But if time was not, could there be such a time?
2 Likes
Roger, you are changing the subject.
You said space-time can only exist if there is matter.
But actually, particles and energy comes and goes all the time in otherwise empty space-time.
But in any sizable volume, the net is zero… there is always a particle appearing… while a particle is disappearing somewhere else in the space.
Goerge,
I do not think you are truly this dense. Matter/energy is needed to create the space /time of the universe. Once the universe is created, you do not uncreate space/time by have areas that seem to be empty. They are filled with force fields including gravity. Space includes photons, etc. It is not Nothing.
Agreed, @Relates. It is not Nothing.
But you can have a 1 inch by 1 inch area, which for a few moments at a time,
appears to have no matter.
Your equation that you can’t have Space-Time without matter is an over-statement, and is prone to misinterpretation… just like the brawl you and I have had on the very terminology.
It is not my equation, but Albert’s.
Roger, this quote comes directly from your post where you summarize “what we know”.
You disagree with Albert Einstein?
I am truly shocked.
1 Like
So what? You are the one making something out of nothing.
Hey… that’s funny, Roger! Making “something” out of “nothing” !!!
Let me know when you have finished your cosmology reading…
Perhaps this helps illuminate what George is referring to (note: my personal analysis, he is not truly as dense as you imagine):
Again, I do hope that we can appreciate the significance of quantum mechanics in this part of the discussion where the equations of General Relativity do not work very well on small scales (of which the universe certainly was) and the equations of General Relativity also fail to describe things like virtual particles (of which occur on very small scales–see the video that simulates a box that is 10^-15 meters in its dimensions).
1 Like
@pevaquark Matthew, thank you for coming to the defense of @gbrooks9 George, although if I remember correctly he came into the conversation on your side of the discussion.
I think I understand better what the course of the problem is. The question under discussion is the Big Bang, the beginning of the universe. George (and may be you and it appears Lewis Kraus) want to change the subject to today’s world and quantum space.
These are two very different situations whi8ch have almost nothing in common. I am afraid that the sparkling generalities that you offer do not mean anything. Just because quantum physics is important in today’s world does not mean that it was central to the Big Bang and some theoretical problems between the General Relativity and quantum physics mean that the universe did not emerge out of nothing.
As I demonstrated to George the information that he shared from the internet clearly indicates that before the Big Bang there was absolute Nothing, which means no matter, no energy, no time, no space, no quantum physics. There was nothing that the interesting video that you provided talks about.
The video is absolutely right. Empty space is not empty. George agreed with me, Empty space is not Nothing. Space is not Nothing and Time is not Nothing as Einstein said If that be the case then why does @gbrooks9 and others keep arguing that empty space (or quantum physics) has something to do with the Big Bang which started at Absolute Zero matter, energy, time, and space, that is the Beginning of everything from all the observable evidence that we have.
P. S. The video begins by saying that atoms is almost entirely composed of space. This is not new and it is the reason that I with others have said that the universe could be so small at the Beginning, because there was no space between the most basic particles. The initial stage of the universe was all or almost all mass and little or no energy, which would have given it form or space.
I don’t think you do understand what the problem is. And this is not a matter of what George thinks or myself, or Lawrence Krauss… but this is a fact. Quantum effects would be very very important in the earliest seconds of the universe. How do we know this? Let me ask you Roger, do you know why there are very small anisotropies ingrained on the Cosmic Microwave Background? Where did those come from? The colors represent very small differences in temperature/the clumping of matter, less than one part in ten thousand.
Wrong.
However, I will grant you this statement:
But not this one:
If that’s what George shared then he’s wrong. However if that’s your interpretation of Big Bang Cosmology then you are wrong.
I posted the video for the sake of demonstrating virtual particles. The quantum world does some very very non-classical things and the quantum world demonstrably was very important in the early universe (more on this to come).
1 Like
Are you saying that quarks are virtual?
The quantum world is different, but we do not live in the quantum world nor an empty space world.
I am looking forward to additional information, but I am taking Memorial Day week end off. Have a good holiday.
beautiful stuff. My undergrad degree is in biology with evolutionary capstone, but went on to medicine only–there’s so much to appreciate in your field. Thanks for the teaching.
Did you ever get the confirmation to your satisfaction?.. that the answer to the thread title is “No!”?
Sometimes to get specific responses, a quote of the original assertion is a giant help.
But I think we can safely put this one aside, yes?
2 Likes
As I have said before. The micro world of quantum physics is the world of the “strong force.” not the world of the “weak force” or gravity and General Relativity. The problem as I see it is that science knows precious little about the strong force. The question is not one of knowledge, but of ignorance. God is God of the Facts, not God of the Gaps. An argument from ignorance does not work.
I know of no evidence that the universe is composed of virtual particles.
First of all, welcome back to the thread! I hope you had a lovely holiday. Let’s get into this a bit and I hope that you will see where I’m coming from as it appears we haven’t quite been speaking the same language (so to speak) so far.
I think I know what you’re trying to say, but the language is a bit incorrect.
There are four fundamental forces: the strong force, the weak force, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force. Comparatively, the strong force, the weak force, and the electromagnetic force are all incredibly “strong” compared to gravity. In a process that impacts human beings a decent amount radiometric decay consists of a combination of all of the three “strong” forces as you referred to them (did you mean to lump all three forces into the “strong/not gravity” category?).
Radiometric Decay Process
- A nuclei is stable with a certain number of protons and neutrons. There is an electrostatic repulsion between protons that would tear the nucleus apart… but thankfully is a strong force that keeps the nucleus stable and holds it together.
- Let’s say in the case of alpha decay two neutrons and two protons want to stick together and get out of the nucleus. But they can’t! The strong force is far too strong to let anyone go. However, the strong force, which we know a lot about, decays very quickly at distances beyond that of the standard nuclei. Remarkably, we know very well that particles can be understood as waves… that can tunnel through barriers. This is a purely quantum phenomenon yet one can easily calculate the tunneling probability and half life utilizing the Schroedinger Equation.
Again are you accidentally lumping the strong force, weak force, and electromagnetic force (i.e. everything that isn’t gravity) into one? Regardless, we know quite a bit a about the real strong force. Here’s one such wikipedia article:
Indeed. Let’s resume this thread once you’ve read up on all the fundamental forces of Physics and Quantum Mechanics?
I think you do not quite understand them just yet. Virtual particles are really important in all these processes:
My holiday weekend was beautiful, thank you.
When I was talking about the strong force, I was speaking about it in the same way you are speaking here, one of the fundamental forces.
It seems to me that we talk about quantum physics, but we do not discuss what part the strong (nuclear) force plays in quantum physics. Yes, we know basically what it does, but not how it does it and how it relates to quantum physics.
I do not agree. First of all I have gathered without reading deeply that some people have developed the theory that quantum physics maintains that the universe is composed of virtual particles. This was my concern when I raised this question. We know that some people are apt in using every new discovery of science, be it quantum physics or virtual particles, etc., to justify some far out understanding of reality like virtual reality. That is what I was trying to find out what you were referring to.
Now in researching virtual particles I find that they are aspects of what we once called energy, as opposed to particles. This model of reality seems to be based on a particle model, rather than a particles and energy model. I am more accustomed to the later. I certainly would not say that the particle model is invalid, but would say that models have limits, and usually one model is not sufficient to understand all situations.
Of course E = mc squared brings mass and energy into relationship. It would be strange is science concluded that it is invalid because science has determined that energy and mass are all particles or that the equation does not work in the micro world of quantum physics.
Of course all aspects of reality are important, I do not see that virtual particles are “really” important when compared to real particles and when already taken into account as energy.
“Virtual interactions are characterized by the relatively short range of the force interaction produced by particle exchange. Examples of such short-range interactions are the strong and weak forces, and their associated field bosons.” from the Wiki article @pevaquark cited.
Finally in my research I found that part of quantum theory is the concept that it provides for “free will” in nature which surely is a misunderstanding of the facts. This is part of what I mean when I say that science really do not quantum physics.
Please do not evade the question of Creation ex nihilo.
Really? You must have knowledge that is far superior to the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2004. Quantum chromodynamics (or QCD) is the quantum theory that lies behind the strong force. So I’ll go with a 100% wrong here.
Gotcha. I will wait for your papers published on say the lamb shift and every other phenomenon without virtual particles:
Here is a neat explanation of the range of these forces based upon the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (which in a sense ‘violates’ the conservation of energy but is restricted by it):
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/exchg.html#c2
I don’t, and neither do cosmologists. The main conclusion I think is that if you ignore the quantum world (or misunderstand it) then you can find a more ‘ex nihilo’ type of conclusion. However… you can’t ignore it and quantum effects were very important. You have many different quantum interactions between particles in the early universe like QCD that was mentioned before as the universe would have been a quark gluon plasma. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is something that has been experimentally confirmed and is based upon the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces. But let’s look even before this point where remember earlier how I said:
You didn’t quite answer that question which is okay but we should talk about it now. If you want to read a textbook on the matter, you can find one here. Chapter 8 should do. Poking around Wikipedia can get a simpler sense of how such primordial fluctuations were produced (i.e. thanks to quantum effects) and how they later became the anisotropies of the CMB.
All in all, there is nothing in science that confirms any ex nihilo creation. Maybe it will someday, and from a purely non-quantum view- General Relativity suggests this, but as I’ve been trying to demonstrate- quantum effects are extremely important in the early universe and still are today.
2 Likes
I really like the beautiful art work you posted above – all those curvy and wavy lines with letters sprinkled in, and in various colors too! I could just stare at that for a while. The title of the piece being … Lamb Shift ! I’ll have to contemplate that too. 
Since my high school physics teacher knowledge base doesn’t reach nearly so far as this (or Roger’s Nobel status, apparently), I just have a more general background question.
Sophisticated and edgy QM knowledge aside (which I know – violates the very point I think you are emphasizing to Roger – you can’t just set this aside) isn’t there still a general sense that time / space / matter are probably not eternal? I.e. even if time is a created thing, removing words like “before” or “after” from how we should conceive of big bang origins, isn’t there still a valid sense that a material “nothingness” could conceptually exist, and that as such it would “precede” (can’t seem to avoid those time words!) the material (meaning not just matter but all space and laws governing such)?
Or maybe to put this another way. Let’s say Aristotle & Co. were right all along and that matter was eternal. That still would not give adequate answer to the question of “so where does that eternity come from”, would it?
[added below]
I know – that’s all incoherent above, and comes from me (us?) trying to peek where we can’t peek. Maybe it is all to suggest that while theology is about our world and all the places we can peek, it is also, by definition, preceding matter, preceding the big bang, preceding all QM used to help explain the big bang … and so forth. Eventually, in the philosophical sense, we still end up with an “ex-nihilo” (so far as our perspective could be concerned on the theological side) do we not?
1 Like