|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 6, 2010 10:45:07 GMT 1
I find that one of the most outrageously absurd 'explanations' for the creation of the universe is that involving an initial quantum fluctuation, whereby particles of matter and anti-matter (electron and anti-electron) are 'spontaneously created' out of absolutely nothing! This absurd logical construction is apparently based upon the fact that such 'spontaneous creation' of anti-matter and matter particles has been observed. It is not somehow mentioned (in the texts I read anyway) that these observations do not take place in 'nothingness' - they take place in our space-time and can simply be construed as the energy-matter equivalence in action.
But never mind this minor inconsistency, none of the texts even bother to wonder where this initial quantum fluctuation came from. It is simply accepted, in the same way as some accept that God created the universe.
But what follows from this initial quantum fluctuation is even more miraculous than any miracle attributed to God on this earth. For it is said (in hushed tones) that this pair of particles somehow coalesced to make something that was far bigger than their individual parts - indeed it inflated to infinite density (with infinite energy) and grew and grew until it got so big that stars and galaxies were created!
Well I have never read a fairy story that stretches credulity more than this!
Well, certainly it is an hypothesis, and surely it is an hypothesis that in principle cannot be tested, and as such it is not a scientific hypothesis, but simply a handful of clever people following th logic of mathematics to absurdity, and hence should be regarded with no more reverence than the God hypothesis, except that the people that put forward these unbelievable propositions tend to pride themselves on being rid of the God superstition
God help them!
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 6, 2010 20:06:20 GMT 1
In fact, many (not all) cosmologists do not seriously consider this idea as really legitimate any longer. As cosmology develops newer models of how the universe may be constructed the 'creation ex nihilo' hypotheses is looking increasingly naive, but we will have to wait for future observations to support alternative proposed models. At the moment it's all up for debate.
|
|
|
Post by robinpike on Dec 7, 2010 9:27:11 GMT 1
Naymissus, the initial creation of the universe from nothing obviously appears to be an impossibility... and yet the universe is here.
The problem with the God hypothesis, is that it doesn't help with the initial question, which would then be, Where did God come from?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 7, 2010 9:37:18 GMT 1
Naymissus, the initial creation of the universe from nothing obviously appears to be an impossibility... and yet the universe is here. The problem with the God hypothesis, is that it doesn't help with the initial question, which would then be, Where did God come from? I agree entirely with you Robin But the God hypothesis is a valid as any other in that case isn't it? For example , where did the quantum fluctuation come from Physics falls down - we can never, in principle, know the origins of the universe
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 7, 2010 10:14:14 GMT 1
I think this point simply illustrates that science cannot, at least so far, provide meaningful answers to such profound questions.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Dec 7, 2010 14:45:08 GMT 1
Why you think your opinion should matter, when you can't even get the basic description of it right, is beyond me!
And as usual, just reduces to the usual nonsense -- I don't what it is, just know that it is OBVIOUSLY daft............
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 7, 2010 15:06:53 GMT 1
Why you think your opinion should matter, when you can't even get the basic description of it right, is beyond me! And as usual, just reduces to the usual nonsense -- I don't what it is, just know that it is OBVIOUSLY daft............ ;D Most constructive my dear. What a pity that you cannot express yourself coherently. You may know some science, but just as in QM we cannot know that you know. Still your abuse tends to disguise your inarticulacy, dunnit? ;D
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Dec 7, 2010 15:48:28 GMT 1
As I expected, no further argument, just the usual feeble attempts at insults..............
The original post misses the point, as I said. So, the appearance particle-antiparticle pairs WITHIN an existing spacetime is often used as an illustration of the fact that, within standard quantum theory, fluctuations just happen, uncaused. This is NOT saying that exactly the same sort of fluctuation is being used in quantum cosmology, just showing that quantum theory in general allows stuff to appear uncaused.
So, what is fluctuating in quantum cosmology? We AREN'T just talking about the appearance of particles within an existing spacetime, so we aren't talking about the quantum theory of matter and energy that we are used to at the moment. Instead, we are talking about a quantum theory that involves a wavefunction which describes not just the matter and energy content OF spacetime (the sort of quantum fluctuation described above), but also the geometry of spacetime itself. Hence we are talking about the spontaneous appearance of spacetime, as well as the matter and energy within that spacetime.
So, no minor inconsistency, just a total failure by some to appreciate the difference between what is being used as an illustrative example (spontaneous stuff happening in ordinary quantum theory within a pre-existing spacetime), and what is actually being proposed (a quantum theory that encompasses spacetime as well as matter within that spacetime).
No one ever said a single pair of particles -- again, taking the illustrative example, and thinking that was the whole thing. Akin to taking the 'string' in string theory, and labouring under the misapprehension that physicists really are talking about all particles being made of twisted sisal.....................
