infact QM yields to it, which you also have admitted.

 

Without the assumption that QM is infallible, you have nothing.

 

And the QM statement doesn't prove anything as long as the Conversation law is not disproved.

Well observations that have been made do agree with QM, even where it seems to violate the conservation of energy for short periods of time.

 

The conservation of Energy Law, surprisingly enough, has never actually been proved either. It has never been seen to be grossly violated (though subtitle violations the are demonstrated by QM seem to get through).

 

Under QM, the conservation law can be violated, but the greater the energy, the shorter the time that it can be violated (and there is a strict mathematical relationship between them - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle ).

 

I was pretty sure Bell's Non-Locality Theorem stated that you could have instant effects across vast distances, but I'm not a physicist and you probably are, so I won't argue with you on this front.

Although I am not a scientist, I do have an interest in it and find QM very intriguing.

 

Bell's theorem, although it allows for action at a distance, also places distinct limits on how and what can be acted on at a distance.

 

Breaking the "no information" limitation in Bell's theorem allows the possibility to send information backwards in time. If this were possible (not only would we see its effects), it opens up the possibility of Infinite Computing Power (by sending the results of a clock cycle backwards in time to before the CPU processed it and then having the CPU do the next clock cycle, then send that back, and so on).

 

Because this doesn't occur, it allows us to set limits on the volume that a source could be effecting the outcome of the experiment in an unknown way.

 

BTW, can you answer another question for me? Could we say that the electron gained extra energy from a local electron in the room? Say, from the walls, or the air, or the equipment, etc.? Quantum entanglement doesn't have to be set by an experimenter, does it?

Because of the limited volume that can effect the experiment, this means that any source that causes the observed results must lie within that radius. By strictly controlling that environment (vacuum, etc) we can eliminate any source that would cause the effect at the observed rate.

 

As the rate of this effect can be recorded, all we need to do is find some phenomena that lies within the limited volume that can produce the same effect (borrowed energy for a short period of time that coincides with the prediction that the uncertainty principle makes for this experiment). As this would be a regular source and would nullify a lot of the current understanding and observations made about QM, this would be an important find.

 

Such a source (or even proof that such a source exists) would radically change our understanding of the universe (it would be "something" that to all test appears as nothing, but can only be inferred). The fact is, that even if there was some stray particles that were interfering with the experiment (say through entanglement), this influence would not be a regular thing and only show up in the results as "Noise".

 

The source would have to be regular and this regularity would allow us to detect it in other ways. These tests have been done, but no source has yet been found, nor has any evidence been found that indicates a non (directly) detectable, but regular source for this extra energy. And remember, this source has to also account for the predictions of the same phenomena that occur with many other types of particle and situations. So it has to be something that effects all particles in exactly the same way (this experiment has been done with photons, electron, protons, even whole atoms).

 

The fact is, that this experiment has been done with so many different particle types, in so many different set-ups and in so many different situations, and has the same regularity to the results (as according to the Uncertainty Principle), that no specific source could be causing these effects and the likelihood of many different sources causing the exact same effects is so remote that it is not really feasible, and would require so much more in the way of explanation as to why all the different systems produce the same result in a way we can't detect (so according to Occam's razor) that an external source can be eliminated, leaving only an Internal Source or Nothing (and an internal source would need to get it's energy from somewhere, so where could that be if external sources are eliminated? - ie: from nothing).

 

Any alternative explanation has a lot to answer. And, although I don't believe that the current explanation is 100% correct, it is the best we have and it does account for the observations (and is this respect with no real loose ends - except that it temporarily violates the conservation of energy, which has never been proven, only not seen to be violated on the large scale).

[gib65]

and would require so much more in the way of explanation as to why all the different systems produce the same result in a way we can't detect (so according to Occam's razor) that an external source can be eliminated, leaving only an Internal Source or Nothing (and an internal source would need to get it's energy from somewhere, so where could that be if external sources are eliminated? - ie: from nothing).

 

I will agree that we want to avoid messy explanations, but about Occam's razor - that the simplest explanation is usually the best one - I wouldn't call getting something from nothing an explanation at all, let alone a simple one. It's a more a concession that there is no explanation. One just has to resign to the fact that we can't explain how we got something from nothing. So I don't think the Occam's razor card can be played here.

