Why Is It...

I grabbed an exposed 240 volt ballast wire once and released a bit of quantum fluctuation in my shorts.

Im just sayin'

Padawanbater2 said:

The "energy" is too big to quantify? Too "basic" to observe?

That doesn't make sense. Try to explain it differently please.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking you understand what I'm getting at but are simply trying to be combative - I'll give it a shot anyway.

Quantum mechanics puts forth the theory that all matter, energy, empty space, etc consists of energy that is vibrating or fluctuating at different wavelengths. The frequency it is vibrating at gives the particles or photons their properties. We can't really view or quantify the energy because of the fact that we don't see the table in front of us as formless energy with a vibration, but as a solid table. It's not until we get to extremely subatomic levels that we can observe things as little more than energetic waveforms.

This energy is what makes up everything, and this is what I'm talking about. We can't quantify it because we don't know everything in the universe, and we can hardly observe it in the first place.

String Theory is soooooo old school.

karri0n said:

I'm thinking you understand what I'm getting at but are simply trying to be combative - I'll give it a shot anyway.

Quantum mechanics puts forth the theory that all matter, energy, empty space, etc consists of energy that is vibrating or fluctuating at different wavelengths. The frequency it is vibrating at gives the particles or photons their properties. We can't really view or quantify the energy because of the fact that we don't see the table in front of us as formless energy with a vibration, but as a solid table. It's not until we get to extremely subatomic levels that we can observe things as little more than energetic waveforms.

This energy is what makes up everything, and this is what I'm talking about. We can't quantify it because we don't know everything in the universe, and we can hardly observe it in the first place.

Click to expand...

saw this cartoon on lecture in previous page it just fits here perfectly i think

Xkcd. I've seen that one before - lots of others too. Great webcomic.

www.xkcd.com

karri0n said:

The concept in that video you posted has about as much evidence as creationism has backing it up, and it seems like you have about as much understanding of the point they are making as the average creationist has of evolution. The idea that quantum fluctuation caused the net energy of everything(or nothing) in existence to move from zero to something more than zero is a novel idea, but where is the evidence? Along that same token, the nature of energy and particles on a quantum scale dictates that there could NEVER be a net energy of completely zero, meaning minute fluctuations over or under what it was at the time would not have this effect of "suddenly there is energy and boom goes the big bang"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

Click to expand...

The evidence in the video was there the entire way. That's what the video screen and the diagrams were that explained how they came to each conclusion, how the scientific community agrees with it, and how its pretty much fact.

Since you clearly did not watch the video (If you had, you would have never typed a reply like that, because the video debunks everything you said AND provides the proof)


In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of "nothing" is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called "virtual particle" pairs are known as "quantum fluctuations." Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.

Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.




What do I know my boyfriend is just a theoretical physicist that deals with quantum electrodynamics and does this for a living. =P And yea, we've reviewed this post together. =) Learn your positive and negatives and then you understand the Universe.....

ginjawarrior said:

saw this cartoon on lecture in previous page it just fits here perfectly i think

Click to expand...

That's a cartoon joke that was created in the 1990's. 20 years later we know a *lot* more about the Universe(s).

researchkitty said:

That's a cartoon joke that was created in the 1990's. 20 years later we know a *lot* more about the Universe(s).

Click to expand...

it was more a poke at karri0n saying that our gods are an attempt to discover the higher god/ energy that lies in the vibrations of strings

@ karri0n "if god is the energy in the stings what does that imply in comparison to our worldy gods?"

https://www.rollitup.org/members/karri0n-19878.html