Inflated to infinite density/infinite energy etc -- just playing word salad, whilst getting all the essentials wrong.
Thats because your garbled fairy story bears very little relation to the actual physics, it just happens to contain some of the same words, but all in the wrong order..................
Wrong (as I think I've told you before). For example, the quantum cosmology pages at DAMTP in Cambridge quite specifically refer to various tests:
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 7, 2010 16:34:19 GMT 1
As I expected, no further argument, just the usual feeble attempts at insults.............. You really are a silly girlie There are NO insults present on this thread until YOU poked in your head and uncontrolled temperament! The original post misses the point, as I said. No you did not say. Your other posting was ALL insult If you wish to say so now - then be my guest! So, the appearance particle-antiparticle pairs WITHIN an existing spacetime is often used as an illustration of the fact that, within standard quantum theory, fluctuations just happen, uncaused. Apparently uncaused This is NOT saying that exactly the same sort of fluctuation is being used in quantum cosmology, just showing that quantum theory in general allows stuff to appear uncaused. Apparently uncaused. Who are YOU to say that 'spntaneous generation' of particles has no cause? So, what is fluctuating in quantum cosmology? We AREN'T just talking about the appearance of particles within an existing spacetime, so we aren't talking about the quantum theory of matter and energy that we are used to at the moment. Ok - then we are talking of a completely new , entirely theoretical, entirely unobserved, entirely unverified quantum theory. In other words we are talking speculative science - metaphysics. Instead, we are talking about a quantum theory that involves a wavefunction which describes not just the matter and energy content OF spacetime (the sort of quantum fluctuation described above), but also the geometry of spacetime itself. Hence we are talking about the spontaneous appearance of spacetime, as well as the matter and energy within that spacetime. Ok . Sheer speculation of course So, no minor inconsistency, just a total failure by some to appreciate the difference between what is being used as an illustrative example (spontaneous stuff happening in ordinary quantum theory within a pre-existing spacetime), and what is actually being proposed (a quantum theory that encompasses spacetime as well as matter within that spacetime). You really are persuasive aren't you. Considered joining the Diplomatic Service? They have a special autistic branch that specialises in diplomats telling foreign governments to f**k off. No one ever said a single pair of particles -- again, taking the illustrative example, and thinking that was the whole thing. Akin to taking the 'string' in string theory, and labouring under the misapprehension that physicists really are talking about all particles being made of twisted sisal..................... ;D Very clear my dear. You really haven't a clue what you are talking about, have you? -- just playing word salad, whilst getting all the essentials wrong. Thats because your garbled fairy story bears very little relation to the actual physics, it just happens to contain some of the same words, but all in the wrong order.................. Do apply to the Autistic Corps Diplomatique - they are desperate for your sort
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Dec 7, 2010 18:11:35 GMT 1
Nope, just proposed new, testable physics, not metaphysics at all. You really need to go back to the basics if you think that any new theory can be dismissed as metaphysics. ANd if we aren't going to be allowed to introduce new, speculative theories, then how is science supposed to progress?
Quantum cosmology is rather old-hat now, and saying nothing more surprising than that given the results of tests of Bells theorem, we do have to take what quantum theory says seriously, we can't keep hoping there is a cop-out in terms of some underlying, more 'sensible' theory. Hence it is a perfectly logical step to try and apply quantum theory to the entire universe.
The point being that doing precisely this gets us out of many of the supposed 'problems' that naive and untutored questions raise -- why, where, what was before? So, what was before only applies where the concept of before arises. But before is a statement applicable only within a classical spacetime, where we have definite directions (such as left/right and up/down in space, and before/after in time). There is no 'before' or 'after' when spacetime itself is no longer a primary concept, but only a classical approximation that emerges out of the quantum fuzziness of spacetime foam. Just as the apparant smooth and continuous path of a particle is only a classical approximation, that disappears when we get down to the quantum level. So which slit did the photon pass through? It somehow passed through both!
As regards uncaused quantum events, you have obviously forgotten the lessons of tests of Bells theorem, which says that hidden local variables (i.e. some hidden 'causes' which are responsible for the apparent 'uncaused' nature of quantum events) are ruled out. So, not some strange scientific arrogance, as you seem to want to imply, but just the same ole experimental tests of the weirdness of quantum theory..............................
