Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Quantum mechanics

Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 6:34:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Recently, someone asserted that Quantum Mechanics proves that 'something' can come from 'nothing.' And dismisses Parmenides' 'ex nihilo nihil fit' theory. Is this true?
I admit I am shaky on quantum physics and quantum fluctuations within a vaccum and would appreciate if anyone could explain this accurately.
Does quantum mechanics prove that something can come from nothing? It seems to go against the very grain of our universe, our philosophy, logic.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 9:48:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 6:34:36 PM, Axiom wrote:
Recently, someone asserted that Quantum Mechanics proves that 'something' can come from 'nothing.' And dismisses Parmenides' 'ex nihilo nihil fit' theory. Is this true?

It's a theory, but it does not "prove" that something can come from nothing; its truth is speculative at best.

I admit I am shaky on quantum physics and quantum fluctuations within a vaccum and would appreciate if anyone could explain this accurately.

I'll give it a try, but be forewarned, it might just make your head hurt.

Does quantum mechanics prove that something can come from nothing? It seems to go against the very grain of our universe, our philosophy, logic.

As I already said, quantum mechanics does not "prove that something can come from nothing", it's only a theory, the theory has strong empirical support, but it's kind of a semantics issue as to whether it really says something came from nothing.

They were probably talking about the Zero Energy Universe hypothesis, which is commonly seen as something from nothing, in fact, it's an everything from nothing theory, and it all starts with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which kind of says there is no such thing as nothing, which is what makes it a semantics thing.

Most know the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as applying to the position and velocity of a particle, but it also applies to the value and rate of change of a field, and it says the more accurately you know one, the less accurately you can know the other. This isn't a function of our ability to measure by the way; it is a fundamental feature of reality according to the Standard Model. Consequently, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle tells us there is no such thing as an empty space (nothing) because for there to be a truly empty space the value of the field and its rate of change would both need to be exactly zero; and the standard model, specifically Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle says that it can't be exactly zero. There will always be random quantum jitters, or vacuum fluctuations, particles and fields quivering in and out of existence within so called "empty space", it can never be completely empty because there are always going to be particles and antiparticles popping into existence and annihilating each other in an instant. That by itself can be described as something from nothing, but you could also say it's just defining nothing as something, in effect, empty space is still empty space, it just turns out that it isn't all that empty.

To understand how you get everything from nothing, hypothetically at least, there is the Zero-Energy Universe hypothesis, which states that the total energy of the universe is zero because the positive energy of matter is exactly equal to the negative energy of gravity. The balancing of the total energy allows for inflation and predicts the flat universe, and it does appear to be flat. So, if the total energy of the universe is zero, then it is reasoned that it could have come from nothing. The speculation is that the universe could have been the result of a quantum fluctuation in empty space, which then could have "inflated" rapidly because the positive energy of inflation would be balanced by the negative energy of gravity, which would produce a universe with a net energy of zero. In effect, the entire universe is produced from empty space; it's the ultimate free lunch, everything from nothing. That's how you get past the first law of conservation, and "the very grain of our universe, our philosophy, logic".

Personally, I think something of a semantics game is being played here, you can hardly say that the intricate counterbalancing of positive and negative forces is "nothing". The postulated zero energy state is a very dynamic and constantly changing state that is full of forces that balance each other exactly, you can hardly describe it as "nothing". If you do, then you haven't really shown how something could come from nothing, since the zero energy universe is postulated as a result of the balancing of forces, all you can really say is you have shown how nothing could have come from nothing, or perhaps something could have come from something. .
In the end, it sure feels like we are just conjuring with numbers. First of all, when nature doesn't exist yet, principles can't exist yet, if nothing exists then there are no states and no principles or laws and it's impossible to say what might come into existence or how it might occur. We are trying to apply causal principles to a situation without a prior state to apply causal principles to, and it's pretty hard to make sense of that. Relativity theory says that matter, energy, time, and space are relationships, they are bound up together, if there is no matter or energy then there is no space or time. The ultimate problem with these attempts to postulate a process by which something could come from nothing is that "in the beginning", there is no time in which any process can occur, and no space within which it could occur.

Second, it feels a lot like a new cosmogonic myth that isn't really all that different than the old cosmogonic myth. Like the old one, it's completely taken on faith, and it's imparted by the high priests of science who come down from their academic mountaintop. It postulates that the real basis of the physical universe is conceptual or mathematical, and tells us that in the beginning was a deep mathematical structure that is true by definition and which necessarily existed, and from it the physical universe arose. Now, according to this thought process, when you apply relativity and quantum theory to the primordial nothing you get a cosmic loophole big enough for all creation to jump through. In a kind of mathematical transubstantiation, there was a quantum fluctuation whereby our numbers took on substance and became physically real, and the physical universe came into existence.

Such attempts to provide an explanation for the big bang seem to end by saying that underlying our present universe there is something beyond space and time, something very mysterious – sets of quantum laws and complex energy states. We are almost back to the Babylonian primal deep, with the universe emerging from a primordial chaos of disembodied mathematical concepts.

