Something From Nothing

[steve_bank]

As to the Casimir effect, The force is measurable. It does not prove something from nothing. That a theory can explain an experiment does not mean the theory is correct. I do not question the actual experiment, I don't see where the experint proves smething from nothing. That would be a speculative conclusion, albeit based in math and science.

A well known effect is that if you put two very smooth metal surfaces together they will stick together. It is a problem in pres ion surfaces and mechanical gauge blocks.. On the old hard drives the read-write heads were ultra smooth ceramics. If you put them together you could not pull them apart.

What causes metals to stick together?


The electrons can move freely within these molecular orbitals, and so each electron becomes detached from its parent atom. The electrons are said to be delocalized. The metal is held together by the strong forces of attraction between the positive nuclei and the delocalized electrons (Figure 1).Aug 15, 2020

When I first read about the Casimir effect that is what came to mind.

Virtual particles do not have to actually exist, they can make a theory work.

In digital control systems sometimes you can not go directly from one state to another. It requires going first to a virtual state, a mathematical state tha does not physically manifest. In solid state theory there are holes and electrons. Does a hole exist? It is given properties which make the theory work. Meaning it allows prediction of transistor behaviour.

Virtual particle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A virtual particle is a theoretical transient particle that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, while having its existence limited by the uncertainty principle.[vague] The concept of virtual particles arises in the perturbation theory of quantum field theory where interactions between ordinary particles are described in terms of exchanges of virtual particles. A process involving virtual particles can be described by a schematic representation known as a Feynman diagram, in which virtual particles are represented by internal lines.[1][2]

Virtual particles do not necessarily carry the same mass as the corresponding real particle, although they always conserve energy and momentum. The closer its characteristics come to those of ordinary particles, the longer the virtual particle exists. They are important in the physics of many processes, including particle scattering and Casimir forces. In quantum field theory, forces—such as the electromagnetic repulsion or attraction between two charges—can be thought of as due to the exchange of virtual photons between the charges. Virtual photons are the exchange particle for the electromagnetic interaction.

The term is somewhat loose and vaguely defined, in that it refers to the view that the world is made up of "real particles". "Real particles" are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields. Virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations of interactions, but never as asymptotic states or indices to the scattering matrix. The accuracy and use of virtual particles in calculations is firmly established, but as they cannot be detected in experiments, deciding how to precisely describe them is a topic of debate.[3] Although widely used, they are by no means a necessary feature of QFT, but rather are mathematical conveniences - as demonstrated by lattice field theory, which avoids using the concept altogether.

If you can measure a force, aka SI Newtons, then the phemona is real. How you explain theexperiment is theory. All that is required of a theory is that it is predictive.


The test for ergy is to experimentally do work.

Zero-point energy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Zero-point energy (ZPE) is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have. Unlike in classical mechanics, quantum systems constantly fluctuate in their lowest energy state as described by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.[1] Therefore, even at absolute zero, atoms and molecules retain some vibrational motion. Apart from atoms and molecules, the empty space of the vacuum also has these properties. According to quantum field theory, the universe can be thought of not as isolated particles but continuous fluctuating fields: matter fields, whose quanta are fermions (i.e., leptons and quarks), and force fields, whose quanta are bosons (e.g., photons and gluons). All these fields have zero-point energy.[2] These fluctuating zero-point fields lead to a kind of reintroduction of an aether in physics[1][3] since some systems can detect the existence of this energy. However, this aether cannot be thought of as a physical medium if it is to be Lorentz invariant such that there is no contradiction with Einstein's theory of special relativity.[1]

Zero-point energy (ZPE) is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have. Unlike in classical mechanics, quantum systems constantly fluctuate in their lowest energy state as described by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.[1] Therefore, even at absolute zero, atoms and molecules retain some vibrational motion. Apart from atoms and molecules, the empty space of the vacuum also has these properties. According to quantum field theory, the universe can be thought of not as isolated particles but continuous fluctuating fields: matter fields, whose quanta are fermions (i.e., leptons and quarks), and force fields, whose quanta are bosons (e.g., photons and gluons). All these fields have zero-point energy.[2] These fluctuating zero-point fields lead to a kind of reintroduction of an aether in physics[1][3] since some systems can detect the existence of this energy. However, this aether cannot be thought of as a physical medium if it is to be Lorentz invariant such that there is no contradiction with Einstein's theory of special relativity.[1]

The notion of a zero-point energy is also important for cosmology, and physics currently lacks a full theoretical model for understanding zero-point energy in this context; in particular, the discrepancy between theorized and observed vacuum energy in the universe is a source of major contention.[4] Physicists Richard Feynman and John Wheeler calculated the zero-point radiation of the vacuum to be an order of magnitude greater than nuclear energy, with a single light bulb containing enough energy to boil all the world's oceans.[5] Yet according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, any such energy would gravitate, and the experimental evidence from the expansion of the universe, dark energy and the Casimir effect shows any such energy to be exceptionally weak. A popular proposal that attempts to address this issue is to say that the fermion field has a negative zero-point energy, while the boson field has positive zero-point energy and thus these energies somehow cancel each other out.[6][7] This idea would be true if supersymmetry were an exact symmetry of nature; however, the LHC at CERN has so far found no evidence to support it. Moreover, it is known that if supersymmetry is valid at all, it is at most a broken symmetry, only true at very high energies, and no one has been able to show a theory where zero-point cancellations occur in the low-energy universe we observe today.[7] This discrepancy is known as the cosmological constant problem and it is one of the greatest unsolved mysteries

ZPE is theoretical.

So, nothing in Casimir Effect demonstrates experimentally something from or to non existence.


Back in the 80s a reltaive worked at Brookhaven on the RHIC collider. I had a chance to walk part of the ring and the experiment chamber before the ring went cold. Actually detecting particles experimentally is part art.

 

[Jarhyn]

Sp,b ack to my question. You can run an expeimnt and you think something came from non existence. Can you prove it did?

Can't you even read?

The Casimir effect was predicted in 1948, and experimentally demonstrated in 1997

Oh, wait. You have me on ignore.

I suppose that's one effective way to maintain your ignorance; Simply ignore any evidence that doesn't match your prejudices. You would make an excellent religionist.

Doesn't have ME on ignore yet...

What I find silly is that after so many physicists did so much hard work to experimentally verify the reality of virtual particles as actual elements of reality, Steve tries their very hardest to ignore that evidence

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

So if asked how do we get from 0 to 1 the simple answer is there is no 0.

Peano axioms. These are about mathematics. Numbers. In Peno's axioms, 0 is number. Consider 210. We have 2 hundreds, 1 ten, and no ones. 0 ones. Without 0 everyday math gets hard.

 

[bilby]

Sp,b ack to my question. You can run an expeimnt and you think something came from non existence. Can you prove it did?

Can't you even read?

The Casimir effect was predicted in 1948, and experimentally demonstrated in 1997

Oh, wait. You have me on ignore.

I suppose that's one effective way to maintain your ignorance; Simply ignore any evidence that doesn't match your prejudices. You would make an excellent religionist.

Doesn't have ME on ignore yet...

What I find silly is that after so many physicists did so much hard work to experimentally verify the reality of virtual particles as actual elements of reality, Steve tries their very hardest to ignore that evidence

And he attempts to take refuge in solipsism. "The existence of virtual particles is theoretical, therefore we shouldn't accept their reality" is not a tenable position, because the existence of fucking everything is theoretical.

Being theoretical (in the strict scientific sense, of "theoretical": 'Implied by unfalsified theories') is a reason to accept that something exists, not a reason to reject it.

Conflating this strict meaning of "theoretical" with the more common layman's definition: 'implied by hypothesis, conjecture or speculation', is the cause of much confusion, some of it deliberately generated by religionists and other opponents of knowledge and reason.

 

[steve_bank]

Sp,b ack to my question. You can run an expeimnt and you think something came from non existence. Can you prove it did?

