The Infinite Spongy Universe and my ATS disclaimer

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


"No. That's the whole point of the Uncertainty Principle...not only don't we know, but we can't know."

ok but can you not assume that like everything else that exists and happens,, there is a cause? doesnt it have to "come" from somewhere,, or be started/caused from "something" else? like everything else is caused by a mechanism and reaction,.., what i meant with the question ( i think) is what do you and scientests think is the cause of this phenomena,, what do you think causes it,, where do you think it comes from? can it be from massive objects far away rippling through space,, along with the expansion of the universe brining these quantum reactions via spacial expansion quickly into our view of measurement from seemingly nowhere?
If you had to make your best guess,, what physical idea of the universe causes quantum fluctuations?


"ETA: I'll respond to your other post when I have the time to read and understand it."

no prob,, it may not make sense,,, i wrote it late last night,,..,




posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


this may not help at all,,, but i tried to edit my post,.,



but if all the quantum particles start as "of the same stuff",. if the contents of the universe started together and complexity arose from the similarity of pre singularity,.,..


and the only thing "in time" which changed the particles and their potentials,,,,

was quantites/clumps/groupings of energy separating causing

the seen multiple effects of energy when there is "space" between it self.,,.beginning at high speeds and far volumes,,

then it is almost gurrenteed that if this calculation must occur somewhere and somewhen with the tiniest constituents,, ( if energy can interact with itself,,., it is gurrenteed when the variable of distance or space is added to the pre big bang universe,.,.,. the energy will have reactions with it self depending on ( the things we see in laws of physics) distance,, speed,, mass of clumping,, spin.,., if these things are physically reacting,, these are the physical descriptions that would describe and detail the potentials of their interactions ,.,,,.

as they interact ( im guessing this is why math works, vectors and all that to the Planck scale) through time, governed by complex, but expected for the severity of the situation of universe,, measurable,, definable, and consistent rules, possibilities, and probabilities, and laws,..,.

what im trying to say is cant you expect from what happened in the universe,, something able to be measured by math,,, if it came from the same "thing" ( source) and the only variable that was added was space? or the beginning of momentum? if what that added variable did to the universe was make it ,what we now observe of it,,.. can we imagine what would happen if a similar scenario of "universal energy" was separated expandedly and in a split second.,. can we imagine that it would react and be plot able its reactions,.,, what im asking is an unintelligible,, order less,, lawless universe possible? assumedly, and predictingly,,and intuitively,, would it be something more likely or probable in your mind? or like i guess i was trying to say,,, would an ordered universe always come about given those pre conditions and the nature of the major concentration of energy that turned to material?

,., what i was kind of thinking was wondering if it would be impossible for that beginning seperation to occur,,and for what most pure and primal energy is,, its laws and conditions and potentials and functions,, sprout into a display of " what is known as energy/matter" that is not mathematical and orderly? what would then happen to the energy if "a beginning" "unleashed" "what the universe/energy/matter is" and it was not measurable mathematically,, if it "did not form?" anything that resembles something of resemblance? that it can still be something,, a calculation of "something" in a "somewhere" how can that activity not be "something"?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I reserve the right to go back to page three and reply to the posts since then when I get back in the game! In fact I can't wait, but keep it going because when I work on my model I can put in as many hours as needed to get caught up after this temporary project.
edit on 7-9-2012 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


That's a very good question. I'm not sure.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


The origin of electric charge is unknown.
What's particularly interesting is that 3 quarks are held together by gluons to form a proton, whereas an electron is a fundamental particle not composed of anything smaller, and yet the magnitude of the electric charge of those 3 quarks in the proton just happen to add up to the exact same electric charge that the electron has. That's a neat coincidence.


reply to post by ImaFungi
 


There is a cause...the Uncertainty Principle. It's the Uncertainty Principle that causes these split-second particle-antiparticle pairs to exist, and it's the Uncertainty Principle that says they then have to annihilate each other immediately after they pop into existence.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


"There is a cause...the Uncertainty Principle. "


the uncertainty principle,, to the worst of my knowledge is not a description of the cause of quantum fluctuations or particles popping into existence,, it is an admittance we cant or dont know the true cause of them,, but know that it happens?

im wondering the physical mechanism that causes the particles to pop into existence,, and where those particles that popped into existence came from?

whereas answering with the uncertainty principle,.,. is saying,, we know that we dont and cant know?
edit on 7-9-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


but im asking,,.,.. even if we dont know,,,, that still has nothing to do with,, whether or not there is a physical cause to the effect of particles popping into existence,.,. there is a reason it happens,..,,.