I'm not so sure why that is supposed to be so much more intellectually satisfying than the old cosmogonic myth, it seems to me to be nothing more than a restating of it in a more current language, it's essentially the same to me.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 10:06:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@Sidewalker. Thanks, I really appreciate your insight. I found it informative and interesting. I have a better grasp of quantum mechanics and how it applies to ex nihilo nihil fit after looking up a few of the theories you quoted. Thanks again.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 9:13:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Quantum fluctuations don't come from nothing as space is not literally nothing. It fluctuates in a quantum vacuum I believe from my limited scientific knowledge.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 3:02:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 6:34:36 PM, Axiom wrote:
Recently, someone asserted that Quantum Mechanics proves that 'something' can come from 'nothing.' And dismisses Parmenides' 'ex nihilo nihil fit' theory. Is this true?
I admit I am shaky on quantum physics and quantum fluctuations within a vaccum and would appreciate if anyone could explain this accurately.
Does quantum mechanics prove that something can come from nothing? It seems to go against the very grain of our universe, our philosophy, logic.

I think that this is a misunderstanding of a concept that essentially states the only real matter in the universe are quarks, and the rest of what we consider matter and reality are all energy fields resulting from oscillations of and interactions between these quarks. There are how many -- four? five? -- different kinds that determine how the matter they produce manifests -- hmm... strange, funny, strong, weak... I forget what they are now. I used to know them all by heart.

I've been a lot more into the arts lately and have waned in my scientific readings.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 4:15:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 3:02:02 PM, Ren wrote:
At 8/17/2012 6:34:36 PM, Axiom wrote:
Recently, someone asserted that Quantum Mechanics proves that 'something' can come from 'nothing.' And dismisses Parmenides' 'ex nihilo nihil fit' theory. Is this true?
I admit I am shaky on quantum physics and quantum fluctuations within a vaccum and would appreciate if anyone could explain this accurately.
Does quantum mechanics prove that something can come from nothing? It seems to go against the very grain of our universe, our philosophy, logic.

I think that this is a misunderstanding of a concept that essentially states the only real matter in the universe are quarks, and the rest of what we consider matter and reality are all energy fields resulting from oscillations of and interactions between these quarks. There are how many -- four? five? -- different kinds that determine how the matter they produce manifests -- hmm... strange, funny, strong, weak... I forget what they are now. I used to know them all by heart.

I've been a lot more into the arts lately and have waned in my scientific readings.

There are six quarks (up, down, top, bottom, strange, and charm), and two other categories of fundamental particles, also six leptons and if you count the graviton, six bosons. Quarks and leptons have antiparticles, so there's 12 quarks, 12 leptons, six bosons, and a bunch more "theoretical" particles that have been postulated.

All of these particles are unified in a superparticle called the Sidewalker boson.

OK, maybe I just made up that last one, but there should be a Sidewalker boson, and if physicists can postulate theoretical particles, then I can too.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 4:23:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Quantum mechanics does not prove that something comes from nothing, but it does prove it is possible.

delta-E • delta-t >= h/(4*pi)

If if delta-t is at a tiny enough size, then delta-E can get so extremely huge that it becomes impossible to tell energy conservation has taken a hit or not. This means, it becomes impossible to know if the energy comes from nothing. Also remember, occurring in space does not equate to occurring from space. Thus, energy can still come from nothing, in space.

Also:

Delta-t is congruent to (h/(4*pi)*delta-E

A specific amount of energy (delta-E) can spontaneously pop into existence and then disappear. There is evidence that this uncaused emergence of energy happens all the time (Lamb shift, Casmir force). The uncertainty principle allows for this to happen, but we still may be faced with the problem of the energy of conservation being violated. We do not know for sure.

"In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion." - Physicist Paul Davies

Either way, the total energy of the universe is zero. In an open universe, the net energy is positive, and in a closed universe, the net energy is negative. What about if the universe is flat though? It would have zero net energy. Well pictures of the Cosmic Microwave Background tell us that the universe is flat with a margin of error of less than 1% (no-net warpage).

Whether something can come from nothing really all boils down to how you define nothing. If you define nothing a state of zero energy, or, define it as the lack of space-time, energy ect...Then yes, the universe and everything you see could have came from nothing. If you define it as "non-being" then no, it could not. This is because there would at least have to "be" the potential for "being", but if this is the case, then what were are discussing about is not really "non-being" because there would "be" the potential.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 10:40:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 4:23:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Quantum mechanics does not prove that something comes from nothing, but it does prove it is possible.

delta-E • delta-t >= h/(4*pi)

If if delta-t is at a tiny enough size, then delta-E can get so extremely huge that it becomes impossible to tell energy conservation has taken a hit or not. This means, it becomes impossible to know if the energy comes from nothing. Also remember, occurring in space does not equate to occurring from space. Thus, energy can still come from nothing, in space.

This really made no sense whatsoever.

The smaller delta-t is, the more instantaneous the energy expression is. Thus, the state at which it becomes impossible to determine whether the energy manifested spontaneously, or if it was transferred from something else (conservation of energy), is contingent on a duration of time so small, it essentially elapses before it exists.

Stephen Hawking postulated that at the quantum level, tiny black holes are manifesting and disappearing so quickly, they can hardly be said to exist for any duration of time at all -- he refers to them as little rips or striations or something in spacetime.

