Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Can David Bohm explain the double slit experiment?

Suppose David Bohm was right and what we observe is the “explicate order”, which is a partial perception of the underlying “implicate order”. Time, separation and individuality are subsumed beneath the unity of the implicate order. Everything is everything else. Particles on opposite sides of the Universe are entangled.

This equates well with the concept of an infinite cosmos in which every part is the whole, because there can be no separation, change or movement. Those particles are not just entangled, they are “one”. What we perceive as reality is a “shadow” of this underlying infinity.

Consider that QM might give us a transient window into this infinite realm; one through which we can look only obliquely. If we try to look directly; by observation, or measurement; the “implicate order” vanishes, and we are left with the “explicate”.

Apply this to the double slit experiment. If not directly observed, the photon (or other quon) is everywhere. The final result is observed, and therefore is explicate, but the unobserved process is implicate; in no way is it influenced by space, or even by time. Thus, it is meaningless to talk of a quon being in two or more places at once; or to talk of retrocausality; they are concepts that have no place in the implicate order.

Ignoring our polish spammer fool and moving to your question Bill S.


I need to ask you some questions because your response here is a bit vague.

Bohm's idea was sort of a hidden variables theory objects. He created a classical mechanistic model that mimics the internal workings of quantum mechanics but objects were "real" in a classical sense and connected by real waves called "pilot waves". So in that way entanglement experiments are explained by Bohm as communication at faster than the speed of light and infinite speed if need be.

You have been thru class 1 waves in QFT and you know it calls rubbish on that sort of garbage.

So I need you to elaborate are you really going down the Bohm path or are you talking about some general idea under normal standard QM?

Your wording sort of suggests the later to me but the use of Bohm throws me.

Any mention of Bohm tends to generate thoughts of “pilot waves”, which I understand has been discredited.

His concept of “implicate” and “explicate orders” was somewhat different. Some of his book “Wholeness and the Implicate Order” was a bit like neutrinos; it passed through my head with little reaction.

The (hitch-hiker level) impression with which I was left was that the implicate order represents underlying reality, and is timeless, changeless and spaceless.

The “reality” we observe equates to the explicate order. This is a partial perception; a sort of shadow; of the implicate order.

The idea of wholeness implies that everything is linked (timelessly and spacelessly) to everything else.

hehe sometimes it's like that.


Yeah but now you are at the point you might as well invoke GOD because that system can't evolve, so how did it come into being

I should say if we are really going to go out to fringe science and into crackpot territory then there are other weird ideas you need to exclude. Lets try one

Lets take the idea that there are multiple universes just like ours and hell lets even have them interact in the dark energy sector. Lets go further and now our universe has an orbital around another vastly larger universe in the dark sector. So now can you exclude such a thing?

Is it structurally any different to believing the concept everything has always been here?

You need to be careful when you start down the path of untestable ideas you can end up believing in almost anything

If you need proof of that you only have to look at the posts between ours, I like testable ideas

You can however get such things in our guilable science media by just writing a book here is proof
http://phys.org/news/2015-10-physicist-links-dark-dinosaur-extinction.html
The only positive was most of the comments ... my favourite was the Invisible pink unicorn.

It used to bother me that I sometimes confused Lisa Randell with Jenny Randles, but perhaps there’s not so much difference.

You do realise that pink unicorns are pure dark matter? That’s why you never see one. The evidence is conclusive.

I’ll be back for a more serious look at this soon – I hope.

If you ever do decide to take it seriously you need to look at your byline ... "There never was nothing"

If you were a scientist we would be having a discussion about profoundly unsafe theories and science ethics

Science ethics is a small class usually tacked into the last year for graduates but it is vitally important they pass it.

In your layman terminology there are only 3 options to you if we break into black/white (nothing/something)

1.) The never was nothing (something => something)
2.) We actually are still nothing (nothing => nothing)
3.) We started as nothing but now are something (nothing => something)

There is a fourth option but it is actually the same as 3 with the nothing/something definitions reversed
4.) We started as something and now are nothing (something => nothing)

If you got the issue with (4) then you will get that (1) & (2) are actually the same thing just the definition of the constant state is changed. That is what makes them untestable there is no change in state so they can't be tested. One can not say something can not change unless you test everything that could make it change.

A big rock looks like it won't move, but put enough dynamite under it

From a science ethics perspective (1) & (2) can only be proved by excluding every other option.

So as a scientist, ethically I have to start with a belief in (3) because I am going to need to exclude every option here anyhow.

Theoretical physicist Lisa Randall in that article above failed basic science ethics. For a scientist working in solid practical area that might not be a big a problem. However for a theorist to fail science ethics is a death sentence, because it is the only thing that stops you turning things into a religion and believing in pink unicorns.

So we are lucky you aren't a theoretical physicist

You have to start with the belief that nothing becomes something, with nothing to instigate change, and no time in which the change can happen????

That sounds very much like a religious belief to me, but what do I know, I'm just a hitch-hiker?

