|
0 members (),
619
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Physically, that ideal case would be true nothingness. No matter, no radiation, no energy, no spatial curvature. We can imagine existing in completely empty, void space, infinitely far away from the nearest star, galaxy, atom or photon. The spacetime around us, rather than having curvature to it, would appear as completely flat.
Take two identical, uncharged, parallel metal plates, and put them close to one another. The vacuum fluctuations in between the plates cause there to be a pressure pushing the plates together. This isn't the gravitational force or an electromagnetic force, but a force due to empty space itself.
And if you start with enough energy, you can take all of the real matter and antimatter pairs that exist, and create more matter than antimatter giving us a Universe where we have something, today, rather than nothing.
Now, that's what we know we can get, even from nothing. But there are many things we can't do, either practically or theoretically: violate charge or energy conservation, decrease the total entropy of the Universe, or figure out where our initially inflating Universe came from. (Yet!) But we definitely can get something for nothing; quantum field theory not only allows it, it demands it. But it remains to be seen whether we can get everything for nothing. All this seems like sound science, but I have a couple of questions. 1. Doesn’t the Casimir effect work precisely because there is something between the plates and around the plates, rather than absolute nothing? 2. If we are starting with “enough energy”, in what sense are we starting with nothing?
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
I am with you Bill.S the article is an attempt to layman simple the idea and falls off the cliff. As you say the pressure is because of the energy that is present not because there is nothing there, he sort of picks that up in the next sentence. What is happening is because of your studying you are becoming more discriminating about statements and the simplifications we use. You really have been doing what would amounts to an undergraduate study and you simply know that some of these simplifications don't work. I think the intent of what Ethan was talking about is right if you read it as a whole. However really it doesn't work for me either because I like you would say there can never be nothing in a location in space, space is defined as there being something. Ethan knows what he is talking about it just got minced in his wording and he sort of corrects it in the discussion but that particular wording is ugly. Unfortunately you are probably going to notice this a lot more which is more a statement about your studying than anything changed in the media writings. It is really refreshing to see you can now pick up errors when even scientists make them in simplifications 
Last edited by Orac; 05/30/14 03:51 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Ethan also says: “we definitely can get something for nothing; quantum field theory not only allows it, it demands it.”
I would be interested to have a QM experts opinion on that.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
I would be interested to have a QM experts opinion on that. I found evidence of one of the top secret QM tools that might be helpful. pictured below a QMist is focusing on conjuring up a QuiMpinion from his top secret crystal QuiMpinion ball  and if that doesn't provide the desired opinion then the below QM calculator will always provide any desired QuiManswer , QuiMsolution , or QuiMpinion to anything and everything you ever wanted to know. you cannot fail in getting the only opinion that QM can possibly ever deliver using the below super secret QM calculator! you don't even need to roll it , just look at it , all 6 sides have had any resemblance to actual numbers and logic removed and replaced with a identical QM mathematical symbol for ease of use and to stimulate the needed clairvoyance during a QM prediction session. 
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
You're slipping, Paul, it doesn't even look like Ethan Siegel.
Oh NO! Of course; it's Orac!!!
I should have known.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
|
|
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962 |
I don't mind you guys having a bit of fun with the topic, but you are derailing the thread in the process. Insinuating that QM is like a crystal ball soothsayer is not very respectful of either. And implicating another forum member is not very nice. This sort of thing is why people denigrate the forum and reduce it to a low level of value as a forum. We can have a first class forum, or we can have a juvenile playground; it's up to you to choose how you want to play the game. Both of you are capable of much better. Let's show it.
If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
Insinuating that QM is like a crystal ball soothsayer is not very respectful of either. Im so sorry Amaranth , Please forgive me , I didn't realize that my post would have been perceived as being an insinuation. and furthermore I would like it to go on record that I personally can not find any scientific reason to disrespect any professional field of expertise that presents itself in a honest and truthful manner , therefore neither soothsayers or their use of crystal balls should not attract any ill feelings from one such as myself.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Euge, moderator bona et fidelis!
In the light of all the insults, ad hominem attacks and trolling that have plagued SAGG, one must assume that this censure of – admittedly rather puerile – humour is an indication that moderation on SAGG is taking an upturn.
I, for one, am willing to curb my sense of the ridiculous if it contributes to better scientific discussion.
BTW, Orac, I hope you were not offended.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
I, for one, am willing to curb my sense of the ridiculous if it contributes to better scientific discussion.
I , even I , being the original perpetrator in this particular instance of forum irreverence could for the sake of meaningful scientific discussion sustain and withhold against my better judgement , for a period of time , my true thoughts in reference to the proposed scientific discipline of the quantum and those who are involved in an ongoing investigation of its proposed viability and any possible value it may contain or may currently hold as an inheritance for science upon its death as a proposed scientific discipline given solely upon the anticipated return of a similar respect to science. BTW, Orac, I hope you were not offended. Certe, toto, sentio nos in kansate non iam adesse 
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Certe, toto, sentio nos in kansate non iam adesse Certe, nostram in stercore esse puto, ego tuque!
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
Ethan also says: “we definitely can get something for nothing; quantum field theory not only allows it, it demands it.”
I would be interested to have a QM experts opinion on that. I am assuming he is talking about the creating a field over the vacuum of space (being the nothing) which contains energy. I really need to see the context of the quote. No version of QM works with nothing you have to waves between somethings
Last edited by Orac; 06/03/14 03:57 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
My impression of what Ethan said was that the universe came form nothing, where his nothing was the quantum foam. This of course does not accord with a strict meaning of the word nothing. We have had that dialogue before.
And of course that raises Bill S.'s question about infinity, since to me it appears that if our 'finite' universe came from the quantum foam 'nothing', then that implies it came from an infinite non-universe, or whatever. At that point the whole thing runs down into speculation. I don't think that we will be able to get very far in that direction.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
then that implies it came from an infinite non-universe, or whatever Nail on the head, there Bill - spot on. I take your point about speculation, but I find it impossible to see how one can avoid the logical conclusion that there must always have been something. Beyond that it may all be speculation/philosophy.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
Ok that is what I guessed he was angling at. I am not great on speculation beyond that because I would really like some more detail on what drives gravity and QM before I even took a punt at questions beyond that. Sort of along that lines the results of anti-hydrogen charge are in and it looks like coming in as expected an exact reverse of hydrogen. I love the optimistic title on this that it somehow takes us closer to understanding the matter-antimatter imbalance http://phys.org/news/2014-06-cern-closer-antimatter.htmlThe gravity measurements should be in on anti-hydrogen soon but given the lack of any talk I am guessing it's boringly the same as hydrogen falling down towards earth with exactly the same value as expected Along the lines of boring was also the first actual observation of the exciton which has taken since 1931 to finally conclusively image and show it exists but it will probably make some quite interesting developments in optics. Think the only one on the planet not expecting the result was poor Marosz http://phys.org/news/2014-06-team-exciton-metal.html
Last edited by Orac; 06/04/14 01:40 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