The only thing that could possibly explain is the spontaneous manifestation of the universe at the point just before spacetime existed (which also resulted from the manifestation of the universe, thus not existing beforehand).

It doesn't suggest by any means that it's possible within the known universe to spontaneously create matter or energy.

However, antimatter does, and we discovered that a couple of years ago in the outer layers of our atmosphere.

Fancy that.

Also:

Delta-t is congruent to (h/(4*pi)*delta-E

A specific amount of energy (delta-E) can spontaneously pop into existence and then disappear. There is evidence that this uncaused emergence of energy happens all the time (Lamb shift, Casmir force). The uncertainty principle allows for this to happen, but we still may be faced with the problem of the energy of conservation being violated. We do not know for sure.

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about, here. Delta-t, or the change in time, is congruent to Planck's constant divided by 4-pi times Delta-E, or the change in energy.

That does not suggest in any way, shape, or form that energy can simply "pop into existence." What it suggests, is that one can measure a duration of time based on the radius of that expression multiplied the change in energy within that radius.

Lamb shift refers to energy fluctuations in individual electrons within covalent bonds.

Casimir force results from varying charges based purely on the movement of electrons, causing a force of attraction or repulsion counter to those movements, which cannot be said is expressed or derived from that electrons, and thus applying "spontaneously" to an equation. It actually results from the presence of harmonic oscillators, which must represent a minuscule amount of energy in and of itself to exist, at zero-point energy, which is the closest to a vacuum that we've observed. It isn't the actual manifestation of energy that was not previously there.

"In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion." - Physicist Paul Davies

Either way, the total energy of the universe is zero. In an open universe, the net energy is positive, and in a closed universe, the net energy is negative. What about if the universe is flat though? It would have zero net energy. Well pictures of the Cosmic Microwave Background tell us that the universe is flat with a margin of error of less than 1% (no-net warpage).

???

The universe is a hypersphere. It is not flat. It ostensibly extends infinitely in all directions, requiring the presence of a z axis, a third dimension.

Whether something can come from nothing really all boils down to how you define nothing. If you define nothing a state of zero energy, or, define it as the lack of space-time, energy ect...Then yes, the universe and everything you see could have came from nothing. If you define it as "non-being" then no, it could not.

That's a contradiction, unless you're claiming that "being" and "existing within spacetime" are two different things (they're not).

This is because there would at least have to "be" the potential for "being", but if this is the case, then what were are discussing about is not really "non-being" because there would "be" the potential.

No, there requires no potential, because that would mean that there is also a catalyst.

But, there is no catalyst. There is instead, matter and energy in its unexpressed state, and then matter and energy in its expressed state, as it is now.

There is no before or after that.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:15:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 4:23:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Quantum mechanics does not prove that something comes from nothing, but it does prove it is possible.

delta-E • delta-t >= h/(4*pi)

If if delta-t is at a tiny enough size, then delta-E can get so extremely huge that it becomes impossible to tell energy conservation has taken a hit or not. This means, it becomes impossible to know if the energy comes from nothing. Also remember, occurring in space does not equate to occurring from space. Thus, energy can still come from nothing, in space.

Also:

Delta-t is congruent to (h/(4*pi)*delta-E

A specific amount of energy (delta-E) can spontaneously pop into existence and then disappear. There is evidence that this uncaused emergence of energy happens all the time (Lamb shift, Casmir force). The uncertainty principle allows for this to happen, but we still may be faced with the problem of the energy of conservation being violated. We do not know for sure.

"In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion." - Physicist Paul Davies

Either way, the total energy of the universe is zero. In an open universe, the net energy is positive, and in a closed universe, the net energy is negative. What about if the universe is flat though? It would have zero net energy. Well pictures of the Cosmic Microwave Background tell us that the universe is flat with a margin of error of less than 1% (no-net warpage).

Whether something can come from nothing really all boils down to how you define nothing. If you define nothing a state of zero energy, or, define it as the lack of space-time, energy ect...Then yes, the universe and everything you see could have came from nothing. If you define it as "non-being" then no, it could not. This is because there would at least have to "be" the potential for "being", but if this is the case, then what were are discussing about is not really "non-being" because there would "be" the potential.

You may be correct as far as the energy coming from nothing is concerned, I may not be sure (like I said, all that happens is that we are unable to know for sure whether this happens or not). However fluctuations themselves have no cause for why they occur at a particular time. The vacuum serves as a necessary condition which allows for them to happen, but the vaccum itself contains no sufficient cause within it which could cause them to happen. Without a sufficient cause, we cannot say we have a proper causal process just because a necessary condition is in place (as philosopher Wes Morriston points out). You cannot get half of a pregnancy, just like you cannot get half of a causal process.

However, as far as the shape of the universe is concerned you are dead wrong. The universe is most likely flat, not spherical.

"The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) recent measurements imply, according to NASA, that "(...) We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error. (...)".[1]" - http://en.wikipedia.org...

