The intrinsic necessity of quantum mechanics

a reply to: Protector

1. It may be an axiomatically incorrect assumption to assume "nothing" exists. In the beginning, there may have been "everything" and then we added the space in between. This gets rid of the idea of "creation from nothing" (ex nihilo)

This to me sounds just as bad as the classic big bang theory; you cannot start with a bunch of energy and then refuse to explain how it was created by saying "it was just always there" or something, you need a more scientific answer. And as pure logic goes, it makes more sense to start with nothing rather than something. The trick is to explain how something can come from nothing, once again I refer you to the idea of negative energy and a zero energy universe.

5. Randomness is not a good explanation. If I state, "Random events occur. Anything can happen as a result of random events. The universe is therefore possible."... I really don't think I've explained ANYTHING. You then have to prove everything else. Prove that randomness is both random and that it occurs.

Randomness is the only good explanation and the randomness of QM has been verified as true randomness according to the Bell theorem and that randomness has been proven to manifest its self in many real ways, such as random vacuum fluctuations and random particle decay. We live in a universe where it's possible to generate true random numbers using quantum RNG's. If you're trying to push a deterministic view of reality let me tell you right now we're never going to see eye to eye on this.

Nothingness and randomness are in direct opposition to knowledge. When quantum physicists explain the universe by randomness out of nothingness, they have chosen their religion.

I couldn't disagree more, there's nothing religious about it because no intelligent creators are involved, it's a purely natural process which obeys specific laws. Also your distaste for true randomness doesn't make it unscientific, there are no hidden variables, the randomness is inherit to nature and the majority of physicists agree on that. I really don't want to get into this debate though because trust me I've had it many times before. If you want to believe your entire future was determined since the start of time go for it, but from my perspective that is unscientific:

Existential Musings - Part 1: Determinism & Free Will

We always implicitly assume the freedom of the experimentalist... This fundamental assumption is essential to doing science. If this were not true, then, I suggest, it would make no sense at all to ask nature questions in an experiment, since then nature could determine what our questions are, and that could guide our questions such that we arrive at a false picture of nature.

~ Anton Zeilinger

a reply to: glend

Without the big bang, what then?

Then we start getting to the really interesting stuff like a universe with infinite space-time. There's no conclusive evidence the universe actually started from a singularity, in fact it's very hard to explain why the distribution of matter in our universe is so isotropic and homogeneous if it came from a single point, that is why we need theories like inflation to explain how it could happen. However it's also very possible that an infinite amount of energy was released throughout an infinite vacuum due to some sort of shift in the state of the vacuum, causing it to release a great deal of energy, presumably an equal amount of positive and negative energy. That energy would then condense and pull together to form the sort of structure we observe in the universe today.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Excellent.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

1. It may be an axiomatically incorrect assumption to assume "nothing" exists. ...

This to me sounds just as bad as the classic big bang theory; you cannot start with a bunch of energy and then refuse to explain how it was created by saying "it was just always there" or something, you need a more scientific answer. And as pure logic goes, it makes more sense to start with nothing rather than something. The trick is to explain how something can come from nothing, once again I refer you to the idea of negative energy and a zero energy universe.

Oh, I agree. It is almost as bad. But you technically break it into two separate problems. In both, you have to explain redistribution of matter and energy. However, in my approach, the creation of matter/energy doesn't have to occur at the same moment as expansion. In my mind, it could just as easily be a fallacy to assume emptiness is the default state of the early universe. You are right that it avoids explaining where the matter and energy came from, but quite honestly, it could come from anywhere, separately. Matter and energy could have been deposited into our universe, or created via a totally separate process. A chicken egg doesn't grow into a chicken until being fertilized. But fertilization was not the source of most of the material in the egg. See why my approach isolates "development" from "material"? And to be clear, it's fine if I'm wrong. But why is my approach ignored when it simply requires asking "where does space (only) come from?" Physicist often suffer from the desire to explain EVERYTHING when just explaining ONE THING would be a great achievement.

