Curious, quantum manifestation of nothings - not news a query.

For as long as I've been interested, the theory of quantum mechanics has remained an elusive science that relies on much more than what we know, in order to exist. We are told to accept two states at once, are possible, but to our tangible reality, it's always hard to grasp. It is, however, a valid scientific endeavour for those of us so interested.

So..

I was just looking up various aspects of entropy, and for some reason the thought reminded me of how in quantum physics, particles can appear for a brief second and then disappear - the concept of something out of nothing in effect.

It almost defies itself. But left me pondering, what if these particles were not simply appearing out of nowhere and disappearing? What if at times, say with the LHC, we cause the fabric of another dimension or existence to interact with ours?

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so for that split moment where the entropy of this dimension as it achieves 100% force has met the energy of another at a quantum level, it punches though the membrane surface... and then nature repells it to restore order?

If energy cannot be created or destroyed, then HOW can particles appear and disappear at the quantum level?

bare in mind this just occured to me, and I have not looked into it, nor do I actually think most of what I'm even thinking is accurate, so scientists please let me know to shss, but politely.

Ahh quantum physics always does my head in.. Im sure there is an answer for my q here!

Cheers,

reply to post by mainidh


One of the interesting ideas, it might fall under string theory but I dunno for sure, explains those particles ability to seem to manifest then disappear as merely those particles transitioning from our "brane" to another.

Yes, it is string theory.

String theory states that what we see as tiny points, or particles (tiny little spheres) are, in fact, miniscule vibrating strings of energy, we simply can't look close enough to define them so all we see is a sphere particle.

Now strings come in two distinct flavors.

Open loops:basically just a piece of string wiggling about.
closed loops: think of a rubber band.

Now part of the theory is that we are in a multiverse, our entire universe is merely 1 slice inside a cosmic loaf of bread.

Now forgive me, I might get this backwards....

One of the types of strings can transition between "branes" while the other is stuck in our current brane and can't leave.

the act of transitioning from one brane to another, to us the observer, would be a particle appearing from nowhere, then disappearing from no where.

In fact, at the very basic level, space, or reality, is a constant bubbling of particles appearing, colliding, disappearing, constantly.

Extra dimensions play a part in some of the theories, and usually describe the vibration of the string depending on the shape of the extra dimension

Fascinating stuff
===
ETA:

You said that energy can't come from nothing, and can't be destroyed. In physics they call that information.

Now, if you assume we're in a single all encompassing universe that is the entire of our reality, particles appearing and disappearing are breaking some fundamental laws.

BUT, if you put it into context that we inhabit 1 zone inside a much larger cosmic reality, no information is lost at all, it's merely moved to another layer.

Hmm, think of it this way.

Our universe is an apartment in a building. You are a particle inside that apartment. Then, while I wasn't looking, you leave and enter a different apartment in the same building.

If I assume that apartment is all of reality, you have disappeared without a trace and broken fundamental physics.

But, if in fact, that apartment is merely 1 area inside a larger reality (the whole building) the information isn't lost, it's merely move to another location inside the whole.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by mainidh

 

One of the interesting ideas, it might fall under string theory but I dunno for sure, explains those particles ability to seem to manifest then disappear as merely those particles transitioning from our "brane" to another.

Yes, it is string theory.

String theory states that what we see as tiny points, or particles (tiny little spheres) are, in fact, miniscule vibrating strings of energy, we simply can't look close enough to define them so all we see is a sphere particle.

Now strings come in two distinct flavors.

Open loops:basically just a piece of string wiggling about.
closed loops: think of a rubber band.

Now part of the theory is that we are in a multiverse, our entire universe is merely 1 slice inside a cosmic loaf of bread.

! That's what I thought, from what I've read and heard. But I had also assumed that the physics of higher/lower dimensions as described by string theory had rather different fundamental rules.

For instance, in the 10'th dimension, it supposedly encompasses all dimensions of space, time, possibility, infinite possibility and their eternities. Meaning that in an alternate possible universe, all things are true also, BUT also possibly fundamentally different.

Now forgive me, I might get this backwards....