"The WMAP spacecraft can measure the basic parameters of the Big Bang theory including the geometry of the universe. If the universe were flat, the brightest microwave background fluctuations (or "spots") would be about one degree across. If the universe were open, the spots would be less than one degree across. If the universe were closed, the brightest spots would be greater than one degree across. Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error." - http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

"An international team of astrophysicists has taken the most accurate ever photograph of the cosmic microwave background radiation, and confirmed that the universe is flat to within 10%." - http://physicsworld.com...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:34:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: I think they are seriously confused. Misfiring that galaxies would come back together. Its not a small Mistake. To honest I don't trust them. I really don't trust them going under the earth and smacking particules together. Just to see what happens. They hardly know what is happing now.

Something coming from nothing is the most dumbest possible think they could ever say.

For example lets say something came from nothing. Well this would appear out of nowhere. right?

Now lets say that they didn't know where something was coming from. Well it things would also appear to come from no where Right.?

That is THEY ARE ONE END THE SAME! But what which could never be true is by necessity false. That is the claim something actually comes from Notion IS ALWAY and will always be a FALSE. Claim of knowledge.
Now if a scientist said something like that infront of me. I will SLAP HIM IN THE FACE!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:49:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 11:15:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/18/2012 4:23:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Quantum mechanics does not prove that something comes from nothing, but it does prove it is possible.

delta-E • delta-t >= h/(4*pi)

If if delta-t is at a tiny enough size, then delta-E can get so extremely huge that it becomes impossible to tell energy conservation has taken a hit or not. This means, it becomes impossible to know if the energy comes from nothing. Also remember, occurring in space does not equate to occurring from space. Thus, energy can still come from nothing, in space.

Also:

Delta-t is congruent to (h/(4*pi)*delta-E

A specific amount of energy (delta-E) can spontaneously pop into existence and then disappear. There is evidence that this uncaused emergence of energy happens all the time (Lamb shift, Casmir force). The uncertainty principle allows for this to happen, but we still may be faced with the problem of the energy of conservation being violated. We do not know for sure.

"In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion." - Physicist Paul Davies

Either way, the total energy of the universe is zero. In an open universe, the net energy is positive, and in a closed universe, the net energy is negative. What about if the universe is flat though? It would have zero net energy. Well pictures of the Cosmic Microwave Background tell us that the universe is flat with a margin of error of less than 1% (no-net warpage).

Whether something can come from nothing really all boils down to how you define nothing. If you define nothing a state of zero energy, or, define it as the lack of space-time, energy ect...Then yes, the universe and everything you see could have came from nothing. If you define it as "non-being" then no, it could not. This is because there would at least have to "be" the potential for "being", but if this is the case, then what were are discussing about is not really "non-being" because there would "be" the potential.

You may be correct as far as the energy coming from nothing is concerned, I may not be sure (like I said, all that happens is that we are unable to know for sure whether this happens or not). However fluctuations themselves have no cause for why they occur at a particular time. The vacuum serves as a necessary condition which allows for them to happen, but the vaccum itself contains no sufficient cause within it which could cause them to happen. Without a sufficient cause, we cannot say we have a proper causal process just because a necessary condition is in place (as philosopher Wes Morriston points out). You cannot get half of a pregnancy, just like you cannot get half of a causal process.

However, as far as the shape of the universe is concerned you are dead wrong. The universe is most likely flat, not spherical.

"The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) recent measurements imply, according to NASA, that "(...) We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error. (...)".[1]" - http://en.wikipedia.org...

"The WMAP spacecraft can measure the basic parameters of the Big Bang theory including the geometry of the universe. If the universe were flat, the brightest microwave background fluctuations (or "spots") would be about one degree across. If the universe were open, the spots would be less than one degree across. If the universe were closed, the brightest spots would be greater than one degree across. Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error." - http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

"An international team of astrophysicists has taken the most accurate ever photograph of the cosmic microwave background radiation, and confirmed that the universe is flat to within 10%." - http://physicsworld.com...





The Fool: I am curious rational. Do you know what energy is??
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 12:52:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: I think they are seriously confused. Misfiring that galaxies would come back together. Its not a small Mistake that is huge!! To honest I don't trust them. I really don't trust them going under the earth and smacking particules together. Just to see what happens. They hardly know what is happing now. Never trust anybody who doesnt know what things are working. They are JUST working.

Something coming from nothing is the most dumbest possible think they could ever say.

For example lets say something came from nothing. Well this would appear out of nowhere. right?

Now lets say that they didn't know where something was coming from. Well it things would also appear to come from no where Right.?

That is pure Complete ignorance =something comes from nothing.
They are identical therefore the hyposthesis could never be true. And that would could never be true is by necessity false.

Now if a scientist said something like something actuall co!es from nothing. I will SLAP HIM IN THE FACE! And when he ask why? I would say for nothing!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
TheBossToss
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 11:51:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 3:02:02 PM, Ren wrote:
At 8/17/2012 6:34:36 PM, Axiom wrote:
Recently, someone asserted that Quantum Mechanics proves that 'something' can come from 'nothing.' And dismisses Parmenides' 'ex nihilo nihil fit' theory. Is this true?
I admit I am shaky on quantum physics and quantum fluctuations within a vaccum and would appreciate if anyone could explain this accurately.
Does quantum mechanics prove that something can come from nothing? It seems to go against the very grain of our universe, our philosophy, logic.