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 7, 2010 18:53:46 GMT 1
Nope, just proposed new, testable physics, not metaphysics at all. You really need to go back to the basics if you think that any new theory can be dismissed as metaphysics. Please remember that any new 'theory' is simply speculative. What was meataphysics yesteday is physics today Certainly the 'quantum fluctuation' theory of the origin of the universe answers nothing at all - well no more then the God hypothesis. ANd if we aren't going to be allowed to introduce new, speculative theories, then how is science supposed to progress? Who said anything about not allowing such theories? They should however, be treated with the same respect as the God hypothesis unless they are somehow verifiable Quantum cosmology is rather old-hat now, and saying nothing more surprising than that given the results of tests of Bells theorem, we do have to take what quantum theory says seriously, we can't keep hoping there is a cop-out in terms of some underlying, more 'sensible' theory. You are speaking gobbledygook again - your sentences do not follow the rules of English grammar! Hence it is a perfectly logical step to try and apply quantum theory to the entire universe. It might be, but with your ungrammatical English you are not the one to try! The point being that doing precisely this gets us out of many of the supposed 'problems' that naive and untutored questions raise -- why, where, what was before? Untutored questions I do not mind - that is part of the learning process. it is the untutored ungrammatical 'answers' that really inhibit learning reducing concepts to gobbledeygook So, what was before only applies where the concept of before arises. And the concept of 'before' - the arrow of time, is concrete and all around us. and has never been infringed by physics But before is a statement applicable only within a classical spacetime, where we have definite directions (such as left/right and up/down in space, and before/after in time). And all these concepts are well tested and certainly not contradicted by QM There is no 'before' or 'after' when spacetime itself is no longer a primary concept, but only a classical approximation that emerges out of the quantum fuzziness of spacetime foam. You are descending into a foaming fuzziness. The arrow of time is well established and is not contradicted by any science, new or old Just as the apparant smooth and continuous path of a particle is only a classical approximation, that disappears when we get down to the quantum level. So which slit did the photon pass through? It somehow passed through both! How, precisely, does the unfathomable result of the two-slit experiment infringe the concept of 'before' and 'after'? Has the observation of the electron pattern been observed before the transmitter was switched on? No it has not. As regards uncaused quantum events, you have obviously forgotten the lessons of tests of Bells theorem, which says that hidden local variables (i.e. some hidden 'causes' which are responsible for the apparent 'uncaused' nature of quantum events) are ruled out. So, not some strange scientific arrogance, as you seem to want to imply, but just the same ole experimental tests of the weirdness of quantum theory.............................. The infraction of Bell's theorem confirms 'spooky action at a distance'. I have not forgotten that. The EPR experiment (or Aspect's variation) was not anticipating (nor did it observe)any infraction of 'before' and 'after' - it depended absolutely upon the arrow of time. The experiment naturally assumed the effect to happen after the cause - the transmission of entangled pairs. No-one , ever, has predicted or measured the upness/downess of entangled particles to occur before the entangled particles are transmitted. Your analogies are not appropriate
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Dec 7, 2010 19:37:14 GMT 1
O, how easy to be certain when you know nothing!
Piffle. A scientific hypothesis is different from any god hypothesis, haven't you got your head around that simple one yet? I suggest you go back to Dawkins for a basic explanation..............
Seems you have forgotten relativity of simultaneity as well, where an event A can occur either before or after an event B, depending on who is doing the observing, and provided that the two events are not causally linked.
Plus totally daft to claim that since OLD physics has an arrow of time, any NEW physics must have one as well. All that this quantum foam stuff is saying, in effect, is that the arrow of time is an emergent property, that applies at certain length and energy scales, but not at all lengths and scales.
I never said it did, please try and learn to read simple english! What I actually said is that just as the classical path of a particle is an approximation that applies in certain situations (such as for a thrown ball, but not for the passes-both slits behaviour of a quantum object), so the idea of the definite direction that is time only applies at certain scales, but not necessarily at the smallest, quantum foam scales. Do try and keep up!
Only because you seem incapable of understanding the simplest statements!
As Bells theorem and time, you have as usual failed to understand the simplest thing about the situation. The relevant cause here is not the transmission of the pairs, it is what A sets their detector at, and B's measurement.
I was referring to Bells theorem re uncaused quantum events (which you seemed to want to cast doubt on), NOT as regards the arrow of time (although there are interesting issues in quantum experiments such as the delayed choice quantum eraser).
Because all our quantum theories so far are quantum theories of other interactions WITHIN a pre-existing spacetime, and not quantum theories of spacetime itself (i.e. quantum gravity), or quantum theories of the entire universe, including spacetime.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Dec 7, 2010 20:27:14 GMT 1
Not really quite sure what you're trying to refer to -- there are suggestions from the loop quantum gravity chaps that the big bang may not have been the start of it all, but as regards quantum cosmology in general (as opposed to the specific instanton idea), there are plenty of papers out there, and still more coming.
Indeed, those that seemingly object to this route are perhaps being a bit inconsistent. Posters on here have objected before to the classical picture of a singularity in conventional, classical (general relativity) cosmology, yet when people look at alternatives (quantum cosmology), which offer the prospect of getting rid of that pesky singularity, they are derided as speculative etc etc. Make your mind up -- you can have non-speculative, but classical cosmology, with all the nasty infinities, or you can have the speculative, stick quantum in, stuff. What you can't have (and still call it science) is try to stick god in as if that was as good an explanation as any...................