One of the types of strings can transition between "branes" while the other is stuck in our current brane and can't leave.

the act of transitioning from one brane to another, to us the observer, would be a particle appearing from nowhere, then disappearing from no where.

I think you're referencing the ant crawling along a seeming flat plane, but due to the nature of that plane being in three dimensions, it can appear to disappear and reappear in different areas, given the 3 dimensional folding of space?

Hrmmmm.. that does fit, but that is on a metaphysical level, and not the quantum level where it is supposed that quantum states say 2 possible outcomes are possible simultaneously. I've seen posts on ATS where some scientists have purportedly proven to do this. The tech speak in those articles always leaves me dumbstruck however.

In fact, at the very basic level, space, or reality, is a constant bubbling of particles appearing, colliding, disappearing, constantly.

But within our own reality? Or dimension? That's the crux - it's not an observable thing. It's theoretical, and does fit quantum science, BUT the strange quantum physics that exist within OUR own dimension, as that is all we are capable of determining with any potential accuracy.

reply to post by mainidh

Hrmmmm.. that does fit, but that is on a metaphysical level, and not the quantum level where it is supposed that quantum states say 2 possible outcomes are possible simultaneously. I've seen posts on ATS where some scientists have purportedly proven to do this. The tech speak in those articles always leaves me dumbstruck however.

Basically when talking at the quantum level, a particle has what they call a probability wave, in fact, recent research suggests this probability wave is in fact a real physical thing, but that doesn't matter right now.

what this stipulates, and has arguably been proven with the double slit experiment, is that until observed, a particle is a wave, the wave determines the probability that a particle will appear here and not there.

With the double slit experiment they take photons, electrons, even buckyball molecules, and fire them at a screen with two slits in it.

now there is a bid of randomness as to exactly where on the screen these particles will hit. If you did this on a large scale, with a soccer ball, you'd see that some bounce off, while others go through one of the slits and line up behind it.

But, when you do this with small particles, something amazing happens. the particle passes through BOTH slits at the same time, interferes with itself, and creates a wave form interference pattern (same thing happens when you shine a light through it, as it's photons). This means that a single particle traversed both possible paths.

But once you place a detector in there to see exactly what's happening, the particles stop acting like waves and pick one or the other slit, not both.

A particle has the probability to appear anywhere. You fire particle A at the screen, and it could zip out to the edge of the observable universe, then come back and go through the slit, the probability wave helps you determine the chances.

That kinda addresses your particles being in two places at once, they appear to do it, but only when we aren't actively measuring it, and it's not really like the particle splits, it's more than once you remove a measuring device, the probability wave takes hold.

Now, about extra dimensions. String theory suggests there are countless numbers if them, in fact, it suggests that every single point in space/time at the smallest level, is in fact an extra dimension all curled up into itself. These are not separate realities. Those are other universes. Extra dimensions are just that, dimensions. We experience up/down , left/right, back/forth as 3 dimensions, and time as the forth. But there very well could be others that our feeble brains just can't comprehend.

Want your head to explode? Think about this, I believe it's in a Brian Greene book.

To us, looking out, our universe is infinite, there is no edge, no boundary. Yet, the math and physics allow for an infinite universe for us inside it, while having that contained in a finite space from the outside.

Looking in, it's a bubble, with clear dimensions, looking out, it's infinite. And the math allows for this!!!!

Exactly, but all of this exists within a common set of rules for existence. At least, they're born into it and have no choice in the matter.

No, the rules are only common to our reality, other universes arguably have different fundamental laws.

another idea I had, which really has no basis in science, but goes along with string theory is:

Strings traverse between universes, what we see here as a single point particle, is merely one piece of the string that's passing through our reality.

Take a piece of paper and imagine that is the universe, in 2 dimensions. Now stab a pencil through the page. Looking at it, you see a pencil stabbing through the paper. BUT, if your reality was contained within the boundaries of that page, you'd only see a slice of the pencil, just the amount that is interacting with your reality. Because you are in a 2 d reality, you can't comprehend the 3d nature of it.

Anyways, I love talking about this stuff, so I'll try not to hijack your thread.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


have you seen the YT video, i think its called flatland or something like that.

reply to post by mainidh

I think your prolem is that you see them a classical particles. QM does not state that particles can appear from nothing.

It just states that you don't/can't know for sure if here are particles or energy fluctuations. And it gives a limit (uncertainty principle) dt * dE >= h/2. Anything below this limit(like virtual particles) is not observable, can not be treated classically.

It only gets weird when there are observable consequences like the casimir effect. But that seems to be a property of this universe.

One cannot know the location or electron momentum at the same time.
Something like that. Atoms are very active but the emission of light as in
a candle flame is due to electron orbit changes and the atom reaction.
Heat activated light is perhaps the most widely known source of light.

Entropy says we will lose the temperature differential by warming of the
atmosphere and lose the ability to perform work under a Carnot cycle engine.

Well the Papp Engine needs no radiator so lets start using them.
Light from electricity or any method means some source of heating.
The Tesla light from a non consumable may be the eventual solution for us all.

reply to post by moebius

QM does not state that particles can appear from nothing.

Correct. But it doesn't state they can't, either. And as you say, there are physical manifestations like the Casimir effect and black hole radiation that are best explained by the action of virtual particles.

I know absolutely nothing about string theory and am frankly dubious about any physical theory that invokes parallel universes and other unfalsifiables. However the existence of virtual particles does not violate conservation laws, any more than the existence of the universe itself violates them.

Originally posted by mainidh
If energy cannot be created or destroyed, then HOW can particles appear and disappear at the quantum level?

Virtual particles always come in pairs: a particle and an antiparticle. The sum of their energy is zero.

The same holds true for the universe, by the way. Its total energy is zero.

reply to post by Astyanax

Correct. But it doesn't state they can't, either.

Particles from nothing violate conservation laws, are not possible. Of course you can create particles supplying the required energy, like the ones created by black holes. By providing the energy quantum the hole is losing mass, there is no violation.

Virtual particles always come in pairs: a particle and an antiparticle. The sum of their energy is zero.

The sum is positive, a gamma quantum. The particles lifetime * energy has to be below uncertainty limit.

The same holds true for the universe, by the way. Its total energy is zero.

The hypothesis is that the positive energy in form of matter is canceled by the negative energy of gravity. Which makes an interesting explanation for the reason why there is gravity in the first place.

reply to post by mainidh

Most likely Quantum Mechanics is part of a Much Larger System that being the Multiverse. If this is correct it would explain particle transfer between Divergent Universal States and the Blinking in and Out of Quantum particles from existance. Split Infinity

reply to post by mainidh

If energy cannot be created or destroyed, then HOW can particles appear and disappear at the quantum level?

Energy is not a constant and its not infinite. That is why energy must be created/formed. There is only one state that is a constant and that is the infinite. The infinite is the only state that can not be created or destroyed.
Only the infinite can form/create energy. That is why it seams like energy/particles appear from nothing. Because we dont have access to observe the infinite dimension.

Here is a image that can illustrate your problem in a different way:



In this image you have two dimensions. The infinite the first dimension "the white aria". And the second dimension "the black dot".

The question you ask is: Where does the black dot come from?

The answer is the infinite dimension.

reply to post by mainidh


Your question is the very question that scientists are confuzzled about. Simply..the unification between quantum mechanics and general relativity. Scientists are still unsure but according to string theorists....at the quantum level,there is no precise point at which particles are e.g. annihilated and the actual interaction is "smeared."

How can particles move in and out of existence, you ask?
Well as you said - conservation of energy. What happens is that the particles are created and then destroyed VERY QUICKLY and hence it doesn't seem like it even existed at all. Look at the Feyman Diagrams - certain interactions are needed to be in place with the "rules of physics."
e.g. www.lhc-closer.es...

I've already talked about this in these threads:

Part 1: Strings, Calabi-Yaus and Massless Blackholes
Part 2: Time, Time Control and the Government
Part 3: The Big Bang, Holograms and Repulsive Gravity
Part 4: Parallel Universes Bye Bye Heinsenberg and Gov Conspiracies

reply to post by moebius

Particles from nothing violate conservation laws, are not possible.

Fair enough. They don't come from nothing, they come from the metric. They emerge out of 'empty' space, which is not, after all, nothing. There's really no such thing as nothing. I stand corrected.

Of course you can create particles supplying the required energy, like the ones created by black holes. By providing the energy quantum the hole is losing mass, there is no violation.

Exactly. I am not proposing the violation of any conservation laws.

The sum (of the energies of a virtual particle pair) is positive, a gamma quantum. The particles lifetime * energy has to be below uncertainty limit.

The term 'gamma quantum' is new to me. Do you mean a gamma photon? I am not aware that virtual particles emit gamma radiation when they mutually annihilate. That would violate conservation laws; it would be as if a gamma photon suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Surely such a process would suffuse the entire universe with sourceless gamma radiation, like the cosmic microwave background only nastier.

As I understand it, virtual particle pairs leave no traces when they mutually annihilate. Am I wrong?

photon -> quantum of electromagnetic energy

To create a pair of particles there has to be a quantum of energy first. Below the uncertainty limit we get the energy quantum from vacuum for free(fluctuation), create two(impulse conservation) particles, annihilate them back to the borrowed quantum(energy conservation).

This is of course just an interpretation as we can not observe the process.

Wow, ok i guess my posts are invisable. just like the frickin atoms.

reply to post by moebius

photon -> quantum of electromagnetic energy

Yes, of course I know that. But unless you use standard terminology there will be doubt as to what you are saying. I now understand you to be saying the mutual annihilation of a virtual particle pair creates a gamma photon. Could you explain this process, and also provide a source for further reading?

To create a pair of particles there has to be a quantum of energy first. Below the uncertainty limit we get the energy quantum from vacuum for free(fluctuation), create two(impulse conservation) particles, annihilate them back to the borrowed quantum(energy conservation).

Yes. But please, let's not forget that pairs spontaneously generated from the vacuum are only one of many different kinds of virtual particle. Most of them really exist only as bookkeeping exercises. In a sense, this is true of all particles – 'real' ones too. An elementary particle is a conceptual entity.

Most people on Above Top Secret forget this or never knew it. They think of particles as real, solid objects.

This is of course just an interpretation as we can not observe the process.

It isn't even an interpretation; it's a model that need have no basis whatsoever in objective reality as long as it makes the right predictions. We need to make this clear for the mass of members who have not studied any physics. When people – even physicists – talk about particles 'interfering with themselves' it sets my teeth on edge.

reply to post by Astyanax

From "Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam":

Dirac's quantum pair theory was a thing of mathematical beauty, yet it raised as many questions as it answered. It brought us the concept of virtual particles—particles that are created and annihilated in limitless number all the time and everywhere. It opened the door to a vibrant world of submicroscopic activity, in which even a perfect"vacuum" is filled with fluctuating quantum phenomena.

also
"http://books.google.de/books?id=baZPTTwk3woC&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=%22John+Wheeler%22+virtual+annihilation&source=bl&ots=o8ji4RgFDh&sig=SYOSgCYPqTda 0Rw7W1rGG21tqiQ&hl=de&sa=X&ei=dNOsT_bBH9H1sgbAtayfDA&ved=0CGIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22John%20Wheeler%22%20virtual%20annihilation&f=false"

Wikipedia is using the same terminology:

According to quantum field theory, the ground state of a system with interacting particles is not simply empty space. Rather, it contains short-lived "virtual" particle–antiparticle pairs which are created out of the vacuum and then annihilate each other.

Annihilation: en.wikipedia.org...

This opens the way for virtual pair production or annihilation in which a one-particle quantum state may fluctuate into a two-particle state and back again (coherent superposition).

reply to post by moebius

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I see the relevance of your link to my question.

Where did you learn that self-annihilating virtual particle pairs emit gamma radiation?

reply to post by Astyanax

Are you serious? Look up the definition of the term annihilation in the context of particle physics.

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by Astyanax

 

Are you serious? Look up the definition of the term annihilation in the context of particle physics.

the answer might be in there

interesting line of research

my favorite process

I think is more numerous in nature.