I think that this is a misunderstanding of a concept that essentially states the only real matter in the universe are quarks, and the rest of what we consider matter and reality are all energy fields resulting from oscillations of and interactions between these quarks. There are how many -- four? five? -- different kinds that determine how the matter they produce manifests -- hmm... strange, funny, strong, weak... I forget what they are now. I used to know them all by heart.

I've been a lot more into the arts lately and have waned in my scientific readings.

I think there are six, and they are strange, charm, bottom, top, up, down.

I think. Very wierd names for different quarkish spin :P
Cats. I like cats.
-Me

Pro hasn't upheld his BOP. He forfeited last round. I did stuff.
-Wallstreetatheist

That was real intellectual property theft. They used her idea for their own profit and fame. When I pirate, I am usually downloading textbooks that I cannot afford to purchase on my own and that I do not want my parents to spend money on.
-royalpaladin
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 3:26:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Quantum mechanics does not prove that our Universe came from nothing; rather, it proves that it is possible that our Universe came from nothing. Hence, it is our best idea of how the Universe came be.
turn down for h'what
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 7:47:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 11:51:58 AM, TheBossToss wrote:
At 8/18/2012 3:02:02 PM, Ren wrote:
At 8/17/2012 6:34:36 PM, Axiom wrote:
Recently, someone asserted that Quantum Mechanics proves that 'something' can come from 'nothing.' And dismisses Parmenides' 'ex nihilo nihil fit' theory. Is this true?
I admit I am shaky on quantum physics and quantum fluctuations within a vaccum and would appreciate if anyone could explain this accurately.
Does quantum mechanics prove that something can come from nothing? It seems to go against the very grain of our universe, our philosophy, logic.

I think that this is a misunderstanding of a concept that essentially states the only real matter in the universe are quarks, and the rest of what we consider matter and reality are all energy fields resulting from oscillations of and interactions between these quarks. There are how many -- four? five? -- different kinds that determine how the matter they produce manifests -- hmm... strange, funny, strong, weak... I forget what they are now. I used to know them all by heart.

I've been a lot more into the arts lately and have waned in my scientific readings.

I think there are six, and they are strange, charm, bottom, top, up, down.

I think. Very weird names for different quarkish spin :P

Here's an interesting factoid. Although he is known to have quite the sense of humor, Murray Gell-Mann was not just being whimsical when he named the quarks; there was a very good reason for it.

By the time that Gell-Mann was driving the theory of the strong force, it has become very apparent to physicists that the common use of regular words to represent certain features of quantum physics was misleading and had become a hindrance to understanding and progress. For instance, the word spin had been used to designate certain states of fundamental particles, but in reality it has nothing to do with the everyday use of the word spin, nothing is revolving around an axis, there is no angular momentum, the particles are not actually "spinning" as common use of the word would lead one to believe, they had only used the word "spin" as matter of convenience to designate a completely unrelated phenomena. This common approach was causing real problems in the quantum physics word, graduate students and the general public were having some pretty strange ideas because of the misunderstanding associated with many of the words that had been used to designate quantum concepts, so Murray Gell-Mann made a conscious effort to use words that would not be misunderstood because of their everyday definition, and began advocating the approach throughout the quantum physics world.

Consequently, he named the field developing the theory of the strong theory Quantum Chromodynamics, and of course it has nothing to do with color, and granted, his whimsical sense of humor came into play when he gave "weird" names like, charmed, strange, and gluon to the fundamental particles, but there was a very important reason for it.

Anyways, I find that interesting, maybe you guys do too.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 8:16:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 6:34:36 PM, Axiom wrote:
Recently, someone asserted that Quantum Mechanics proves that 'something' can come from 'nothing.' And dismisses Parmenides' 'ex nihilo nihil fit' theory. Is this true?
I admit I am shaky on quantum physics and quantum fluctuations within a vaccum and would appreciate if anyone could explain this accurately.
Does quantum mechanics prove that something can come from nothing? It seems to go against the very grain of our universe, our philosophy, logic.

This isn't what philosopher's mean by 'nothing' ... scientists often equivocate the quantum vacuum with nothing (not anything... not even space).

Rather, the quantum vacuum is a sea of energy with many different physical laws, etc. This is far from what Parmenides meant as nihilo: "nothing."

The quantum vacuum itself came into being (began to exist), so it, along with everything else which began, cries out for explanation.
TheBossToss
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 9:37:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 7:47:09 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/19/2012 11:51:58 AM, TheBossToss wrote:
At 8/18/2012 3:02:02 PM, Ren wrote:
At 8/17/2012 6:34:36 PM, Axiom wrote:
Recently, someone asserted that Quantum Mechanics proves that 'something' can come from 'nothing.' And dismisses Parmenides' 'ex nihilo nihil fit' theory. Is this true?
I admit I am shaky on quantum physics and quantum fluctuations within a vaccum and would appreciate if anyone could explain this accurately.
Does quantum mechanics prove that something can come from nothing? It seems to go against the very grain of our universe, our philosophy, logic.

I think that this is a misunderstanding of a concept that essentially states the only real matter in the universe are quarks, and the rest of what we consider matter and reality are all energy fields resulting from oscillations of and interactions between these quarks. There are how many -- four? five? -- different kinds that determine how the matter they produce manifests -- hmm... strange, funny, strong, weak... I forget what they are now. I used to know them all by heart.