Can't you even read?

The Casimir effect was predicted in 1948, and experimentally demonstrated in 1997

Oh, wait. You have me on ignore.

I suppose that's one effective way to maintain your ignorance; Simply ignore any evidence that doesn't match your prejudices. You would make an excellent religionist.

Doesn't have ME on ignore yet...

What I find silly is that after so many physicists did so much hard work to experimentally verify the reality of virtual particles as actual elements of reality, Steve tries their very hardest to ignore that evidence

What do you mean by 'verify he reality of virtual particles'? Be specific. Not just scientists worked hard. I am not questioning the work done by scientists I am questioning your understanding of the difference between a macro scale experiment and a theory.

You probably do not know who Carver Meade was . When asked whether an electron exists or not he said it does not matter. What I do know is I can do uswful things with the concept.

I doubt you have the experience to understand what I am saying.

I have Bilby om ignore for two reasons. He resorts to insults and ad homs. In the past I found he was arguing from science fiction on an issue.

 

[Jarhyn]

Sp,b ack to my question. You can run an expeimnt and you think something came from non existence. Can you prove it did?

Can't you even read?

The Casimir effect was predicted in 1948, and experimentally demonstrated in 1997

Oh, wait. You have me on ignore.

I suppose that's one effective way to maintain your ignorance; Simply ignore any evidence that doesn't match your prejudices. You would make an excellent religionist.

Doesn't have ME on ignore yet...

What I find silly is that after so many physicists did so much hard work to experimentally verify the reality of virtual particles as actual elements of reality, Steve tries their very hardest to ignore that evidence

What do you mean by 'verify he reality of virtual particles'? Be specific. Not just scientists worked hard. I am not questioning the work done by scientists I am questioning your understanding of the difference between a macro scale experiment and a theory.

You probably do not know who Carver Meade was . When asked whether an electron exists or not he said it does not matter. What I do know is I can do uswful things with the concept.

I doubt you have the experience to understand what I am saying.

I have Bilby om ignore for two reasons. He resorts to insults and ad homs. In the past I found he was arguing from science fiction on an issue.

You routinely argue from science disproven.

There are multiple posts here that strongly document the existence of virtual particles.

I would honestly prefer if you have bilby on ignore you put me on ignore too. At least then I wouldn't have to deal with the fact that you routinely drop into threads and spew bullshit all over them.

I expect you have them on ignore rather because you just don't want to contend with an even wider chorus of folks pointing out your routine use of arguments decades past their best-by date.

 

[steve_bank]

Sp,b ack to my question. You can run an expeimnt and you think something came from non existence. Can you prove it did?

Can't you even read?

The Casimir effect was predicted in 1948, and experimentally demonstrated in 1997

Oh, wait. You have me on ignore.

I suppose that's one effective way to maintain your ignorance; Simply ignore any evidence that doesn't match your prejudices. You would make an excellent religionist.

Doesn't have ME on ignore yet...

What I find silly is that after so many physicists did so much hard work to experimentally verify the reality of virtual particles as actual elements of reality, Steve tries their very hardest to ignore that evidence

What do you mean by 'verify he reality of virtual particles'? Be specific. Not just scientists worked hard. I am not questioning the work done by scientists I am questioning your understanding of the difference between a macro scale experiment and a theory.

You probably do not know who Carver Meade was . When asked whether an electron exists or not he said it does not matter. What I do know is I can do uswful things with the concept.

I doubt you have the experience to understand what I am saying.

I have Bilby om ignore for two reasons. He resorts to insults and ad homs. In the past I found he was arguing from science fiction on an issue.

You routinely argue from science disproven.

There are multiple posts here that strongly document the existence of virtual particles.

I would honestly prefer if you have bilby on ignore you put me on ignore too. At least then I wouldn't have to deal with the fact that you routinely drop into threads and spew bullshit all over them.

I expect you have them on ignore rather because you just don't want to contend with an even wider chorus of folks pointing out your routine use of arguments decades past their best-by date.

