Is it true, that particles on their smallest level, seem to pop in and out of existence...?

[RealityCheck01]

I did... And you still did not answer them...?

You did not so I will start documenting this.
15 May 2018 Neogaia777: A fantasy or lie that you asked coherent questions about cosmology.
You asked vague questions that were already answered in the source that you stated that you had read.
Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology has answers to many questions and a link to a cosmology tutorial.

15 May 2018 Neogaia777: A bit of "indoctrinated into" paranoia about the teaching of cosmology to science students.

15 May 2018 Neogaia777: A lying "If not an explosion" question when I already answered that there was no explosion.

Read the source I gave, Age of the universe.

15 May 2018 Neogaia777: A "not answered about my questions about infinite mass and light speed" lie.
That has been answered by a couple of posters including my "..., and turns into a black hole" is wrong as already pointed out post.

Yes, I understand that much...

Dark matter and dark energy have plenty of empirical evidence which makes their existence mainstream, accepted science. The theoretical part is what they are made of.
Dark energy is uniform.
Dark matter is only affected by gravity and so is mostly in the strings and clusters of galaxies.

 

[Neogaia777]

Neogaia777 let me address the points from your various posts.

First of all the case for “infinite mass”.
If an object such as a Black Hole has “infinite mass”, the gravitational force between that object and any other mass is going to be “infinite” as defined by the inverse square law.

F = Gm₁m₂/r²

The presence of “infinite mass” in the Universe will cause matter in the Universe to collapse onto itself due to gravity.
Then there is the observational evidence that shows the most massive Black Holes occupying the centre of galaxies are billions of solar masses; certainly very massive but not infinite.
So we can eliminate “infinite mass” as a possibility.

Secondly the case for the Universe being static in the past which then began to expand.
This doesn’t work either as Einstein showed in the early 20th century a static Universe would also undergo gravitational collapse with a finite amount of mass.

To counteract gravity Einstein introduced a cosmological constant which is a repulsion force and forces the Universe into a state of equilibrium and makes it static. The explanation for this was given here.
So the question arises what would throw a static Universe out of equilibrium in order for it to expand?
The observational evidence contradicts this idea as well.
The observed Cosmic Radiation Background is composed of hot dense plasma during the formative stages of the Universe after the Big Bang which would not exist if the Universe was originally static.

Finally objects moving in space-time cannot exceed the speed of light c, but the recession velocity v of distant objects can.
Distant objects that are not gravitationally bound are being “carried” by expanding space-time that can exceed c.

In fact our Universe is much larger than we can observe.
The size of the observable Universe is limited by the Particle Horizon.
Beyond this horizon v-c > c for an object and photons emitted by the object will never reach us.

You did not so I will start documenting this.
15 May 2018 Neogaia777: A fantasy or lie that you asked coherent questions about cosmology.
You asked vague questions that were already answered in the source that you stated that you had read.
Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology has answers to many questions and a link to a cosmology tutorial.

15 May 2018 Neogaia777: A bit of "indoctrinated into" paranoia about the teaching of cosmology to science students.

15 May 2018 Neogaia777: A lying "If not an explosion" question when I already answered that there was no explosion.

Read the source I gave, Age of the universe.

15 May 2018 Neogaia777: A "not answered about my questions about infinite mass and light speed" lie.
That has been answered by a couple of posters including my "..., and turns into a black hole" is wrong as already pointed out post.


Dark matter and dark energy have plenty of empirical evidence which makes their existence mainstream, accepted science. The theoretical part is what they are made of.
Dark energy is uniform.
Dark matter is only affected by gravity and so is mostly in the strings and clusters of galaxies.

Thank You guys for your time...

I'm going to have to take some time to look into what you guys are saying at this point, and while I'm not going to say you guys are wrong, I am just going to say that right now, I cannot seem to see how you guys and all of "this" is completely right yet... And my questions still remain unanswered for me at this point, which means I am going to look into it more with an open mind and consider all possibilities as I look into it more, cause I am open to all possibilities at this point... And I will not close myself off to any possibilities till I feel I have sufficient evidence or information to do so, which means I'm going to have to look into it more...

I'm certainly no expert, (in case you haven't guessed that already) far from it, but would like to understand, if I can in my limited ability that is...

I wish there were some very simple answers to my questions, and perhaps there are and will be for some as I do some more research...

Thank You guys for bearing with me and for your time and I do appreciate your responses and info...

I need to do more research and look into more I guess, at this point...

I just don't want to have to become an "expert" on it just in order to "understand" it, cause I don't feel like I can do that (much)...

Is there a way to understand it, or for you guys to explain it, or convey it, (the general ideas, or concepts) without having to become and "expert" in all the disciplines involved in and with these things...? Or not...?

Thanks again,

God Bless!

 

[Petros2015]

I wish there were some very simple answers to my questions, and perhaps there are and will be for some as I do some more research...

It's not a simple universe. But do some research and you will find it is an awesome one. You might also enjoy this book, The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder. He is a Jewish Nuclear Physicist who loves his physics as much as his Torah, believes the two are complementary. His book covers some of the basics of relativity, cosmology and quantum mechanics I think and led me to look at Genesis in a completely different light.

 

[RockyMidnight1]

Neogaia777,
The branch of science you are describing is called Quantum Mechanics, and yes, among it's verifiable discoveries is that at the most fundamental or foundation level of physical reality, particles in fact do "pop" on and out of observable existence. This is called the Observation Principle and basically states that properties associated with matter can only be proven to exist in the moment of observation, and the very nature of observation alters what is being observed enough so that we can never actually see a particle as it exists without observation.
As for where [particles go and come from, you might want to try visualizing them as never being actual physical objects in the first place. Since they cannot exist without observation (again the only time they appear "real") then realistically they do not exist at all. So they do not pop in and out of existence in the first place. What pops into and out of existence is observations. Now, since all things physical, including us, or at least our bodies, are structured of the particles that make up atoms, and the atoms that make up molecules, which make up compounds and all the physical structures that exist in the Universe, only pop into and out of existence when observed, we can hardly be the ones doing the observations, because we can't appear real until observed! So, the real question is where does the observation come from that sets the whole physical existence in motion, including us and all other things given an ability to observe, in the first place? Read Hebrews 11:1-3. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. 3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

God is the original observer that makes all we see appear real which is the evidence of things not seen. God's Word is His observation that makes reality see-able while all is actually made of that which is not visible except when observed just like Quantum Mechanics confirms.

Now this will incite a lot of rebuttal. But the facts remain. Even some of the physicists who discovered QM made statements that consciousness (the means of observing) has to be the REAL foundation of all existence, for without consciousness, there cannot be any existence, real or imagined. They just didn't take the extra step to declare this foundational or original consciousness is God's. Look up quotes from Max Planck and Irwin Schrodinger.

Cheers

 

[Petros2015]

So, the real question is where does the observation come from that sets the whole physical existence in motion, including us and all other things given an ability to observe, in the first place?

Yah. Some VERY strange things are afoot at the quantum level.

 

[Neogaia777]

Neogaia777,
The branch of science you are describing is called Quantum Mechanics, and yes, among it's verifiable discoveries is that at the most fundamental or foundation level of physical reality, particles in fact do "pop" on and out of observable existence. This is called the Observation Principle and basically states that properties associated with matter can only be proven to exist in the moment of observation, and the very nature of observation alters what is being observed enough so that we can never actually see a particle as it exists without observation.
As for where [particles go and come from, you might want to try visualizing them as never being actual physical objects in the first place. Since they cannot exist without observation (again the only time they appear "real") then realistically they do not exist at all. So they do not pop in and out of existence in the first place. What pops into and out of existence is observations. Now, since all things physical, including us, or at least our bodies, are structured of the particles that make up atoms, and the atoms that make up molecules, which make up compounds and all the physical structures that exist in the Universe, only pop into and out of existence when observed, we can hardly be the ones doing the observations, because we can't appear real until observed! So, the real question is where does the observation come from that sets the whole physical existence in motion, including us and all other things given an ability to observe, in the first place? Read Hebrews 11:1-3. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. 3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

God is the original observer that makes all we see appear real which is the evidence of things not seen. God's Word is His observation that makes reality see-able while all is actually made of that which is not visible except when observed just like Quantum Mechanics confirms.

Now this will incite a lot of rebuttal. But the facts remain. Even some of the physicists who discovered QM made statements that consciousness (the means of observing) has to be the REAL foundation of all existence, for without consciousness, there cannot be any existence, real or imagined. They just didn't take the extra step to declare this foundational or original consciousness is God's. Look up quotes from Max Planck and Irwin Schrodinger.

Cheers

Yah. Some VERY strange things are afoot at the quantum level.

Thanks very much guys!

God Bless!

 

[RockyMidnight1]

Very strange to us for sure, but natural and logical to God. Gotta love God's wisdom. And since we find it so befuddling, His humor as well!!!. Cheers!

 

[RealityCheck01]

I'm going to have to take some time to look into what you guys are saying at this point, ...

This is textbook physics that is not only in textbooks but easily available everywhere on the Internet. Look for reliable sources such as astronomers and Wikipedia and be aware of that Internet cranks exist. There are also popular science books, e.g. A Brief History of Time (from 1988 so may not be updated to include later discoveries).

 

[klutedavid]

Is it true, that particles on their smallest level, that we can detect, seem to pop in and out of existence...?

That they disappear and reappear...?

If so, where do they go when they do...? And/or where do they come back from...?

God Bless!

Yes, no one knows where they come from or where they go.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Neogaia777,
The branch of science you are describing is called Quantum Mechanics, and yes, among it's verifiable discoveries is that at the most fundamental or foundation level of physical reality, particles in fact do "pop" on and out of observable existence. This is called the Observation Principle ...

That is not in the Quantum Mechanics that I learned gaining a postgraduate degree in theoretical solid state physics. Goggle suggests that is no "Observation Principle" in QM. A source or two would be appreciated.

QM states that the squared magnitude of a wave function can be interpreted as the probability of getting a measurement. This is not particles popping in and out of existence. Note that the wave function has continuously existing particles in it. The wave function for an election in a hydrogen atom has an electron that always exists.

The observer effect is not that particles pop in and out of existence.

 

[Jon Osterman]

They are not referring to Quantum Mechanics. They are referring to Quantum Field Theory, where there are indeed quantum vacuum flucuations. However, real observable particles don't just "pop in and out of existence". As I said earlier there is always a causal connection with other particles. So, for example, in Quantum Electrodynamics a photon can convert into an electon-positron pair; an electron can emit a photon; or an electron-positron pair can annihilate into a photon.

The "pop in and out of existence" myth is because sceintists often refer to fermions (electrons etc) as "matter" particles and bosons (photons etc) as force carrier particles. So "matter" could be interpreted as popping into existence, but this is really just semantics. There does need to be a photon that converts into the electron-positron pair (otherwise energy wouldn't be conserved).

 

[hedrick]

removed for the moment.

 

[RockyMidnight1]

Reference; Copenhagen interpretation - Wikipedia

Also, per Irwin Schrodinger, the Observer interview January 11, 1931 edition:
“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”

Per Max Planck The Observer interview January 25, 1931 edition:
“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.
We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”

RealityCheck01; you wrote in an earlier post regarding dark Matter "Dark matter and dark energy have plenty of empirical evidence which makes their existence mainstream, accepted science."
Dark matter is theoretical. It has not been proven to exist. It is believed to exist based upon deductive reasoning from a NASA observation of colliding galaxies.
Is Dark Matter Real?

Since there is plenty of deductive reasons for God. Why is He not then part of mainstream accepted science?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Reference; Copenhagen interpretation - Wikipedia ...

An irrelevant reference to one of the many interpretations of QM + a couple of irrelevant quotes leads to a slightly ignorant question.

I wrote was

have plenty of empirical evidence which makes their existence mainstream, accepted science. The theoretical part is what they are made of.
Dark energy is uniform.
Dark matter is only affected by gravity and so is mostly in the strings and clusters of galaxies.

The slight ignorance:

1. There is no proof in science.
   Any result in science is always being tested to see if it is correct.
2. There are multiple lines of empirical evidence that give the strong existence of dark matter. Simply put, we apply the laws of physics that are known to work and find that there is more matter than visible matter. On the other hand, changing the laws of physics does not work.
   The different lines of empirical evidence say dark matter exists and agree on how much dark matter there is. None of those lines of evidence is colliding galaxies. One line of evidence is several observations of colliding galaxy clusters.
3. Deductive reasoning is not calculations using physics.

Is Dark Matter Real? explains some of the lines of evidence. The article goes onto new evidence for dark matter. The article concludes

ark matter remains a powerfully predictive theory for the structure of the universe. It is not complete and it needs validation by discovering the actual dark matter particle. So, there is still work still to do. But this most recent calculation is an important step toward the day where we will know once and for all if the universe really is dominated by the dark side.

 

[sjastro]

The Copenhagen interpretation doesn't even apply.
As has been the stated the virtual particles that pop into and out of existence come out of Quantum Field Theory not Quantum Mechanics.
Virtual particles are not defined by a wave function, hence there is no wave function to collapse as per the Copenhagen interpretation.
Instead virtual particles are described by propagators which carry energy and momentum.

 

[JacksBratt]

I have heard it said that if you break a particle down small enough... it exists nowhere and everywhere at the same time. Even Chuck Missler said something to this effect..

To me.. I believe that a lot of this stuff is from the magic chalk board.

Do we know anything, for certain about these tiny tiny particles of energy...
In reality.. I don't even think that they know for sure what the inside of the earth is like..
The crust is thin as the skin on an apple and we cannot even drill through this without reaching areas so hot that drill bits loose their integrity and cannot drill anymore..

So... how much of this stuff works on a chalk board but has absolutely no connection or correlation to reality.... all the while making a good course in post secondary education and have some really cool pictures in an much overpriced text book that the students must buy, never use and cannot afford... oh ya.. and will be revised for next year so that it is useless after 8 months.

 

[Jon Osterman]

To me.. I believe that a lot of this stuff is from the magic chalk board.

The Standard Model (which is a Quantum Field Theory) is the most accurately tested theory of physics ever. So excuse me if I don't put much store in your view that it is "magic chalk board". Deny all you want - it just makes you look ignorant.

 

[RockyMidnight1]

• None of those lines of evidence is colliding galaxies. One line of evidence is several observations of colliding galaxy clusters.

• Deductive reasoning is not calculations using physics.

You are correct. I should have stated galaxy clusters.
Also, you are again correct that I was in error mentioning deductive reasoning when clearly I should have said inductive reasoning. My apology and thank you for these corrections.
As for the irrelevance of the Copenhagen Interpretation and the Schrodinger and Planck quotes I cannot agree. I understand how mainstream physicists want to avoid these like the plague since science is concerned with the natural state of reality and wants no part of what might be considered it's supernatural state, hence all the theories to discredit the Copenhagen Interpretation, including Quantum Field Theory. You may have noticed my comment to Neogaia777 that my post would incite rebuttal! Thank you for your confirmation.
My view, and certainly contradictory to mainstream science's view, is that the foundation of our natural reality is supernatural and is therefore an inherent problem for those who believe it has no part in "Any result in science is always being tested to see if it is correct."
I certainly do not expect to "sway" you (your convictions) just as you cannot sway mine, I have (as you and everyone else here has) my own opinions on topics that are uncertain, and QM has to be at the top of that list, perhaps second only to God's existence.
Just for reference you may want to, or not, consider these:

Reality Doesn’t Exist Until We Measure It, Quantum Experiment Confirms

Wheeler's delayed-choice gedanken experiment with a single atom

Complementarity (physics) - Wikipedia

Cheers

 

[JacksBratt]

The Standard Model (which is a Quantum Field Theory) is the most accurately tested theory of physics ever. So excuse me if I don't put much store in your view that it is "magic chalk board". Deny all you want - it just makes you look ignorant.

How was it tested?

 

[sjastro]

As for the irrelevance of the Copenhagen Interpretation and the Schrodinger and Planck quotes I cannot agree. I understand how mainstream physicists want to avoid these like the plague since science is concerned with the natural state of reality and wants no part of what might be considered it's supernatural state, hence all the theories to discredit the Copenhagen Interpretation, including Quantum Field Theory.

This is emphatically wrong given the Copenhagen Interpretation is still the preferred option in both Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theories.

Quantum Field Theory deals with calculating the probability amplitudes when going from some initial state │i> to a final state │f>.
│i> and │f> are wave functions each of which can be in a superimposed state for the Copenhagen Interpretation to apply.
The transition from │i> to │f> is defined by the S-matrix according to the equation
│f> = S│i>.
The transition from │i> to │f> is not an instantaneous process, there is a very brief transition stage between │i> and │f> where virtual particles can exist.

As an example the electromagnetic interaction between two electrons produces a virtual photon as a force carrier particle.
The virtual photon exists for only a brief period of time but does not form a superimposed wave function with either │i> or │f>.
If there is a wave function for a virtual photon and that is a subject of discussion in itself, it would disappear along with the virtual photon after the transition stage.
The point being in order to have a Copenhagen Interpretation one needs a wave function to collapse in the first place.

This example also applies to the popping into and out of existence of virtual particles in a vacuum.
The lack of a wave function makes the Copenhagen Interpretation meaningless for virtual particles rather than discrediting it.