| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"rev.goetz" |
| Date: |
03 Sep 2006 04:07:28 PM |
| Object: |
Quantum Fluctuations |
I am hoping that some quantum physicists could answer a question for a
non-physicist. I have heard according to various cosmogonies that a
quantum fluctuation can generate a new universe. And generating a
universe similar to the observed universe would involve extraordinarily
small probabilities such as one in a googolplex. Well, I am wondering
if such quantum fluctuations could cause an apparent miracle such as
the duplication of a loaf of bread. Can anybody answer some related
questions that could be understood by a general audience?
Can a quantum fluctuation duplicate a loaf of breed?
Why or why not?
James
.
|
|
| User: "Jong Kim" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
05 Sep 2006 03:47:42 AM |
|
|
"rev.goetz" <jimgoetz316@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157317647.954403.212120@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I am hoping that some quantum physicists could answer a question for a
non-physicist. I have heard according to various cosmogonies that a
quantum fluctuation can generate a new universe. And generating a
universe similar to the observed universe would involve extraordinarily
small probabilities such as one in a googolplex.
Or in other words, impossible.
Isaac Newton (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy):
DEFINITION IV
An impressed force is an action exerted upon a body, in order to change its
state, either of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line.
This force consists in the action only, and remains no longer in the body
when the action is over. For a body maintains every new state it acquires,
by its inertia only. But impressed forces are of different origins, as from
percussion, from pressure, from centripetal force.
....
AXIOMS, OR LAWS OF MOTION
LAW I
Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right
line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon
it.
Well, I am wondering
if such quantum fluctuations could cause an apparent miracle such as
the duplication of a loaf of bread.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, Pg.270, Brigham Young, August 14, 1853:
When the only begotten Son of God was upon the earth, he understood the
nature of these elements, how they were brought together to make this world
and all things that are thereon, for he helped to make them. He had the
power
of organizing, what we would call, in a miraculous manner. That which to
him
was no miracle, is called miraculous by the inhabitants of the earth. On
one
occasion he commanded a sufficient amount of bread to be formed to feed
his disciples and the multitude. It was in the air, in the water, and in
the earth they walked upon. He, unperceived by his disciples and the
multitude, spoke to the native elements, and brought forth bread. He had
the power. We have not that power, but are under the necessity of producing
bread according to a systematic plan. We are obliged to till the ground,
and sow wheat, in order to obtain wheat. But when we possess the true
riches, we shall be able to call forth the bread from the native element,
like as Jesus Christ did. Everything that is good for man, is there. Jesus
said to his disciples, Make the multitude sit down, and divide them unto
companies, and take this bread and break it, and distribute it among them.
They did not know but that it was the few loaves and fishes that fed the
whole of them as they ate. The truth is, he called forth bread from the
native elements.
King James Bible, 1611 Edition (Apocrypha):
17 For thy Almighty hand that made the world of matter without form, ...
Wisdom of Solomon 11:17
Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, Pg.118, Brigham Young, February 27, 1853:
It cannot be annihilated; you cannot annihilate matter. If you could, it
would prove there was empty space. If philosophers could annihilate the
least conceivable amount of matter, they could then prove there was the
minutest vacuum, or empty space; but there is not even that much, and it is
beyond the power of man to prove that there is any.
James Clerk Maxwell (1878 Encyclopaedia Britannica):
Whatever difficulties we may have in forming a consistent idea of the
constitution of the aether, there can be no doubt that the interplanetary
and interstellar spaces are occupied by a material substance of body.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.3, Pg.276 - Pg.277, Brigham Young, March 23,
1856:
.... all space is filled with element; there is no such thing as empty space,
though some philosophers contend that there is.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.7, Pg.2, Brigham Young, July 3, 1859:
If people understood true philosophy--eternal philosophy, they would
understand that there is an eternity of matter. Astronomers estimate that
there is between us and the nearest fixed star matter enough from which to
organize millions of earths like this. There is an eternity of matter, and
it is all acted upon and filled with a portion of divinity. Matter is to
exist; it cannot be annihilated. Eternity is without bounds, and is filled
with matter; and there is no such place as empty space.
Some call it dark matter, a "dark sarcasm" as if to suggest that the truth
is unknowable. Native elements (Scripturally speaking) is best, or at least
the aether. Light propagates through this medium whether it's called dark
matter or not.
Juliet (excerpted from a Shakespearean play):
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
Nevertheless, names are important because natural man's subjective
perception of reality must be taken into consideration.
The duality of light in exhibiting both wave and particle behaviors is no
paradox, since the exceedingly fine matter known to us as the native
elements, or the aether, diffusing everywhere and in everything, is the
medium of the propagation of light. Nothing dark or mysterious about it, at
least in qualitative and intuitive senses.
Nicolas Fuss (Eulogy of Leonhard Euler):
Descartes had theorized that light came to us in the same way as sound.
Effectively, on reflection it would be difficult not to recognize a marked
similarity between the senses of sound and sight; that both extend
themselves to further distances than our other senses and that sound and
light arrive to us by straight lines and that one or the other can be bent.
Mr. Euler had seized upon this similarity and followed its parallel by
allowing us to see that light is born from of vibratory movement in the
aether and sound is produced by a similar movement in the air. As there are
differences in colors so to do those of sound depend on the frequency of
vibrations and that sounds while passing through the proper bodies for its
transmission, can change their direction and a type of refraction occurs as
for light rays.
http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~euler/historica/fuss.html
Can anybody answer some related
questions that could be understood by a general audience?
Can a quantum fluctuation duplicate a loaf of breed?
Why or why not?
James
No. Self-organization is mission impossible.
James Clerk Maxwell (Theory of Heat, 1871):
Admitting heat to be a form of energy, the second law asserts that it is
impossible, by the unaided action of natural processes, to transform any
part of the heat of a body into mechanical work, except by allowing heat to
pass from that body into another at a lower temperature.