Again you dispaly your lack of undestanding by resorting to philosphial meamderings and ad homs.

I gace my respose including links to Casmir Effect and virtual partcles.

From the links the theories to explain the effect are not definite.

In practice I don't use tghe wrd theory, I use model. A model of reality may work well but it does not necessarily reflect reality as it is.

The term 'The map is not the countryside' applies.

You are like a theist defnding biblical interpretation.

The Casmir Effect does not experimentally prove something from ot to non existence. As I expained virtual partcles are a way to costruct a working tgerory, and I have no problem with that.

I categorically reject anything that violates conservation of mass, conservation of energy, and causality. If yuu abndon LOT than anything can be claimed, including gods.

From the link and a book I read on partcle physics to me it appears virtual partcles maintain a continuity through a Feynman Diagram.


There are other issues with a particle appearing from non existence with mass and energy, positive runaway feedback.

 

[Jarhyn]

Honestly steve, I don't give a rats ass what word you use. You use it in a way that doesn't comport with anything meaningful.

The fact is, you crow in your ignorance about many things.

Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?

Scientific American is the essential guide to the most awe-inspiring advances in science and technology, explaining how they change our understanding of the world and shape our lives.

www.scientificamerican.com

.

Google Lamb shift.

The fact is, @steve_bank , unlike you I actually accept that there's so much new stuff to learn that I actually do Google things occasionally.

I googled the Lamb shift.

I'm betting you didn't.

 

[steve_bank]

Everything in the end cones down to Laws Of Thermodynamics in one form of another. I learned that over time as I learned different psychs and engineering theory. The form of any theory is always the same, what is called a continuity equation. For any theory a continuity equation describes where the energy and mass goes in a system. The Casmir Effect experiment represents a system.

That it is called a virtual particle should be cause for some thought.

There was a time when I read Sci Amer every month. It became a pop science magazine. You are grasping at straws on the net.

As I have said I was a worker bee engineerr without any special distinction. That being said my path involved applying science on an ongoing basis.

You are using theist tactics. Something from non existence is analogous to the god of the gaps. A lot of people believe god exists so god does exist. People on the net say virtual particles are real therefore it must be true.

Does an electron exist as we imagine it? Search on Millikan Oil Drop Experiment. I used to have a copy of his book The Electron with all his data, set ups, and analysis. A good example of how models are developed.

You can try and cover up your lack of udestanding by quetioning mine, no sweat off my back. Not my problem.

 

[Jarhyn]

Everything in the end cones down to Laws Of Thermodynamics in one form of another. I learned that over time as I learned different psychs and engineering theory

No. it doesn't.

I picked Scientific American because the fact is, that's all I had confidence in you understanding.

The Lamb Shift, since you failed to Google the fucking thing, is about an energy level consistency problem that is solved dependently upon the position of a virtual particle.

There have been many experiments which demonstrate this and the numbers are available for you to check... You just don't.

You are a theist on thermodynamics.

Some people had a hard time stepping forward when Darwin published too.

 

[steve_bank]

Jaryb,

Given your posts especialy the ones on distribution of primes and control systems you really do not appear to have any scientifc or matematcal foundation.


Restating for clarity, any system which can be contained within a finite boundary must conform to LOT. That would include the Casmir experiment. Mass and energy within the system boundary can not appear from nothing without causality.

Thermodynamics breaks down when applied to cosmology.

Have you had a class or read books on thermodynamics? Or any science texts?

Photons go into existence at an LED and go out of existence when absorbed by a photo detector. That does not violate LOT.

Claiming virtual particles come from and go to non existence does violate LOT and as such I reject that interpretation. Virtual particles represented on a Feynman Diagram infer a causality. A genesis.

That a model with virtual particles works in a predictive way is not an issue. Virtual particles do not have to physically exist for the theory to work., There are other examples in other areas using virtual conditions. Do you grok?

 

[Jarhyn]

...any system which can be contained within a finite boundary must conform to LOT. That would include the Casmir experiment. Mass and energy within the system boundary can not appear from nothing without causality.

This is a statement YOU take on faith. It's no different from a repackaged version of Kalam.

It's sad you cannot see it, but there it is.

QM has been central to physics for a long time, and it routinely demonstrates that the "laws of thermodynamics" about energy being created and destroyed are wrong, as we understand them.

 

[steve_bank]

...any system which can be contained within a finite boundary must conform to LOT. That would include the Casmir experiment. Mass and energy within the system boundary can not appear from nothing without causality.

This is a statement YOU take on faith. It's no different from a repackaged version of Kalam.

It's sad you cannot see it, but there it is.

QM has been central to physics for a long time, and it routinely demonstrates that the "laws of thermodynamics" about energy being created and destroyed are wrong, as we understand them.

Okey Dokey.

As to QM I believe you are misinterpreting the theories. You are pobaly going by what people say on the net. Back in the 90s I took a night class in modern physics to come up speed on QM. I am welll aware of QM as applied to solid stae elctronics and other areas.

QM never violates causality. Probabilistic or stochastic systems do not violate causality.

In basic thermodynamics texts it is said LOT can never be proven as true, only that no exceptions have been demonstrated. You would know that if you actually read a text.

This is the text I used and it is a good overview. Llewelyn has some very good lectures on MIT's Open Course ware site and his own site, if he is still alive. Rather than net pages try e watching the vudeo classroom lectures on physics at MIT. They are free. I have used them in the past.

Amazon product ASIN 142925078X
The Casmir Effect experiment itself does not violate LOT. To the op the fact that virtual particles work in the model is not proof virtual particles pop into and out of existence from nothing. That is an interpretation of a theory.

There are many interpretaions of QM, none of which are demonstrable.

I worked at a company where the PCB layout guy had a degree in physics. He got a BS in physics and spent several years teaching at a perp school. He wandered around doing different non technical jobs. He joined the company before me and ended up as the PCB layout guy. He was always arguing theory and design with the engineers but was too lazy to learn the theory he needed. He wanted to be accepted as an engineering peer. In general he was just a pain in ass to everyone. Know anybody like that?

On the flip side in the 80s I worked with a guy who had degree in philosophy, then went to a two year tech school to get an associate degree in electronics so he could get a job.

 

[bilby]

He was always arguing theory and design with the [physicists] but was too lazy to learn the theory he needed. He wanted to be accepted as a [physics] peer. In general he was just a pain in ass to everyone. Know anybody like that?

I certainly know someone like that.

 

[atrib]

Energy is always proportional to a magnitude squared, as such energy is always positive.

E = m*c^2 rest mass energy
E = .5m*v^2 kinetic energy
E = 0.5 v*c^2 energy stored in a capacitor

Wrong. You forgot about gravitational potential. A rock of mass M located at an elevation H above some datum has potential energy (using AP101 terminology that you understand) that can be quantified as MgH. The energy is directly proportional to the mass and the height of the object, no squares involved. You also forgot about the strong and the weak nuclear force. You forgot about electromagnetism.

A photon has velocity (c) but no mass. According to your proclamation, photons have no energy, Do you feel embarrassed when you are shown to be wrong over and over?

So, negative energy is a demonstrated theory?

Yes. Electrons and positrons. Matter and anti-matter. Positive and Negative energy. A mass M located at a height (-H) below a datum has negative potential energy of -MgH. Negative fucking energy. Its negative relative to some datum. If you had Hawking's book you would know this. But you know steam tables and all about Wheatstone fucking Bridges, so you can't even be bothered to look up anything else.

Same question I always ask. How would you demonste something came from nothing? A simple question.

It happens all the fucking time. Bilby and others have provided information. Why are you so scared to actually do some reading?

Cosmology uses science and math which separates it from theology, however neither are provable.

Many aspects of modern cosmology are absolutely provable. General relativity, which is the backbone of modern cosmology, and the tool that is used to model the universe, has been demonstrated to be accurate in many experiments. You just don't know about the proof because you haven't bothered to read a book in 50 years since you took AP101.

Wait a minute observation does no match theory. Uhhh..dark matter, yea that's it. Has to be dark matter.

Another statement that exposes your ignorance. Dark matter is not speculation, we have demonstrated its existence in many, many experiments. Look up gravitational lensing. Look up general relativity and how GR is used to measure the mass of visible galaxies. Look up research where we use GR to demonstrate the existence of dark matter. We KNOW there is more dark matter in the universe than regular matter, because we have actually gone out an measured it. Why do you not know any of this? Because you stopped learning 50 years ago.

I have Bilby om ignore for two reasons. He resorts to insults and ad homs. In the past I found he was arguing from science fiction on an issue.

You have him on ignore because you don't want to learn about the things he talks about. Learning can be scary, especially when it threatens to blow up the models that have ossified in your brain, models that are two centuries old at this point.

I categorically reject anything that violates conservation of mass, conservation of energy, and causality. If yuu abndon LOT than anything can be claimed, including gods.

Something from nothing does NOT violate LOT. And, more importantly, the laws of thermodynamics do not describe the physics of the very early universe. Neither does classical or relativistic physics for that matter. You CANNOT describe the behavior of the early universe using steam tables, or the concepts used to create steam tables.

Everything in the end cones down to Laws Of Thermodynamics in one form of another.

No, it doesn't. It comes down to the wave function of the universe. And even if it did, you can still have something from nothing without violating the LOT. As I explained in my last post, that you conveniently ignored. You ignore everything that does not fit in with whatever hazy memory remains of your AP101 college physics class from 50 years ago.

You behave just like a flat-earther. You will not look at evidence even when it is served up on a platter. You simply continue to bleat on that the earth is flat.

 

[steve_bank]

Hand waving.

As this is phiosphy.

You are walking along and an object appears from nowher and hits you between tghe eyes.

1. Did it come from non existence with mass and velocity.
2. Did it came from abother dimension or reality.
3. Did it came form an ET specship usng a Star Tek kind of trasport system.

There is no experimentt that yiu can run to prove any of options.

A claim that a particle comes from non existence is not provable. Apparently virtual particles are part of one explanation of Casmir Effect, but there are other explanations.

Atomic partcles like electrons and nuclear radiation particles can be detected.

The macro scale Casmir Effect experiment in no way proves existence of particles from and to non existence.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

VPs do not come from nothing.there is an unstable energy field that exists that is the source of false vacuum energy.

This has been known for almost a century. Direc's attempts to expailn why electrons don't spontaneously dump their enegy to a uniform low state. Direc's Sea Of Electrons. Which failed as a theory. OK, a sea of energy then. Heisenberg hypothesized that such energy field would be unstable and could create virtual particles. Hendrick Casamir from basic principles worked out the details. And has been proven correct. Alan Guth has demonstrated inflation. Which starts with virtual particle smaller than a proton, weighing 45 kilograms. Science marches on.

 

[atrib]

Science marches on.

Yet we still have people claiming the virtual particles aren't real, the expansion of space isn't real, dark matter isn't real, modern cosmology/relativity is purely speculation, energy is always associated with the square of velocity and so on. Oh, and the earth is flat, and all you need to understand the universe is a steam table.

 

[steve_bank]

The expanding un9verse is real?

Well, at one time observation showed conclusively that the universe revolevd around te Erath.

The ie dea that any cosmology is absolutely true based on observation is abit absurd.

Conservation based on our ability to detect EM radiation. What does the universe look like if you are at the limit of our obervations?

Still have not seen any offer of an exerimnt that can prove something with mass and egy comes from non existence.

Or how virtual partcles are directly dtecd by ex[eriment.


Put two metal plates very close together, pull a vacuum, and how exactly do you detect the occurence of virtual partcles from nothing?

This is like debating with unscientific theists. Ignore the question and claim truth.

 

[lostone]

In any case, even if the vacuum does contain enough energy to create virtual particles, those particles are created from the energy of the vacuum, not from nothing.