not a reason like meaning,,, but a reason like cause and effect,,.,. dont all things have reasons for happening,, and isnt that the laws of physics?
edit on 7-9-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


"What's particularly interesting is that 3 quarks are held together by gluons to form a proton, whereas an electron is a fundamental particle not composed of anything smaller, and yet the magnitude of the electric charge of those 3 quarks in the proton just happen to add up to the exact same electric charge that the electron has. That's a neat coincidence. "

why do you think that is? in order for an atom to form,, the nucleus had to have enough energy to counteract the electron surrounding it,, to keep it in check? and so checks and balances, and opposite and equal force,,, stuff happened?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

the uncertainty principle,, to the worst of my knowledge is not a description of the cause of quantum fluctuations or particles popping into existence,, it is an admittance we cant or dont know the true cause of them,, but know that it happens?


The Uncertainty Principle is much more fundamental than that. It's a direct result of the fact that quantum events are waveforms, which are, by their very nature, impossible to measure (either in terms of momentum or position...increasing the accuracy of one decreases the accuracy of the other). The fact that it limits our observational ability is only a symptom...Uncertainty is very much a fundamental limitation.



im wondering the physical mechanism that causes the particles to pop into existence,, and where those particles that popped into existence came from?


Uncertainty is the mechanism.



whereas answering with the uncertainty principle,.,. is saying,, we know that we dont and cant know?


We do know...Uncertainty is the cause (the fact that you don't think it's the cause is only a misunderstanding on your part of what Uncertainty entails).



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

why do you think that is? in order for an atom to form,, the nucleus had to have enough energy to counteract the electron surrounding it,, to keep it in check? and so checks and balances, and opposite and equal force,,, stuff happened?


There is the view that, had it not been the case that protons and electrons promote atom formation, then atoms would never have formed and people wouldn't exist to see that it didn't happen. Therefore, the fact that it did happen and we are here to see it is nothing special. This view also generally requires multiple universes.

And there's also the view that there is one universe created perfect for the formation of life by a Creator. Personally, being a minister of that Creator, I'm all for this view.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Your question seems to be whether or not an orderly universe could form without laws (at least, that's what I get from second half of your post...the first half, I'm still not too sure about, admittedly). The answer to that question would be no. Nothing forms without laws to govern formation.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Oh geez, I hate to be out of it right now. I'm suffering super jet lag right now and so before I forget to do it later, here is a post from another thread as a thought starter:

[QUOTE=stephentuck25;167685]Something that I have said many times is that the boundaries of the Electromagnetic Spectrum are Planck Mass and Planck Length. However, I have never mathematically connected Planck Mass and Planck Length to wavelength and frequency. That is soon to change because I have figured it out from the mathematical definition of a parameter that is linked to mass. It was very surprising for me to see how to connect an object's mass to length through the Gravitational Constant. I will post this work very soon![/QUOTE]Hi Stephen; I'm with you on that but ... unless you define a quantum in terms of mechanics that I can understand and visualize, your new equation will not help this deluded one, lol. You might or might not agree, but if matter is composed of energy in quantum increments, then a quantum is the smallest meaningful increment of energy in a particle.

So I define it in my model as the wave energy in the intersection and overlap of two converging quantum waves; simple as:



This is the equation for a quantum in my model:



This is simply three dimenstional geometry where two spherical waves expand into each other's space and as such, they intersect and overlap. The overlap is called a lens shape composed of two spherical caps. Look it up in Wolfram. The equation is the total energy in the overlap of two parent quanta, and when the equation equals 1, you have a quantum in the overlap. Reply if your equation is compatible with mine, lol.

Edit: I noticed that the equation image got cut off:
i399.photobucket.com...
edit on 7-9-2012 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


"The Uncertainty Principle is much more fundamental than that. It's a direct result of the fact that quantum events are waveforms, which are, by their very nature, impossible to measure (either in terms of momentum or position...increasing the accuracy of one decreases the accuracy of the other). The fact that it limits our observational ability is only a symptom...Uncertainty is very much a fundamental limitation. "


quantum events are waveforms because they activity occurs while moving through time and space... they are waveforms as opposed to? particles? ,..,,. which this is a thought I had that particles dont actually exist,, but particles are only when a wave can no longer wave when its energy interacts with something else the calculation needs to be tidy and calculated,, and so mathematically there will be a percentage of energy transfer,, and since that wave stopped its prior function to interaction in the interaction,, it can momentarily be viewed as a snap shot of the greater wave function,, which is a particle,.,.,.., like the difference between viewing a movie ( wave function) a one frame of the movie ( particle) ,,,. i believe movies are like 24 frames per second or something like that,,, which would be the universe of cinemas planck scale or something?