Sandcastles do not arise spontaneously, nor does anything else.
Isaac Newton (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy):
Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and
everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of
natural things which we find suited to different times and places could
arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing.
Evolution of any stripe is false.
16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the
potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not?
or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no
understanding?
(Old Testament | Isaiah 29:16)
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 373:
Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor?
And everything comes in this way.
Art Bulla (Revelations of Jesus Christ, Section 14):
Another evidence, is that if organisms evolved into more advantageous
strengths, why do they die?
Posted to:
alt.naturalphilosophy.sci.physics
X-posted to:
alt.truereligion.EphraimManasseh.ArtBullaOMSBrighamYoungJosephSmith.
MoroniNephiIsaiah.BrotherofJaredShemEnoch.ChristNoahAdam
alt.JudahLeviBenjamin.soc.culture.jewish
sci.religion.alt.talk.creationism
--
Jong Kim
.
|
|
|
| User: "RetroProphet" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
05 Sep 2006 09:55:41 AM |
|
|
I am hoping that some quantum physicists could answer a question for a
non-physicist. I have heard according to various cosmogonies that a
quantum fluctuation can generate a new universe. And generating a
universe similar to the observed universe would involve extraordinarily
small probabilities such as one in a googolplex.
Or in other words, impossible.
Stop.
Assuming that accurate probability calculations are possible
for a particular event, an event of low probability, as long
as it is not zero, is NOT impossible -- it might come to
pass in the next second.
You need to educate yourself in this basic concept.
Perhaps it is useful for theologians such as yourself to
state the false notion you did, as it might admirably impress
those who are as ignorant on the subject as yourself.
However, know that when you say such a thing in the company
of those who know the subject, you demonstrate that you don't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jong Kim" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
07 Sep 2006 04:49:35 AM |
|
|
"RetroProphet" <RetroProphet_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:edk35d01p1g@drn.newsguy.com...
I am hoping that some quantum physicists could answer a question for a
non-physicist. I have heard according to various cosmogonies that a
quantum fluctuation can generate a new universe. And generating a
universe similar to the observed universe would involve extraordinarily
small probabilities such as one in a googolplex.
Or in other words, impossible.
Stop.
Assuming that accurate probability calculations are possible
for a particular event, an event of low probability, as long
as it is not zero, is NOT impossible -- it might come to
pass in the next second.
The probability of the electron of a hydrogen atom being 1 mile away from
the nucleus can be calculated using purely analytical methods in quantum
mechanics, and it for all practical purposes approaches zero also. Put
simply, it is impossible. A similar event, either less than 1 mile away or
more, will not occur unless that hydrogen atom is acted upon by an external
agent. For a hydrogen electron to be that far away from the atomic nucleus,
the hydrogen atom has to be ionized! So, mathematics is not the Truth in and
of itself. It is merely a very powerful tool. It can be used to discern a
measure of the Truth, but it can also be used to lie.
Likewise, a loaf of bread or anything else cannot be, except an external
agent should bring it to pass, whether by a 'miracle' of Christ or by man's
time consuming, methodical procedure.
Also, look up Newton's first law of motion as an analogy, concerning cause
and effect.
You need to educate yourself in this basic concept.
It seems you also like to feign belief in Zeno's Paradoxes.
Perhaps it is useful for theologians such as yourself to
state the false notion you did, as it might admirably impress
those who are as ignorant on the subject as yourself.
Redtroll imagines that everyone is aspiring to win a Nobel Prize like he is.
11 The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they [are] vanity.
(Old Testament | Psalms 94:11)
18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in
this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written,
He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
21 Therefore let no man glory in men. ...
(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 3:18 - 21)
However, know that when you say such a thing in the company
of those who know the subject, you demonstrate that you don't.
The reason for quantum zero point energy is the glorious light of God, even
the
ubiquitous background radiation of both transverse and longitudinal
electromagnetic waves, which to man's eyes and to his other senses, both
natural and spiritual, and to his scientific instruments comprises a
manifestation of aether, or the native elements (though dark matter is the
preferred Gentile phrase of "dark sarcasm" at this time to describe the
same), pervading all of space (which has always been limitless, from
eternity to eternity) and everything therein. Restating it, zero degree
Kelvin (no motion, i.e. no energy) is impossible. There is no such thing as
true vacuum, though this truth is denied in the film Hitchhiker's Guide to
Galaxy. The Law of Light, Scripturally speaking, is the unifying principle
by which the Universe is operated, both macroscopically and microscopically,
yea in all ways. Both James Clerk Maxwell and Paul Dirac came to acknowledge
the existence of aether, which conclusion is in
agreement with the Scriptures, for Theology, or the knowledge of God,
encompasses all of what men call science.
7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it
is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;
8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is
all matter.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 131:7 - 8)
36 All kingdoms have a law given;
37 And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is
no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a
greater or a lesser kingdom.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 88:36 - 37)
Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, Pg.276, Brigham Young, August 14, 1853:
There is no such thing as empty space.
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843-44 Pg.350:
Meaning of the Word Create
You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing;
and they will answer, "Doesn't the Bible say He created the world?" And
they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of
nothing. Now, the word create came from the baurau which does not mean to
create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would
organize materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials
to organize the world out of chaos -- chaotic matter, which is element, and
in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he
had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be
destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They
had no beginning, and can have no end.
42 And again, verily I say unto you, he hath given a law unto all things, by
which they move in their times and their seasons;
43 And their courses are fixed, even the courses of the heavens and the
earth, which comprehend the earth and all the planets.
44 And they give light to each other in their times and in their seasons, in
their minutes, in their hours, in their days, in their weeks, in their
months, in their years—all these are one year with God, but not with man.
45 The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and
the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as
they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 88:42 - 45)
PSALM 90
A Prayer of Moses the man of God.
1 LORD, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations.
2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the
earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou [art] God.
3 Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men.
4 For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past,
and [as] a watch in the night.
(Old Testament | Psalms 90:1 - 4)
8 ... all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.
(Book of Mormon | Alma 40:8)
5 And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up
his hand to heaven,
6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and
the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are,
and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no
longer:
(New Testament | Revelation 10:5 - 6)
2 The same light which enlighteneth your eyes quickeneth your
understandings, saith the Lord, and is the law by which all things are
governed, and which, saith the Lord, changeth not, but remains constant,
that ye may have a standard by which to judge truth, and which constant is
called the law of light.
3 And it is that science, saith the Lord, which abrogates or does away with
the basis of true science, or, saith the Lord, that which is known as
physics and mathematics, which are my statutes, or the laws by which the
planets as wheel upon their wings in the immensity of space, is it not
false?
Revelations of Jesus Christ 159:2-3
Isaac Newton (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy):
And now we might add something concerning a certain most subtle spirit
which pervades and lies hid in all gross bodies; by the force and action of
which spirit the particles of bodies attract one another at near distances,
and cohere, if contiguous; and electric bodies operate to greater distances,
as well repelling as attracting the neighboring corpuscles; and light is
emitted, reflected, refracted, inflected, and heats bodies; and all
sensation is excited, and the members of animal bodies move at the command
of the will, namely, by the vibrations of this spirit, mutually propagated
along the solid filaments of the nerves, from the outward organs of sense to
the brain, and from the brain into the muscles. But these are things that
cannot be explained in few words, nor are we furnished with that sufficiency
of experiments which is required to an accurate determination and
demonstration of the laws by which this electric and elastic spirit
operates.
Dr. Udah 'ck19 a.k.a. celestial knowledge xix' Aethernetlove:
no matter how weird, you still can't begin with nothing. in or out, with or
without the universe. you have to begin with something or you can never
begin. the universe in some form has *always* existed or it would have never
existed at all. i think billy preston wrote a song about it.
Posted to:
alt.naturalphilosophy.sci.physics
X-posted to:
alt.truereligion.EphraimManasseh.ArtBullaOMSBrighamYoungJosephSmith.
MoroniNephiIsaiah.BrotherofJaredShemEnoch.ChristNoahAdam
alt.JudahLeviBenjamin.soc.culture.jewish
sci.religion.alt.talk.creationism
--
Jong Kim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Negentropy ( a broader definition of life ) is an anisotropy, a contrast. |
04 Sep 2006 08:56:11 PM |
|
|
Hi Rev_Goetz, Unlike me, most believe life requires
the temperature and density of liquid water.
Yet our universe has cooled to this point as its density has dropped.
And so this " life " was perfectly predictable, not a random fluctuation.
Entropy ( a measure of uniformity, gaussianity ) as only been going up.
( See: WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Non-gaussianity )
Negentropy ( a broader definition of life ) is an anisotropy, a contrast,
a remnent of a once denser anisotropies.
And entropy eventually destroys it. Even the sun dissipates.
I assume that the laws of thermodynamics are always true;
because nothing else is known to be as powerful ( not even Christ or Alla ).
Quantum Mechanics is just a refinement of those laws:
At their core, the Uncertainty Principle and
quantum mechanics are about the wave-particle duality as demonstated in
the photo-electric effect, the black-body radiation curve and
the double-slit experiment.
The double-slit experiment ( and thus QM ) is about temperature.
Warmer particles are easier to detect at a slit because they radiate more;
so, at least in theory, you know more about where they are at.
While colder particles are more coherent, having a more certain frequency;
so you know more about their momentum and what interference pattern to expect.
Dark energy ( a.k.a. negative pressure, at cosmic scales )
is observed to be a function of Density_Cosmos.
Because e = m * c^2, Omega_Total always equals 1,
Omega_Lambda always equals .74, and w always equals -1, we get:
Pressure_Cosmos always equals: - ( .74 / .26 ) * Density_Cosmos * c^2
( the positive pressure of radiation is insignificant ).
www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/W.PNG
This means black holes'd have much negative pressure ( a.k.a. dark energy );
in other words, they'd be a time-dilated White_Hole with great
Consumable_Gibbs_Free_Energy ( a.k.a. NegEntropy or _Life_ ).
Cold_Dark_Matter might be an _Ultra_ Uniform/Cold, low NegEntropy state.
By " life ", I mean something much more general than water-based life, i.e.:
Vices are just different ways to burn out ( and all things burn out ).
They're ok ( to a point ), because they're a celebration of life;
but which ones get condoned ( e.g. sex, gasoline and reproduction ) and
which ones don't ( e.g. smoking ) is a _Soft_ ( pseudorandom ) science.
Each is imprisoned in a virtual casino... the house always wins in the end.
Like you're both God _And_ Devil ( i.e. " God/Devil " )
to the animals and plants you raise to feed yourself
( i.e. like you punish and reward them, to control them ),
you're a God/Devil's tenant and a God/Devil to your tenants.
Negentropy ( a.k.a. Consumable_Gibbs_Free_Energy or life )
is the top God/Devil because, like a lit match, consumption
both creates and destroys all that ever was.
Although control is the goal, it's a mirage.
Time is pseudo-directional ( i.e. spatial )
because, like a dice toss is known to be pseudorandom ( i.e. causal ),
all randomness is pseudorandom.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "uri" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
03 Sep 2006 04:32:40 PM |
|
|
Maybe this quantum fluctuations could explain consciousness and
subjective interpretation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rev.goetz" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
03 Sep 2006 05:04:48 PM |
|
|
uri wrote:
Maybe this quantum fluctuations could explain consciousness and
subjective interpretation.
I doubt that quantum fluctuations are needed to explain consciousness,
and I am nto sure what you implying about subjective interpretation.
This concept of quantum fluctuations is focusing on potential
extraordinary exceptions in nature. And I am interested in knowing the
limits of quantum fluctuations, in layman's language.
James
.
|
|
|
| User: "uri" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
03 Sep 2006 06:31:45 PM |
|
|
rev.goetz wrote:
I doubt that quantum fluctuations are needed to explain consciousness,
and I am nto sure what you implying about subjective interpretation.
This concept of quantum fluctuations is focusing on potential
extraordinary exceptions in nature. And I am interested in knowing the
limits of quantum fluctuations, in layman's language.
James
I'm quite skeptical about the origin and the properties of the
universe. It's obvious that something cannot come from nothingness.
Creationists believe that everything is in the mind of God and New
Agers believe that everything is one big mind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "noshellswill" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
03 Sep 2006 07:21:12 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 16:31:45 -0700, uri wrote:
rev.goetz wrote:
I doubt that quantum fluctuations are needed to explain consciousness,
and I am nto sure what you implying about subjective interpretation.
This concept of quantum fluctuations is focusing on potential
extraordinary exceptions in nature. And I am interested in knowing the
limits of quantum fluctuations, in layman's language.
James
I'm quite skeptical about the origin and the properties of the
universe. It's obvious that something cannot come from nothingness.
Creationists believe that everything is in the mind of God and New
Agers believe that everything is one big mind.
RG:
And some poor sucker gotta collapse the UNIVERSAL WAVE FUNCTION
day-after-day ... er , femtosecond-after ... oh well what a drag!
Heh wait-a-minute mebby THAT's why 'ol Satan got p*ssed off he got zapped
trying ta grab some super G-ray photon BLATT!!! ...he yells over ..." heh
Gab, go tell the old-Man damned if I'm gonna mess with this
high-voltage-stuff any more. How long's it been? Hells-bells how abouts
that fat punk Mikey pulling the oars a bit ..."
Or suchlike..... %^]
nss
**********
nss
**************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
03 Sep 2006 06:24:37 PM |
|
|
rev.goetz <jimgoetz316@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am hoping that some quantum physicists could answer a question for a
non-physicist. I have heard according to various cosmogonies that a
quantum fluctuation can generate a new universe. And generating a
universe similar to the observed universe would involve extraordinarily
small probabilities such as one in a googolplex. Well, I am wondering
if such quantum fluctuations could cause an apparent miracle such as
the duplication of a loaf of bread. Can anybody answer some related
questions that could be understood by a general audience?
Can a quantum fluctuation duplicate a loaf of breed?
In standard quantum field theory, a quantum fluctuation could,
with *extremely* small probability, produce a short-lived bread
loaf-antibread loaf pair (where the anti-bread loaf is identical
to the bread loaf except that it's made of antimatter). Assuming
a one-pound loaf, and assuming that there is no new, extremely
strong force binding the loaves together, the pair could last
about 10^{-51} seconds before annihilating back into the vacuum.
Since this time scale is one at which quantum gravity should be
important, and since we do not know how quantum gravity would
affect the result, the prediction should be taken with a grain
of salt. (A grain of salt is also a little to massive to be
created from a vacuum fluctuation without involving quantum
gravity, though it's close to the limit...)
Things are a bit different for a quantum fluctuation "generating
a new universe." The lifetime of an object-antiobject pair formed
from a vacuum fluctuation is inversely proportional to the total
energy of the pair. But binding energy -- energy coming from a
force that attracts the two parts of the system -- gives a negative
contribution to the total energy. (That's why I stuck in the
proviso of no new strong binding force between bread and antibread.)
For a "new universe," the gravitational binding energy can be large
enough to cancel the rest energy (mc^2), allowing an infinite
lifetime. But here, too, quantum gravity is important, and we
can say very little with certainty.
Steve Carlip
.
|
|
|
| User: "rev.goetz" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
03 Sep 2006 09:37:55 PM |
|
|
wrote:
rev.goetz <jimgoetz316@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am hoping that some quantum physicists could answer a question for a
non-physicist. I have heard according to various cosmogonies that a
quantum fluctuation can generate a new universe. And generating a
universe similar to the observed universe would involve extraordinarily
small probabilities such as one in a googolplex. Well, I am wondering
if such quantum fluctuations could cause an apparent miracle such as
the duplication of a loaf of bread. Can anybody answer some related
questions that could be understood by a general audience?
Can a quantum fluctuation duplicate a loaf of breed?
In standard quantum field theory, a quantum fluctuation could,
with *extremely* small probability, produce a short-lived bread
loaf-antibread loaf pair (where the anti-bread loaf is identical
to the bread loaf except that it's made of antimatter). Assuming
a one-pound loaf, and assuming that there is no new, extremely
strong force binding the loaves together, the pair could last
about 10^{-51} seconds before annihilating back into the vacuum.
Since this time scale is one at which quantum gravity should be
important, and since we do not know how quantum gravity would
affect the result, the prediction should be taken with a grain
of salt. (A grain of salt is also a little to massive to be
created from a vacuum fluctuation without involving quantum
gravity, though it's close to the limit...)
Things are a bit different for a quantum fluctuation "generating
a new universe." The lifetime of an object-antiobject pair formed
from a vacuum fluctuation is inversely proportional to the total
energy of the pair. But binding energy -- energy coming from a
force that attracts the two parts of the system -- gives a negative
contribution to the total energy. (That's why I stuck in the
proviso of no new strong binding force between bread and antibread.)
For a "new universe," the gravitational binding energy can be large
enough to cancel the rest energy (mc^2), allowing an infinite
lifetime. But here, too, quantum gravity is important, and we
can say very little with certainty.
Steve Carlip
I appreciate that you could make this clear to me considering my
limited background in physics. And I am hoping that you can elaborate
on a couple of the concepts that you mentioned.
Evidently, you implied that a molecular structure smaller than a grain
of salt can be created from a vacuum fluctuation without involving
quantum gravity. Is that correct?
What is the maximum size for a molecular structure that can be created
from a vacuum fluctuation without involving quantum gravity?
And does this miniscule duplication generate a stable molecular
structure that does not annihilate back into the vacuum? (Perhaps the
answer to this is "yes" by definition, but I want to make sure that
I am interpreting you correctly.)
And if it does, then can any size molecular structure be hypothetically
broken down into small enough pieces so that each piece can be
duplicated?
And considering the loaf and anti-loaf creation that lasts 10^-51
seconds, could not the antimatter in the anti-loaf annihilate back into
the vacuum with surrounding gas molecules instead of with the newly
duplicated loaf, which would leave us with two loaves of bread to eat?
Do you have the slightest idea on how to estimate a probability of
occurrence for any of these hypothetical events?
James
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
04 Sep 2006 11:50:39 AM |
|
|
rev.goetz <jimgoetz316@yahoo.com> wrote:
carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
[...]
In standard quantum field theory, a quantum fluctuation could,
with *extremely* small probability, produce a short-lived bread
loaf-antibread loaf pair (where the anti-bread loaf is identical
to the bread loaf except that it's made of antimatter). Assuming
a one-pound loaf, and assuming that there is no new, extremely
strong force binding the loaves together, the pair could last
about 10^{-51} seconds before annihilating back into the vacuum.
Since this time scale is one at which quantum gravity should be
important, and since we do not know how quantum gravity would
affect the result, the prediction should be taken with a grain
of salt. (A grain of salt is also a little to massive to be
created from a vacuum fluctuation without involving quantum
gravity, though it's close to the limit...)
Things are a bit different for a quantum fluctuation "generating
a new universe." The lifetime of an object-antiobject pair formed
from a vacuum fluctuation is inversely proportional to the total
energy of the pair. But binding energy -- energy coming from a
force that attracts the two parts of the system -- gives a negative
contribution to the total energy. (That's why I stuck in the
proviso of no new strong binding force between bread and antibread.)
For a "new universe," the gravitational binding energy can be large
enough to cancel the rest energy (mc^2), allowing an infinite
lifetime. But here, too, quantum gravity is important, and we
can say very little with certainty.
Steve Carlip
I appreciate that you could make this clear to me considering my
limited background in physics. And I am hoping that you can elaborate
on a couple of the concepts that you mentioned.
Evidently, you implied that a molecular structure smaller than a grain
of salt can be created from a vacuum fluctuation without involving
quantum gravity. Is that correct?
Maybe almost correct.
There are certain characteristic scales that are (probably) associated
with quantum gravity: the Planck mass of about 10^{-5} g, the Planck
length of about 10^{-33} cm, and the Planck time of about 10^{-43} s.
It is widely accepted that quantum gravity cannot be ignored at the
Planck scale -- that is, for example, at distances shorter than the
Planck length. We aren't *certain* of this, since we don't have a
complete quantum theory of gravity, but the arguments are compelling.
Now, when an object anti-object pair is created by a quantum fluctuation,
the pair has a lifetime that is inversely proportional to their mass. For
an object with a mass of the Planck mass, this lifetime is about the Planck
time; for a more massive object, it's shorter. So if you're talking about
pair creation of something more massive than the Planck mass, you are
talking about a process in which quantum gravity almost certainly can't
be ignored. (The mass of a grain of table salt is just barely higher than
the Planck mass.)
The converse may or may not be true. That is, we know that to understand
the creation of a Planck mass pair, we need quantum gravity, and we know
experimentally that we can understand the creation of, say, an electron-
positron pair without invoking quantum gravity. But it's possible that
the dividing line is much lower than the Planck mass. Again, we can't be
confident of this until we know more about quantum gravity. For example,
there has been a lot of recent work on models in which the quantum gravity
mass scale is actually much lower than the Planck mass, perhaps even within
reach of the next generation of particle accelerators. These models are
speculative, but they can't be ruled out.
(Warning: my term "dividing line" may be a bit misleading. There is not
a sharp line. Rather, at high enough masses, the role of quantum gravity
is much too important to ignore; as the masses go down, the effects of
quantum gravity become less important, until eventually they are too small
to have measurable consequences.)
And does this miniscule duplication generate a stable molecular
structure that does not annihilate back into the vacuum?
No. An object anti-object pair of mass m created by a vacuum fluctuation
has a lifetime on the order of h/mc^2, where h is Planck's constant. The
only way you can get a stable structure is if its energy is zero. As I
said earlier, this leaves room for "creation of a universe," in which the
gravitational binding energy completely cancels the energy from the rest
mass. In any other case, you can get a long-lived object only if you can
get extra energy from outside. Quantum mechanics doesn't negate conservation
of energy -- if you want a bread anti-bread pair to exist stably, you will
need to put in two bread loaf's worth of energy.
Steve Carlip
.
|
|
|
| User: "rev.goetz" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
05 Sep 2006 12:01:04 AM |
|
|
wrote:
rev.goetz <jimgoetz316@yahoo.com> wrote:
wrote:
[...]
In standard quantum field theory, a quantum fluctuation could,
with *extremely* small probability, produce a short-lived bread
loaf-antibread loaf pair (where the anti-bread loaf is identical
to the bread loaf except that it's made of antimatter). Assuming
a one-pound loaf, and assuming that there is no new, extremely
strong force binding the loaves together, the pair could last
about 10^{-51} seconds before annihilating back into the vacuum.
Since this time scale is one at which quantum gravity should be
important, and since we do not know how quantum gravity would
affect the result, the prediction should be taken with a grain
of salt. (A grain of salt is also a little to massive to be
created from a vacuum fluctuation without involving quantum
gravity, though it's close to the limit...)
Things are a bit different for a quantum fluctuation "generating
a new universe." The lifetime of an object-antiobject pair formed
from a vacuum fluctuation is inversely proportional to the total
energy of the pair. But binding energy -- energy coming from a
force that attracts the two parts of the system -- gives a negative
contribution to the total energy. (That's why I stuck in the
proviso of no new strong binding force between bread and antibread.)