 

And about internal sources - I've often wondered if our models of fundamental particles are too simple. I mean, we shouldn't make them complicated if we don't have to. That's why the early models depicted them as points or even tiny billiard balls, and now we think of them as smeared out objects (so to speak) in order to be consistent with QM. But what if all this virtual chaos that the quantum world seems to be serving up is due to the fact that fundamental particles are actually extremely complex systems that have got a lot of internal structure and internal sources of energy (like a fuel tank to a car). Maybe I'm not understanding your concept of "internal sources" but I've often wondered if QM is an indication that we aught to be sceptical about our simple billiard ball models (or whatever the model is today).

[Spyman]

Well observations that have been made do agree with QM, even where it seems to violate the conservation of energy for short periods of time.

While it might seem to violate Conservation Law it's not necessarily so.

 

In quantum mechanics, energy is defined as proportional to the time derivative of the wave function. Lack of commutation of the time derivative operator with the time operator itself mathematically results in an uncertainty principle for time and energy: the longer the period of time, the more precisely energy can be defined (energy and time become a conjugate Fourier pair). However quantum theory in general, and the uncertainty principle specifically, do not violate energy conservation (as laymen or philosophers often imply).

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

 

The conservation of Energy Law, surprisingly enough, has never actually been proved either. It has never been seen to be grossly violated (though subtitle violations the are demonstrated by QM seem to get through).

Trying to cast doubt on Energy Conservation Law are we ?

 

In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves. Any particular conservation law is a mathematical identity to certain symmetry of a physical system. A partial listing of conservation laws that are said to be exact laws, or more precisely have never been shown to be inexact:

No.1 - Conservation of energy

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

 

Under QM, the conservation law can be violated, but the greater the energy, the shorter the time that it can be violated (and there is a strict mathematical relationship between them - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle ).

Zero-Point Energy is not nothing, Energy Conservation Law is not violated.

 

In physics, the zero-point energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may possess; it is the energy of the ground state of the system.

 

In quantum physics, it is natural to associate the energy with the expectation value of a certain operator, the Hamiltonian of the system. For almost all quantum-mechanical systems, the lowest possible expectation value that this operator can obtain is not zero; this lowest possible value is called the zero-point energy.

 

The origin of a minimal energy that isn't zero can be intuitively understood in terms of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

 

The simplest experimental evidence for the existence of zero-point energy in quantum field theory is the Casimir effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

 

There is also an uncertainty relation between the field strength and the number of particles which is responsible for the phenomenon of virtual particles.

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

 

Formally, a particle is considered to be an eigenstate of the particle number operator where is the particle annihilation operator and the particle creation operator (sometimes collectively called ladder operators). In many cases, the particle number operator does not commute with the Hamiltonian for the system. This implies the number of particles in an area of space is not a well-defined quantity, but like other quantum observables is represented by a probability distribution. Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles or vacuum fluctuations of vacuum energy. In a certain sense, they can be understood to be a manifestion of the time-energy uncertainty principle in the vacuum.

 

An important example of the "presence" of virtual particles in the vacuum is the Casimir effect. Here, the explanation of the effect requires that the total energy of all of the virtual particles in the vacuum be added together. Thus, although the virtual particles themselves are not directly observable in the laboratory, they do leave an observable effect: their zero-point energy results in forces acting on suitably arranged metal plates or dielectrics.

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

 

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. This is sometimes described in terms of virtual particles interacting with the objects, due to the mathematical form of one possible way of calculating the strength of the effect.

 

A more practical analogy is to look at two ships in the open ocean, sailing alongside each other. As they come closer together, their hulls shield the space in between from more and more wave energy, both from the sides as well as from front and back, which increasingly cancel out waves of longer wavelengths than the distance between the hulls. This causes the hulls to be increasingly pushed by this difference in wave activity toward each other, as they get closer to each other, such that if both ships do not actively steer away from each other under power, they will eventually collide.

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

 

I interpret the analogy as Universe is filled with energy fields which is not zero and due to Uncertainty principle there is fluctuations, "ocean waves", consisting of virtual particles. Even if these "ocean waves" is totally random and unpredictable they are still not from nothing and neither is their observable effect. Energy conservation of the system is not violated since the energy is already there.

 

So where has this interesting discussion taken us ?

 

- You have not been able to prove something from nothing.

 

- It is not a scientific physical fact proven by experiments.