5. Randomness is not a good explanation. ...

Randomness is the only good explanation and the randomness of QM has been verified as true randomness according to the Bell theorem and that randomness has been proven to manifest its self in many real ways, such as random vacuum fluctuations and random particle decay. We live in a universe where it's possible to generate true random numbers using quantum RNG's. If you're trying to push a deterministic view of reality let me tell you right now we're never going to see eye to eye on this.

Technically, vacuum fluctuations could either be truly random, or "not explained". Quantum spacetime theory (unproven) explains that all of the particles that pop in and out of the vacuum aren't popping in and out of existence, but rather in and out of the view of our detectors. This doesn't disprove randomness, but this would disprove the randomness of vacuum fluctuations. I also submit to you that we cannot figure out how randomness occurs in a quantum system; but, does that mean we don't understand the quantum system, or that QM randomness can never be explained--ever? I believe it is too early to make a judgement. You may disagree.

In the first 2-3 minutes, the presenter shows how seemingly random information is not so random:

Nothingness and randomness are in direct opposition to knowledge. ...

I couldn't disagree more, there's nothing religious about it because no intelligent creators are involved, it's a purely natural process which obeys specific laws. Also your distaste for true randomness doesn't make it unscientific, there are no hidden variables, the randomness is inherit to nature and the majority of physicists agree on that. I really don't want to get into this debate though because trust me I've had it many times before. If you want to believe your entire future was determined since the start of time go for it, but from my perspective that is unscientific

Religion (noun) - the service and worship of God or the supernatural
- commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
- a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
- a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

A religion doesn't require a creator, and doesn't even require a god, although religions normally have them. It embodies a set of institutionalized beliefs, held together by faith in the absence of proof. If a person told you that they saw an angel, you'd want proof, or you wouldn't believe them. I think the same of "random events explain the creation of the universe". Random vacuum fluctuations giving birth to the universe is your angel. You believe it exists, but you can't recreate it on demand. You probably believe that proof of these fluctuations will present itself either before or after you die (just like religious people). You believe that proof of this will quickly change peoples' minds, just like Jesus or Mohammed riding down from the clouds. You see, the problem with scientists is that nearly all of them have religion, but refuse to call it that. There is nothing wrong with scientists having religion, unless it prevents them from being a scientist (that'd be rather counter-productive). But if someone calls you out for your beliefs, you should honor yourself by owning up to it.

In the first 3 minute, Penn tells a story about Christopher Hitchens and religion:


And I don't assume that all of life is pre-determined. But I do believe there is less choice in a finite universe than an infinite number of possible outcomes. So, freedom with constraints. You stated, "there are no hidden variables". But you and I both know that there MAY BE hidden variables. We may not have the whole picture. What hubris scientists have today when they think that they have all of the knowledge of the universe at their finger tips and they merely need to sort through it. Perhaps our civilization is in the under-experienced, over-zealous teenage phase of development.

a reply to: Protector

And to be clear, it's fine if I'm wrong. But why is my approach ignored when it simply requires asking "where does space (only) come from?"

How is that approach ignored, the classic big bang theory postulates that all of space-time was created along with all the energy. What is often ignored is the alternative where space-time existed before the energy of our universe was created.

Technically, vacuum fluctuations could either be truly random, or "not explained". Quantum spacetime theory (unproven) explains that all of the particles that pop in and out of the vacuum aren't popping in and out of existence, but rather in and out of the view of our detectors.

The prevailing theory is that virtual particles pop into and out of existence, they're only allowed to exist for a very small period of time so they don't break the uncertainty principle. The Casimir Effect and the precision of Quantum Electrodynamics (which relies heavily on the existence of virtual particles) make it clear that vacuum fluctuations are real.

I also submit to you that we cannot figure out how randomness occurs in a quantum system; but, does that mean we don't understand the quantum system, or that QM randomness can never be explained--ever? I believe it is too early to make a judgement. You may disagree.

