🧵 Can things truly come from nothing?
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:45:00 UTC No. 16469014
I was talking to a friend yesterday and he was telling me about how he read that in today's physics it is believed that things can appear from absolutely nothing, than in experiments, even the best vacuums we have achieved we have detected particles to "spawn in".
He also said that the conservation of energy law only works on chemical reactions and closed systems (which we aren't sure the universe is).
was my friend schizo ranting or did he say any truths?, if so what kind of particles can just "spawn in" like that?
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:46:52 UTC No. 16469020
>>16469014
How can you not understand it?
You must have low IQ
raphael at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 03:03:04 UTC No. 16469152
>>16469014
the only way to find out is to run the particle accelerator for 40 years to mimic the big bang
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 03:27:50 UTC No. 16469173
>>16469014
There is no such thing as a "total vacuum", or "empty space". The "Quantum Field" pervades all. If the right "packet"/"quanta" of energy disturbs it, a "particle" will form and potentially go do stuff.
Why is the QM Field everywhere all at once? We don't know. What is it "made of"? "Quantum Foam" bullshit speak for we don't "really" know, but it seems to be there all the same.
There is never truly "Nothing". There's only mostly nothing, which means there's partially something.
Have fun storming the castle, Boys!
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 04:13:49 UTC No. 16469210
>>16469173
So in other words another shitty made up scientism rescuing device. Pathetic.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 04:14:25 UTC No. 16469211
>>16469014
Particles with no rest mass can convert to particles with rest mass, as long as all of the conserved properties are upheld (charge, momentum, etc.); mass is just another form of energy, and the mass terms in our equations of motion come from interactions with fields.
Vacuum energy is not high enough to create real mass, only virtual particles. All of those vacuum fluctuations are off-shell and contribute to the path but not the final position; energy is conserved.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 04:17:39 UTC No. 16469215
>>16469211
>>16469014
Energy is also conserved in any system with time reversibility/symmetry; the continuous symmetry creates a conservation law, as per Noether's theorem.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 05:02:12 UTC No. 16469248
>>16469014
it starts with 1.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 05:21:03 UTC No. 16469261
>>16469173
>>16469211
Thanks, ill look more into it but i feel this gave me the right frame of mind going foward
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 05:46:43 UTC No. 16469279
>>16469210
It's a "model". A way of conceptualizing what the math and measurements "say" is happening, but it's just an educated guess and there is no direct proof of it in the sense of holding a bucket full of "QM foam", per se.
In Antiquity it was called the "Aether" from whence all else arose. This is basically the same idea, but they can't admit it, so they give it different names and use lots of maths to hide behind. It's not "wrong", or a "lie", it just limited to the math we can do at this point, but even that is starting to break down and lose its own internal logic.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 06:04:40 UTC No. 16469296
>>16469014
I believe he is talking about virtual particles. I am not going to claim I know this, and truly I don't even know if they exist because I am not a scientist, but if I would imagine they either borrow from the vacuum or are some weird product of quantum fluctuations.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 06:52:35 UTC No. 16469341
>>16469296
>"I believe".
Typical atheist and his unironic faith in science. Look to Jesus, your faith in math wont save you when your being judged.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 06:56:51 UTC No. 16469343
>>16469341
I think this is a troll reply, but I will elaborate on my usage of the word. I believe the FRIEND is talking about virtual particles. Forgive me if this is a /sci/ in-joke, I never browse this board.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 07:14:16 UTC No. 16469356
>>16469341
You're
bodhi at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 07:24:17 UTC No. 16469369
>>16469014
>Can things truly come from nothing?
No
>it is believed that things can appear from absolutely nothing
It isnt coming from nothing, it is spawning from a higher dimension. This has even been proven by bell blabs with monatomic gold (aka ormus) that can vibrate so quickly it can dissapear and later repapear
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 09:02:01 UTC No. 16469433
>>16469014
He’s a retard who fell for le virtual particle meme.
To describe particle interactions, we use quantum mechanical perturbation theory. If you’ve ever done it, then you know that the leading order term is
<psi|H|psi>
and the next-to-leading order term is
sum_psi1 sum_psi2 <psi|psi1><psi1|H|psi2><psi2|psi>
where the sums are taken over ALL states in the Hilbert space. Do these “virtual” states physically appear whenever a particle interacts? No, it’s just an artifact of perturbative techniques.
The problem with 99% of the HEP community is that they don’t even spend 1% of their time thinking about these basic things because they’re too busy getting the new hot trendy paper off the mill. Their exposure to QFT is mostly Feynman diagrams, which Schwinger rightfully hated, because he thought the method is too niggerlicious and will bring a bunch of idiots in the field (it did). So we have ended up with a community of drooling retards who will tell laymen utter bullshit and make us all look like a bunch of schizos.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 09:54:43 UTC No. 16469451
>>16469210
I don't see you doing any better
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 15:21:37 UTC No. 16469659
>>16469014
>Can things truly come from nothing?
no, virtual particles "pop out" naturally from random low-energy fluctuations in quantum fields, or "real" particles pop-out of extreme energy densities applied upon quantum fields, such as in particle accelerator collisions. That's not "nothing".
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 21:51:08 UTC No. 16470016
>>16469659
>”pop out" naturally
Yes, naturally as in mathematically naturally as a consequence of perturbation theory. Just because there math doesn’t mean these particles physically exist. See >>16469433.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 21:54:51 UTC No. 16470018
>>16469014
Anon, reality doesn't have any obligation to follow your preconceived notions and intuition, not one that evolved to avoid predators, find food and a mate to procreate.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 21:56:10 UTC No. 16470019
>>16469014
they still can't disprove the existence of god. sad.
https://odysee.com/@Realfake_Newsou
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 21:57:42 UTC No. 16470022
>>16469014
Anon, reality doesn't have any obligation to follow your intuition that evolved to avoid predators, find food and a mate to procreate.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 13:45:16 UTC No. 16470736
>>16469211
>momentum, etc.); mass is just another form of energy
Define energy so we may sensibly perform a discussion
Bonus question: I was going to ask in your estimation, but I'll broaden to, in the best of sciences estimation, considering the universe as a whole is 100% of its own volume: considering abstractly apriori we can comprehend the timeless distinction between somethingness and nothingness;
What percent of the universes 100% volume, might contain absolutely actually pure true nothing, from yours and sciences best total estimation:
1% 2% 3% 5% 7% 9.3% 9.48% 25% .5% .2% .1% .034% .0003%? 16% .00000000000003993%? Etc
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 13:48:14 UTC No. 16470738
>>16469433
Bring S pole of magnet towards S pole of magnet, feel repulsion, are you feeling photons?
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 13:50:56 UTC No. 16470743
>>16470022
>Anon, reality doesn't have any obligation to follow your intuition that evolved to avoid predators, find food and a mate to procreate.
And by that same logic pop scientists on the cutting edge fringe of humans nature probing are not to be trusted when they make confident absolute certain knowledge and understanding claims
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 13:52:58 UTC No. 16470745
>>16470738
This has nothing to do with virtual particles, anon. You would need the strongest magnets in the universe to even see the effects of those. See
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eul
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 14:02:17 UTC No. 16470755
>>16470745
I didn't intend to imply it has anything to do with them, just wanted that specific question answered by someone who knows about electrons, magnets, em, topic in general, can you answer the question please?
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 14:04:35 UTC No. 16470756
Why was the theory for higgs needed?
Why did they think mass could not be an inherent quality?
Why they assume in the beggining was the big bang and the big bang was with the big bang and the big bang big banged and saw that it was good, but it was all massless because ______________
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 14:07:58 UTC No. 16470758
What physicality/s forces light to always travel ~300,000,000 meters per second and not a meter faster or slower?
What were the odds humans would settle on using the length of the meter, which fits into such a clean number with light. It surely is coincidence, but maybe the meter should have been slightly (to early to think) smaller or larger to make that pure 300,000,000
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:03:55 UTC No. 16470885
>>16469248
You mean spin 1/2 and a square root of -1
Aka Dirac is a hack.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:14:12 UTC No. 16470908
>>16470758
>that pure 300,000,000
It's not.
You're trying to cargo-cult some physical constant.
And read Feyerabend's "Against Method".
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:24:26 UTC No. 16470924
>>16470758
this is a bait but I will bite
it's 299 792 458 metres per second
>>16470756
higgs mechanism is not a source of all mass
it's just additional massive particles appearing when there is enough energy (electroweak force)
it breaks down in low energy conditions in two separate forces
one with higgs mechanism working and another one with it not
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 20:14:05 UTC No. 16471194
>>16470908
"299,792,458 m / s"
The meter is semi arbitrary (it's exact size and definition changed a few times since the 1700s. Where does the specificness of the second come from?
Is the number above closer to 300,000,000 than far?
Are there more opportunities to write numbers other than 200,000,000 and 400,000,000 and 100,000,000 and 300,000,000, like 37288473 and 3828838 and 84937484
Would you agree the former examples of numbers have a if even to ignorance, attractive quality of evenness. I'm not trying to do anything but wonder about and understand reality and ask people smarter than me to help me do so
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 20:15:24 UTC No. 16471198
>>16470924
>higgs mechanism is not a source of all mass
>it's just additional massive particles appearing when there is enough energy (electroweak force)
>it breaks down in low energy conditions in two separate forces
>one with higgs mechanism working and another one with it not
Come again?
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 21:29:37 UTC No. 16471275
>>16470755
What is there to answer? Yes. What else are you feeling? You don't feel gravity (equivalence principle) and the nuclear forces only occur at such small distances that they're always screened by electromagnetism.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 06:15:17 UTC No. 16471700
>>16469173
>There is never truly "Nothing". There's only mostly nothing, which means there's partially something.
No, nothing is something, its not partially nothing and partially something, it is something itself, it is the smallest amount of thing possible.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 06:17:50 UTC No. 16471701
>>16469369
>It isnt coming from nothing, it is spawning from a higher dimension.
No, it is from a lower dimension and the lowest possible dimension is the zero point which is why all points have 0 dimensions.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 06:19:46 UTC No. 16471702
>>16470736
>Define energy so we may sensibly perform a discussion
its just defined abstractly as symmetries defined by some group, make of that what you want
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 06:20:43 UTC No. 16471705
>>16470736
>What percent of the universes 100% volume, might contain absolutely actually pure true nothing,
The whole thing, 100%= 100%+0 because x=x+0, so 0 is embedded in every single point in space because you can't have consistent stability without an additive element because something has to be able to add to anything without changing it otherwise everything would explode to infinity from one moment to the next.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 06:25:23 UTC No. 16471710
>>16470738
>are you feeling photons?
allegedly yes
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 20:08:59 UTC No. 16472318
>>16471275
So if you placed em radiation detectors in between 2 bar magnets brought together same pole to same pole you would expect to detect more photons the closer you brought them or?
I'm getting at, if the repulsive field between magnets is not photons, what would you say it is
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 20:13:26 UTC No. 16472324
>>16471705
You are uncertain about geometry.
Consider a carbonated drink, the size of the airbubbles, imagine if there were much more or much less, much larger or much smaller.
Imagine a piece of swiss cheese, imagine more and less holes, bigger or smaller.
Imagine the difference between stacking bricks and stacking spheres
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 01:31:43 UTC No. 16472693
>>16472324
From our best current understanding, all fundamental particles are point particles. Does this mean they have a characteristic volume? Possibly. But we don't consider them to have real volume. It depends on what property you use to define the radius.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 01:41:03 UTC No. 16472702
>>16470736
You could say that 0% of the volume of space consists of particles and 100% of space consists of fields.
I personally don't have a complete understanding of energy, other than some useful number in our equations. It begins to lose its meaning when you realize that mass is an illusion. I would say that energy corresponds to a characteristic frequency, but time is also relative.
I think that action is a more fundamental way to understand physical systems; action has absolute units, quantized in Planck's constant.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 04:11:19 UTC No. 16472937
>>16472693
Oh no no no not point particles, silly for you to say that, are you from the 1890s?
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:20:52 UTC No. 16473021
>>16469014
Here is a dumb idea. We live within a supermassive black hole. When exxternal bodies of matter enter the black hole, the matter is transported within. That new matter gets utilized in some way. The edges of the universe then spit out unused matter. WTF?
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:27:56 UTC No. 16473027
>>16472324
>airbubbles
So in an airbubble, what is in between the air and the bubble, if not nothing?
>Imagine a piece of swiss cheese, imagine more and less holes, bigger or smaller.
Yes and again, what is in between the cheese itself and the various gaps in the cheese, if not nothing?
>Imagine the difference between stacking bricks and stacking spheres
Ok and if you stack a sphere on top of a brick, what is between the two, if not nothing?
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:41:54 UTC No. 16473039
>>16473027
I said what percent of the universe might contain pure nothing space, you answered 100%, which implies the universe is only fully pure nothing.
If swiss cheese was 50% cheese 50% holes then you would say such
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:47:11 UTC No. 16473044
>>16473039
>only fully pure nothing.
No, it implies that for every bit of something else, there is also a bit of nothing and 100% of the stable real universe has a complimentary amount of nothingness to keep it stable.
>If swiss cheese was 50% cheese 50% holes then you would say such
Swiss cheese can only be pure swiss cheese because it is swiss cheese AND nothing else x=x+0.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:51:34 UTC No. 16473049
Look, when someone shows me some nothing, I'll believe them.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:56:22 UTC No. 16473056
>>16473049
Cover your right eye and tell me what you see right now with your left ear?
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:58:30 UTC No. 16473061
>>16473056
Are you claiming I can see with my left ear?
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:59:36 UTC No. 16473063
>>16473061
Are you claiming that or do you actually see nothing with your left ear like everyone else?
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 07:05:40 UTC No. 16473072
>>16473063
>Cover your right eye and tell me what you see right now with your left ear?
Hmm,make absurd claim.
No, you.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 07:08:47 UTC No. 16473074
>>16473072
How is it absurd to claim that most people see nothing with their ears and why won't you answer what you see with yours if its not nothing?
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 14:56:35 UTC No. 16473415
>>16469343
Not an in joke, there's just a ton of retards around having /x/-tier schizophrenic breakdowns.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 10:31:36 UTC No. 16474583
>>16474579
I think I am surprised you didn't post your retarded borg cube visualization.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 11:07:55 UTC No. 16474595
>>16469014
In short, yes. Energy can be converted into matter. It's the basis of physics.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 11:14:30 UTC No. 16474602
>>16469014
Niggers come from nothing and will always be nothing, you are a nigger
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 06:30:24 UTC No. 16475769
>>16474583
>>16474576
Why am I not surprised.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 07:29:38 UTC No. 16475797
>>16469433
Thanks for the trvke, my shwinger winger