 

- There is no observations of energy being created or destroyed.

 

- Conservation Law is not violated.

 

- Energy Conservation Law has much higher credibility than QM.

 

So far your only prof is theoretical with lower acceptance than Energy Conservation Law.

 

- The all-pervasive energy fields inside Universe has zero-point energy levels above zero.

 

- According to QM and HUP those fields are the source not something from nothing.

(HUP = Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle)

 

Now your prof has been reduced to the mechanism and cause of the randomness.

 

Shall we continue with your claim or will you withdraw it ?

(Is HUP caused by influense of something from nothing ?)

[Edtharan]

While it might seem to violate Conservation Law it's not necessarily so.

As I also said.

 

Trying to cast doubt on Energy Conservation Law are we ?

No, no more so than QM.

 

Shall we continue with your claim or will you withdraw it ?

Yes, I withdraw my claim. However, in his original post Choix did not establish proof of his claims. One was that Something can't come form Nothing (which we have explored and I have now conceded), but Choix also makes the claim that Time is an illusion, and has not established that either (there are others, but these are the two main premises that Choix is using).

 

On an aside Note:

Formally, a particle is considered to be an eigenstate of the particle number operator where is the particle annihilation operator and the particle creation operator (sometimes collectively called ladder operators). In many cases, the particle number operator does not commute with the Hamiltonian for the system. This implies the number of particles in an area of space is not a well-defined quantity, but like other quantum observables is represented by a probability distribution. Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles or vacuum fluctuations of vacuum energy. In a certain sense, they can be understood to be a manifestion of the time-energy uncertainty principle in the vacuum.

 

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. This is sometimes described in terms of virtual particles interacting with the objects, due to the mathematical form of one possible way of calculating the strength of the effect.

 

A more practical analogy is to look at two ships in the open ocean, sailing alongside each other. As they come closer together, their hulls shield the space in between from more and more wave energy, both from the sides as well as from front and back, which increasingly cancel out waves of longer wavelengths than the distance between the hulls. This causes the hulls to be increasingly pushed by this difference in wave activity toward each other, as they get closer to each other, such that if both ships do not actively steer away from each other under power, they will eventually collide.

So if my experiment was performed between the plates of a Casimir resonance cavity, we should see less tunnelling? This would be an interesting experiment to try.

[Spyman]

Yes, I withdraw my claim.

OK, Thanks for a good discussion !

 

However, in his original post Choix did not establish proof of his claims. One was that Something can't come form Nothing (which we have explored and I have now conceded), but Choix also makes the claim that Time is an illusion, and has not established that either (there are others, but these are the two main premises that Choix is using).

Well, I never intended to defend Choix nor his "theory", I only wanted to discuss/argue your claim, which got my attention.

 

Aside Note:

So if my experiment was performed between the plates of a Casimir resonance cavity, we should see less tunnelling? This would be an interesting experiment to try.

Like I said before: I know very little about QM and HUP.

(You can always ask the experts in the QM subforum.)

 

Anyway here is my thoughts:

The electrons carries with them their own uncertaintys which would not be affected by the plates. But if the setup was tuned before the plates was placed then yes, less tunneling with the plates in place, more without the plates.

[jck]

Hi,

 

Without getting into the topic the problem here is simple.

 

It is impossible to state that something comes from nothing as by default it cannot. What is meant is at this time no source has been detected that can explain where the something came from.

 

It is the same as when science states it cannot obtain any information from before big bang and that is confused with some people stating there was "no before" as if that was a fact.

 

 

john

jck

[TriggerGrinn]

Choix:

 

Judging from your posts in this thread, your reasoning and method, you would make an effective scientist, if you persued it professionally.

 

nice work.

[aman]

I've read a bit lately about M theory unifying the strings and gravitational theories of everything to explain our pre-beginning, beginning, and now. It implies that two membranes collided to cause our big bang. Consider two three dimensional universes colliding to create a four dimensional universe of experienceable existance. The M theory also says there are 11 dimensions with the forces we experience like gravity and maybe magnetism existing in varying degrees in the dimensions. It might be a good direction to look in explaining if it gains more acceptance. I like that it promotes there was a something before the big bang, or something on the other side of a singularity. I need to do more reading and I haven't posted in a while so I am just suggesting for discussion.

Just aman:rolleyes: