Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Light Created from a Vacuum

page: 2
110
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


There is no such thing as a true vacuum. By definition, it's a quantum vacuum - the lowest quantum state of a system. Within the quantum vacuum, it's the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that allows virtual particles to pop in and out of existence.

Your semantics are out-dated.




posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Biigs
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


i think the piont is that there is not such thing as a true vaccuum

Actually there is, but only for an impossibly small period of time. The particles fluctuate in and out of it.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 

Well then they should use the term "quantum vacuum". I was literally correct.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I'm begining to think that space (what our universe expanded into) and the matter time and energy in it are two different things.

The matter and energys floating in a lake of quantum soup that enables the matter and energys to do what they do. We call a vaccuum empty but what we really mean is "empty of everything we currently know of", historic scientists described space as ether, perhaps they were closer than we thought after all.

If you blow a balloon up and put robots in to detect other robots, they would find the edges of the balloon as limits and only detect each other, they dont know or care their are air molecules enabling their space, the same way we dont know what the "stuff" is our expanding universe is expanding into.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


In modern physics, there is no difference between a "vacuum" and a "quantum vacuum." We're dealing with quantum mechanics. It's like saying "tuna fish."



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
I don't know how significant this part of the article is:

What happens during the experiment is that the "mirror" transfers some of its kinetic energy to virtual photons, which helps them to materialise. According to quantum mechanics, there are many different types of virtual particles in vacuum, as mentioned earlier. Göran Johansson, Associate Professor of Theoretical Physics, explains that the reason why photons appear in the experiment is that they lack mass.

"Relatively little energy is therefore required in order to excite them out of their virtual state. In principle, one could also create other particles from vacuum, such as electrons or protons, but that would require a lot more energy."


That seems as though the experimenters are putting energy into the vacuum, and depending on how much they put in, they could get any kind of particle to come out. Doesn't that mean that they aren't getting energy from nothing and the system is not an energy vacuum?

Please feel free to point out my obvious mistakes, as I know nothing about the sciences.



It's a vacuum, so by common definition nothing within: energy or matter. For their experiment they are not inputting energy into the vacuum, they are creating an object within the vacuum, similar to a space shuttle traveling through space... it all depends on how big a vacuum you are referring too. Where that object is, is no longer considered vacuum, so they simulate a mirror traveling at light speed that vibrates at a certain frequency with that energy controlled and accounted for... then poof! Their mirror reflects a virtual photon, in a pair. Currently the energy used to create their mirror is much more than the photon, but if we can find different more energy economical mirrors.... Poof of concept



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 

OK, ok. It's not a major issue. You seem to be something of a physics boffin. I like your posts. While we've got you here can you explain in simple terms Hawking's idea that the universe "popped into existence"...? It's somewhat related to this thread, in a way...

Edit: I mean, the idea that the universe "created itself".. I can't grasp it.

edit on 18-11-2011 by FOXMULDER147 because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-11-2011 by FOXMULDER147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147


The experiment is based on one of the most counterintuitive, yet, one of the most important principles in quantum mechanics: that vacuum is by no means empty nothingness. In fact, the vacuum is full of various particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence.

Then by definition it's not a vacuum. Next...


It depends on how you look at it. "The vacuum of space..." isn't a vacuum, there's planets in space! ...and lots of other stuff. But between that stuff, between all things within the universe cud say there's a vacuum right? At least with regards to our universal matter and energy... So, they are putting something in the vacuum and "catching" "stuff" out of the vacuum that they didn't put in. lol damn now I'm confusing myself.

I'm hoping they would have sufficient controls and variables accounted for, but basically what they have created is a mirror able to reflect things from another place out of phase with our universe... hmmm Fringey.

If we could somehow harvest out of phase energy in the future that would be mad cool, zero-point.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


I stopped following Hawking after A Brief History of Time (which was actually written the year I was born). His statement -- "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist." -- is confusing, because I'm not sure what the existence of the law of gravity has to do with universal self-creation. I do know, though, that Hawking is using the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as a basis for his belief. Heisenberg Uncertainty says that virtual particles can, and do, appear spontaneously in an otherwise empty space. As I've already mentioned, it's also the basis for what's described in this thread.

I think he's using a sort of reductio ad absurdum - virtual particles in the universe we observe appear spontaneously, so it must be possible that the universe, itself, appeared spontaneously.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 

Wonder if this relates to the theory that our world and all we know is a 3 dimensional projection from a two dimensional wall around our universe. Again it looks like we are living in a controlled created environment.

Could ghosts then be like the particles people waiting for the energy to become as real as we may be.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Absolutely the best theory ive heard about this is what all the ancients knew: that we all have spirit bodies, which exist in the "ether"; and this is where all matter is constantly teleporting to and from. By an inspiration of conscious intention, the giant etheric sea of potential existence (that we call the ether), can become manifest in the physical. This is where atoms are constantly flipping back and forth from when they seem to disappear. We in the physical are constantly being generated nanosecond by nanosecond by the ether / the source field / the spirit world. David Wilcock has a brand new new york times best selling book that I'm currently reading that explains this well, with something like 3000 different scientific experiments and studies cited. I highly recommend it, the book and his ideas will soon become mainstream science. He calls the ether the source field. The book is The Source Field Investigations.
edit on 11/18/11 by metalshredmetal because: Book
edit on 11/18/11 by metalshredmetal because: Nanosecond



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Amazing. Finally. I knew it.

S&F&




PS. Did you know prions are suspected of doing that appear-disappear act? ...Wonder where all those little tiny things go when they're not "here"?




posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
S&F!


Wouldn't it be safe to say, if these particles are created from nothing....

What about us humans?

I am amazed that no one has even mentioned this. Aren't humans, animals, insects and bacteria the same thing when broken down at the molecular level?



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 

I see. Still, he's talking about events that happened after the Planck era. I thought he was talking about true creation.

So "the universe created itself" isn't true, as the universe must already have been existing to have allowed the events he described to have happened.

Any definition of 'creatio ex nihilo' is always a Catch-22



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


Yep...the physical laws he is using to explain the existence of the universe were created with the universe and, so, can't be used to explain its existence.

Unless, of course, he is assuming the existence of a larger universe, with the exact same laws as ours, in which our universe formed as a result of those laws.

Personally, I prefer the theory that the universe "began" as an infinite quantum vacuum. Basically, this vacuum spontaneously collapsed, releasing a vast amount of energy, which then condensed to form matter...and the rest, as they say, is history. So, in that case, the universe is, and has always been, flat and infinite.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
It goes the way to consolidate even more the physics theory's of Nassim Haramein where as we are basically made of a spin of singularities (aka black holes) and that there is an infinite universe both outside and within all linked up together through theses singularities.

In other words, that would mean that stuff goes in and comes out of the "within" and into our more "observable" universe, including photons.



edit on 18-11-2011 by Alkolyk because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


If particles are continuously "fluctuating in and out of existence"

When they are not in existence, where are they?




posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
reply to post by Maxmars
 


If particles are continuously "fluctuating in and out of existence"

When they are not in existence, where are they?


Space and time are the foundational "materials" out from which imbalances are represented as particles or energy.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Ok, so while I have heard of this theory before, I have never delved into it to any great extent. Does this imply the existing of something like "sub-space" (i.e. an underlying structure to the fabric of the universe) that can be manipulated?

My mind is spinning with ideas on it, but none of them are valid until I have better understanding. Guess I should try to dig into some reading material.

I love it when experimental physicists take a theory (virtual) into technology (physical)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by tkwasny
 


See you on the other side.








new topics

top topics



 
110
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join