I've been a lot more into the arts lately and have waned in my scientific readings.

I think there are six, and they are strange, charm, bottom, top, up, down.

I think. Very weird names for different quarkish spin :P

Here's an interesting factoid. Although he is known to have quite the sense of humor, Murray Gell-Mann was not just being whimsical when he named the quarks; there was a very good reason for it.

By the time that Gell-Mann was driving the theory of the strong force, it has become very apparent to physicists that the common use of regular words to represent certain features of quantum physics was misleading and had become a hindrance to understanding and progress. For instance, the word spin had been used to designate certain states of fundamental particles, but in reality it has nothing to do with the everyday use of the word spin, nothing is revolving around an axis, there is no angular momentum, the particles are not actually "spinning" as common use of the word would lead one to believe, they had only used the word "spin" as matter of convenience to designate a completely unrelated phenomena. This common approach was causing real problems in the quantum physics word, graduate students and the general public were having some pretty strange ideas because of the misunderstanding associated with many of the words that had been used to designate quantum concepts, so Murray Gell-Mann made a conscious effort to use words that would not be misunderstood because of their everyday definition, and began advocating the approach throughout the quantum physics world.

Consequently, he named the field developing the theory of the strong theory Quantum Chromodynamics, and of course it has nothing to do with color, and granted, his whimsical sense of humor came into play when he gave "weird" names like, charmed, strange, and gluon to the fundamental particles, but there was a very important reason for it.

Anyways, I find that interesting, maybe you guys do too.

Woah, that's really awesome...... and a neat factoid :)

I must admit, when I was first diving into quantum mechanics and my mind was being blown every second or so (it still is being blown.... it's hard to wrap my mind around sometimes), I thought spin=spin of everyday life, and it was confusing. It was not until later I learned spen =/= spin.... but unfortunately I never found out what it was. Can anyone explain?
Cats. I like cats.
-Me

Pro hasn't upheld his BOP. He forfeited last round. I did stuff.
-Wallstreetatheist

That was real intellectual property theft. They used her idea for their own profit and fame. When I pirate, I am usually downloading textbooks that I cannot afford to purchase on my own and that I do not want my parents to spend money on.
-royalpaladin
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 10:14:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"the more accurately you know one, the less accurately you can know the other. This isn't a function of our ability to measure by the way; it is a fundamental feature of reality according to the Standard Model."

I wish I could get away with saying this, Tboonepickens and company will ostracize me :P
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 10:16:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"and predicts the flat universe, and it does appear to be flat."

Unless the distance we are measuring simply isn't large enough to show curvature...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 11:10:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 10:14:31 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
"the more accurately you know one, the less accurately you can know the other. This isn't a function of our ability to measure by the way; it is a fundamental feature of reality according to the Standard Model."

I wish I could get away with saying this, Tboonepickens and company will ostracize me :P

You don't think you could say that...but you aren't afraid to say "If you activate enough wind turbines the planet actually starts spinning the wrong way and the resident EM field is weakened, allowing gamma ray bursts to get through the atmosphere and warming it up. So yeah, windmills produce global warming" ?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 4:20:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 11:10:07 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/19/2012 10:14:31 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
"the more accurately you know one, the less accurately you can know the other. This isn't a function of our ability to measure by the way; it is a fundamental feature of reality according to the Standard Model."

I wish I could get away with saying this, Tboonepickens and company will ostracize me :P

You don't think you could say that...but you aren't afraid to say "If you activate enough wind turbines the planet actually starts spinning the wrong way and the resident EM field is weakened, allowing gamma ray bursts to get through the atmosphere and warming it up. So yeah, windmills produce global warming" ?

I think someone haxed my account...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
slo1
Posts: 4,342
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 7:54:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 9:48:38 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/17/2012 6:34:36 PM, Axiom wrote:
Recently, someone asserted that Quantum Mechanics proves that 'something' can come from 'nothing.' And dismisses Parmenides' 'ex nihilo nihil fit' theory. Is this true?

It's a theory, but it does not "prove" that something can come from nothing; its truth is speculative at best.

Just to clarify to readers the application of Quantum Mechanics to explain something comes from nothing is a theory. The elements that makes up the basis of Quantum Mechanics is proven. It has been long known that Newtonian physics is a very close approximation and quantum mechanics is the new model, however QM has not been able to explain everything, thus why there are many looking for the theory of everything such as string theory.
slo1
Posts: 4,342
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 8:51:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 6:34:36 PM, Axiom wrote:
Recently, someone asserted that Quantum Mechanics proves that 'something' can come from 'nothing.' And dismisses Parmenides' 'ex nihilo nihil fit' theory. Is this true?
I admit I am shaky on quantum physics and quantum fluctuations within a vaccum and would appreciate if anyone could explain this accurately.
Does quantum mechanics prove that something can come from nothing? It seems to go against the very grain of our universe, our philosophy, logic.

You may be referring to an article I posted in a debate comment section. A number of months back scientists proved virtual particles were "poofing" in and out of existence. Sidewinder stated it is not proof they come from no where, which is technically correct. I am a novice and not trained in any way shape or form, but as I understand the energy used to create the particles is borrowed. They can only exist for extremely small amounts of time as the energy has to get paid back. As I have read, it seems that these virtual particles are better imagined in their wave forms versus a "particle" as we tend to think of.

