What happen before the Big Bang?

[north]

They can produce anything they want. If TV were nothing but a reflection of present day scientific accuracy, then we clearly wouldn't have shows like Ghost Hunters. Also, there's a very good chance that the data they share WAS current when they made the program. That's another challenge with TV. Despite our perception of motion in television, it really is a stamp in time from when it was produced.

 

Ghost Hunters they try but one night !!? give me break

 

as for the rest agreed !!

[Edtharan]

no it does't

It does.

 

First you claim that Something can't come from Nothing, but then when it is shown that something can come from nothing, you then claim that it must therefore have been something in the first place.

 

You have used your original assumption (that something can't come from nothing) to disprove the evidence that it can. But the evidence actually disproves your original assumption, so how can it be used as a argument against the evidence?

 

your argument is called a: Bare Assertion logical fallacy. The only reason that one accepts your assumption, is that one first accepts your assumption.

 

If you start from the position: Is there any evidence for either argument (Something can come from nothing, or that something can't come from nothing)?

 

Then you find that there is evidence that supports: "Something can come from nothing".

 

but from a physical point of view , forget the equations for a moment , this makes no sense does it ?

The thing is, there is no law that states that the Universe must make sense to Humans. As the equations are a description of the evidence gathered from reality, I would say that the equations are important.

 

But lets ignore the equations, like you said. Id ther any physical evidence that something can come from nothing?

 

Yes. The Casimir Effect.

 

In this, two electrically neutral plates are placed very close to each other. As gravity between these plates is negligible, we shouldn't see any attraction between them (at the distances involved, direct attraction between the atoms is also negligible). However, we do see a force between the plates that attempts to pull the plates together.

 

But, where does this force come form?

 

Well, the only place it can come from is when particles hit the plates. As this experiment takes place in a vacuum (it can never be a complete vacuum, but we can come close) there will be little or no force from atoms colliding with the plates (and that can be factored in too).

 

We know that if enough energy is concentrated in one location, that it can form a particle/antiparticle pair. However, we can also measure the amount of energy within the device and can see that there is not enough energy to produce enough particles to create the observed force between the plates.

 

However, if we assume that the energy of space is subject to the uncertainty principle, the we can work out that there will be energy that comes from nothing in great enough amount to produce particle/antiparticle pairs.

 

Now, the big question is does this match with reality? Well this is where the maths comes in. If the theory underlying the uncertainty principle and the particle/antiparticle pair production aspect, then this should give a force between the plates of a very specific amount. As we can measure the force, this gives us a way to check the theory that according to QM and the Uncertainty principle, something can actually come form nothing.

 

Based off actual experiments, the forces on the plates matches the forces predicted by the theory. This means that the Uncertainty Principle and QM comes to the conclusion that Something can come from nothing, and it has been experimentally confirmed.

 

This means that there is evidence to support the assumption that Something can come from nothing and that the opposite assumption has evidence against it.

 

It may not make sense to us mere Humans, but then there is no law that states that the Universe has to make sense to us.

 

you see this is part of the pervasive thinking out there that " equations allow this or that " this thinking is erroneous . in reality it is the physical Universe which ALLOWS the equations to be correct

Since the equations are based off experimentation and observation of reality, and have been modified to conform to reality, then those equations are probably a good description of reality.

 

The Equations don't "allow it", the equations describe what reality allows. As the equations make testable predictions as to the behaviour of reality, we can confirm the accuracy of the equations as a description of reality by performing experiments. The Casimir Effect is one such experiment that has been done and disproves the assumption that Something can not come form Nothing.

 

It is you that is erroneous. The Equations predict what we think will occur. Experiment confirms these predictions.

 

perhaps but the uncertainty principle is based on the energy of the particle

 

but the less energy a particle has the position and momentum can be known

Firstly, the Uncertainly Principle is not only applicable to particles, the same maths can be applied to space and time.

 

Secondly, it is not the total energy that creates the uncertainty in a particle, but the particle itself.

 

The higher the energy of a particle the more momentum it can have (the uncertainty principle relates to energy and momentum is just one aspect of the energy that a particle can have). However, it is the accuracy with which you know the energy, not the amount of energy.

 

So the uncertainty in position of a particle relates to how certain you are of its energy, not the total amount of energy it has. But knowing that it has a lot of energy means that you are more certain of the energy it has, thus you become less certain about its position. Also, if you know that it has only a small amount of energy, this is also being more certain about its energy, thus you will be equally less certain about its position.

 

which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about

I am not sure what you are really saying here. The mathematics used have been tested against reality and been shown to match it. If you think that these mathematics and the experiments that show that they work in prediction what will occur in reality is not what you are talking about, then you seem to be saying that you don't care if your theory matches with reality.

 

If this is the case, then perhaps you really are trolling as the purpose of this discussion was to discuss what occurs in reality.

[north]

It does.

 

First you claim that Something can't come from Nothing, but then when it is shown that something can come from nothing, you then claim that it must therefore have been something in the first place.

 

You have used your original assumption (that something can't come from nothing) to disprove the evidence that it can. But the evidence actually disproves your original assumption, so how can it be used as a argument against the evidence?

 

your argument is called a: Bare Assertion logical fallacy. The only reason that one accepts your assumption, is that one first accepts your assumption.

 

If you start from the position: Is there any evidence for either argument (Something can come from nothing, or that something can't come from nothing)?

 

Then you find that there is evidence that supports: "Something can come from nothing".

 

 

The thing is, there is no law that states that the Universe must make sense to Humans. As the equations are a description of the evidence gathered from reality, I would say that the equations are important.

 

But lets ignore the equations, like you said. Id ther any physical evidence that something can come from nothing?

 

Yes. The Casimir Effect.

 

In this, two electrically neutral plates are placed very close to each other. As gravity between these plates is negligible, we shouldn't see any attraction between them (at the distances involved, direct attraction between the atoms is also negligible). However, we do see a force between the plates that attempts to pull the plates together.

 

But, where does this force come form?

 

Well, the only place it can come from is when particles hit the plates. As this experiment takes place in a vacuum (it can never be a complete vacuum, but we can come close) there will be little or no force from atoms colliding with the plates (and that can be factored in too).

 

We know that if enough energy is concentrated in one location, that it can form a particle/antiparticle pair. However, we can also measure the amount of energy within the device and can see that there is not enough energy to produce enough particles to create the observed force between the plates.

 

However, if we assume that the energy of space is subject to the uncertainty principle, the we can work out that there will be energy that comes from nothing in great enough amount to produce particle/antiparticle pairs.

 

Now, the big question is does this match with reality? Well this is where the maths comes in. If the theory underlying the uncertainty principle and the particle/antiparticle pair production aspect, then this should give a force between the plates of a very specific amount. As we can measure the force, this gives us a way to check the theory that according to QM and the Uncertainty principle, something can actually come form nothing.

 

Based off actual experiments, the forces on the plates matches the forces predicted by the theory. This means that the Uncertainty Principle and QM comes to the conclusion that Something can come from nothing, and it has been experimentally confirmed.

 

This means that there is evidence to support the assumption that Something can come from nothing and that the opposite assumption has evidence against it.

 

It may not make sense to us mere Humans, but then there is no law that states that the Universe has to make sense to us.

 

 

Since the equations are based off experimentation and observation of reality, and have been modified to conform to reality, then those equations are probably a good description of reality.

 

The Equations don't "allow it", the equations describe what reality allows. As the equations make testable predictions as to the behaviour of reality, we can confirm the accuracy of the equations as a description of reality by performing experiments. The Casimir Effect is one such experiment that has been done and disproves the assumption that Something can not come form Nothing.

 

It is you that is erroneous. The Equations predict what we think will occur. Experiment confirms these predictions.

 

 

Firstly, the Uncertainly Principle is not only applicable to particles, the same maths can be applied to space and time.

 

Secondly, it is not the total energy that creates the uncertainty in a particle, but the particle itself.

 

The higher the energy of a particle the more momentum it can have (the uncertainty principle relates to energy and momentum is just one aspect of the energy that a particle can have). However, it is the accuracy with which you know the energy, not the amount of energy.

 

So the uncertainty in position of a particle relates to how certain you are of its energy, not the total amount of energy it has. But knowing that it has a lot of energy means that you are more certain of the energy it has, thus you become less certain about its position. Also, if you know that it has only a small amount of energy, this is also being more certain about its energy, thus you will be equally less certain about its position.

 

 

I am not sure what you are really saying here. The mathematics used have been tested against reality and been shown to match it. If you think that these mathematics and the experiments that show that they work in prediction what will occur in reality is not what you are talking about, then you seem to be saying that you don't care if your theory matches with reality.

 

If this is the case, then perhaps you really are trolling as the purpose of this discussion was to discuss what occurs in reality.

 

just one question

 

was the vibration frequency by each atom accounted and if so how ?

[iNow]

Trolls distract topics by arguing irrelevancies and posting irrelevancies of their own, keeping posts focussed on them and the rebuttal of their nonsensical assertions. What does your post have to do with the subject of the thread?

[north]

Trolls distract topics by arguing irrelevancies and posting irrelevancies of their own, keeping posts focussed on them and the rebuttal of their nonsensical assertions. What does your post have to do with the subject of the thread?

 

I look at the frequency of the atoms vibration as very important

 

for the vibrations produced by the atom is very real

 

another question

 

what were both plates made of ?

[Edtharan]

what were both plates made of ?

Conductive metal (this means that they were electrically neutral to one another as well).

 

was the vibration frequency by each atom accounted and if so how ?

As the plates were conductive, vibrations of any atoms would conduct over the plate and therefore become neutral to the plate. As the plate were grounded and electrically neutral to one another, this accounts for any vibrations of the atoms.

 

I look at the frequency of the atoms vibration as very important

Yes, it is important, and as part of the experiment they knew this and took steps to minimise the effects that this could have. Not only that, they could measure the average (which because of the steps they took cancelled to 0). The amount of vibrational energy contained with the plates was not enough to account for the measured attraction between the plates.

 

Also, as vibration is an oscillation (it goes both ways), the net result of any vibration would have been 0 and not caused an attraction between the plates.

 

Basically, in all test that have even been done on this kind of device (the experiment has not only been done once, but many times), can not find any source that can account for the size of the attractive force between the plates.

 

It is actually quite a large force (iirc: 1cm^2 plates produce a force approximately 1/10 the weight of an average mosquito). Use e=mc^2 and that will give you an idea of how massive this force is. It is not huge in terms of the electromagnetic force, but for something that is coming from nothing it is very large.

 

If there was a source of energy that could be creating this size force, it would be obviously seen. Think of something the size a 1/10 of a mosquito sitting in a location 1cm^2 with detection devices able to measure object close to atomic sizes going unnoticed. It is a bit like having an elephant sit on you and not noticing that it is there .