Indeed, we cannot figure out how it occurs, because there is no deterministic process causing the illusion of apparent randomness, it's true randomness where events can occur without a preceding cause. Experiments which test Bell's Theorem prove there is no possible classical system which can reproduce the results of QM, in the words of Susskind "it cannot be the statistical theory of some complicated, chaotic, jumbled, classical system."


However Susskind does also note there is one possible way for the results of QM to be reproduced in a deterministic fashion; a superluminal processing system where every particle is connected to every other particle and they can all send instantaneous signals to each other, but at that point you're not in the realm of classical physics anymore and you are forced to believe some really weird things.

Random vacuum fluctuations giving birth to the universe is your angel. You believe it exists, but you can't recreate it on demand. You probably believe that proof of these fluctuations will present itself either before or after you die (just like religious people).

I don't necessarily think random vacuum fluctuations have anything to do with the birth of our universe, like I said earlier it could have been some sort of phase transition on the state of the vacuum causing it to release a vast amount of energy, although I don't doubt there were many random aspects to it. And as I mentioned earlier, there is a lot of proof vacuum fluctuations exist, scientists are even able to produce random numbers based on measurements of the fluctuations:

This website offers true random numbers to anyone on the internet. The random numbers are generated in real-time in our lab by measuring the quantum fluctuations of the vacuum. The vacuum is described very differently in the quantum mechanical context than in the classical context. Traditionally, a vacuum is considered as a space that is empty of matter or photons. Quantum mechanically, however, that same space resembles a sea of virtual particles appearing and disappearing all the time. This result is due to the fact that the vacuum still possesses a zero-point energy. Consequently, the electromagnetic field of the vacuum exhibits random fluctuations in phase and amplitude at all frequencies. By carefully measuring these fluctuations, we are able to generate ultra-high bandwidth random numbers.

ANU Quantum Random Numbers Server

You stated, "there are no hidden variables". But you and I both know that there MAY BE hidden variables.

What I should have said is "there are no local hidden variable theories which work". If you want to believe in quantum mechanical superdeterminism then I'm not going to stop you, but I think it's important for you to take your own advice and learn to accept what the evidence is suggesting rather than have a bias for what makes you feel warm on the inside.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

The prevailing theory is that virtual particles pop into and out of existence, they're only allowed to exist for a very small period of time so they don't break the uncertainty principle. The Casimir Effect and the precision of Quantum Electrodynamics (which relies heavily on the existence of virtual particles) make it clear that vacuum fluctuations are real.

I don't believe I ever said they weren't real. I said they may have a non-random cause, specifically, particles moving from higher to lower physical dimensions, then back. That is, we can't detect them outside of 3 dimensions, but they're still there, out of view of our detectors.

Experiments which test Bell's Theorem prove there is no possible classical system which can reproduce the results of QM, in the words of Susskind "it cannot be the statistical theory of some complicated, chaotic, jumbled, classical system."

I agree, but a new, non-classical system might explain it, such as quantum spacetime theory. That is why I included the video that gave an instance of seemly random data which had a "cause".

I don't necessarily think random vacuum fluctuations have anything to do with the birth of our universe, like I said earlier it could have been some sort of phase transition on the state of the vacuum causing it to release a vast amount of energy, although I don't doubt there were many random aspects to it.

But you did quote Krauss, stating that the universe arose from nothing as a result of randomness, in your original post. To me, that's like saying that emptiness/nothingness spontaneously turns itself into our space-time vacuum where "somethingness" randomly ejected itself out of this "vacuum". But that's like saying 0 = 1. I think a better stated argument (by Krauss) would be that, "the vacuum came into existence by some unknown means, and our universe may have sprouted, via an unknown process or event, from that vacuum, where random probability allows this vacuum to generate our universe." As you know, the vacuum is teaming with activity. To me, at least, it seems disingenuous to tell people that our vacuum is the equivalent of "nothing". And frankly, it's a lie.