It didn't come into being, it's eternal. That is also why it is not evolving, if it is eternal, it would already have evolved infinitely, there would be no more evolving to do, and that, of course, is rubbish. It doesn't need God,just the ability to think rationally. Is that what scientists do?

This is why we experience the explicate order, not the implicate order. We have to be able to make sense of our Universe, or we would never have evolved in it.

Let's get back to basics. I think you were going to show me how something can come from (absolutely) nothing.

When you post things like this, I find myself wondering if you are serious, or just trying to wind me up.

Your multiverse idea does/explains nothing; apart from the fact that the basic idea provides a way of looking at a specific aspect of QM.

The concept that everything has always been here, provides an explanation for how we can be here, without invoking a creator.

I am sorry Marosz you don't want to know the answer so why ask?

You are still working as a CNC operator and no government or company is remotely interested in your ideas .. sound about right?

You have been at this trash for what 4 or 5 years now?

You could have done night classes or even online classes and actually improved your job prospects while studying something that interests you.

So rather than waste my time discussing science, let me warn you of an upcoming drama in you life which I would like you to think about.

You have children and those children are going to school I assume. The teaching of science these days has improved so much, you have a massive problem coming your way. At some point your children are going to realize just how poor their father is at science. Whilst they will probably deal with the situation I am not sure you will be able to. Unfortunately your science is so bad that I suspect the point will probably be before the children make it to upper school.

So please consider what it looks like when even your own children think you are just some crazy old fool.

So there is some advice to think about.

As for discussing physics with you, sorry that isn't going to happen and address your questions to someone else.

No Bill S I am not winding you up, I was explaining why I can't go where you are. If it upsets you the lets just drop it.

I sort of get to this issue with Rev K when he sort of wants science to look at religion. The problem is the first thing we then have to do then is put the thing on test which will instantly be offensive. Science is not about being nice and polite, I have my ideas and beliefs put under test everyday. On a couple of occasions I have found out my beliefs were totally wrong, and it isn't a great feeling I can tell you.


It isn't a want .... I am forced to, it is the only scientifically safe option that exists. I can't test something that doesn't change state, you are telling me the big rock can't be moved based on your gut feel.

Do you agree you have excluded an option out of hand?

Note I haven't excluded your idea but if I can't test it then I can only arrive at it by removing all the alternatives. You may get lucky and be right but it's 50/50 as best I can see.


You are still left with the sticky problem of how does something eternal come it being, it is no better or more logical than the nothing option surely you see that?


As a scientist I have never seen something perpetual pop into existence ... NOT EVER.
I also have never seen something suddenly created from nothing ... NOT EVER.
So both are equally bad or good choices to me take your pick.

So referring to your sentence above explain to me as a scientist why I should prefer one over the other logically?


As I explained it wasn't about winding you up it is explaining the ethics of why I can't go there. I can easily create situations which can not be tested that are equally likely to look like your idea. I was simply trying to give you a sort of topical example to show you the problem.

As I said I would need to remove all these sorts of ideas to be able to come to your conclusion.


There is definitely no multiverse in anything we discussed. You can in fact falsify the Everett type multiverse idea just some haven't caught up with the background experiments.


Correct and that is all I can do look at the results. What we can say with certainty is time is every bit as real and the same as space, because QM can encode into it equally well.

In GR/SR some people struggle with timelike events and casuality but I was just showing you that it is actually on very solid science ground. This idea that space is more real than time is just another of those wrong turns classic physics takes you down. Technically the entire universe could encode into one point in space, whats more strange from a QM perspective is why does space exist at all. See the similarity here classic physics asks does time exist as something real and QM asks does space exist as something real?

It one of those funny jokes you get in QM, when you drag everything back to the big bang, is why do we need this space stuff why aren't we still a point. Be careful who you have that joke with

If by "perpetual" you mean eternal, then of course you haven't seen it "pop into existence". Suggesting that something eternal might have a beginning is a contradiction in terms. In the five years or so I have been on this forum I don't think I have labelled anyone else's ideas as rubbish, and I am certainly not breaking that record now. Near thing, though.

I'm not surprised that you have never seen something suddenly created from nothing; to equate that with never having seen the beginning of eternity is perplexing.

I have not caught up with that either. A pointer would be appreciated.

Ok I had to check the definitions, I can't even deal with eternal that is a religious or metaphysical definition.

I was thinking you meant like perpetual but you clearly mean like it has no start version.

All I will say is take a look at any dictionary that form has an alternative meaning you objected to when I stated it.

Never seen an eternal thing and can't test for it so I will leave it at that. Not something that can be scientifically tested and falls into Rev K problems.

The background to the problem has been known by theorist for a very long time that making the intermediate states of MWI "real" would create problems with interference results of QM. QM demands that results are the SUM OF ALL PROBABILITIES and if you make intermediates real how can that work.

It was largely an technical argument with MWI supporters doing a lot of hand waving. Lubos in his usual aggressive style used to refer to MWI as pseudoscience and you can follow he explains the technical problem if you make the intermediate states real.

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/many-worlds-pseudoscience-again.html

The issue was largely just theoretical stuff like people arguing about the Higgs pre it's discovery.

However in May this year the issue was settled like the Higgs discovery settled things
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150527103110.htm
Full paper: http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v11/n7/full/nphys3343.html

A team in Australia did a remarkable job to setup our good old Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment on atoms not light. That is stuff everybody would consider "real" and classical.

You can not construct intermediate "real" states in that experiment the atoms would have gone to another reality in MWI and would not be capable of the delayed choice result.

In other words atoms and the "real world" don't exist until you measure them. People can kick and scream and refuse to believe all they like experiments don't lie. The only choice now is to find an error in the experiment.

There is only one interpretation of QM that survives that test or you have to believe in retrocausality.

I guess the true MWI zealots can try and float that the world splits and then later on when we do the delayed choice the atom suddenly jumps back to our universe because it is needed. Not sure how we write a wave equation to cover that but I am sure they will try to somehow construct a saviour. Hey look on the bright side you may be needed in another universe and off you will jump if we have retrocasual MWI.

For my part I think I will go with the intermediate states don't really exist it makes everything cause and effect a little more consistent

The postscript to that story is groups are setting up to to do it with a few mm's of diamond. There is some criticism of the cost of these experiments as any scientist already knows the answer all you are doing is playing wow factor to a layman audience and "look the diamond went thru two slits at the same time". At a time in which funding is falling and limited it is hard to justify the costs. One of the objections suggested they should have to do it with a cat as that is ultimately the audience you are playing to.

One of the problems with using "lay-person" type dictionaries for scientific purposes is that they tend not to be very scientific.

Eternity provides a good example. It is often defined as "infinite time". In fact, eternity is no more a period of time than infinity is a number.

Where would you find a definition like: "That aspect of (the rational perception of) infinity that satisfies the need of finite rationality to ascribe duration to infinity"?

Do you need to reword this before we have another go at it?

No its okay I get the problem now, I really hadn't run across Eternal used like that before.

Well maybe someone had and I completely misunderstood what they meant like with you, always that risk.

Passing an English exam does not guarantee I always get it right

I much prefer science terms they are so much easier to deal with and one does not get blindsides by double meanings. There are still two possibilities I need to understand which you mean so I can close the system for QM.

This goes back to an earlier problem QM can only work in a fully defined system or it wouldn't work at all. Remember we can't let you destroy information either or it breaks down. So if you wanted to use a sort of naive version that there is infinite time before us and infinite time after us that concept is brutally falsified because QM is working here and now. You want to use that naive definition as in the dictionary you are in religion domain and inconsistent with science.

What we can sort of allow QM to work here and now and open up time in two distinct ways

1.) We can allow time to loop back on itself and our universe becomes a closed timelike curve (CTC).

2.) We can allow time to run outside space but we then need a boundary condition (something like a cauchy horizon).

So they are your two options which do you want?

Of coarse the start point for the QM time we know will be the big bang, end point unknown.

I am not sure if you get what we have really done in that is make our time relative to something you would call "universal time" but be careful they aren't necessarily the same. It is a bit like space and time are the same to QM it encodes in either but they aren't the same to us. They may also be somewhat the same I have no data to say one way or other.

What you did in all that was allowed QM to close in the relative time section (so we match experiments today) and you can have some concept of absolute time outside that.

Does that describe what you want to do?

EDIT: Ok so I decided I better let you on the nasty setup this is creating. You won't realize it at all but if you take either of the two options you are going into the different major versions of string theory. That is how string theory keeps consistency with QM and I warned you about the encoding looking nothing like what we see.

I was going to see if I could get you to believe in string theory because you are basically there as a layman you just don't recognize it.

So Bill S string theory or religion where we going?

No worries; there are plenty of native English speakers who do worse things to the language than you do.

Absolutely not infinite time! Infinity is not a number, so it cannot be a length of time. I suspect that scientists (with the exception of Barbour) are reluctant to recognise timeless eternity/infinity because God might lurk there, but there is really no such threat, unless one wants it.

Let’s start by looking at the two options.

1. CTCs can be fun, but there are so many problems, I tend to discount any possibility that they might be a part of the physical world. I’m willing to keep an open mind, but need some solid evidence.

2. I’ve not really got my head round cauchy horizons, but as far as the idea of time running outside space goes, I see little more reason to go for that than for multiple universes.

This seems to require a third option. You point out that “if you take either of the two options you are going into the different major versions of string theory.” This must imply that if these are the only two options, string theory must be right! Are you saying that?

If I said that space and time are illusions that allow us to make sense of the Universe in which we live, you would probably think I was saying that space and time are not real. Such would certainly not be the case. Those things we perceive, measure and experience are real; to claim otherwise would be to retreat into some sort of mystical solipsism. You will not find me there, unless I'm winding someone up.

This takes us back to your:



Exchanging “eternal” for “perpetual”, I would say two things:

1. You live in linear time, so unless you could establish a beginning for a specific object, how would you know it had a beginning? You might argue that if you could see it, it must be part of the Universe, so must have had a beginning. That’s valid, but only as a distinction between infinite cosmos and finite Universe, which gets you no further forward.

2. Not being able to “see” a beginning is not proof of an eternal state. James Hutton’s concept of geological time found “No vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end.” However, later work has established that geological time is certainly not infinite, or even unbounded in either direction.

Your second assertion, that you “have never seen something suddenly created from nothing” is certainly what I would expect, especially if you are referring to absolute nothing, rather than to some pseudo nothing that might exist alongside something.

The vital question that needs answering, without prevarication, is: If there had ever been (absolutely) nothing, could there be something now?

Yes to all of that and I have no evidence I would be prepared to rely on.


Technically a universe is a little stricter definition you have things clumped in relationships. There is no way I can test such a thing so by putting a horizon there you don't get involved in making assumptions, very similar to event horizon on a black hole.


If you know the history of string theory both of them got merged into a large on called M-string theory which allows both at same time. So it's even more complex time loops back on itself and you have brane horizons.


Scientifically if time extends the mathematics of string theory would be right. Really string theory is just a full formalization of relativity in every degree of freedom including time.

I am not as sold on the strings themselves you take a leap of faith to say this is how it is encoded when you cant test it.

Do I believe it well lets say I am luke warm.

Orac, you stopped short of the "vital question".

"The vital question that needs answering, without prevarication, is: If there had ever been (absolutely) nothing, could there be something now?"

Bill S,

I've seen no reason to change my opinion (which was no).

(As long as you continue to use the qualifier "absolutely", as some
scientists seem to have their own definition of "nothing".)

Pokey, it's a refreshing change to get a straight answer to that question.

I did get a straight "Yes" on another forum. Naturally, I asked for an explanation, which I'm still waiting for. It's about a year now, so I guess it's not coming.

BTW, I object to using "absolute(ly)" with nothing and infinite, as with perfect, complete etc. but, as you point out, it is becoming necessary.

Yes and No .... the question can't be answered without making assumptions and you have no basis to make any assumption.

Let me be clear on the problem and expand it

Scientifically all we can state is time is something that is encoded as a change of state. As I was explaining to Bill S technically space and time are the two sides of the same thing. Could there be more, well yes and we have actually done it

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/16228...-quantum-memory

That sets a crystal up to maintain the quantum coherence and bingo time is suspended for the poor unsuspecting photon.

Now lets make this interesting and talk about the only thing in human world that has basically grown from nothing to something which is economics. I have discussed before there is a lot in common between economics and energy.

The beginning of economics is easy to deal with a person with excess of something traded it for something they needed in a barter exchange. The something weird happened some bright spark decided to make a promisery exchange, he promised to make good on something in the future but he wanted the other persons goods now. That concept exploded and now most people walk down to the shop with there promisery note (AKA dollars) and buy there goods they need. There is also no sign that economics is limited they seem to be able to expand forever.

The interesting thought for you is if we forgot about the bartering and people just started promisery exchanges would the system work and the answer is clearly yes. It is also valid to think of the quantum waveform as the promisery note between events, see everyone has to pay there way.

So all we need in the energy domain is a promisery exchange to initiate everything

We have zero energy is that nothing?
(+x) energy + (-x) energy still equals zero energy ... still nothing isn't it .. or is it something now?

Mathematically all these are equivalents but are they nothing?
0 = 1 - 1 = 1000 - 1000 = -30 + 30 = 10 elephants - 10 elephants

I tried to get Bill S to see this issue that you still could be nothing, it depends on ones definition

Ok so what's going on in all that, well it's the same problem as economics it's about locality and moment in time and QM controls both. You can't measure anything without energy, that underpins your something and nothing definitions and QM holds all the cards and promisery notes.

So bluntly your definition of something and nothing can not be made universal and you have no right to do so. The best I can guess is you are trying to use philosophical definitions of nothing and something not scientific.

I need you to prove universal something and nothing, and you aren't the photon trapped in the crystal to me

The answer is YES/NO/MAYBE/WHO CARES take your pick they are all equally right until you have a theory of everything. My suggestion is believe whatever you want it's fine and makes no difference to anything. It might interest a philosophical person but little interest to science.

So lets put out the challenge can anyone prove to me that the sum of energy in any object (chose any one you like) is anything other than net total of zero?

I put one restriction no cheating and using temporary Quantum states

We will leave whether an object with net zero energy is something or nothing to a later discussion

Bill S for you lets extend you, because you are at that point, can any object have absolute zero kinetic energy and absolute zero gravitational energy?

Orac, that is sort of what I meant about prevarication. Your arguments are faultless, they sound convincing, but are completely meaningless in terms of the basic discussion.

Economics did not start from nothing, it started from beings undertaking exchanges. That is relevant only if you redefine beings, and the world in which they live as nothing.



All that this establishes is that the excess energy in that system is zero; but unless x=0, you have to have two lots of something to balance your equation.



This is pure mathematical flapdoodle. In the physical world, how do you make 10 elephants become nothing? Isn’t there something in the laws of physics……….?



“locality”, “time”, “QM”, “energy”, “cards” and “promissory notes” are all examples of something. You can juggle them in any way you like, no combination of them will ever be nothing, nor will it be relevant to the something/nothing discussion.



It is scientists who talk about whether or not the Universe could emerge from nothing. I have introduced no topic that I have not found in the literature published by scientists.

When a scientist can say “By nothing, I do not mean nothing…..”, then I guess that’s a signpost that points to “the flapdoodle campaign, in which more and more ado is made about less and less.”

No; nor can any object be nothing; unless you redefine nothing to mean something, which makes the whole discussion pointless.

This is a bit like trying to make a religious fanatic keep to a rational like of thought, or persuade a rabid atheist that agnosticism is the only logical stance for a scientist. Actually, that can be fun.

That is actually the point.

Essentially from a science point of view you are arguing a ghost is "something" how do I measure such a thing?

There never was nothing, there was nothing and still is nothing, there is no such thing as nothing ..... they are the same thing to me.

It seems important to you so I will just agree but it isn't very useful from a science standpoint.

I would be interested in an science paper that proposes something from nothing given nothing can you point me at one. Scientifically you can only define nothing as the absence of a constituent and I will be curious how they did that.

Orac, do you seriously think I am trying to say that nothing is something?



That’s a fascinating insight into the way you think about nothing/something.

There is no such thing as nothing. Obviously true. A “thing” must be something.
There never was nothing. Arguably true, but there is no consensus.
There was nothing and still is nothing. Untrue. Manifestly there is something now.

How can you see all these as the same?

Perhaps it's time for some clarity regarding my position on the subject of nothing.

Nothing is the absence of absolutely everything: no matter, no energy, no QM, no potential.

Although the term is used in many limited/limiting ways, and may have reached a point where it is necessary to qualify it as “absolutely nothing”; it is the above sense in which I use it, unless qualified for some specific reason.

There are various “clever” arguments that one meets in the course of discussion. I’ve never actually met this one, but it has the requisite “smartarse” touch. Absolutely nothing can have no certainty; it can also have no uncertainty, but if we can say with certainty that it has no uncertainty, then it must have certainty. If we cannot say that with certainty, then it must have uncertainty. Which does it have? Of course, this is pure semantics. It is not worthy of scientific discussion, but there are many arguments out there that are less obviously empty words, but amount to the same thing.

For nothing to become something, or something to become nothing would necessitate the violation of the laws of physics.

That is something science can not accept because I can not test for it. The only way to arrive at your concept of nothing is to exclude every other option and I can't. In principle I can agree that an area has none of the things you list but that still takes me short of calling it nothing. You know about the conjecture of quintessence how would I exclude things like that scalar field being there?

Science has the situation of predicting dark matter but unable to find it, and not having a full theory for gravity. You also saw how hidden the Higgs field was and what it took to make it testable.

So can I realistically ask would it be safe for science to say anything conclusive about the concept of nothing?


Again whilst I agree with the thrust of the thought you forget that is true of the universe we measure and see here and now. The problem is the big bang directly contradicts that statement in that we have a huge amount of energy come into existence.

So we are left with two choices, one of which I think is the one you have selected

1.) The energy that came into the universe from the big bang came from something before/outside the big bang or something in physics we have not yet understood. This says the law of conservation always and absolutely holds.

2.) The laws of physics have not been constant throughout the history of the universe. The conservation law does not hold in some epochs of physics but it is valid and holds in our current epoch.

Science is actually in favour of 2 because of how the fundamental forces seem behave as you increase the scale of energy. As the energy is increased the various forces seem to merge together and so it leads to a prediction that all the fundamental forces merge to just one at the point of the big bang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unification_epoch).

It is hard to determine what physics looks like in such a epoch and that includes whether the law of conservation is going to hold. Most guesses are conservation doesn't hold because the whole thing looks like it is unstable.

So I would like you to tell me how and why you exclude option 2?
How safe do you feel you are in excluding 2 without any data from that epoch?

I should say I can shortcut and explain why they favour 2 and the issue (which is time) or I am happy to just prompt questions and you will arrive at the problem by following the logic.

Of course you can’t call it nothing. If you are talking about “an area” you are not talking about nothing! A scalar field is something, so if you are talking about a situation in which there could be a field, you are not talking about nothing.



You are totally and consistently missing (or evading) the point. I do not exclude 2, or 1. If there were nothing there would be no epochs, no laws of physics and no options and no numbers with which to label them.



No problem with that, but surely you are not suggesting that this says anything about what might have preceded the BB. The points you make are good, they are just irrelevant because they all involve something.

I don’t need there to be a thing called “nothing”; even the suggestion of that is absurd.

There is no “nothing”. Nothing doesn’t exist. Of course science can’t test for it, it doesn’t exist. If “nothing” doesn’t exist, there cannot be “nothing”, nor can there ever have been “nothing”.

BTW, how did we get from the double slit experiment to nothing?

We got here because you know have enough understanding now to get to an issue. This issue causes problems for layman and crackpots because they don't take the effort to resolve an issue and that is Energy and Time. Those two things are needed to resolve the concept of nothing. Ok I will have a crack at it.

Historically when it was first realized classical physics was wrong science had to deal with sort of closing off classical physics so it was consistent as best it could be. GR itself actually gets caught up in this because of energy and time in it's definitions.

So here is a statement of fact if you are using classical physics you must assume conservation of energy of the universe as a whole. If you are using QM you must assume the universe doesn't have conservation of energy, the universe is a perpetual energy machine. So how can two completely different statements both be right?

Well it rolls on definition .. surprise!!! Classical physics has time-translation invariance, the thing Dave Proffitt was playing with. It basically says things like space and time are fixed, not changing with time (and time itself is static) and running a physical interaction backward is the same as running it forward. You saw Dave realized something that it might be important with his playing with black holes.

GR joined time and space together and suddenly you break that condition, spacetime is no longer invariant. So when you are using GR as an interface to classical physics the trick to do is put any none classic energy in the gravitational field itself to stop classic physics imploding. Is it actually valid to do that well yes so long as the problem you are looking at isn't the universe itself, it won't cause you any problems.

So there is nothing wrong with saying GR conserves energy for most of your science, and it won't cause you any dramas but you need to remember what you did.

When we cross over to QM we have to deal with this there is no density of a gravitational field to place the energy in, yeah it really was a trick. We also need to deal with the fact spacetime is evolving, space and time are both changing or can change. Spacetime will likely expand or shrink, the static condition requires an unnatural balancing act. Think of a country economy growing at exactly zero for any prolonged length of years that is the same highly unlikely situation.

What you want in classical physics is the energy to be "worth" a static and consistent amount. So when your photon takes off with a set amount of energy it arrives at a destination some billion years later with the same amount of energy or all the classical laws are going to collapse. In an expanding universe and with classic physics definitions your photon takes off and your universe expands so your energy density decreases (you have more space to fill with the same energy) and your photon appears redshifted so it really is losing energy and then it gets to the destination some billion years later and magically it has the same energy as it left. This usually causes fun trying to watch even scientists explain it and they usually end up lying.

So how does QM-GR resolve the above well you are talking about an observer and what he sees ... it's an observer they see there own reality. The photons reality is it arrives at the destination in exactly zero seconds and hence it contains the same energy as when it left.

Even when dealt with well it's problematic, lets give you an example:
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/red_shift1.html

Do you spot the omission in the answer, you can't have a reference frame for the universe so he didn't really answer the question posed. What he did was restore conservation as the question was asked by someone only backgrounded in classical physics. From his answer it is clear to me he knows the full answer he is just trying to simplify it back to the OP.

This is my problem with your "nothing" I have been trying to give it back to you in a way you can deal with in your semi classical physics you are currently using. You keep using me and you references and what we see ... well we see a great many strange things because we are observers.

In essence you are doing the same trick as Dave Proffit imposing your little biased "observer view" as some proxy for the universe as a whole. My warning remains the same as to Dave be VERY CAREFUL doing this you are just a pathetic little observer you don't speak for the universe.

So lets see if you can get the concept just because you see nothing or something just makes it real to you, NOT the universe. Same problem as our little photon, you see the photons losing energy doesn't make it a universal truth. You have got your head around the frame of reference issue for time in GR, you now need to extend that to taking care with any observation you seek to make universal.

From a QM point of view and in your terms the universe can go from minus a pile of something thru zero to positive a pile of something. Is minus something okay with you in that it probably isn't what you would call something but it also isn't zero. If I can have that then I can sort of agree with your statement.

My concern isn't about your definition (you seem to think it is), it is after getting you to think relativity the first thing you have now gone and done is put a big absolute in the middle and called it "nothing". So I am seeking clarification on what observer or are you really trying to say that for everyone AKA what Dave does with time.

Thanks Orac, there's some good stuff there which needs some thought and which I will return to.



No; if there were really nothing, there would be no SR, GR or QM for it to be in the middle of. There is no "nothing". I am not inventing it; it doesn't exist.

While doing my thinking, I would be very interested to have the comments of those more experienced than I on this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9yWv5dqSKk


My reaction is that it says no more about QM than the ball and sheet demonstration says about gravity. Possibly it says less.

The action of the droplets and waves is maintained by the vibration of the underlying plate. We are not told if this vibration is constant, or varied. If it is constant, why would patterns of movement develop?

If the waves are generated by the presence and bouncing of the particles, why would the two not move together?

Saying that the waves appear to guide the particles is just a matter of interpretation; it could as well be the other way round; or neither could be guiding the other.

I see no indication of interference patterns developing when a particle passes through a slit. In fact the wave always seems to go through the same slit as the particle.

I was actually stunned that was less QM than many other experiments you could create. What I saw was more like the classical interpretation of particle/wave behaviour not much else but I guess it was a class one wave which is really what they were describing.

As Matt Strassler pointed out there aren't a lot of studies of class 1 waves in classical physics so I guess they are at least getting there head around the properties and what they found amazing.

I did chuckle that they really didn't understand the double slit experiment enough to get it to work correctly those slits needed to be a lot closer to get the waveforms moving thru the slits to self interfere.

I pretty much agree with you not much QM similarity there

With your other nothing situation, that is fine then. It worried me you were getting dangerously close to doing a Dave on me and declaring just because I observe something it's a universal truth. As I said I think your statement is probably correct but do so with extreme care because I can't really test it.

Couldn't the observation of something now be considered a test of the statement: "Nothing does not exist"?

How do you know what the physics near the big bang looks like so I am curious how you exclude the nothing condition with certainty?

Because the BB is something.

Are you suggesting that immediately prior to the BB there could have been conditions in which something could have emerged spontaneously from nothing?

Yes .. no way to know what physics even looked like before that point.

Essentially you are arguing that based on your experience with our current universe that something can't come from nothing. However pre-big bang we aren't in our current universe so that sort of extension is dangerous.

So lets test your faith the universe isn't conserving energy as a whole right now it is rapidly making energy. So following your thinking there must be something outside our universe right now?

Do you see what you said there?

If physics existed before the BB, there must have been something.
If there was something, there was not nothing.

You carefully side-stepped the actual question, presumably because you thought I would point out that "conditions" were something, but the outcome was the same.

I'm going to bump in here just to give my 2 cents worth. Can Something come from Nothing? My answer: We don't know. I don't know of any way for it to happen, but then I don't know anything like all there is to know, particularly about the origin of the universe. There might be some way in which it is possible. One of the things about the idea that there was never Nothing is that it implies there was always Something. Possibly it would be the Quantum Foam, and our universe is a pimple on the foam. This does imply that your idea that the universe, or at least the substrate from which it formed, is infinite and eternal. The thing about it is that we have no way to determine this, at least not right now.

Bill Gill

I completely agree with Bill G he takes the same view a scientist must take, that you can't exclude the possibility something can come from nothing.

In your answer you seem to be turning the concept of physics (a set of rules) into a something? Your response seems to make that point that physics existing = something.

To me you are making a concept into something in the same way a ghost is something to some people. I have no way of dealing with what amounts to philosophy or religion beliefs with science, so your answer is fine with me just not scientific.

I am sticking with a definition something means a thing that is measurable (a physical quantity) not a concept or idea. If I start believing concepts and ideas are "really somethings" then I might as well believe in GOD.

Lets throw you a very recent topical example, recently a weird connection between QM and Pi was discovered
http://phys.org/news/2015-11-derivation-pi-links-quantum-physics.html
Now most likely this is is just one of those weird chance things but lets play devils advocate and say we suddenly find a number PI seems to connect and control everything in the universe. My question to you would PI be a something in that situation to you?

Exactly! I doubt that Bill Ockham actually said: "Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate"; but consider the choice between:

"There has always been something" and

" Once upon a time (sorry, there was no time) there was nothing. Suddenly, something (oops, there was no something)nothing caused something magically to appear."

Ubi necessitas sit?

Maybe there's another choice. "Orac's pink unicorn farts half a dozen universes before breakfast". I'm not a scientist, so I can go with that one, just because I like it.

I apologise if the previous post was a little flippant. Let's try to serious up a bit.



What possible reality could "a set of rules" have if there were nothing to which they applied?



A concept may not be something, but it must be a concept of something. You want to have a concept of nothing, floating about in nothing, and you say I am chasing ghosts?

On second thoughts, I don't apologise.

If you are Max Tegmark mathematics
If you want to go right on the edge we are a computer simulation

You are however getting to the crux of the problem which is what is reality. You seem to be doing a lot of expanding on your reality and imposing it on the universe ... do you remember the problem that got you into with classical physics?


Ok lets try an example what something does the concept of the mathematical constant "e" represent?

This calls to mind a quote from Blastland & Dilnot:

“Counting is easy when you don’t have to count anything with it”

The same principle applies to “e” and any other Log or irrational, or any number. It is also true that these things are meaningless when you don’t have anything to calculate with them.

What is the meaning of 1?

How is claiming that nothing does not exist expanding reality?



Which one?

One, like all positive integer numbers, is a good christian number as they can represent good people you know. All the others numbers are the work of the devil

OR perhaps

Mathematics consists of true facts about imaginary objects ... Philip Davis and Reuben Hersh


Mathematicians believe nothing until it is proven
Physicist believe everything until it is proven wrong
Chemist's doesn't care
Biologist doesn't understand the question.

Your only basis for that statement is your own reality or can you offer any other lines of evidence?

I may also ask what is outside our universe or are you now going to argue a real infinity which you have heavily argued against?

As I have no wish to suggest that you and Bill were wrong in your earlier observations, my only possible answer to that is "I don't know".

However, I might suggest two possible answers:

1. Something.
2. There is no outside.

Lets look at your two options

1. Something

Well if there is something then that is not the end of the universe we must include that in the universe. Universe is a science word it has a definition

Universe = all of time and space and its contents.

Something means contents and so the universe gets bigger and must include what before we were calling the outside. You see the problem you are quickly going to end up at the dreaded physical infinity again.


2. There is no outside

So we either have formal containment (like a brick wall prison) or we have the dreaded physical infinity?

So the only answer you will like is formal containment. However that doesn't mean there is no outside it just says you and I and our physics can't go there or measure anything there because we are in a prison. Well that pretty much matches your definition of nothing so now you are a something contained by a nothing. You won't like that so the outside will be a something and we will be back to the dreaded physical infinity.


You see the problem your hate of physical infinities is badly at odds with your other idea there is no such thing as nothing. The two concepts are pretty much mutually exclusive and really all I was trying to get you to see.

The world science festival did a reasonable job arguing the science of nothing you might care to look at there debate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCUmeE8sIVo

Could you be a little out of date here? As long ago as 1996 John Gribbin said:

“Universe With the capital “U”, the term used for everything that we can ever have knowledge of, the entire span of space and time accessible to our instruments, now and in the future. This may seem like a fairly comprehensive definition, and in the past has traditionally been regarded as synonymous with the entirety of everything that exists. But the development of ideas such as inflation suggests that there may be something else beyond the boundaries of the observable Universe - regions of space and time that are unobservable in principle, not just because light from them has not yet had time to reach us, or because our telescopes are not sensitive enough to detect their light. This has led to some ambiguity in the use of the term “Universe”. Some people restrict it to the observable Universe, while others argue that it should be used to refer to all of space and time. In this book, we use “Universe” as the name for our own expanding bubble of spacetime, everything that is in principle visible to our telescopes, if we wait long enough for the light to arrive. We suggest that the term “Cosmos” can be used to refer to the entirety of space and time, within which (if the inflationary scenario is correct) there may be an indefinitely large number of other expanding bubbles of spacetime, other universes with which we can never communicate.”



Only if you assume we know all there is to know about the Universe, which you rightly point out, we don't.



You seem to be stuck on the idea that I dread physical infinity. On the contrary; I find it very difficult to see an alternative to physical infinity, but I am open to reasonable discussion. This is one reason why I tend to follow Gribbib’s Universe, universe, cosmos pattern. This permits an infinite cosmos and a Universe that could be finite or infinite. Any combination has its problems, but they are interesting.

Isn’t it Deutsch’s Law that says: “Every problem that is interesting is also soluble.”?

I'm afraid I can't agree with Dueutsch on that. The question of whether the universe (however you define it) is infinite is basically insoluble.

Bill Gill

Deutsch may well consider that problem uninteresting, or even, not a problem; assuming he still champions the multiverse.

More a bad bias on my part, I don't accept much of cosmology and sometimes I forget to filter that bias


Okay I will give you a reasonable alternative, that infinities are relative to a constructed reality. The basic problem with infinities is being crazy humans the first thing we do is think we are working in some absolute system, even though science will tell you it knows of no absolute system of anything.

A rat running on an exercise wheel can run for what it sees as an infinity but a human watching will tell you that the rat is running on the spot and is going to die well before infinity arrives.

Sometimes humans forget they can be the rat, we think we are above that

The squared probability amplitudes in quantum mechanics may only be used to predict the properties of the system at a later moment from the properties at an earlier moment, there is no absolute in that process. That means all reality is relative to the observer and no two observers will necessarily agree on an observation which is the same as SR/GR. However that throws up an interesting problem.

To show you the problem look at the very good youtube video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVpXrbZ4bnU

The problem comes at around the 23:00min mark which they correctly describe.

When scientists are talking about reality that is the problem we are struggling with in a simplified form. Two observers seeing two totally different things and cause and effect counter-posed.

That’s no problem, as long as we accept that there is no absolute reality (at least not one we can observe) in our Universe (sensu Gribbin).

“cause and effect counter-posed”. I’ll need to come back to that. In the meantime, an example or two would be great.

The latest version was done with atoms by Andrew Truscott et al.

http://www.sciencenutshell.com/clever-experiment-proves-quantum-physics-weirdness/

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tec...603-ghfw59.html

So here they aren't moving the observer they are delaying the choice which is actually what the movement of the observer does in the alternative form.

However you create the delay, by observer moving or delaying the choice on a moving object, you get the same problem. It ends up cause A and effect B are not in correct time sequence, effect precedes cause. So either cause is retro-causal and can move backwards in time OR cause and effect are based on observer reality. So people may not even agree on cause and effect along with everything else in relativity. Classic physics has a hard time with that one, everyone is supposed to see the same cause and same effect.

From QM we are left with an awkward choice from a classic physics stand point and while neither has been falsified we tend to go with the observer reality option. Retro-causality is a bitter pill to swallow.

All the big effort is in doing the experiment with Bacteria something that most of us would view as macro molecular and alive. Literally have the cat AKA bacteria alive to one observer and dead to another.

http://www.sciencenutshell.com/clever-experiment-proves-quantum-physics-weirdness/




"...after the atom had already passed through".

After it has passed through what; the first grating, or both gratings?

Dropped in to sees what's up!

This thread has drifted a bit and may be struggling. I would have thought that Bohm's explicate and implicate orders would have been right in your line of country.