Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

originally posted by: dragonridr

www.newscientist.com...

This video is really the answer to the question why I'm pot posting any MS videos.
that a bunch of crap

at least on the end of it you hear what it it made for, to sell something.... "New Scientist"

just one question
if there is nothing there, is no Planck's constant, no length, no energy or time, no math no formula
.
.
nooo forget it, no questions , this is just stupid Big Bang nonsense !

God did it, is even more believable, something did something from nothing

originally posted by: dragonridr
Ok take a valium youll be ok so what do you think is wrong with inflation. Now we indeed know the casimir effect occurs which tells us there is vacuum energy see here.

en.wikipedia.org...

Your source says there is some controversy about that claim:

This force has been measured, and is a striking example of an effect captured formally by second quantization.[3][4] However, the treatment of boundary conditions in these calculations has led to some controversy. In fact "Casimir's original goal was to compute the van der Waals force between polarizable molecules" of the metallic plates. Thus it can be interpreted without any reference to the zero-point energy (vacuum energy) or virtual particles of quantum fields.

It refers to this paper:

The Casimir Effect and the Quantum Vacuum

In discussions of the cosmological constant, the Casimir effect is often invoked as decisive evidence that the zero point energies of quantum fields are "real''. On the contrary, Casimir effects can be formulated and Casimir forces can be computed without reference to zero point energies.

So, what is the resolution to this controversy?

I don't know the answer to that, but we are still left with the Lamb Shift

the interaction between the electron and the vacuum (which is not accounted for by the Dirac equation) causes a tiny energy shift which is different for states 2S1/2 and 2P1/2

See the source for correct subscripts and superscripts format of the last part of that quote which doesn't show up right here.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
If nothing = nothing. Their entire theory can then be discarded, because it is based on a faulty premise, attempting to balance an equation, where the result they are attempting to achieve is an impossible result/answer. You and they are wrong.

If nothing really contains only nothing, then how do you explain the Lamb Shift?

Semantics counts here. We don't say nothing is not nothing. We say that what we naively once thought was empty space turns out to have properties which makes it appear to not be completely empty. This idea has been around for a long time in different forms, when people thought there was a luminiferous ether for example. Now we have concepts like space-time and zero-point or vacuum energy.

Maybe you have another explanation for the lamb shift that doesn't involve vacuum energy, but if so you should prove to everyone else that you're right, instead of just claiming everybody else is wrong, shouldn't you?

originally posted by: KrzYma
God did it, is even more believable, something did something from nothing

Where did God come from?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Where did God come from?

from the same Big Bang came out, human minds who though thy know how it works, both just humans ignorance

BTW, if somebody tells me, the proof of the big bang, is that uncertainty is always bigger or equal to a number that came out of black body radiation measurements and therefore from nothing and no radiation this value is not nothing... just think about it.. I tell you, God has more chance to exist than big bang, infinite is useful you know.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
If nothing really contains only nothing, then how do you explain the Lamb Shift?

Semantics counts here. We don't say nothing is not nothing. We say that what we naively once thought was empty space turns out to have properties which makes it appear to not be completely empty. This idea has been around for a long time in different forms, when people thought there was a luminiferous ether for example. Now we have concepts like space-time and zero-point or vacuum energy.

Maybe you have another explanation for the lamb shift that doesn't involve vacuum energy, but if so you should prove to everyone else that you're right, instead of just claiming everybody else is wrong, shouldn't you?

I never claimed that nothing had any impact on physical phenomenon (though I did consider that it may, if the components of the material universe exist in a space of nothing, and must exert 'extra' energy to stay connected to components over the distance of a real distance/space of nothingness). Does the Lamb Shift incorporate 'nothing' into its equations/calculations?

a reply to: KrzYma
Maybe you should study the big bang theory some more. I've seen it predict a lot of things, but a deity isn't one of them.

As for inflation theory, I was a little skeptical about that myself but am less skeptical with more observations to support it.

Found: evidence of cosmic inflation: Proof of the big bang?

In fact a lot of people thought inflation theory was contrived at first. It's only with the accumulation of evidence to support it that it has become more and more accepted.

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Where did God come from?

from the same Big Bang came out, human minds who though thy know how it works, both just humans ignorance

BTW, if somebody tells me, the proof of the big bang, is that uncertainty is always bigger or equal to a number that came out of black body radiation measurements and therefore from nothing and no radiation this value is not nothing... just think about it.. I tell you, God has more chance to exist than big bang, infinite is useful you know.

Just so your clear the Big bang and inflation are not the same thing both have different results. In fact inflation explains alot the big bang just cant. for example homogeneities we see on wmap. So alot of physicists would agree with you but to correct you the big bang has nothing to do with black body radiation.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
If nothing really contains only nothing, then how do you explain the Lamb Shift?

Semantics counts here. We don't say nothing is not nothing. We say that what we naively once thought was empty space turns out to have properties which makes it appear to not be completely empty. This idea has been around for a long time in different forms, when people thought there was a luminiferous ether for example. Now we have concepts like space-time and zero-point or vacuum energy.

Maybe you have another explanation for the lamb shift that doesn't involve vacuum energy, but if so you should prove to everyone else that you're right, instead of just claiming everybody else is wrong, shouldn't you?

I never claimed that nothing had any impact on physical phenomenon (though I did consider that it may, if the components of the material universe exist in a space of nothing, and must exert 'extra' energy to stay connected to components over the distance of a real distance/space of nothingness). Does the Lamb Shift incorporate 'nothing' into its equations/calculations?

Remember earlier when i said we found space to have properties in itself. Where i even wondered if you could compress space to a quantum point? Still thinking on that one what would happen any way about the lamb shift electrons continually exchanged photons this being the mechanism by which the electromagnetic force is created. The effect of the continuous emission and absorption of photons on the electron g-factor or spin could be measured this was his experiment.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Now did it take nothing into account in the equation well it shows we can never truly have nothing in the fact its a verifiable prediction made by QFT so im not sure how to answer that.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: KrzYma
Maybe you should study the big bang theory some more. I've seen it predict a lot of things, but a deity isn't one of them.

As for inflation theory, I was a little skeptical about that myself but am less skeptical with more observations to support it.

Found: evidence of cosmic inflation: Proof of the big bang?

In fact a lot of people thought inflation theory was contrived at first. It's only with the accumulation of evidence to support it that it has become more and more accepted.

I am not necessarily against inflation theory, just against any notion that suggests before inflation existed absolute nothingness.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
If nothing really contains only nothing, then how do you explain the Lamb Shift?

Semantics counts here. We don't say nothing is not nothing. We say that what we naively once thought was empty space turns out to have properties which makes it appear to not be completely empty. This idea has been around for a long time in different forms, when people thought there was a luminiferous ether for example. Now we have concepts like space-time and zero-point or vacuum energy.

Maybe you have another explanation for the lamb shift that doesn't involve vacuum energy, but if so you should prove to everyone else that you're right, instead of just claiming everybody else is wrong, shouldn't you?

I never claimed that nothing had any impact on physical phenomenon (though I did consider that it may, if the components of the material universe exist in a space of nothing, and must exert 'extra' energy to stay connected to components over the distance of a real distance/space of nothingness). Does the Lamb Shift incorporate 'nothing' into its equations/calculations?

Remember earlier when i said we found space to have properties in itself. Where i even wondered if you could compress space to a quantum point? Still thinking on that one what would happen any way about the lamb shift electrons continually exchanged photons this being the mechanism by which the electromagnetic force is created. The effect of the continuous emission and absorption of photons on the electron g-factor or spin could be measured this was his experiment.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Now did it take nothing into account in the equation well it shows we can never truly have nothing in the fact its a verifiable prediction made by QFT so im not sure how to answer that.

Ok, so why are we even talking about nothing? Because the video you posted claimed that everything came from nothing, I think thats why.

a reply to: dragonridr

NO??

this video from New Scientist tells me, Big Bang happened because of the Heisenberg's uncertainty princaple
∆E ∆T ≥ h
and planks constant is a number calculated from the black body radiation
www.youtube.com...

no radiation in nothing, no Big Bang... what more do you need as proof ?
I show you and you still tell me, no no no, it's not right...

on the other side Planck's Units at all means nothing, as they just a formula for calculate a universal, basic units,
from G L T as constants. Different constants, different Planck Units, but this is a grate formula if we meet aliens for example.. we can use the Planck's units to translate they measurements as I assume they don;t use meter, kilogram and seconds...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...


BTW: Planck's length is not the smallest possible length ever, it just makes no sense for our mathematical equations to deal with numbers smaller than that.

The same for the rest of this constants

One thing more, even this video says this works if you take all out of the universe, particles can pop up and disappear witch is truth as in an existing Universe there is at least time,
but Universe out of nothing because of this crap math understanding ?

originally posted by: dragonridr

Just so your clear the Big bang and inflation are not the same thing both have different results. In fact inflation explains alot the big bang just cant.

sorry but no Big Bang no inflation

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Does the Lamb Shift incorporate 'nothing' into its equations/calculations?

It refers to vaccuum energy, something which you said doesn't exist. So to answer your question, from my perspective where vacuum energy exists and s not "nothing" then no, the use of vacuum energy is not "nothing".

From your perspective, I don't know. That's why I asked how you made sense out of it while denying vacuum energy exists.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
If nothing really contains only nothing, then how do you explain the Lamb Shift?

Semantics counts here. We don't say nothing is not nothing. We say that what we naively once thought was empty space turns out to have properties which makes it appear to not be completely empty. This idea has been around for a long time in different forms, when people thought there was a luminiferous ether for example. Now we have concepts like space-time and zero-point or vacuum energy.

Maybe you have another explanation for the lamb shift that doesn't involve vacuum energy, but if so you should prove to everyone else that you're right, instead of just claiming everybody else is wrong, shouldn't you?

I never claimed that nothing had any impact on physical phenomenon (though I did consider that it may, if the components of the material universe exist in a space of nothing, and must exert 'extra' energy to stay connected to components over the distance of a real distance/space of nothingness). Does the Lamb Shift incorporate 'nothing' into its equations/calculations?

Remember earlier when i said we found space to have properties in itself. Where i even wondered if you could compress space to a quantum point? Still thinking on that one what would happen any way about the lamb shift electrons continually exchanged photons this being the mechanism by which the electromagnetic force is created. The effect of the continuous emission and absorption of photons on the electron g-factor or spin could be measured this was his experiment.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Now did it take nothing into account in the equation well it shows we can never truly have nothing in the fact its a verifiable prediction made by QFT so im not sure how to answer that.

Ok, so why are we even talking about nothing? Because the video you posted claimed that everything came from nothing, I think thats why.

No you misunderstood the video its trying to show you you can never truly have nothing there is always something even it what we perceive as empty space. Or to put it simply everywhere in the universe has something its energy is just so low its hard for us to see it. But as Einstein tells us energy is matter and matter is energy they are completely interchangeable. When you look at it this way you can see how energy can be exchanged for matter.It all comes down to field fluctuations i guess we have to discuss fields and there properties next if you want to continue?

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
If nothing really contains only nothing, then how do you explain the Lamb Shift?

Semantics counts here. We don't say nothing is not nothing. We say that what we naively once thought was empty space turns out to have properties which makes it appear to not be completely empty. This idea has been around for a long time in different forms, when people thought there was a luminiferous ether for example. Now we have concepts like space-time and zero-point or vacuum energy.

Maybe you have another explanation for the lamb shift that doesn't involve vacuum energy, but if so you should prove to everyone else that you're right, instead of just claiming everybody else is wrong, shouldn't you?

I never claimed that nothing had any impact on physical phenomenon (though I did consider that it may, if the components of the material universe exist in a space of nothing, and must exert 'extra' energy to stay connected to components over the distance of a real distance/space of nothingness). Does the Lamb Shift incorporate 'nothing' into its equations/calculations?

Remember earlier when i said we found space to have properties in itself. Where i even wondered if you could compress space to a quantum point? Still thinking on that one what would happen any way about the lamb shift electrons continually exchanged photons this being the mechanism by which the electromagnetic force is created. The effect of the continuous emission and absorption of photons on the electron g-factor or spin could be measured this was his experiment.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Now did it take nothing into account in the equation well it shows we can never truly have nothing in the fact its a verifiable prediction made by QFT so im not sure how to answer that.

Ok, so why are we even talking about nothing? Because the video you posted claimed that everything came from nothing, I think thats why.

No you misunderstood the video its trying to show you you can never truly have nothing there is always something even it what we perceive as empty space. Or to put it simply everywhere in the universe has something its energy is just so low its hard for us to see it. But as Einstein tells us energy is matter and matter is energy they are completely interchangeable. When you look at it this way you can see how energy can be exchanged for matter.It all comes down to field fluctuations i guess we have to discuss fields and there properties next if you want to continue?

Everywhere in the Universe, right?
So you need at least one Universe for the fluctuations to happen.
Before Big Bang there was no Universe, Bib Bang is the cause for the Universe beginning.
Before this there was nothing, no fields no fluctuations, nothing, no energy.

I see you don't understand what nothing is.
Nothing has no fluctuations distance time or any energy.
If you think about nothing this becomes not nothing as you think about it.

here some more arguments against Big Bang and Black Holes
www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Does the Lamb Shift incorporate 'nothing' into its equations/calculations?

It refers to vaccuum energy, something which you said doesn't exist. So to answer your question, from my perspective where vacuum energy exists and s not "nothing" then no, the use of vacuum energy is not "nothing".

From your perspective, I don't know. That's why I asked how you made sense out of it while denying vacuum energy exists.

Yes I have qualms about the terms and you should to. The term vacuum is suppose to signify nothing. What exists throughout space? Fields right, Em and gravity (and blah blah blah maaaaybe higgs) and the quantum particle fields, which are really the EM field right, because they can turn completely into radiation?

Ok so why say, a term originally used to refer to the lack of all energy, 'vacuum', to then say that it is the 'lack of all energy' (Nothing), that is now responsible for 'the creation of energy', and we will call this vacuum energy. IT IS ABSURD and DISHONEST, and other bad things.

So more likely, what they call or refer to as vacuum energy, is energy from, one or many or all of the fields that exist throughout space.

So I am saying, if energy is detected, energy exists. I am saying it is 'schemy', seemingly alteriorly motivated, to refer to it as (a proper translation) 'the energy which comes from nothingness'.

Well, the properties you describe are properties of space. The big bang was the creation and expansion OF space. This is commonly misunderstood as we have lots of our own ideas of how things explode and expand IN space, but the very idea of space itself expanding is a little alien to most.

Before the big bang, well given that space didn't actually exist, thus everything with spacial properties didn't exist either.


To simply say "We do not know" is no more admitting defeat than someone who invokes a plot twisting Deus Ex Machina to solve problems they never really bothered to try and solve.

There existed only Nirvana... playing nevermind to a bunch of transdimensional space goats they met along the way.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Actually Vacuum implies a lack of particles. A volume that is devoid of matter. fields are just fine.

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: ImaFungi

Actually Vacuum implies a lack of particles. A volume that is devoid of matter. fields are just fine.

Ok so it should be no surprise that 'Vacuum fluctuations' and ' vacuum energy' exist, because fields exist all throughout space, and thats what everything is made of and connected to, and it is all moving, and carrying forces, so it would be strange if the fundamental most micro constituents of the everythingness did not vibrate.

So, is vacuum energy, a result of EM field and gravity field and higgs field and quark field and electron field interacting? Or in different cases its different combinations of those to different degrees? And its all just lumped under the name Vacuum energy?

originally posted by: ErosA433
Well, the properties you describe are properties of space. The big bang was the creation and expansion OF space. This is commonly misunderstood as we have lots of our own ideas of how things explode and expand IN space, but the very idea of space itself expanding is a little alien to most.

Before the big bang, well given that space didn't actually exist, thus everything with spacial properties didn't exist either.

No it was not the creation of space. We just went over this, space is energy, energy cannot be created. And if now you are referring to space as nothingness, nothingness can also not be created.

The idea of space expanding is only alien to most because most were taught or assumed or intuited that the black stuff between the stars and big rocks was nothingness. It is not so alien when it is known that that black stuff is an energetic medium which is interconnected to all other energetic/material phenomenon.