I think an over-simplification would be to call our vacuum a "growth medium", but it is. It allows for space, time, matter, energy. And, to be a bit self-serving, Krauss is arguing my argument, that "in the beginning, there was everything." Because a full-functioning vacuum with the ability to generate everything in the universe is the ultimately Miracle-Gro. (aside: I apologize if this is a cringe-worthy analogy.)

What I should have said is "there are no local hidden variable theories which work". If you want to believe in quantum mechanical superdeterminism then I'm not going to stop you, but I think it's important for you to take your own advice and learn to accept what the evidence is suggesting rather than have a bias for what makes you feel warm on the inside.

Are you saying I shouldn't feel warm inside? That seems kinda mean. _puts on fuzzy slippers_

Yes, this is where Bell's theorem comes in with regard to potential hidden variables (or lack thereof) with entangled photons. And again, I don't necessarily support determinism, nor superdeterminism, but it is an unfortunate possibility (meaning there is no free will within our universe).

My position is that we may not be at "that juncture", where it is either superdeterminism or absolute randomness. We may find that QM, in our current understanding, is actually part of a larger system that better describes the movement of particles, which we currently attribute to randomness. That's all. I reject the notion that we MUST immediately answer the question, "Does God play dice?"

And as a mild criticism from advanced mathematics and computer science, it is incorrect to state that "having a known cause" implies determinism. Stephen Wolfram did research into cellular automata where, given certain simple starting conditions, mathematical chaos arose in the system. You can also generate fractal, infinitely repeating patterns from simple starting conditions. In computer science, The Halting Problem was proven to be undecidable via a fairly simple proof. So, there might be a middle ground, where things that have known causes quickly become incalculable complex... but interestingly enough, they are repeatable.

Sorry if this is getting long winded, but I have a "physics reputation" questions for you. Leonard Susskind is a great mathematician. I don't deny this at all. But, it seems like all of his physics theories will go untested in his lifetime. Which means some or all of his theories could prove to be false. It makes me curious as to how such a person should be perceived within the physics community. Why is it so popular, in the modern age, to become popular for untestable work, specifically during one's lifetime? I know that it is unpopular to present completely untestable physics. And I'm not saying that Susskind set out to create untestable theories. But isn't it dangerous to elevate someone who hasn't had to prove the physical worthiness of their ideas? For some reason, it bothers me.

a reply to: Protector

But you did quote Krauss, stating that the universe arose from nothing as a result of randomness, in your original post. To me, that's like saying that emptiness/nothingness spontaneously turns itself into our space-time vacuum where "somethingness" randomly ejected itself out of this "vacuum". But that's like saying 0 = 1. I think a better stated argument (by Krauss) would be that, "the vacuum came into existence by some unknown means, and our universe may have sprouted, via an unknown process or event, from that vacuum, where random probability allows this vacuum to generate our universe." As you know, the vacuum is teaming with activity. To me, at least, it seems disingenuous to tell people that our vacuum is the equivalent of "nothing". And frankly, it's a lie.

I don't necessarily agree with every single view Krauss has just because I like him. Kruass would probably argue something along the lines of what you said, or more likely, he'd say our big bang was the result of some random fluctuation, and it created space-time along with it, then inflation did it's thing, but as you've probably guessed I'm not a big fan of inflation and I prefer a model which has the universe starting with an even distribution of energy rather than requiring an ad-hoc theory to explain it. Saying energy can spontaneously come from the vacuum is not the same as saying 0=1, because if an equal amount of positive energy and negative energy are created, then it's equivalent to -1+1=0, it seems pretty clear a zero-energy universe is the best solution.

Also I find your argument about the vacuum not being nothing to be faulty and used far too often as if it were a solid argument... I would indeed argue that an empty vacuum is equivalent to nothingness, just because random fluctuations are occurring in that vacuum doesn't invalidate that point, all it means is that something is constantly trying to fill in the nothingness because absolute nothingness is not stable, the laws of QM demand that something random will eventually happen in the midst of complete nothingness, which is the underlying point I'm trying to make in this thread, true quantum randomness is intrinsically necessary in order for anything at all to exist.

I agree, but a new, non-classical system might explain it, such as quantum spacetime theory. That is why I included the video that gave an instance of seemly random data which had a "cause".

What is "quantum spacetime theory"? If you're talking about theories of quantized space-time such as loop quantum gravity then I don't see how that changes anything, it's still not a deterministic view of reality, nor would any theory of quantum space-time be deterministic. There is one other thing which could mean reality is deterministic in some sense, and that is the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Instead of your choices being predetermined, you make every possible choice and they all split into a different time line. Some how that strikes me as even more distasteful than normal determinism but I'll admit it could be the right interpretation of QM.

My position is that we may not be at "that juncture", where it is either superdeterminism or absolute randomness. We may find that QM, in our current understanding, is actually part of a larger system that better describes the movement of particles, which we currently attribute to randomness.

I don't think you quite understand the implication of Bell's Theorem, there is no "larger system" which can possibly describe the randomness of QM in a classical fashion. We are at the position where we have either superdeterminism, true randomness, or a many worlds solution.

So, there might be a middle ground, where things that have known causes quickly become incalculable complex... but interestingly enough, they are repeatable.

There is a difference between highly complex and non-computable. There is no possible complex system which can explain QM randomness, and if it's a non-computable process then it doesn't need to be classical or deterministic.

Leonard Susskind is a great mathematician. I don't deny this at all. But, it seems like all of his physics theories will go untested in his lifetime. Which means some or all of his theories could prove to be false. It makes me curious as to how such a person should be perceived within the physics community. Why is it so popular, in the modern age, to become popular for untestable work, specifically during one's lifetime?

He has contributed a lot to science in many different areas, from cosmology to quantum mechanics, he helped advance our understanding of black holes and the information paradox, he's one of the fathers of string theory, not to mention he's an excellent teacher. He is a giant in the realm of physics whether you can see that or not. True, string theory is not easy to verify and may never be, and I personally don't really buy into it, but it has still helped advanced many different aspects of science and there are many strong theoretical reasons to believe it could be true, or at least part of the solution:

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Saying energy can spontaneously come from the vacuum is not the same as saying 0=1, because if an equal amount of positive energy and negative energy are created, then it's equivalent to -1+1=0, it seems pretty clear a zero-energy universe is the best solution.
...
Also I find your argument about the vacuum not being nothing to be faulty and used far too often as if it were a solid argument... I would indeed argue that an empty vacuum is equivalent to nothingness, just because random fluctuations are occurring in that vacuum doesn't invalidate that point...

Regarding -1 + 1 = 0, I see what you're saying. But I still find a fundamental flaw with it. If you assume that the vacuum is full of an equal amount of negative and positive energy, you're still assuming that "something" is there. I don't consider "equilibrium" to be the same as "nothing". In chemistry, equilibrium is a specific, active state of a solution filled with reactants and products. To extend this definition to "vacuum emptiness" is like saying that an empty beaker can be in equilibrium. Fine. Let's do that. In order for that to be true, the containing "beaker" has to be in equilibrium with what's outside of the beaker (assuming the beaker is open). Great! Now... what's outside of the vacuum/beaker for it to be in equilibrium with?

Or, if you prefer, the vacuum/beaker can be a closed system. In that case, what's sealing off this closed system from "whatever else is outside"?

I'm kind-of obsessed with the idea of containers, so bear with me. We only know of 2 significant types of "containment". You can wrap an object with an outer layer (of limited permeability/strength/density), or you can have "force" hold something together, like gravity holds the particles of a star or planet together. Or, in simple terms, you can hold everything in from the outside, or compress/suck everything in from the inside (whatever mechanism causes gravity to work).

Any way you look at it, in my eyes, you're describing a system where something outside of the vacuum is reacting with the vacuum. And just like a chemical system, which is an active system, fluctuations are constantly occurring.

all it means is that something is constantly trying to fill in the nothingness because absolute nothingness is not stable, the laws of QM demand that something random will eventually happen in the midst of complete nothingness, which is the underlying point I'm trying to make in this thread, true quantum randomness is intrinsically necessary in order for anything at all to exist.

I am intrigued by your statement that, "something is constantly trying to fill in the nothingness because absolute nothingness is not stable." That's a great thought! And as awesome as it is to think about, and to be reminded of "The Neverending Story" (great movie), you're only changing around my argument. We went from, "the vacuum is the source of quantum fluctuations, but isn't the same as nothingness" (my argument) to "let's assume the vacuum is nothingness. And there is this other thing that causes quantum fluctuations to act inside the vacuum" (your argument). So the difference between our two arguments is that I see the vacuum as a container with vacuum fluctuations, and you see it as "not a container, but nothingness", where this other thing, "quantum fluctuations", somehow can't resist acting on the "nothing"/vacuum.

If multiple universes exist (not the Many-worlds interpretation):
My approach: Our vacuum is a container and that container may sit next to other containers which hold other universes.
Your approach: Our vacuum is nothing, but other big bangs may occur in other parts of the vacuum, thus other universes would share the same vacuum.

Yeah, I guess either of those could still allow for multiple universes.

I still feel like your quantum fluctuations/randomness needs an origin story, separate from the vacuum. If your vacuum is true nothingness, then you can say that the vacuum doesn't need an origin because it is just the default emptiness that "eternally is". But as soon as something else appears, that new thing needs an origin, which the existing "vacuum nothingness" doesn't really explain.

In my interpretation, our vacuum is just a beaker where particle interactions are constantly happening. Our vacuum is contained as our isolated system, and what's inside of it can be in equilibrium, whether with itself or something outside.

There is one other thing which could mean reality is deterministic in some sense, and that is the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Instead of your choices being predetermined, you make every possible choice and they all split into a different time line. Some how that strikes me as even more distasteful than normal determinism but I'll admit it could be the right interpretation of QM.

I find the Many-worlds theory to be distasteful because it assumes a universe with infinite resources. If an infinite or seemingly-infinite amount of parallel universes exist, that means the super-universe has an inexhaustible supply of everything. And since nothing in our reality seems "abundant", let alone "infinitely abundant", I tend to believe it is false. It also seems unprovable because the simple act of entering another universe (in an attempt to prove one exists) would create yet another new set of possible multi-universe universes. And now we're getting into Cantor sets, where each of the universes creates universes for interacting with all of the other infinite universes. That's the only way you can have a universe where everything is possible for each isolated universe and everything is possible for every possible interaction between every other possible universe. Lies! It sounds like lies!

Can't we just make a proof by negation?
Proof by negation:
If the Many-worlds interpretation is true, then in some universe, someone creates and detonates a bomb that destroys all possible universes back to the beginning of time. Alas, since we still exist, not all possible universes can simultaneously be true. Therefore, the Many-worlds interpretation cannot be true. QED.
Post Script: If the bomb, sited above, destroyed the universe it came from, back to before the bomb was created, it would create a paradox. In this paradox, every universe would both exist and not exist. We now have Schrödinger's cat. Since Schrödinger's cat is part of the Copenhagen interpretation, the Many-worlds interpretation relies on the Copenhagen interpretation to be true. Therefore, the Many-worlds interpretation will be true and false, but only if the Copenhagen interpretation is true. QED.

Mind blown!

-continued-

a reply to: Protector

But I still find a fundamental flaw with it. If you assume that the vacuum is full of an equal amount of negative and positive energy, you're still assuming that "something" is there. I don't consider "equilibrium" to be the same as "nothing".

I'm not saying the energy which appears in the vacuum is nothing, the positive and negative components are something when viewed separately, it's the reason we're here right now. I said an empty vacuum is equivalent to nothing and that energy can be created from that nothingness because an equal amount of positive and negative energy are created, meaning energy is perfectly conserved and the overall energy density of the universe is neither positive or negative, producing a perfectly flat curvature.

Your approach: Our vacuum is nothing, but other big bangs may occur in other parts of the vacuum, thus other universes would share the same vacuum.

That's one solution I find plausable, but like I said it could have been an infinite release of energy throughout an infinite vacuum, so our universe is just one huge infinite universe. The many worlds interpretation is still valid in that scenario because we typically view other time lines as existing in a completely separate space and time, sort of like other dimensions.

I still feel like your quantum fluctuations/randomness needs an origin story, separate from the vacuum. If your vacuum is true nothingness, then you can say that the vacuum doesn't need an origin because it is just the default emptiness that "eternally is".

You just answered your own question. If an empty vacuum is equivalent to nothingness then it can easily explain why our universe appears to be infinite and flat according to all our observations and inferences. Nothingness has no start or end, it has no boundaries, it has no origin. I understand the fact it's hard to equate the vacuum to nothing when it has properties we can ascribe to it and mass can effect the curvature of the space-time fabric, it's why many scientists prefer to describe complete nothingness as something with no space or time. I'm just not convinced that logic is entirely accurate, an empty vacuum could very well be the most fundamental type of nothingness.

If an infinite or seemingly-infinite amount of parallel universes exist, that means the super-universe has an inexhaustible supply of everything. And since nothing in our reality seems "abundant", let alone "infinitely abundant", I tend to believe it is false.

Surely you must see how this logic is faulty. I would argue just this universe has a virtually inexhaustible supply of everything, but that doesn't mean those resources are easy to acquire, they're spread out across vast distances. In your example the resources are not only spread across vast distances but also spread across parallel universes which have no obvious interaction with each other.

If the Many-worlds interpretation is true, then in some universe, someone creates and detonates a bomb that destroys all possible universes back to the beginning of time. Alas, since we still exist, not all possible universes can simultaneously be true.

This logic is completely ridiculous as well because again you're assuming that some interaction in one universe will affect all others, and also you're assuming it's possible to destroy a universe with a bomb, which is a completely ridiculous premise to begin with.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

If an empty vacuum is equivalent to nothingness then it can easily explain why our universe appears to be infinite and flat according to all our observations and inferences.

Except there is no such thing observed that is equivalent to a "true vacuum".

Best Answer:  If all matter is over 90% empty space, then there should theoretically be small vacuums throughout the entire universe. However, such a vacuum would be impossible to detect, contain, or sustain.

Perhaps beyond the edge of the universe, a perfect vacuum exists. All the matter/energy ever can only take up so much space. However, there is no way to observe or reach that vacuum either.

Mmmm... uncertainty!

uk.answers.yahoo.com...

Then of course there is the issue of virtual particles.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

we just happen to live in a universe where the laws of nature provide the right conditions for intelligent life.

Does that guy Krauss know why and how the Moon he sees every now and then in the night sky orbits the Earth? Leave alone what he thinks of intelligent life?

a reply to: Kashai

You're completely missing my point, obviously I'm aware it's very difficult to achieve a perfectly empty vacuum.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

"Perhaps beyond the edge of the universe, a perfect vacuum exists."

From my last link.

I would say it would be impossible today not, "very difficult".

Again if you are presenting that there is such a thing as a vacuum? Are not we getting into some kind of Holy Grail thing given that there is no observable evidence of a, "true vacuum"?

If I am still missing your point feel free to elaborate.

a reply to: Kashai

First of all that Yahoo answer is just dumb, try using a better source. We don't even know if there is an edge to the universe, and if there is, what exists beyond that is not a perfect vacuum, it would be some type of void which has no space or time, our universe would be like a space-time bubble in that void, and perhaps there are many other bubbles with different laws; that is essentially the classical idea of a multiverse. Although I obviously don't subscribe to that line of reasoning.

Again if you are presenting that there is such a thing as a vacuum? Are not we getting into some kind of Holy Grail thing given that there is no observable evidence of a, "true vacuum"?

It is possible to get a vacuum free of all particles, but even then there are still vacuum fluctuations. However that in no way invalidates my underlying point, just become something is constantly trying to fill the empty vacuum doesn't mean an ideal empty vacuum isn't the most fundamental type of nothingness. Imagine a very small volume of space, virtual particles (vacuum fluctuations) will pop into and out of existence, but there will be moments where that volume of space contains absolutely no particles whether virtual or real, that is an ideal empty vacuum.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder


I doubt I'll be changing any minds any time soon here. But its not dumb to point out there really is no way to know if what you are saying is correct.

Sure its possible but its still an ideal based upon what we know today.

Have to go but again this is an interesting conversation.

a reply to: VegHead

HAHAHA! Your comment completely made sense to me and thanks for the chuckle of laugh hehe, very interesting how'd you worded it, and sure you sound stoned but well, aren't we all stoned....down to this lil sphere spinning around =P

a reply to: ChaoticOrder



OK feel free to critique this one.

One result of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that it’s impossible for a system to be in a zero-energy state.  In a nutshell: if a particle definitely has zero energy, then it’s definitely not moving and its momentum is zero.  However, to get that level of certainty you need the position to be completely uncertain and (for various reasons) that’s untenable.  You can run through this mathematically, and you find that systems always have just a tiny bit more than zero energy, and that that energy is proportional to , where is the frequency of the particle/system in question.  That little bit of energy is called the “ground state energy” or just “ground energy”.

The same thing applies to all particle fields, but rather than generalize, I’ll just talk about light: the electromagnetic (EM) field. It turns out that every frequency of the EM field, at every point in space, is its own tiny system (not at all obvious; that falls out of the math).  As a result, instead of a tiny ground state energy for a single system, in any given region of space you have lots of systems.  These form the ground state energy density, which is more commonlyknown as the “zero point energy”.

My interpretation is, there is always energy at any particular place and time in the Universe.

Space time could be a substance that on some other scale looks more like what we commonly call a substance.

a reply to: Kashai

Again, I'm not saying you're wrong about the vacuum teeming with activity, I'm not sure why you're trying to argue something I have argued myself in this thread. What I'm saying is, if we live in an infinite flat universe, which is very possible, then it becomes some what difficult to argue how infinite space-time can arise from something like a singularity. I've seen people make arguments, most typically this one, for how it could work like that but the logic is clearly flawed upon closer inspection. If our universe truly does contain infinite space-time then by definition we know it must have experienced an infinite amount of time and didn't have a start. This only really makes sense if we assume that nothingness is equivalent to empty space, but of course quantum mechanical uncertainty causes fluctuations to constantly appear throughout space-time. I cannot explain it any better than that, if you still don't get what I'm trying to say then I give up.

I was about to start a topic on this, saw this one existed, so figured I should chime in here instead. I am having a really hard time wrapping my head around it. For reference I am listening to "Reality Is Not What It Seems" by Carlo Rovelli. As far as I can tell, the guy is a legit physicist.

I am having a hard time with it. It all seems absurd to me. I am having the same reaction I have to religious people playing god the gaps. I am trying to keep an open mind, but my reaction every two minutes is "What a load of horsecrap" and "That doesn't make a lick of sense" and such things. Anyone else feel like this about the topic?

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I was discussing this topic with one of my friends. He said, "My understanding is that the random we perceive is that the circumstances of all experiments possible are inherently different at different points in space and time; not that quantum nonsense is inherently random but the systems themselves and circumstances that act upon them are basically infinite which leads to what is perceived as inherently random behavior even though the mechanism by which these behaviors are manifested is itself deterministic. Maybe that's been mathematically proven false but I haven't seen that."

I don't know if that makes sense to you. Part of his argument is that the probability of an event happening, given nearly infinite testing, converges on a definitive solution, for all things in the universe. So, in his mind, given infinite testing, we'd converge on definite values (all wave functions collapse). He believes our universe is more like "chaos theory", where if you know all of the variables that go into the events that we see in the universe, then you can actually determine the outcome.

I told him what you said about Bell's theorem. He wanted me to pass along his statement above and find out where his logic is incorrect.

Thanks.