The Universe Is Fabricated?

[Max]

During my hangover yesterday, I briefly read over a process that uses quantum tunneling to make a particle cease to exist.

It doesn't defer any resource, or alter a state. It isn't "destroyed" in any normal sense. It literally ceases to exist without ever re-emerging. Or so they were saying in the book.

So, if a particle can cease to exist, could it not be argued that particles can come into existence in a similar manner? Would this not imply (que angel bells and light from the sky) creation?

And, if it does imply a form of creation of matter that had not previously existed in the universe, could this theory be used as an argument for God's ability to create matter?

[Darth Wong]

Quantum tunneling only allows particles to breach barriers that they would not normally breach due to their energy levels being inadequate. How the fuck does that allow particles to cease to exist?

[Surlethe]

Do you have a source for this claim that they "cease to exist"?

[King Kong]

I believe Max is reaching for the phenomenon of virtual particles. Yes, a particle/anti-particle pair can come into existence for an incredibly short amount of time before annihilating each other, due to the uncertainity principle.

On the event horizon of black hole, one virtual particle may be trapped by the hole's gravitational field, while the other is able to escape. In this case, the hole loses some of its energy, allowing the particle to continue to exist. This is known as Hawking radiation.

And, if it does imply a form of creation of matter that had not previously existed in the universe, could this theory be used as an argument for God's ability to create matter?

I have heard some crazy ideas similar to this before. Essentially, the argument was that the negative and positive potential energy present in the matter and forces of the universe exactly balanced out; meaning that the creation of the universe would require no net energy input and come into being in a manner similar to a virtual particle pair.

[Lord Zentei]

So, if a particle can cease to exist, could it not be argued that particles can come into existence in a similar manner? Would this not imply (que angel bells and light from the sky) creation?

And, if it does imply a form of creation of matter that had not previously existed in the universe, could this theory be used as an argument for God's ability to create matter?

No, it could not. That particle-antiparticle pairs can come into existance is true, and it is also true that under certain conditions, they can be made permanent. However, this does not imply the existance of God, making your question irrelevant. In fact, if these things can happen naturally, it means that there is absolutely no need for a creator even if it is conclusively demonstrated that the Universe came into being at some point.

[Darth Wong]

This is a classic example of how religious morons will learn just enough about a scientific principle to massively distort the concept and then pretend it supports their bullshit.

[Max]

For the record, I'm actually an atheist, and it's obvious I don't know a lick about Quantum Tunneling...but during a drunken night with some of my more religious friends (que drunken philisophical debate) they brought it up and I couldn't argue it, so I tried to read up on it and tried to figure it out yesterday using wiki. Which didn't help me so much. So I was curious if it could be somehow used by other people to "explain" intelligent design. Sure I could try to read a book and figure it out for myself, but you guys tend to explain things in a more readily understandable way. The more I know the more I grow =)

[SirNitram]

If I remember QT correctly(Given how much cough medicine I'm on, that's unlikely), it wouldn't 'cease to exist', but reappear in a location beyond where they were looking.

[Darth Wong]

For the record, I'm actually an atheist, and it's obvious I don't know a lick about Quantum Tunneling...

I judge people strictly by their arguments, and the argument you were posing was a religious one. I don't really care if you were being the religious moron or your friend was being the religious moron, but either way, a religious moron was involved.

[Darth Wong]

If I remember QT correctly(Given how much cough medicine I'm on, that's unlikely), it wouldn't 'cease to exist', but reappear in a location beyond where they were looking.

Here's an analogy for quantum tunneling. You want to jump over a wall, but unfortunately, your jump boots don't have enough power to launch you over. Now let's suppose your position and energy is slightly randomized, so that at any given moment, you might suddenly be a foot higher or your jump boots might have a little more power. Your average jump boot power level and starting position are the same, but both are now fluctuating randomly with time.

Now, if you keep trying to jump that wall, you just might succeed sooner or later, even though your average jump boot power level and starting position are inadequate.

[Max]

If someone (on a completely different board where I posed this same question) states:

[/quote]perhaps a more reasonable explanation would be that matter drifts to and from the various parallel universes, making it seem like that there is matter being created from nothing, but in reality its coming from another universe, much like our own.[/quote]

Isn't that M-Theory? Quantum Tunneling and M-Theory aren't the same thing are they?

[Max]

First... apology for both my craptastic ability to use my quote tags and the double post.

Second..If the general belief is that there's a finite amount of matter/energy in the world, how is (for lack of a better phrasing) something coming into/ceasing to be in existence? Is the energy/matter simply converted into something else?

[King Kong]

Isn't that M-Theory? Quantum Tunneling and M-Theory aren't the same thing are they?

No, M-Theory is an attempt to mathematically link the 5 different versions of string theory (which propose that all particles are actually vibrating strings and differ in the types of strings used, among other things) and eleven dimensional supergravity (which I'm not familiar with); basically an attempt to create a Theory of Everything to describe all physical forces.

Quantum tunneling is an observed phenomenon, not a theory.

perhaps a more reasonable explanation would be that matter drifts to and from the various parallel universes, making it seem like that there is matter being created from nothing, but in reality its coming from another universe, much like our own.

There is no proposed mechanism in M-Theory or anywhere else to allow matter to simply drift between universes. Wormholes are a possible method to transport matter between universes but these objects are purely theoretical and are not required in M-Theory.

The only similar idea I can think of is the hypothesis that gravity's effects extend into other dimensions, thereby making it incredibly weak compared to other forces. However, this is only a mathematical argument to explain an observation and has no empirical support other than what it is designed to explain.

[Surlethe]

Second..If the general belief is that there's a finite amount of matter/energy in the world, how is (for lack of a better phrasing) something coming into/ceasing to be in existence? Is the energy/matter simply converted into something else?

Classically, we speak of Conservation of Mass, Conservation of Energy, and Conservation of Momentum. These three Conservation Laws are three facets of one single fundamental principle (at least in terms of relativity). They are observationally correct, and have never been contradicted in any sort of observation throughout all of human history.

Not only have they been observationally verified, they also are, philosophically, somewhat necessary: they guarantee that, given any closed system (i.e., a system of particles in which there are no interactions across a given boundary, or an isolated system of particles), at any point in time, there will be the same momentum and mass and energy in that system. In essence, the conservation laws guarantee that we'll be able to meaningfully compare the "before" and "after" state of any closed system.

Now, this doesn't mean that the energy/mass/momentum will keep the same form; we often see that the energy or mass or momentum has been redistributed after a particular process. In fact, there are actually laws which govern how energy is distributed in any particular process (look up "entropy" sometime). The beauty, though, is that, however they're distributed, the total amount of energy and mass and momentum will always be constant.

[Kuroneko]

Classically, we speak of Conservation of Mass, Conservation of Energy, and Conservation of Momentum. These three Conservation Laws are three facets of one single fundamental principle (at least in terms of relativity). ...

Local conservation is directly derivable from Einstein's field equation in the form ∇_b T^{ab} = 0, where T is the stress-energy-momentum tensor. The closest nonrelativistic analogue to this is the non-divergence magnetic field, ∇·B = 0. Roughly, it states that for the limiting case of small regions, the same "amount" flows in as out--there are no local sources.

Not only have they been observationally verified, they also are, philosophically, somewhat necessary: they guarantee that, given any closed system (i.e., a system of particles in which there are no interactions across a given boundary, or an isolated system of particles), at any point in time, there will be the same momentum and mass and energy in that system. In essence, the conservation laws guarantee that we'll be able to meaningfully compare the "before" and "after" state of any closed system.

Well, yes, but it's a bit more fundamental. For closed systems, the various conservation laws are statements of invariance of the laws of mechanics under corresponding translation--energy conservation means that the laws do not vary in time, momentum conservation corresponds to invariance with respect to spatial translation, and angular momentum with rotation. In other words, the conservation laws guarantee that an isolated experiment will run the same way no matter where we are, which way we are facing, or when we do it. This is easy to see in the Lagrangian formalism.

In the Lagrangian formalism, the state of a system of n particles is a point in the phase spece specifying the locations {q_i} and velocities {q'_i = dq_i/dt} of those particles in arbitrary coordinates. The evolution of the system in time is described in terms of a function (the Lagrangian) of {t,q_i,q'_i} subject to the Euler-Lagrange equations. It turns out that if the Lagrangian is indepedent of some coordinate q_k, i.e., ∂L/∂q_k = 0, then the corresponding Euler-Lagrange equation becomes [d/dt](∂L/∂q'_k) = 0, forcing p_k = ∂L/∂q'_k = constant. It's a conservation of something--what kind of quantity this is depends on the nature of the coordinate q_k. Interestingly, if action is identified with length, then the trajectory of the system in the phase space is a geodesic.

[Surlethe]

In the Lagrangian formalism, the state of a system of n particles is a point in the phase spece specifying the locations {q_i} and velocities {q'_i = dq_i/dt} of those particles in arbitrary coordinates.

So you're taking each particle in the n-particle system and assigning it an axis, and then describing the system in terms of a single point in n-space?

The evolution of the system in time is described in terms of a function (the Lagrangian) of {t,q_i,q'_i} subject to the Euler-Lagrange equations. It turns out that if the Lagrangian is indepedent of some coordinate q_k, i.e., ∂L/∂q_k = 0, then the corresponding Euler-Lagrange equation becomes [d/dt](∂L/∂q'_k) = 0, forcing p_k = ∂L/∂q'_k = constant.

This seems, conceptually, pretty straightforward.

It's a conservation of something--what kind of quantity this is depends on the nature of the coordinate q_k. Interestingly, if action is identified with length, then the trajectory of the system in the phase space is a geodesic.

Does this have any meaning, or is it simply an interesting coincidence?

[Kuroneko]

So you're taking each particle in the n-particle system and assigning it an axis, and then describing the system in terms of a single point in n-space?

Right, although each particles has six axes instead of one, making a 6n-dimensional space, since positions and velocities require three components. Note that the the coordinates can be curvilinear rather than Cartesian.

Interestingly, if action is identified with length, then the trajectory of the system in the phase space is a geodesic.

Does this have any meaning, or is it simply an interesting coincidence?

It's certainly significant in that it allows one to use the tools of differential geometry to study physics, but there are other consideration which suggest that action (a path integral in the phase space, explicitly the time-integral of the Lagrangian) is fundamental to physics. Although it might look a bit artificial at first, the principle of stationary action unifies all of this information cleanly and defines a framework in which deriving all of the above conservation laws is straightfoward and clean. That's quite valuable in itself, but even more impressively, quantum mechanics posits minimal value for action in nature.

Although in QM the system can no longer be said to take a single trajectory in the phase space, QM can be formulated similarly. You've probably seen descriptions of quantum particles as in some sense taking all possible paths--one considers all possible trajectories in the phase space, each of which making a contribution according to the action along that trajectory. It turns out that for large systems, the result is dominated by stationary paths (this makes sense, as large systems behave classically).

[Wyrm]

Back when the open/closedness of the universe was still an open debate, there was a hypothesis floating around that the entire universe was one honking big vacuum fluctuation, such that once the universe collapsed back to the omega point, it would then vanish like a virtual particle pair. This hypothesis owed its existence to the interesting observational fact that, when one takes an account of the masses, velocities and separations of the galaxies, the total energy content of the universe (ie, taking into account gravitational binding energies as well as mass and kinetic energyies of the galaxies) is zero, within observational accuracies.

Now that we know that the universal expansion is accelerating, we know the universe will not recollapse to the omega point and cease to exist. I'm curious, however, to know if it's still possible that the universe can be a giant vacuum fluctuation with a total energy of exactly zero, or if the ~2/3rds dark energy content kills that off.

[Surlethe]

Is such a hypothesis testable?

[King Kong]

I'm curious, however, to know if it's still possible that the universe can be a giant vacuum fluctuation with a total energy of exactly zero, or if the ~2/3rds dark energy content kills that off.

There is a new cyclic model of the universe in cosmology that does have elements of the vacuum fluctuation model.

The idea is that the universe is separated in higher dimensional space from a sister universe. While these two individual universes may be expanding, they still exert gravitational effects on each other. Eventually, after trillions of years (when our universe will be dead and cold), they start to move towards in each other in higher dimensional space. When they collide, they resulting energy is comparable to the Big Bang, and the whole cycle begins again.

Here's a link to a Discover magazine article about the idea.

Is such a hypothesis testable?

Steinhardt and Turok respond that their theory could gain credence from LISA, a proposed space probe that would look for gravity waves from the early universe. Gravity waves are ripples in the fabric of space-time that were predicted by Albert Einstein. So far, they are theoretical. But by 2020, the LISA experiment—pairs of free-flying satellites that would move apart and together with each passing wave—could either find confirming evidence of inflation or find nothing and thus tip the scales toward ekpyrosis. Inflation theory posits that the entire mass of the universe accelerated to many times the speed of light in a fraction of a second and should have set the entire cosmos ringing with gravity waves. Ekpyrosis, by contrast, which involves a very slow collision between universes, wouldn’t generate observable waves. “If we’re right,” says Steinhardt, “it will be terrifically exciting. If we turn out to be wrong, that’ll be disappointing, of course, but it’s still important to challenge inflation with alternate theories so we can see how robust it really is.”

[Crossroads Inc.]

WHat does the "M" in M-Theory stand for?

[drachefly]

I have a more accurate explanation of quantum tunnelling, and I think it's better.

Things are spread out in space. Where it has enough energy to be, it can bunch up. Where it does not have enough energy to be, it thins out.

It usually takes less than one nanometer to 'thin out' so much that the particle essentially isn't there. So, we don't notice this on human length scales.

When we measure the position of the object, that involves putting in energy, and that energy can be soaked up to boost the object over the edge.

[Zadius]

WHat does the "M" in M-Theory stand for?

In the words of Witten: "M stands for magic, mystery or membrane, depending on your taste."

[Crossroads Inc.]

Really? heh. Given what M-Theory represents in terms of uniting the 5 (yes 5 not 4) forces of the Universe, I think I'll go with MAGIC-Theory

[Darth Raptor]

Wouldn't the existence of such things like permanent virtual particles and Hawking radiation suggest that the universe is not a closed system?

And what's the fifth fundamental force?