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 7, 2010 20:58:20 GMT 1
O, how easy to be certain when you know nothing! It is not necessary to know much at all apart from logic e.g. Who created God? Who created the Quantum fluctuation? Same question, different objects Piffle. A scientific hypothesis is different from any god hypothesis, haven't you got your head around that simple one yet? I suggest you go back to Dawkins for a basic explanation.............. Actually Dawkins welcomes the God Hypothesis on the same basis as any other scientific hypothesis - that way he imagines he can refuyte it, scientifically Just to remind you. An hypothesis is the result of observations (or thoughts) and posits a theory that tentatively accounts for things are as they are. The basis of science The basis of God Seems you have forgotten relativity of simultaneity as well, where an event A can occur either before or after an event B, depending on who is doing the observing, and provided that the two events are not causally linked. It has never been measured that effect occurs before cause and that is the arrow of time Plus totally daft to claim that since OLD physics has an arrow of time, any NEW physics must have one as well. I will stick with the daftness rather than the say-so of someone who claims to know the NEW physics yet cannot construct a grammatical sentence about the OLD physics All that this quantum foam stuff is saying, in effect, is that the arrow of time is an emergent property, that applies at certain length and energy scales, but not at all lengths and scales. Really? What on earth is an 'emergent property' and which observation of physics infringes the concept of the 'arrow of time'? I never said it did, please try and learn to read simple english! [/qupte] I have no idea what it is you never said! I love plain simple English and will be delighted if you use it What I actually said is that just as the classical path of a particle is an approximation that applies in certain situations (such as for a thrown ball, but not for the passes-both slits behaviour of a quantum object), so the idea of the definite direction that is time only applies at certain scales, but not necessarily at the smallest, quantum foam scales. Do try and keep up! In fact, although you may have meant to say that, you did not say that at all. Sometimes I get the impression that you make it up as you go along. As Bells theorem and time, you have as usual failed to understand the simplest thing about the situation. The relevant cause here is not the transmission of the pairs, it is what A sets their detector at, and B's measurement. Good heavens my dear another sentence that does not fit the rules of the Queens English grammar. Are you a foreigner? Or perhaps an Essex girl? I was referring to Bells theorem re uncaused quantum events (which you seemed to want to cast doubt on), Certainly I wish to cast doubts upon, unless it can be shown conclusively that there are uncaused effects, then we are obliged to asume that there is a cause for each effect. Otherwise we are abandoning the combined wisdom of ages for the sake of a new belief. Just like Jehova's Witnesses I s'pose. Because all our quantum theories so far are quantum theories of other interactions WITHIN a pre-existing spacetime, and not quantum theories of spacetime itself (i.e. quantum gravity), or quantum theories of the entire universe, including spacetime. Come back when you have experimental evidence that contradicts the arrow of time, evidence that effect precedes cause.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Dec 7, 2010 21:33:43 GMT 1
Except if you knew any physics, you'd know tha the emergence of the arrow of time is already a non-trivial question. Take newtonian classical mechanics -- basic equations look the same whether time runs forwards or backwards. So why an 'arrow of time'. Same goes for quantum theory.
Hence there are deep questions over an arrow of time (is there just one, does arrow of cosmic time have to correspond to the arrow of time given by the second law of thermodynamics?).
And doesn't alter the fact that the issue of an arrow of time is a different question at to what happens to spave and time on the smallest scales. Because so far, you seem to want to stick to a definite concept of time at even the smallest scales, despite the fact that this leads to the very problems that you so bitterly complained about elsewhere (the big bang singularity if nothing else).
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that commonsense and simplistic statements about 'logic' should be sufficient to handle the complexioties of the physical universe, and that is just plain wrong.
No, because that's just the hidden variables that Bells theorem is all about! You obviously never understood the basics of that debate, as well as forgetting what the conclusions were.
To recap, experiment show that we can't have local, deterministic hidden variables.
Except I refer you again to the delayed choice quantum eraser, where things get very weird!
As in the spooky action at a distance stuff, we still have causality, but we have to do some gymnastics, such as limiting it to the transmission of information, in that we cannot use these instantaneous channels to transmit information at greater than lightspeed. None of which is the SAME as saying that there can't be uncaused events, as you seem to keep pretending.
Hence none of this has any relevance to the legitimacy of the idea of uncaused events in quantum theory, hence the idea of an uncaused origin to the universe.......................
Better one of those than a total idiot like yourself! And what do you have against foreigners, many of them speak better english than the english, from essex or elsewhere................
|
|