Tory Donor Lord Bamford Funds The Reform...
News1 min ago
Origin Of The Universe.
What is the latest scientific thinking on how the universe originated?
I am not talking about the mechanics of the big bang and expansion, but where the first particles and energy came from, and how?
I know that attempts to answer this would be long and complex, but just a few pointers for me, a layman, would be very much appreciated.
Thank you.
I am not talking about the mechanics of the big bang and expansion, but where the first particles and energy came from, and how?
I know that attempts to answer this would be long and complex, but just a few pointers for me, a layman, would be very much appreciated.
Thank you.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Horizon yesterday:
A reason for multiple universes:
Mystery 'dark flow' extends towards edge of universe
SOMETHING big is out there beyond the visible edge of our universe. That's the conclusion of the largest analysis to date of over 1000 galaxy clusters streaming in one direction at blistering speeds. Some researchers say this so-called "dark flow" is a sign that other universes nestle next door
A reason for multiple universes:
Mystery 'dark flow' extends towards edge of universe
SOMETHING big is out there beyond the visible edge of our universe. That's the conclusion of the largest analysis to date of over 1000 galaxy clusters streaming in one direction at blistering speeds. Some researchers say this so-called "dark flow" is a sign that other universes nestle next door
Most popular science books on quantum issues will tell you it isn't about practical problems with measurement. Measurement issues are reason given just to stop getting awkward questions asked.
Rov you don't seem to be stating a reason for multiple universes, just indicating that if they did exist they may be one possible explaination of an observed phenomenon.
Still wondering why existence has to mean no beginning and no end.
Rov you don't seem to be stating a reason for multiple universes, just indicating that if they did exist they may be one possible explaination of an observed phenomenon.
Still wondering why existence has to mean no beginning and no end.
Clanard. Many experiments have confirmed the reality of the Uncertainty Principle and the random nature of Quantum Mechanics. It is standard science and following any link on the subjects will get you there.
Scientists have even found ways to reduce the randomness in a particular place by moving it aside and increasing the randomness in adjoining regions of space.
This stuff is something that goes over the head of most people because it is so radically different from our normal experience where reality is ruled by cause and effect.
But it is fact. Reality is the result of wave functions so the location and momentum of really small things can only be defined as a probability until it is actually observed. Even then it is fuzzy. Measure one accurately and the other becomes less determined.
Reality is far more weird and fascinating than anything the religious have ever dreamed up.
Scientists have even found ways to reduce the randomness in a particular place by moving it aside and increasing the randomness in adjoining regions of space.
This stuff is something that goes over the head of most people because it is so radically different from our normal experience where reality is ruled by cause and effect.
But it is fact. Reality is the result of wave functions so the location and momentum of really small things can only be defined as a probability until it is actually observed. Even then it is fuzzy. Measure one accurately and the other becomes less determined.
Reality is far more weird and fascinating than anything the religious have ever dreamed up.
Gee... I thought I'd only asked for a source..., which is usually provided unless one has accomplished the original work on which the expressed opinions are based. At any rate, your response has an air of the anserine about it.
I simply asked for a source of your stement re: fact of Uncertaintly Principle. A review of my posting indicates no reference to religion. ..
I simply asked for a source of your stement re: fact of Uncertaintly Principle. A review of my posting indicates no reference to religion. ..
Clanard //your response has an air of the anserine about it//
????
Wikipedia: Anserine (beta-alanyl-N-methylhistidine) is a dipeptide found in the skeletal muscle and brain of mammals,[1] and birds.
As for the proof of the Uncertainty Principle, consider this. It was proposed in 1926 and still stands today. Its predictions are consistent with all observations or it would not be still standing.
Here is a reference to one experiment which shows "good quantitative agreement with the theoretical expectation":
http://pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v65/i3/e032109
????
Wikipedia: Anserine (beta-alanyl-N-methylhistidine) is a dipeptide found in the skeletal muscle and brain of mammals,[1] and birds.
As for the proof of the Uncertainty Principle, consider this. It was proposed in 1926 and still stands today. Its predictions are consistent with all observations or it would not be still standing.
Here is a reference to one experiment which shows "good quantitative agreement with the theoretical expectation":
http://pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v65/i3/e032109
Ah, much better
(By the way: "anserine" - adjective:
"..of or like a goose: Origin:
mid 19th century: from Latin anserinus, from anser 'goose'
(Source: Oxford Dictionaries, et al)
Nothing in the discussion of the Uncertainty Principle disagrees with the context of my discussion with Jake. In fact, further investigation of Heisenberg's "position) (no pun intended) on electron position and velocity yields this:
"... when Heisenberg refers to the uncertainty or imprecision of a quantity, he means that the value of this quantity cannot be given beforehand. In the sequence of measurements we have considered above, the uncertainty in the momentum after the measurement of position has occurred, refers to the idea that the "value of the momentum is not fixed just before the final momentum measurement takes place". Once this measurement is performed, and reveals a value "pf", the uncertainty relation no longer holds; these values then belong to the past. Clearly, then, Heisenberg is concerned with "unpredictability:" the point is not that the momentum of a particle changes, due to a position measurement, but rather that it changes by an unpredictable amount. It is, however always possible to measure, and hence define, the size of this change in a subsequent measurement of the final momentum with arbitrary precision." (Source: Hilgevoord, Jan and Uffink, Jos, "The Uncertainty Principle", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) )
Further "...Heisenberg admits that we can consistently attribute values of momentum and position to an electron in the past, he sees little merit in such talk. He points out that these values can never be used as initial conditions in a prediction about the future behavior of the electron, or subjected to experimental verification." (Source: loc. cit.).
So... with Heisenberg, Schrodinger and Bohr, somewhat on the same side, we have "Bohmian Physics" on the other side (so to speak). The result of which is
"that quantum mechanics is fundamentally about atoms and electrons, quarks and strings, not those particular macroscopic regularities associated with what we call measurements of the properties of these things".
There's neither space nor interest to continue except to say that the introduction of the "guiding wave" theory into quantum and the involvement of Einstein in ca. 1935 contibutes to an ongoing debate today about, in my opinion, how to truly define the "uncertainty principle". Whcih was my opinion expressed to Jake...
(By the way: "anserine" - adjective:
"..of or like a goose: Origin:
mid 19th century: from Latin anserinus, from anser 'goose'
(Source: Oxford Dictionaries, et al)
Nothing in the discussion of the Uncertainty Principle disagrees with the context of my discussion with Jake. In fact, further investigation of Heisenberg's "position) (no pun intended) on electron position and velocity yields this:
"... when Heisenberg refers to the uncertainty or imprecision of a quantity, he means that the value of this quantity cannot be given beforehand. In the sequence of measurements we have considered above, the uncertainty in the momentum after the measurement of position has occurred, refers to the idea that the "value of the momentum is not fixed just before the final momentum measurement takes place". Once this measurement is performed, and reveals a value "pf", the uncertainty relation no longer holds; these values then belong to the past. Clearly, then, Heisenberg is concerned with "unpredictability:" the point is not that the momentum of a particle changes, due to a position measurement, but rather that it changes by an unpredictable amount. It is, however always possible to measure, and hence define, the size of this change in a subsequent measurement of the final momentum with arbitrary precision." (Source: Hilgevoord, Jan and Uffink, Jos, "The Uncertainty Principle", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) )
Further "...Heisenberg admits that we can consistently attribute values of momentum and position to an electron in the past, he sees little merit in such talk. He points out that these values can never be used as initial conditions in a prediction about the future behavior of the electron, or subjected to experimental verification." (Source: loc. cit.).
So... with Heisenberg, Schrodinger and Bohr, somewhat on the same side, we have "Bohmian Physics" on the other side (so to speak). The result of which is
"that quantum mechanics is fundamentally about atoms and electrons, quarks and strings, not those particular macroscopic regularities associated with what we call measurements of the properties of these things".
There's neither space nor interest to continue except to say that the introduction of the "guiding wave" theory into quantum and the involvement of Einstein in ca. 1935 contibutes to an ongoing debate today about, in my opinion, how to truly define the "uncertainty principle". Whcih was my opinion expressed to Jake...
Hmmm. You imply that I am a goose for posting the current science.
Meanwhile you present a 75-year-old hypothesis as a plausable alternative. Einstein was brilliant in Relativity but he never grasped Quantum Mechanics and despite having laid some of the groundwork in his Nobel Prize winning work on the PhotoElectric Effect he never accepted that nature was fundamentally goverened by probabilities.
The fact is that his hypothesis has not been supported by evidence and every observation continues to back the random nature of nature.
You offer as supporting evidence, an obscure interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that suggests that the Uncertainty Principle is "uncertain".
Meanwhile you present a 75-year-old hypothesis as a plausable alternative. Einstein was brilliant in Relativity but he never grasped Quantum Mechanics and despite having laid some of the groundwork in his Nobel Prize winning work on the PhotoElectric Effect he never accepted that nature was fundamentally goverened by probabilities.
The fact is that his hypothesis has not been supported by evidence and every observation continues to back the random nature of nature.
You offer as supporting evidence, an obscure interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that suggests that the Uncertainty Principle is "uncertain".
I have not been able to find the exact reference but even from the quotes you posted it is clear that the writers actually have an inadequate grasp of QM for the level they expect to be publishing.
While it is certainly possible to make an arbitrarily precise measurement of the position and momentum of a Quantum object the measurements themselves are meaningless without the inclusion of the notions of the Uncertainty Principle.
Your reference argues that a measurement is possible. However the fact is that one might as well draw a number from a hat as take the measurement because the answer will have just as much meaning. They claim the only objection is that the measurement is in the past. This is complete rubbish.
The fact is the accuracy of the measurements is limited by the fuzzy nature of the Universe. Any measurement taken beyond the limits measurement become arbitrary.
Consider this. Let's say we have two precisely defined locations and we take two measurements of the momentum of the electron as it passes. We will most overwhelmingly probably get two different measurements. Since the electron has not interacted with anything between we must either conclude that either the measuremenet was inadequate or the the electron actually gained or lost momentum (and hence energy) from the vacuum.
This violates the most fundamental of laws governing the conservation of Energy and Momentum. Obviously the measurement is the problem.
Moreover, The Uncertainty Principle is a cornerstone of Quantum Mechanics having withstood every challenge since it was conceived 85 years ago. Even Einstein could not come up with a successful challenge.
It is especially ludricous to suggest it is flawed since several practical Quantum Mechanical devices are routinely used in our technology. First among these is the laser but far more graphic demonstrations of the uncertainty of the momentum of an object have been shown.
The most spectacular of these is the superpositon of Quantum states of a microscopic silicon bar such that it was simultaneously both vibrating and stationary. If that is not a sufficient demonstration of the uncertainty of the momentum of a Quantum object then I don't know what would be enough for you.
The basic elements of Quantum computer using bits of information in controlled Quantum states have already been in operation. Data is now encrypted in parts of the internet using codes transmitted by Quantum objects. Quantum teleportation of information has been demonstrated.
Suggesting that there is a problem with the understanding of the Uncertainty Principle while it is being routinely exploited in practical technology is like suggesting that automotive engineers have a problem with their understanding of combustion.
As I said earlier uantum Mechanics has not respect for human notions of plausability and unless you can grasp the concept of superpositon of quantum states then you should avoid commenting on the subject let alone accusing of other of being anserine.
Richard Feynman commented on the reaction by most people to the truly bizarre nature of QM:
"It is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century, the silliest is quantum theory. Some say the the only thing that quantum theory has going for it, in fact, is that it is unquestionably correct."
While it is certainly possible to make an arbitrarily precise measurement of the position and momentum of a Quantum object the measurements themselves are meaningless without the inclusion of the notions of the Uncertainty Principle.
Your reference argues that a measurement is possible. However the fact is that one might as well draw a number from a hat as take the measurement because the answer will have just as much meaning. They claim the only objection is that the measurement is in the past. This is complete rubbish.
The fact is the accuracy of the measurements is limited by the fuzzy nature of the Universe. Any measurement taken beyond the limits measurement become arbitrary.
Consider this. Let's say we have two precisely defined locations and we take two measurements of the momentum of the electron as it passes. We will most overwhelmingly probably get two different measurements. Since the electron has not interacted with anything between we must either conclude that either the measuremenet was inadequate or the the electron actually gained or lost momentum (and hence energy) from the vacuum.
This violates the most fundamental of laws governing the conservation of Energy and Momentum. Obviously the measurement is the problem.
Moreover, The Uncertainty Principle is a cornerstone of Quantum Mechanics having withstood every challenge since it was conceived 85 years ago. Even Einstein could not come up with a successful challenge.
It is especially ludricous to suggest it is flawed since several practical Quantum Mechanical devices are routinely used in our technology. First among these is the laser but far more graphic demonstrations of the uncertainty of the momentum of an object have been shown.
The most spectacular of these is the superpositon of Quantum states of a microscopic silicon bar such that it was simultaneously both vibrating and stationary. If that is not a sufficient demonstration of the uncertainty of the momentum of a Quantum object then I don't know what would be enough for you.
The basic elements of Quantum computer using bits of information in controlled Quantum states have already been in operation. Data is now encrypted in parts of the internet using codes transmitted by Quantum objects. Quantum teleportation of information has been demonstrated.
Suggesting that there is a problem with the understanding of the Uncertainty Principle while it is being routinely exploited in practical technology is like suggesting that automotive engineers have a problem with their understanding of combustion.
As I said earlier uantum Mechanics has not respect for human notions of plausability and unless you can grasp the concept of superpositon of quantum states then you should avoid commenting on the subject let alone accusing of other of being anserine.
Richard Feynman commented on the reaction by most people to the truly bizarre nature of QM:
"It is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century, the silliest is quantum theory. Some say the the only thing that quantum theory has going for it, in fact, is that it is unquestionably correct."