For a "new universe," the gravitational binding energy can be large
enough to cancel the rest energy (mc^2), allowing an infinite
lifetime. But here, too, quantum gravity is important, and we
can say very little with certainty.
Steve Carlip
I appreciate that you could make this clear to me considering my
limited background in physics. And I am hoping that you can elaborate
on a couple of the concepts that you mentioned.
Evidently, you implied that a molecular structure smaller than a grain
of salt can be created from a vacuum fluctuation without involving
quantum gravity. Is that correct?
Maybe almost correct.
There are certain characteristic scales that are (probably) associated
with quantum gravity: the Planck mass of about 10^{-5} g, the Planck
length of about 10^{-33} cm, and the Planck time of about 10^{-43} s.
It is widely accepted that quantum gravity cannot be ignored at the
Planck scale -- that is, for example, at distances shorter than the
Planck length. We aren't *certain* of this, since we don't have a
complete quantum theory of gravity, but the arguments are compelling.
Now, when an object anti-object pair is created by a quantum fluctuation,
the pair has a lifetime that is inversely proportional to their mass. For
an object with a mass of the Planck mass, this lifetime is about the Planck
time; for a more massive object, it's shorter. So if you're talking about
pair creation of something more massive than the Planck mass, you are
talking about a process in which quantum gravity almost certainly can't
be ignored. (The mass of a grain of table salt is just barely higher than
the Planck mass.)
The converse may or may not be true. That is, we know that to understand
the creation of a Planck mass pair, we need quantum gravity, and we know
experimentally that we can understand the creation of, say, an electron-
positron pair without invoking quantum gravity. But it's possible that
the dividing line is much lower than the Planck mass. Again, we can't be
confident of this until we know more about quantum gravity. For example,
there has been a lot of recent work on models in which the quantum gravity
mass scale is actually much lower than the Planck mass, perhaps even within
reach of the next generation of particle accelerators. These models are
speculative, but they can't be ruled out.
(Warning: my term "dividing line" may be a bit misleading. There is not
a sharp line. Rather, at high enough masses, the role of quantum gravity
is much too important to ignore; as the masses go down, the effects of
quantum gravity become less important, until eventually they are too small
to have measurable consequences.)
And does this miniscule duplication generate a stable molecular
structure that does not annihilate back into the vacuum?
No. An object anti-object pair of mass m created by a vacuum fluctuation
has a lifetime on the order of h/mc^2, where h is Planck's constant. The
only way you can get a stable structure is if its energy is zero. As I
said earlier, this leaves room for "creation of a universe," in which the
gravitational binding energy completely cancels the energy from the rest
mass. In any other case, you can get a long-lived object only if you can
get extra energy from outside. Quantum mechanics doesn't negate conservation
of energy -- if you want a bread anti-bread pair to exist stably, you will
need to put in two bread loaf's worth of energy.
I commend you that I can follow this. And I have a couple of questions
about your final two sentences. (Please entertain my speculations of
science fiction proportions.)
First of all, my hypothetical goal is not to end up with a bread
anti-bread pair, but to generate a bread anti-bread pair and end up
with bread that will last as long as bread that has been baked.
When you say that we would need to get extra energy from the outside,
would it suffice to gather nearby energy and put it into the bread and
anti-bread?
Are we talking about free energy?
Is all energy the same or is there both energy and anti-energy?
And I thought that antimatter will always annihilate when it touches
matter (and vice versa). Is this correct?
So if we could put two loaves of energy into the bread and anti-bread,
then I suppose that the anti-bread would still annihilate with nearby
matter. Is this correct?
James
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henning Makholm" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
05 Sep 2006 07:29:23 AM |
|
|
Scripsit "rev.goetz" <jimgoetz316@yahoo.com>
First of all, my hypothetical goal is not to end up with a bread
anti-bread pair, but to generate a bread anti-bread pair and end up
with bread that will last as long as bread that has been baked.
When you say that we would need to get extra energy from the outside,
would it suffice to gather nearby energy and put it into the bread and
anti-bread?
You would need extra energy, yes. But that does not suffice. Because
of conservation of baryon count you can't _not_ get an anti-bread
together with the bread, and so you get responsibility for doing
_something_ with the particles in the anti-bread (because of their
tendency to annihilate explosively with normal matter, they'll be
considered hazardous waste).
The easiest thing would probably be to let the anti-bread annihilate
in a controlled manner with a corresponding quantity of whatever other
matter you have available - e.g., pieces of rock, clouds of atomic
hydrogen, or domestic refuse. As a bonus this will release enough
energy to repay most of the energy debt from the bread-antibread
generation.
And given _that_, your net effect is just the transmutation and
chemical rearrangement of your pieces of ordinary rock (or whatever)
into ordinary bread.
But that is actually a good thing, because the odds for such
spontaneous transmutation are better than for spontaneous
bread-antibread generation by dozens of orders of magnitude.
And you get most of the conservation laws taken care of - all
you need to do now is add a modest amount of energy, perhaps
extract and dispose of some entropy, and find a practical way
of catalyzing the reaction.
Is all energy the same or is there both energy and anti-energy?
All energy is the same.
And I thought that antimatter will always annihilate when it touches
matter (and vice versa). Is this correct?
It will not _instantly_ annihilate, but the natural speed of the
annihilation reaction is extremely large in most cases. There is
no fundamental reason why you can't find a way to slow it down
artificially.
--
Henning Makholm "... it cannot be told in his own
words because after September 11 he
forgot about keeping his diary for a long time."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
05 Sep 2006 06:16:51 PM |
|
|
Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> wrote:
Scripsit "rev.goetz" <jimgoetz316@yahoo.com>
First of all, my hypothetical goal is not to end up with a bread
anti-bread pair, but to generate a bread anti-bread pair and end up
with bread that will last as long as bread that has been baked.
When you say that we would need to get extra energy from the outside,
would it suffice to gather nearby energy and put it into the bread and
anti-bread?
You would need extra energy, yes.
A *lot* of extra energy -- for a one pound loaf of bread and its
corresponding anti-bread loaf, about the energy of a 50 megaton
bomb (the most powerful bomb ever tested).
But that does not suffice. Because
of conservation of baryon count you can't _not_ get an anti-bread
together with the bread, and so you get responsibility for doing
_something_ with the particles in the anti-bread (because of their
tendency to annihilate explosively with normal matter, they'll be
considered hazardous waste).
The easiest thing would probably be to let the anti-bread annihilate
in a controlled manner with a corresponding quantity of whatever other
matter you have available - e.g., pieces of rock, clouds of atomic
hydrogen, or domestic refuse. As a bonus this will release enough
energy to repay most of the energy debt from the bread-antibread
generation.
In principle, you could get half the energy back.
Steve Carlip
.
|
|
|
| User: "rev.goetz" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
06 Sep 2006 10:54:41 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> wrote:
Scripsit "rev.goetz" <jimgoetz316@yahoo.com>
First of all, my hypothetical goal is not to end up with a bread
anti-bread pair, but to generate a bread anti-bread pair and end up
with bread that will last as long as bread that has been baked.
When you say that we would need to get extra energy from the outside,
would it suffice to gather nearby energy and put it into the bread and
anti-bread?
You would need extra energy, yes.
A *lot* of extra energy -- for a one pound loaf of bread and its
corresponding anti-bread loaf, about the energy of a 50 megaton
bomb (the most powerful bomb ever tested).
Does this imply that the average one pound loaf of bread (or one pound
of most everyday matter) has the energy of roughly a 25 megaton bomb?
We better tell homeland security about this:)
I get a little confused about the composition of energy. For example,
Penrose defines entropy in terms of the ratio of photons per baryon.
And I assume that the inverse of this defines free energy. I can work a
little with the mathematics of it, but I still do not understand the
composition of energy. And likewise, I am a little fuzzy on how energy
can convert to matter and vice versa. Can you help to explain this to
me?
James
But that does not suffice. Because
of conservation of baryon count you can't _not_ get an anti-bread
together with the bread, and so you get responsibility for doing
_something_ with the particles in the anti-bread (because of their
tendency to annihilate explosively with normal matter, they'll be
considered hazardous waste).
The easiest thing would probably be to let the anti-bread annihilate
in a controlled manner with a corresponding quantity of whatever other
matter you have available - e.g., pieces of rock, clouds of atomic
hydrogen, or domestic refuse. As a bonus this will release enough
energy to repay most of the energy debt from the bread-antibread
generation.
In principle, you could get half the energy back.
Steve Carlip
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "rev.goetz" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
05 Sep 2006 10:20:53 AM |
|
|
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit "rev.goetz" <jimgoetz316@yahoo.com>
First of all, my hypothetical goal is not to end up with a bread
anti-bread pair, but to generate a bread anti-bread pair and end up
with bread that will last as long as bread that has been baked.
When you say that we would need to get extra energy from the outside,
would it suffice to gather nearby energy and put it into the bread and
anti-bread?
You would need extra energy, yes. But that does not suffice. Because
of conservation of baryon count you can't _not_ get an anti-bread
together with the bread, and so you get responsibility for doing
_something_ with the particles in the anti-bread (because of their
tendency to annihilate explosively with normal matter, they'll be
considered hazardous waste).
The easiest thing would probably be to let the anti-bread annihilate
in a controlled manner with a corresponding quantity of whatever other
matter you have available - e.g., pieces of rock, clouds of atomic
hydrogen, or domestic refuse. As a bonus this will release enough
energy to repay most of the energy debt from the bread-antibread
generation.
And given _that_, your net effect is just the transmutation and
chemical rearrangement of your pieces of ordinary rock (or whatever)
into ordinary bread.
But that is actually a good thing, because the odds for such
spontaneous transmutation are better than for spontaneous
bread-antibread generation by dozens of orders of magnitude.
And you get most of the conservation laws taken care of - all
you need to do now is add a modest amount of energy, perhaps
extract and dispose of some entropy, and find a practical way
of catalyzing the reaction.
Well, if transmutation is the more conservative than vacuum fluctuation
in regards to the spontaneous generation of bread, then I will focus my
speculation of transmuation. And I hope that the literature on
transmutation is easier for me for to understand compared the
literature on vacuum fluctuations:)
James
Is all energy the same or is there both energy and anti-energy?
All energy is the same.
And I thought that antimatter will always annihilate when it touches
matter (and vice versa). Is this correct?
It will not _instantly_ annihilate, but the natural speed of the
annihilation reaction is extremely large in most cases. There is
no fundamental reason why you can't find a way to slow it down
artificially.
--
Henning Makholm "... it cannot be told in his own
words because after September 11 he
forgot about keeping his diary for a long time."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
03 Sep 2006 05:01:18 PM |
|
|
rev.goetz wrote:
I am hoping that some quantum physicists could answer a question for a
non-physicist. I have heard according to various cosmogonies that a
quantum fluctuation can generate a new universe. And generating a
universe similar to the observed universe would involve extraordinarily
small probabilities such as one in a googolplex.
What evidence do you have for that probability?
.
|
|
|
| User: "rev.goetz" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
03 Sep 2006 05:07:34 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
rev.goetz wrote:
I am hoping that some quantum physicists could answer a question for a
non-physicist. I have heard according to various cosmogonies that a
quantum fluctuation can generate a new universe. And generating a
universe similar to the observed universe would involve extraordinarily
small probabilities such as one in a googolplex.
What evidence do you have for that probability?
This is based on models of black holes and entropy. I cannot defend
these models, but I can only quote people such as Roger Penrose.
James
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
03 Sep 2006 10:33:28 PM |
|
|
rev.goetz wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
rev.goetz wrote:
I am hoping that some quantum physicists could answer a question for a
non-physicist. I have heard according to various cosmogonies that a
quantum fluctuation can generate a new universe. And generating a
universe similar to the observed universe would involve extraordinarily
small probabilities such as one in a googolplex.
What evidence do you have for that probability?
This is based on models of black holes and entropy. I cannot defend
these models, but I can only quote people such as Roger Penrose.
James
Steer me to the Penrose resource you are "quoting" from please.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rev.goetz" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
03 Sep 2006 10:37:57 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
rev.goetz wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
rev.goetz wrote:
I am hoping that some quantum physicists could answer a question for a
non-physicist. I have heard according to various cosmogonies that a
quantum fluctuation can generate a new universe. And generating a
universe similar to the observed universe would involve extraordinarily
small probabilities such as one in a googolplex.
What evidence do you have for that probability?
This is based on models of black holes and entropy. I cannot defend
these models, but I can only quote people such as Roger Penrose.
James
Steer me to the Penrose resource you are "quoting" from please.
R. Penrose, "Time-Asymmetry and Quantum Gravity," in Quantum
Gravity 2: A Second Oxford Symposium eds. C.J. Isham, R. Penrose, and
D.W. Sciama (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), 245-72.
He used this figure, "1 in 10^(10^123)".
James
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
03 Sep 2006 10:47:46 PM |
|
|
rev.goetz wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
rev.goetz wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
rev.goetz wrote:
I am hoping that some quantum physicists could answer a question for a
non-physicist. I have heard according to various cosmogonies that a
quantum fluctuation can generate a new universe. And generating a
universe similar to the observed universe would involve extraordinarily
small probabilities such as one in a googolplex.
What evidence do you have for that probability?
This is based on models of black holes and entropy. I cannot defend
these models, but I can only quote people such as Roger Penrose.
James
Steer me to the Penrose resource you are "quoting" from please.
R. Penrose, "Time-Asymmetry and Quantum Gravity," in Quantum
Gravity 2: A Second Oxford Symposium eds. C.J. Isham, R. Penrose, and
D.W. Sciama (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), 245-72.
He used this figure, "1 in 10^(10^123)".
James
Thanks--Rats, I have it not in my library. But you can find that
figure in other resources
http://www.faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html
But what are the assumptions and do they have any validity!
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
05 Sep 2006 08:44:20 AM |
|
|
Sam Could quantum fluctuations be a universe length waves breaking in
half? Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
05 Sep 2006 03:57:35 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Sam Could quantum fluctuations be a universe length waves breaking in
half? Bert
If you can't measure something, what's the point of trying to
define it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Gibbs_Free_Energy is consumed as anisotropies shift and dissipate. |
05 Sep 2006 04:42:54 PM |
|
|
Hi Sam_Wormley and Bert, The universe doesn't happen, it just is.
Although the Copenhagen_Interpretation chickens out on the issue,
it's best to assume that causality is universal, just as Einstein did.
Likely, anisotropies ( a.k.a. discrete structures ) have always existed.
NegEntropy is Consumable_Gibbs_Free_Energy, a broader definition of life.
" All things eventually dissipate. " is the law,
Gibbs_Free_Energy is consumed as anisotropies shift and dissipate.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
05 Sep 2006 06:55:35 PM |
|
|
Sam A Planck length can not even be imagined its so tiny. (10^-33) of a
centimeter. Best relation ship view of this size goes like this. If we
were to magnify an atom to the size of the universe in this
spacetime,the Planck length would be about 120 feet. Reality is sam
physicists have to use their imagination and speculate,and even wild
speculation is good. Sam we have to speculate in order to understand
what might be possible Science is fun when you can on your own come up
with ideas(Theories) Finding which are reasonable and those that are
unreasonable is an essential part of my science thinking(hypothesising)
My universe wave could as long as the known diameter of the universe (14
billion LY) If QM can have a point. Than I can have my cosmology wave
length. I use such wave lengths for a gravity grid.(like a spider
web),and all is immersed in it. Go figure Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "uri" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
05 Sep 2006 09:24:26 PM |
|
|
Personally i don't believe in virtual particles. The concept doesn't
make sense to me.
Even the concept of all-pervading spirit or aether which fills all of
space makes more sense. The universe is a dynamical closed system,
whose components have collective consciousness.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
06 Sep 2006 08:22:12 AM |
|
|
Uri Virtual photons are half the photons that are created. Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
06 Sep 2006 12:13:45 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Uri Virtual photons are half the photons that are created. Bert
A conclusion without data!
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
07 Sep 2006 01:08:48 PM |
|
|
Sam virtual photon are measurable.They are an essential part of my "Spin
is in theory" Qm can't be a theory without having "virtual particles"
and like QM My theories can't be proven wrong Go figure Bert
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "rev.goetz" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Fluctuations |
03 Sep 2006 10:53:51 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
rev.goetz wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
rev.goetz wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
rev.goetz wrote:
I am hoping that some quantum physicists could answer a question for a
non-physicist. I have heard according to various cosmogonies that a
quantum fluctuation can generate a new universe. And generating a
universe similar to the observed universe would involve extraordinarily
small probabilities such as one in a googolplex.
What evidence do you have for that probability?
This is based on models of black holes and entropy. I cannot defend
these models, but I can only quote people such as Roger Penrose.
James
Steer me to the Penrose resource you are "quoting" from please.
R. Penrose, "Time-Asymmetry and Quantum Gravity," in Quantum
Gravity 2: A Second Oxford Symposium eds. C.J. Isham, R. Penrose, and
D.W. Sciama (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), 245-72.
He used this figure, "1 in 10^(10^123)".
James
Thanks--Rats, I have it not in my library. But you can find that
figure in other resources
http://www.faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html
But what are the assumptions and do they have any validity!
In the OP, I implied that I am a non-physicist. The assumptions are
based on black hole theory, and I do not have enough background in the
subject to evaluate the validity.
James
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