so fundamentally do you think there is a non human way to observe the objective universe more accurately to how it actually is? like what does the quantum wave woven world look like? or is the answer,, reality?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


"We do know...Uncertainty is the cause (the fact that you don't think it's the cause is only a misunderstanding on your part of what Uncertainty entails). "

ok,, is it possible to briefly and simply summarize.,., how uncertainty causes particles to pop into existence?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


"There is the view that, had it not been the case that protons and electrons promote atom formation, then atoms would never have formed and people wouldn't exist to see that it didn't happen. Therefore, the fact that it did happen and we are here to see it is nothing special. This view also generally requires multiple universes. "

ok I comprehend that,.,.,.,. what do you think would happen to the energy, or quantum worlds of those universe that did not form atoms and life? would they still flow and exist until the energy was used up? what would happen to that energy then? and would that (relatively) failure of a cosmic event pave the way for a new attempt ?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


"Your question seems to be whether or not an orderly universe could form without laws (at least, that's what I get from second half of your post...the first half, I'm still not too sure about, admittedly). The answer to that question would be no. Nothing forms without laws to govern formation."

ok... my question was more along the lines of.,,.,. wouldn't an orderly universe,, or any universe,, have measurable consistencies given that it is from the same source and original of the same essence,. and there is only a few variables added to begin the activity of universing,, so even if atoms didnt form,, and it was chaotic,,. wouldnt objectively it still be organized,, and patterns would still emerge,, there would still be themes, potentials, and probabilities,.,.

the answer no to that,, im think would entail,.,. that a single universe beginning of the same essence of energy,,adding time and space,.,.,. can create a universe with infinitely different parts,, completely unorganized and chaotic ( my problem is not comprehending what that would entail,, what would be an example ) ,,,. and if the laws did arise naturally because of the physical conditions of the situation of reality at that time and onward.,., in an infinitely chaotic and unorderly universe,, wouldnt the interactions between parts eventually "sort itself out" in someway? wouldnt it eventually move towards some path of "most likely" and "probable",.,. hence,,, wouldnt laws form,,, and order then be witnessed ?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Will do. As simple as it gets:

Uncertainty says that the uncertainty in a particle's energy (ΔE) multiplied by the uncertainty in its duration of existence (Δt) must always be greater than half the reduced Planck constant.

The fact that there must be uncertainty in the duration of a particle's existence means that a particle can exist for just enough time to fall within that uncertainty. For example, let's say a particle has a time uncertainty of 1 second. If the particle exists for just half a second, then it exists within its own margin of error. The particle can rightly say that it never existed at all, since the uncertainty was greater than the time it actually existed.

This is what allows particle-antiparticle pairs to pop into existence for extremely short periods of time (on the order of Planck time).

Just to be safe, let's look at it another way. Let's say you have a stuffed toy elephant that measures 8 inches long. Now, let's say that what you're using to measure it has an error of +/- 10 inches. Since the margin of error is greater than the size of the elephant, you can't say that it has any length at all, because you can't actually measure it.
It's the same with this, except in terms of time. The margin of error caused by the fact that quantum particles are waves with inherent uncertainty is greater than the time that they exist for. Therefore, it's impossible to say that they truly exist.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Honestly, I'd like for you to think about it on your own...if you don't mind. What you're asking is so abstract that it's useless for me to think about it when I'm not the one wondering about it. You can legitimately imagine pretty much anything you want to in this case.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi


ok... my question was more along the lines of.,,.,. wouldn't an orderly universe,, or any universe,, have measurable consistencies given that it is from the same source and original of the same essence,. and there is only a few variables added to begin the activity of universing,, so even if atoms didnt form,, and it was chaotic,,. wouldnt objectively it still be organized,, and patterns would still emerge,, there would still be themes, potentials, and probabilities


I'm sure there would be, yes.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


"Therefore, it's impossible to say that they truly exist."


if they are measured/observed in reality at all popping into existence,,, why/how is there any uncertainty as to whether they exist or not? they were observed and measured they exist.,., what you are talking about has to do with deducing whats going on in an event and what ought to exist,., so for non observations,, but models or representations,, when plotting particles., and making equations and plugging numbers,,, there is a standard deviation as to whether or not the equation will call for a specific particle or if it one of a different energy level or momentum,.,. is this in a way what your talking about?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by CLPrime
 


"Therefore, it's impossible to say that they truly exist."


if they are measured/observed in reality at all popping into existence,,,


That's the thing...they're not measured or observed. They were only theoretical for quite a while, until we figured out how to do some fancy physics footwork to separate these particle-antiparticle pairs so that they don't annihilate each other. Only then, when we force them to become real particles, can they be measured.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum