Scientists prove there's no such thing as empty space (Dynamical Casimir Effect - prove to be true

Absolute non-existence is a self-annihilating existence. Absolute non-existence violates its own definition the instant consciousness turns toward becoming aware of it, thus attaching definition, making it no longer a pure, absolute, non-existence because consciousness recognized that it exists, destroying it by doing so.

Space that does not contain any matter or energy is still a type of existence. It contains space as a define-able existence. Time acting upon that empty space causing it to exist greater than an infinitesimal duration has emmense power.

we are all one!



That means something!

reply to post by john_bmth


sorry but this just shows that nassim is correct...jealous much?

Thanks guys for helping me on that! So, I am sure this leads to more questions than answers.....I would love to find out why this happens, why would energy "magically" appear and disappear? Where is it comming from or how is it being created?

I have always been told you cannot create something from nothing....so how is this possible? If it is comming from somewhere, then where?

I would like to think that the photons are being created out of the "nothingness" that would be so awesome! It almost sounds like how the universe was created.....something from nothing.....

But I am not educated enough in physics to really understand these things, it is just a cool thought. I wish I knew more! Should have taken pre algebra in 7th grade.....worst mistake I ever made! If I had done better with math, I would have loved to study physics! Great post OP, thanks!!!

reply to post by heineken


It does not show that nassim was correct. Did you even read the article? More to the point, involving that fraud nassim is completely off topic as the article has nothing to do with nassim in the slightest. As for the jealousy comment? Jeez, grow up.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by heineken

 

It does not show that nassim was correct. Did you even read the article? More to the point, involving that fraud nassim is completely off topic as the article has nothing to do with nassim in the slightest. As for the jealousy comment? Jeez, grow up.

here...it is related...



he was indeed right

if you cant relate..i will grow up whilst you open your eyes

Originally posted by Mijamija

I would love to find out why this happens, why would energy "magically" appear and disappear? Where is it comming from or how is it being created?

I have always been told you cannot create something from nothing....so how is this possible? If it is comming from somewhere, then where?

They're coming from the fact that a vacuum is not as static as people still stuck in classical physics like to think. Through quantum mechanics, we understand that everything is a wave - even a vacuum. In the case of a vacuum, the normally flat waveform randomly forms what you might call ripples for very short periods of time. These are interpreted as virtual particles, and, before now, we have only detected them by the force they exert and other indirect effect.

These particles exist because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states, essentially, that a particle's position and momentum can only be known to a given limit of precision. What allows virtual particles to exist is the fact that their position and momentum are always below that limit of precision. This is also what says we normally can't measure them. Normally.

reply to post by heineken


I guess if your only exposure to "science" comes from absurd YouTube videos of pseudo-scientific cranks like nassim and his ilk then yes, skimming an article on actual science might lead you to draw such a link between the two because they've both got sciency-sounding words in them, right?

reply to post by CLPrime

According to current theory, the universe was not required to begin as a singularity. And, even if it did, this would certainly not indicate that everything in the universe is entangled. Entanglement arises from particle decay under very specific restrictions. Just because everything gets piled together into a tiny volume, that doesn't automatically mean it's all entangled.

I am aware of that the Universe didn't necessarily have to begin as a singularity, in fact I believe you brought that to my attention not long ago. In any case, it was all "bunched together" at some point. And we are still talking about a period before the most basic particles were even able to form/condense, it seems to me that such a condition would likely result in entanglement. In fact the energy of our Universe never really was something made of separate individual parts, it always will be and always has been a single connected/entangled system, in my opinion.

reply to post by CLPrime

They're coming from the fact that a vacuum is not as static as people still stuck in classical physics like to think. Through quantum mechanics, we understand that everything is a wave - even a vacuum. In the case of a vacuum, the normally flat waveform randomly forms what you might call ripples for very short periods of time. These are interpreted as virtual particles, and, before now, we have only detected them by the force they exert and other indirect effect.

If we are thinking of the 'vacuum' as a wave, when we talk about a 'vacuum fluctuation', are we saying that space-time is literally undergoing random fluctuations at the quantum level? If so, this would seem to me like the folding/rippling of space can result in the formation of particles, or virtual particles at least. However, I read about an experiment that was designed to test if the 'fabric of space' was actually 'bumpy' at the quantum level, I think they assumed that if space was bumpy at the quantum level than a photon travelling a long distance would be delayed (by a very small amount) by the 'speed bumps' and would take longer to arrive from distant stars, or something like that. According to their calculations, space must actually be perfectly flat at the quantum level, so that was something that really confused me, I was sure space must be 'bumpy' when viewed on the quantum scale. What are your thoughts on this?

I'm not sure i follow well enough when some of you are saying things like "It's popping in and out of our existence, but where is it coming from?" Perhaps the energy is already there, it may be such small scale wave functions we have not detected it yet, like if you looked out of a window and saw a car, but not all the bugs stuck on the grill of the car, our eyes are not that good, so the same might be true for the equipment used, it may not be able to register such small energy signatures until they form into something as big as a photon, so people most likely have the idea that the energy is coming from a dimension higher or lower than our own and could wind up going the wrong way with their research.

I just think this is what's really going on.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

I am aware of that the Universe didn't necessarily have to begin as a singularity, in fact I believe you brought that to my attention not long ago.

Sounds like something I'd do

In any case, it was all "bunched together" at some point.

Not necessarily.

And we are still talking about a period before the most basic particles were even able to form/condense, it seems to me that such a condition would likely result in entanglement.

If you don't mind, could you describe to me what conditions you think lead to entanglement?

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

If we are thinking of the 'vacuum' as a wave, when we talk about a 'vacuum fluctuation', are we saying that space-time is literally undergoing random fluctuations at the quantum level?

Not spacetime, no. At least, not properly. It might help to visualize it that way, as long as you recognize that it's just a handy visualization.

If so, this would seem to me like the folding/rippling of space can result in the formation of particles, or virtual particles at least. However, I read about an experiment that was designed to test if the 'fabric of space' was actually 'bumpy' at the quantum level, I think they assumed that if space was bumpy at the quantum level than a photon travelling a long distance would be delayed (by a very small amount) by the 'speed bumps' and would take longer to arrive from distant stars, or something like that. According to their calculations, space must actually be perfectly flat at the quantum level, so that was something that really confused me, I was sure space must be 'bumpy' when viewed on the quantum scale. What are your thoughts on this?

This is what I alluded to above (and, actually, it's why I only alluded to it...'cause I knew I'd get to it here). There's a difference between saying that matter and energy are quantized, and saying that spacetime, itself, is quantized. A friend and I actually have our own quantum theory which extends the idea of quantization to space, but, in this case, the quantum fluctuations of the vacuum have nothing to do with fluctuation of spacetime. As far as I know, there is no indication that spacetime fluctuates in anyway (and, based on what you said, this is true of you, as well... you said "they" concluded that space must be flat). But, the quantum state of the vacuum does fluctuate, and, in it, these virtual particles appear.

reply to post by CLPrime

If you don't mind, could you describe to me what conditions you think lead to entanglement?

Well I don't really know the exact mechanisms of quantum entanglement, but I wasn't really saying something led to their entanglement, I am saying that the intial state as a singular entity indicates everything was entangled to begin with, the "energy of our Universe never really was something made of separate individual parts, it always will be and always has been a single connected/entangled system, in my opinion."

EDIT: let me rephrase that: there never really was individual parts that could become entangled with each other.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Okay...well, entanglement isn't a metaphysical "connection" between particles. It's the result of, for example, two photons emitted during particle decay in which the conservation of angular momentum demands that the photons have opposing spin states. The connection isn't fundamental, it's a result a very specific process, and it goes away as soon as one (or all) of the entangled particles encounter anything that forces it/them into a particular state.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

Correct, but it does say any particle which becomes entangled with another particle will always remain entangled with the other particle no matter how far you move them apart.

Up until measurement/interaction with another particle. Learn something kid, you're killing me here.

Now consider that everything in the Universe came from a singularity. Everything in the Universe is entangled.

The singularity angle of origins is one possible scenario, not something set in stone as of yet, even at that the big bang does not predict that all particles were entangled within the singularity. Particles as we know them do not exist as particles within a singularity, our very understanding of the physical laws breaks down within a singularity. Again, measurement/interaction breaks down an entangled state, so after the singularity expanded into our universe and particles began smacking into one another, any possibility of entanglement was gone.

The fact you think that virtual particles might be from another Universe just goes to show you don't understand the quantum mechanics behind it at all.

The fact that you can't even accurately describe or understand entanglement makes me feel better about my opinions of virtual particles being an entangled state between two or more universes created from brane collisions considering these universes wouldn't physically interact with on another and could possibly still remain in an entangled state allowing particles to bleed into the other as potential states of particles.

In any case, it was all "bunched together" at some point. And we are still talking about a period before the most basic particles were even able to form/condense, it seems to me that such a condition would likely result in entanglement.

That's not how entanglement works. You don't put a bunch of things together in a really small space and BAM, they're magically entangled. Go learn something about entanglement, it really won't hurt ya and you might actually gain some new knowledge.

In fact the energy of our Universe never really was something made of separate individual parts, it always will be and always has been a single connected/entangled system, in my opinion.

Your opinion does not relate to reality nor what the science depicts of reality.

If we are thinking of the 'vacuum' as a wave, when we talk about a 'vacuum fluctuation', are we saying that space-time is literally undergoing random fluctuations at the quantum level? If so, this would seem to me like the folding/rippling of space can result in the formation of particles, or virtual particles at least. However, I read about an experiment that was designed to test if the 'fabric of space' was actually 'bumpy' at the quantum level, I think they assumed that if space was bumpy at the quantum level than a photon travelling a long distance would be delayed (by a very small amount) by the 'speed bumps' and would take longer to arrive from distant stars, or something like that. According to their calculations, space must actually be perfectly flat at the quantum level, so that was something that really confused me, I was sure space must be 'bumpy' when viewed on the quantum scale. What are your thoughts on this?

IIRC, this experiment and the one you're referring to are similar. It's showing us that space is not empty, the 'bumpiness' is the virtual particles popping in and out of existence. They would pop out of existence way to fast for light to be effected by it.

Well I don't really know the exact mechanisms of quantum entanglement,

NO KIDDING!

but I wasn't really saying something led to their entanglement, I am saying that the intial state as a singular entity indicates everything was entangled to begin with, the "energy of our Universe never really was something made of separate individual parts, it always will be and always has been a single connected/entangled system, in my opinion."

EDIT: let me rephrase that: there never really was individual parts that could become entangled with each other.

With the possibility of everything existing in one initial state or energy of some form within the singularity, the minute it interacted with itself to created separate bits of matter and energy, all entanglement would have ceased to exist. That's how it works, even the lowly wikipedia could have educated you to that. When you base you're opinions upon the garbage musings of sensationalist quacks instead of verifying those claims with the science itself, it no surprise you ignorantly believe everything is connected and 'science proves this' because some joker said so.

Eventually Science will catch up with what we've been telling them for years.

"There's no such thing as nothing." Had that one figured out before my teens ended.

reply to post by arpgme


"Empty Space" is jam packed full of dark matter. Even the so called empty space between the atomic nucleus and and the electron shells is packed full of drk matter.

Originally posted by RMFX1

Originally posted by Watts

Y U NO GIVE PERSONAL INPUT, REFLECTION OR PERSPECTIVE??

We don't need ridiculous 4chan memes here on ATS. Why can't you just ask the question like a grown up?

Mainly because you only speak for yourself and your opinion couldn't mean less to me. Additionally, you're not a mod and they had no problems with it. Remove the rusty barbed wire from your britches and have a seat.

On topic: What would it take to use the energy of "space"? Is it something that is accessibile or do we just know it exists but its forever beyond our reach?