But where did spacetime or a vacuum come from?Spacetime or a vacuum can never be totally empty.
But where did spacetime or a vacuum come from?
"Empty" assumes a boundary, does it not?
You can't start with spacetime or a vacuum, point out that it can never be totally empty, then claim there's no such thing as "ex nihilo".
In addition, if it isn't totally empty, what's between the pieces and the boundary?
No.Mathematically, when space approaches zero then energy becomes a higher probability in that location.
So energy winks in and out of existence. According to the math all of space sparkles.
When the Big Bang theory was formulated it exclusively used general relativity as a theory for gravity.But where did spacetime or a vacuum come from?
"Empty" assumes a boundary, does it not?
You can't start with spacetime or a vacuum, point out that it can never be totally empty, then claim there's no such thing as "ex nihilo".
In addition, if it isn't totally empty, what's between the pieces and the boundary?
So is the link, as it explains in the text.The link doesn't alter the fact your previous post was gibberish.
If you are trying to convince me your post is an adequate summary of the Fermilab link I’m afraid not.So is the link, as it explains in the text.
What the Fermilab article is describing is space-time filled with an electromagnetic field that has a zero point energy which describes the energy of the vacuum.Mathematically, when space approaches zero then energy becomes a higher probability in that location.
So energy winks in and out of existence. According to the math all of space sparkles.
If you are trying to convince me your post is an adequate summary of the Fermilab link I’m afraid not.
Here is your post again for reference.
What the Fermilab article is describing is space-time filled with an electromagnetic field that has a zero point energy which describes the energy of the vacuum.
The presence of the quantum foam is scale dependent on the Planck length, not observable at macro scales, and has nothing to do probabilities.
It’s like individual atoms being unobservable at macro scales.
The energy of the vacuum is the expectation or mean value.
Deviations from this expectation value or vacuum fluctuations produce the virtual particle/antiparticle pairs which pop in and out of existence according to the energy-time relationship of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle ΔE.Δt ≥ h/4ϖ
It is the energy of these particle/antiparticle pairs the article is referring to.
It is impossible to directly probe the Planck scale for evidence of quantum foam but physicists have been able to see the indirect effects of the quantum foam at macro scales as described in the article on the Casimir experiment.
Huh?When people are critical of others, it reflects more as a personal indicator of insecurity than anything else.
Insightful.Huh?
I've always found that when someone responds to something I've asserted as being so, with a succinct 'No', (especially given the topic in this case), there's usually something for me to learn. @sjastro even graciously spent time and went on to explain why what you said was misleading, in his post#89, (which I found to be interesting and informative).
Why accuse him of some kind of personality flaw, instead of wrangling through the physics then retracting any misleading bits? I mean, the topic is very clearly unrelated to preserving someone's feelings/self-image anyway, no?
You are not fooling anyone trying to disguise this cheap shot or ad hom attack as a treatise on human behaviour.When people are critical of others, it reflects more as a personal indicator of insecurity than anything else.
Why Are Some People So Critical? - Harvard Business Review
hbr.org › 2014/03 › why-are-some-people-so-cri...
Mar 6, 2014 — Harsh critics are often talented, intelligent, and productive people. Unfortunately, they have a flaw that compels them to disparage others.
Thanks for the post.Huh?
I've always found that when someone responds to something I've asserted as being so, with a succinct 'No', (especially given the topic in this case), there's usually something for me to learn. @sjastro even graciously spent time and went on to explain why what you said was misleading, in his post#89, (which I found to be interesting and informative).
Why accuse him of some kind of personality flaw, instead of wrangling through the physics then retracting any misleading bits? I mean, the topic is very clearly unrelated to preserving someone's feelings/self-image anyway, no?
Dr. Korotev, a 67-year-old professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis, was contacted 2,719 times by 1,337 different people from at least 68 countries on meteorite-related matters last year, despite the fact that he stopped taking calls four years ago. He has a bluntly worded note on a website that includes a section titled “Rude Admonishments.” It starts: “I’m sorry, but you have not found a meteorite.”
“I have heard many wonderful stories from people who swear that they saw the rock fall, that the rock wasn’t in their driveway yesterday, or that it split their tree in two. I can’t explain how your rock got to be where you found it, but I can say that it is not a meteorite,” he says on the site. He goes on to note that most of the rocks that mysteriously show up were “just the right size for throwing.”
Dr. Korotev said he isn’t trying to be mean, it’s just a matter of time management. “People want to talk about it for hours,” he said. “I don’t chat.”
Yep .. sometimes we all have ta lower the ego level, in order to expand our (useful - scientific) knowledgebase, eh? (I include myself in that).I have been cast into the situation many times where there has been an asymmetry in the knowledge base where I am the novice.
...
Randy can be a difficult person to deal with and had a link which has since disappeared on how he deals with novices wasting his time.
...
Despite the issues I do respect his expertise and he has been very helpful over the years to the point I don't think I am wasting his time any more.
It would be very easy to fub off Randy as having personality issues as an excuse for not accepting his knowledge.
Sometimes it just means that the others in question are wrong.When people are critical of others, it reflects more as a personal indicator of insecurity than anything else.
Not often.Sometimes it just means that the others in question are wrong.
Depends on how you define: "nothing". From the very beginning 5,000 years ago, people had baskets of food that they would record on clay tablets. The Bible says God will make us the head and not the tail. People are in slavery because they borrow food and they have to work to pay off their debt or they are not given any more food. If you are broke you do not have food, or money to buy food. But you also are not in debt.Well, we'll never known until someone demonstrates that True Nothing (tm) is possible.
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) uses vacuum systems to create ultra-low pressure environments in certain sections of the accelerator. These vacuum systems are crucial for the LHC to function, as they minimize the amount of gas and other materials that might interfere with the protons as they travel through the accelerator. The vacuum system is designed to achieve pressures as low as 10^-11 pascal. This is several orders of magnitude lower than the pressure of outer space, which is about 10^-6 pascal.A complete absence of everything would be "nothing".
It's a high vacuum, but it's not nothing.The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) uses vacuum systems to create ultra-low pressure environments in certain sections of the accelerator. These vacuum systems are crucial for the LHC to function, as they minimize the amount of gas and other materials that might interfere with the protons as they travel through the accelerator. The vacuum system is designed to achieve pressures as low as 10^-11 pascal. This is several orders of magnitude lower than the pressure of outer space, which is about 10^-6 pascal.