They however can interact with matter as we know it. The scientists that ran the experiment created a type of mirror that oscillated back and forth at something like 1/3 the speed of light. They put this in a vacuum and as a virtual photon poofed in it bounced off the mirror it collapses the wave function and creates the particle as we know it and puts it in motion when then it could be detected by a photon detector.

I always wondered why this experiment did not make bigger news than what it did, but as I understand the phenomena is well documented in various applications such as electromagnetic induction. It is even used to explain the weak and strong nuclear forces and a magnetic field between the + and - of a magnet. I still think it is cool when the experimental guys get to actually demonstrate what the theory guys dreamed up.

Here is an article of the experiment. http://www.sciencedaily.com...
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 12:56:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 6:34:36 PM, Axiom wrote:
Recently, someone asserted that Quantum Mechanics proves that 'something' can come from 'nothing.' And dismisses Parmenides' 'ex nihilo nihil fit' theory. Is this true?
No. QM does not claim something from nothing. The "something from nothing" quote is constantly used to sell books or garner interest in QM.

I admit I am shaky on quantum physics and quantum fluctuations within a vaccum and would appreciate if anyone could explain this accurately.
Clearly showing us that in fact it is something from something. Let's not forget that there is CMBR.

Does quantum mechanics prove that something can come from nothing? It seems to go against the very grain of our universe, our philosophy, logic.
Again, no. It's just sensationalism to garner interest.

Not to mention that all this would violate the laws of thermodynamics which have NEVER been OBSERVED to be violated.

**************************************

At 8/17/2012 9:58:22 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Something cannot exist without nothing.
Nonsense. Nothingness is a contradiction and contradictions do not exist. What you are claiming amounts to the existence of non-existence which is of course absurd.

*************************************

At 8/19/2012 10:14:31 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
"the more accurately you know one, the less accurately you can know the other. This isn't a function of our ability to measure by the way; it is a fundamental feature of reality according to the Standard Model."
Yep

I wish I could get away with saying this, Tboonepickens and company will ostracize me :P
Not at all...at least not when you state it that way. I think that where I part company is when you begin to use quantum mysticism as an explanation. I agree that these things are inaccessible to US NOT because of some technological limitation BUT instead because of the fundamental nature of the Universe.

HOWEVER, this DOES NOT mean that said states do NOT EXIST or that they exist in a CONTRADICTORY state but rather that said state is INACCESSIBLE to us. I think this is where we part company.

The only problem with my view of QM is that I cannot SHOW it to be so (empirically); HOWEVER, you cannot show that it ISN'T SO either! Just like virtual particles: they can never be detected directly!

*************************************

At 8/20/2012 7:54:35 AM, slo1 wrote:
Just to clarify to readers the application of Quantum Mechanics to explain something comes from nothing is a theory.
It's a theory and it really does NOT claim something from nothing: quantum foam is not nothing. It's sensationalism to garner attention and sell books.

The elements that makes up the basis of Quantum Mechanics is proven. It has been long known that Newtonian physics is a very close approximation and quantum mechanics is the new model, however QM has not been able to explain everything, thus why there are many looking for the theory of everything such as string theory.
Well, Newtonian Mechanics is really meant for the larger scales (macro) and includes gravity and QM really is at the smaller scale (micro) and fails miserably with gravity.

You may be referring to an article I posted in a debate comment section. A number of months back scientists proved virtual particles were "poofing" in and out of existence. Sidewinder stated it is not proof they come from no where, which is technically correct.
Not only is Sidewinder technically correct, he's correct period.

I am a novice and not trained in any way shape or form, but as I understand the energy used to create the particles is borrowed.
Consequently it's something from something.

They can only exist for extremely small amounts of time as the energy has to get paid back. As I have read, it seems that these virtual particles are better imagined in their wave forms versus a "particle" as we tend to think of.
Not to mention the fact that there has never been (nor can never be) direct observation (ie empirical evidence) of ANY said virtual particle.

They however can interact with matter as we know it. The scientists that ran the experiment created a type of mirror that oscillated back and forth at something like 1/3 the speed of light. They put this in a vacuum and as a virtual photon poofed in it bounced off the mirror it collapses the wave function and creates the particle as we know it and puts it in motion when then it could be detected by a photon detector.
It's not an actual mirror but a SQUID circuit (electronic component) that oscillates in the presence of an oscillating magnetic field. The squid then turns some of its kinetic energy into photons. Still only the photons are detected and NOT the virtual photons.

I always wondered why this experiment did not make bigger news than what it did, but as I understand the phenomena is well documented in various applications such as electromagnetic induction.
Because virtual particles have been known for a long time. They are mathematical necessities for equations describing particle decay/transformations.

It is even used to explain the weak and strong nuclear forces and a magnetic field between the + and - of a magnet. I still think it is cool when the experimental guys get to actually demonstrate what the theory guys dreamed up.
But will never have direct observation!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
slo1
Posts: 4,342
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 4:52:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

The only problem with my view of QM is that I cannot SHOW it to be so (empirically); HOWEVER, you cannot show that it ISN'T SO either! Just like virtual particles: they can never be detected directly!


The elements that makes up the basis of Quantum Mechanics is proven. It has been long known that Newtonian physics is a very close approximation and quantum mechanics is the new model, however QM has not been able to explain everything, thus why there are many looking for the theory of everything such as string theory.
Well, Newtonian Mechanics is really meant for the larger scales (macro) and includes gravity and QM really is at the smaller scale (micro) and fails miserably with gravity.

Newtonian Mechanics does not explain gravity. It approximates the affect of gravity upon a mass. Don't go making it into something it isn't.

They can only exist for extremely small amounts of time as the energy has to get paid back. As I have read, it seems that these virtual particles are better imagined in their wave forms versus a "particle" as we tend to think of.
Not to mention the fact that there has never been (nor can never be) direct observation (ie empirical evidence) of ANY said virtual particle.

The experiment I posted described an interaction with a virtual particle. By transferring the kinetic energy from this type of mirror it created a valid particle in a vacuum, which was then observed by a detector. The impingement of the mirror upon the virtual particle is an observation.

Until you can prove the existence of this photon which originated in a vacuum via some other mechanism the observation of the mirror on the virtual particle then you have absolutely no basis to deny the reality of virtual particles.

In fact with your level of proof you would need to deny the existence of everything as you and every other human do not have direct observation of anything.

Even sight requires the usage of ambient light which must hit the object being viewed when it must bounce to your eye, where as it hit the cells in the retina and is converted into an electro-chemical signal sent to your visual cortex and then is interpreted as a vision by the brain. If there was anything that not directly observed it would be sight and all the other methods we use to interact with the world around us.

By your definition of observation even Newtonian physics is suspect let alone quantum mechanics.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 5:00:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
By the way, it's SideWALKER, not Sidewinder.

Sidewinder is a missile....Sidewalker is a term from therapeutic riding....just think of someone walking beside a horse.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 5:03:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 7:47:09 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/19/2012 11:51:58 AM, TheBossToss wrote:
At 8/18/2012 3:02:02 PM, Ren wrote:
At 8/17/2012 6:34:36 PM, Axiom wrote:
Recently, someone asserted that Quantum Mechanics proves that 'something' can come from 'nothing.' And dismisses Parmenides' 'ex nihilo nihil fit' theory. Is this true?
I admit I am shaky on quantum physics and quantum fluctuations within a vaccum and would appreciate if anyone could explain this accurately.
Does quantum mechanics prove that something can come from nothing? It seems to go against the very grain of our universe, our philosophy, logic.

I think that this is a misunderstanding of a concept that essentially states the only real matter in the universe are quarks, and the rest of what we consider matter and reality are all energy fields resulting from oscillations of and interactions between these quarks. There are how many -- four? five? -- different kinds that determine how the matter they produce manifests -- hmm... strange, funny, strong, weak... I forget what they are now. I used to know them all by heart.

I've been a lot more into the arts lately and have waned in my scientific readings.

I think there are six, and they are strange, charm, bottom, top, up, down.

I think. Very weird names for different quarkish spin :P

Here's an interesting factoid. Although he is known to have quite the sense of humor, Murray Gell-Mann was not just being whimsical when he named the quarks; there was a very good reason for it.

By the time that Gell-Mann was driving the theory of the strong force, it has become very apparent to physicists that the common use of regular words to represent certain features of quantum physics was misleading and had become a hindrance to understanding and progress. For instance, the word spin had been used to designate certain states of fundamental particles, but in reality it has nothing to do with the everyday use of the word spin, nothing is revolving around an axis, there is no angular momentum, the particles are not actually "spinning" as common use of the word would lead one to believe, they had only used the word "spin" as matter of convenience to designate a completely unrelated phenomena. This common approach was causing real problems in the quantum physics word, graduate students and the general public were having some pretty strange ideas because of the misunderstanding associated with many of the words that had been used to designate quantum concepts, so Murray Gell-Mann made a conscious effort to use words that would not be misunderstood because of their everyday definition, and began advocating the approach throughout the quantum physics world.

Consequently, he named the field developing the theory of the strong theory Quantum Chromodynamics, and of course it has nothing to do with color, and granted, his whimsical sense of humor came into play when he gave "weird" names like, charmed, strange, and gluon to the fundamental particles, but there was a very important reason for it.

Anyways, I find that interesting, maybe you guys do too.

Interesting thought that may be, I was quite disappointed when I got to the end of the post and you still hadn't explained what this enlightened reasoning was that led to such names for quarks.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 5:14:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 5:03:57 PM, Ren wrote:

Interesting thought that may be, I was quite disappointed when I got to the end of the post and you still hadn't explained what this enlightened reasoning was that led to such names for quarks.

I know the word quarks came from a line in Finnegan's Wake, "three quarks for Mr. Marks", or something like that, only three quarks had been identified at the time.

Gluon was based on the word "glue", because it's a force particle that holds things together, and I'm pretty sure up, down, top, bottom, charmed and strange where whimsically chosen because they couldn't be misinterpreted as meaning anything else, not sure if he ever gave reasons for picking those particular names.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater