wrote in message ...
Bill Hobba wrote:
wrote in message ...

Bill Hobba wrote:

"Heimdall" wrote in message
.com...


I have seen it proposed that our universe may have arisen from
"quantum fluctuations of the vacuum".

I don't see how this can possibly be consistent with the conservation
of energy, because there is an awful lot of energy in the mass of the
universe that was presumably not there when the vacuum was "empty".

Also, if quantum fluctuations could have created our entire universe
it would make sense that they could also occasionally be creating new
particles out of nothing.

If that were so, then there would (I think) be some average rate of
creation of such particles per cc of space. Then, you could, in
principle, measure your speed relative to "space" by counting the
number of particles you see being created per cc (like estimating the
speed of a boat by counting the whitecaps as they go by).

Thus the "creative" power of fluctuations of the vacuum seems to
contradict not only the conservation of energy, but the theory of
relativity as well.

Is there anything wrong with this reasoning? If not, why do some
believe our universe could have been created by quantum fluctuations?
Are they cranks?


Thanks.


A note to the original poster. You can trust what Steve Carlip (see
http://www.physics.ucdavis.edu/Text/Carlip.html) and Bilge say.
Draobix

and

Jeff Lee are another matter.

Thanks
Bill





The difference being that Jeff Lee (CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS) has
DIRECT, ABSOLUTE PROOF that he is correct and the others are not.


You have just labelled youself a crakpot. Scientists never claim such.
But
post your supposed proff anyway - I fully ocnvesent with QM and
relativity.
If I can not see the problem I ma sure Bilge and Dr Calip or others
will.


I will be more than glad to make this proof available to anyone who can
understand it. (It takes some basic understanding of Quantum Mechanics
(the de Broglie wavelength equation and some basic space-time motion
physics) meaning it is obviously a waste of time for the above mentioned
to try and comprehend.

However, I will be glad to post it for you and anyone else out there who
may be interested.

wavelength (de Broglie) = plank's constant / mass x velocity

instead of using the electron's orbital velocity and mass, try dividing
the orbital energy of the first electron orbit 13.6 eV by C^2 (m=E/c^2)
to get the "MASS LOSS" as described by Reality Physics to be: 2.42x
10^-35 kg., and put the electron orbital velocity: 2.1885x10^6 into the
Fitzgerald Formula and then multiply this result by "c" to get a "PHOTON
SPIN" velocity within the particle (since according to Reality Physics
particles are made of light(photon spin)of 299,992,017m/s:

De Broglie Wavelength of [N1] orbit = h / 2.42x10-35kg.x 299,992,017m/s

= 9.1x10-8 meters

Now, look up the inner orbit [N1] wavelength of the Bohr atom.

Now, try this same formula for all of the other orbits of the Bohr
hydrogen atom.

Now you, and they, know who the REAL physicist IS!


Yea - a real physicist would base it on modem quantum theory, not on
outdated theories of Bohr or DeBroglie or some loose analogy that
indicates
a person does not understand physical concepts. For example relativity
does
not say m=E/c^2 where E is the energy of the particle because the m that
appears in E = MC2 is the rest mass of a particle and does not vary - E
=
mC2/sqrt (1 - (v/c)2). But post away anyway - I have no doubt it will
give
the real physicists around here a laugh (I am not one - just a guy
interested in physics).

Thanks
Bill



YES! With "Reality Physics", not the current Quantum Mechanics or
Relativistic BS

No exprimnet has ever refuted QM.

you and your other so-called "real" physicists proclaim, we can now
correctly
describe the wavelengths of the standing pilot waves of the atom with
the
de Broglie equation...and YES, this does prove that Reality Physics
agrees with
observed physical reality (the atom)whereas Relativity and current QM
do NOT!

You mean the de Broglie-Bohm theory, that has been experimentally refuted
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0206196 does?


By your posting I knew you were not a real physicist, but now you know,
that neither are "they". Time to STEP ASIDE and make room for the truth-
Say goodbye to current Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, its just
"office fiber" physics anyway, and make room for the truth: Reality
Physics!

Time to make room for another crackpot.


Seriously, Quantum Physicists have been trying for decades to discover
how to use the de Broglie equation to correctly describe the wavelengths
of the standing orbit pilot waves of the atom. With the new discovery of
Reality Physics: that subatomic particles are actually "spinning light"
(in that all subatomic particles get their physical configuration and
mass from the "angular momentum of photon spin")we are now able to
understand how this is possible. It may be a while before this is
generally known but, as the Catholic Church found out with Galileo:
"The Truth is inevitable.

Time to face up to the truth the de Broglie-Bohm theory is dead as a
doornail.

Bill

Bill Hobba wrote:

wrote in message ...

Bill Hobba wrote:

wrote in message ...


Bill Hobba wrote:


"Heimdall" wrote in message
le.com...



I have seen it proposed that our universe may have arisen from
"quantum fluctuations of the vacuum".

I don't see how this can possibly be consistent with the conservation
of energy, because there is an awful lot of energy in the mass of the
universe that was presumably not there when the vacuum was "empty".

Also, if quantum fluctuations could have created our entire universe
it would make sense that they could also occasionally be creating new
particles out of nothing.

If that were so, then there would (I think) be some average rate of
creation of such particles per cc of space. Then, you could, in
principle, measure your speed relative to "space" by counting the
number of particles you see being created per cc (like estimating the
speed of a boat by counting the whitecaps as they go by).

Thus the "creative" power of fluctuations of the vacuum seems to
contradict not only the conservation of energy, but the theory of
relativity as well.

Is there anything wrong with this reasoning? If not, why do some
believe our universe could have been created by quantum fluctuations?
Are they cranks?


Thanks.


A note to the original poster. You can trust what Steve Carlip (see
http://www.physics.ucdavis.edu/Text/Carlip.html) and Bilge say.

Draobix

and


Jeff Lee are another matter.

Thanks
Bill



The difference being that Jeff Lee (CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS) has
DIRECT, ABSOLUTE PROOF that he is correct and the others are not.


You have just labelled youself a crakpot. Scientists never claim such.

But

post your supposed proff anyway - I fully ocnvesent with QM and

relativity.

If I can not see the problem I ma sure Bilge and Dr Calip or others

will.


I will be more than glad to make this proof available to anyone who can
understand it. (It takes some basic understanding of Quantum Mechanics
(the de Broglie wavelength equation and some basic space-time motion
physics) meaning it is obviously a waste of time for the above mentioned
to try and comprehend.

However, I will be glad to post it for you and anyone else out there who
may be interested.

wavelength (de Broglie) = plank's constant / mass x velocity

instead of using the electron's orbital velocity and mass, try dividing
the orbital energy of the first electron orbit 13.6 eV by C^2 (m=E/c^2)
to get the "MASS LOSS" as described by Reality Physics to be: 2.42x
10^-35 kg., and put the electron orbital velocity: 2.1885x10^6 into the
Fitzgerald Formula and then multiply this result by "c" to get a "PHOTON
SPIN" velocity within the particle (since according to Reality Physics
particles are made of light(photon spin)of 299,992,017m/s:

De Broglie Wavelength of [N1] orbit = h / 2.42x10-35kg.x 299,992,017m/s

= 9.1x10-8 meters

Now, look up the inner orbit [N1] wavelength of the Bohr atom.

Now, try this same formula for all of the other orbits of the Bohr
hydrogen atom.

Now you, and they, know who the REAL physicist IS!


Yea - a real physicist would base it on modem quantum theory, not on
outdated theories of Bohr or DeBroglie or some loose analogy that

indicates

a person does not understand physical concepts. For example relativity

does

not say m=E/c^2 where E is the energy of the particle because the m that
appears in E = MC2 is the rest mass of a particle and does not vary - E

=

mC2/sqrt (1 - (v/c)2). But post away anyway - I have no doubt it will

give

the real physicists around here a laugh (I am not one - just a guy
interested in physics).

Thanks
Bill



YES! With "Reality Physics", not the current Quantum Mechanics or
Relativistic BS


No exprimnet has ever refuted QM.


you and your other so-called "real" physicists proclaim, we can now
correctly
describe the wavelengths of the standing pilot waves of the atom with

the

de Broglie equation...and YES, this does prove that Reality Physics
agrees with
observed physical reality (the atom)whereas Relativity and current QM
do NOT!


You mean the de Broglie-Bohm theory, that has been experimentally refuted
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0206196 does?


By your posting I knew you were not a real physicist, but now you know,
that neither are "they". Time to STEP ASIDE and make room for the truth-
Say goodbye to current Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, its just
"office fiber" physics anyway, and make room for the truth: Reality

Physics!

Time to make room for another crackpot.


Seriously, Quantum Physicists have been trying for decades to discover
how to use the de Broglie equation to correctly describe the wavelengths
of the standing orbit pilot waves of the atom. With the new discovery of
Reality Physics: that subatomic particles are actually "spinning light"
(in that all subatomic particles get their physical configuration and
mass from the "angular momentum of photon spin")we are now able to
understand how this is possible. It may be a while before this is
generally known but, as the Catholic Church found out with Galileo:
"The Truth is inevitable.


Time to face up to the truth the de Broglie-Bohm theory is dead as a
doornail.

Bill



Sounds like its time for you and the others to go and join the Catholic
Church, as Scientists have already made subatomic particles from light
(photons) conclusively proving that Reality Physics is correct. Bye bye-

PS:

you might also want to try this new formula of Reality Physics whe


h = Plank's constant

MD[Ni] = mass decrease of electron inner orbit

Vp[Ni] = photon spin of electron inner orbit

MD[No] = mass decrease of electron outer orbit

Vp[No] = photon spin of electron outer orbit



freq. of photon emitted from
electron jump between orbits: = h / (MD[Ni]xVp[Ni])-(MD[No]xVp[No])

for example: it has been experimentally verified that a photon emitted
by an electron jump from the third to the second orbit is 656 nm (RED),
exactly as calculated here by this formula of Reality Physics.

I can see by your reflection in the "doornail" that even though you will
probably try out this formula and find, as anyone would, that it works
for ALL of the orbits of the atom, you will still not admit that Reality
Physics is correct. So why don't you show me how to calculate these
emitted photon frequencies using current QM - tell me, do your answers
EXACTLY agree with physical reality as do mine?

all the best,

Jeff Lee CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS

wrote in message ...
Bill Hobba wrote:

wrote in message ...

Bill Hobba wrote:

wrote in message ...


Bill Hobba wrote:


"Heimdall" wrote in message
le.com...



I have seen it proposed that our universe may have arisen from
"quantum fluctuations of the vacuum".

I don't see how this can possibly be consistent with the
conservation
of energy, because there is an awful lot of energy in the mass of
the
universe that was presumably not there when the vacuum was "empty".

Also, if quantum fluctuations could have created our entire universe
it would make sense that they could also occasionally be creating
new
particles out of nothing.

If that were so, then there would (I think) be some average rate of
creation of such particles per cc of space. Then, you could, in
principle, measure your speed relative to "space" by counting the
number of particles you see being created per cc (like estimating
the
speed of a boat by counting the whitecaps as they go by).

Thus the "creative" power of fluctuations of the vacuum seems to
contradict not only the conservation of energy, but the theory of
relativity as well.

Is there anything wrong with this reasoning? If not, why do some
believe our universe could have been created by quantum
fluctuations?
Are they cranks?


Thanks.


A note to the original poster. You can trust what Steve Carlip (see
http://www.physics.ucdavis.edu/Text/Carlip.html) and Bilge say.

Draobix

and


Jeff Lee are another matter.

Thanks
Bill



The difference being that Jeff Lee (CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS) has
DIRECT, ABSOLUTE PROOF that he is correct and the others are not.


You have just labelled youself a crakpot. Scientists never claim such.

But

post your supposed proff anyway - I fully ocnvesent with QM and

relativity.

If I can not see the problem I ma sure Bilge and Dr Calip or others

will.


I will be more than glad to make this proof available to anyone who
can
understand it. (It takes some basic understanding of Quantum Mechanics
(the de Broglie wavelength equation and some basic space-time motion
physics) meaning it is obviously a waste of time for the above
mentioned
to try and comprehend.

However, I will be glad to post it for you and anyone else out there
who
may be interested.

wavelength (de Broglie) = plank's constant / mass x velocity

instead of using the electron's orbital velocity and mass, try
dividing
the orbital energy of the first electron orbit 13.6 eV by C^2
(m=E/c^2)
to get the "MASS LOSS" as described by Reality Physics to be: 2.42x
10^-35 kg., and put the electron orbital velocity: 2.1885x10^6 into
the
Fitzgerald Formula and then multiply this result by "c" to get a
"PHOTON
SPIN" velocity within the particle (since according to Reality Physics
particles are made of light(photon spin)of 299,992,017m/s:

De Broglie Wavelength of [N1] orbit = h / 2.42x10-35kg.x
299,992,017m/s

= 9.1x10-8 meters

Now, look up the inner orbit [N1] wavelength of the Bohr atom.

Now, try this same formula for all of the other orbits of the Bohr
hydrogen atom.

Now you, and they, know who the REAL physicist IS!


Yea - a real physicist would base it on modem quantum theory, not on
outdated theories of Bohr or DeBroglie or some loose analogy that

indicates

a person does not understand physical concepts. For example relativity

does

not say m=E/c^2 where E is the energy of the particle because the m
that
appears in E = MC2 is the rest mass of a particle and does not vary - E

=

mC2/sqrt (1 - (v/c)2). But post away anyway - I have no doubt it will

give

the real physicists around here a laugh (I am not one - just a guy
interested in physics).

Thanks
Bill



YES! With "Reality Physics", not the current Quantum Mechanics or
Relativistic BS


No exprimnet has ever refuted QM.


you and your other so-called "real" physicists proclaim, we can now
correctly
describe the wavelengths of the standing pilot waves of the atom with

the

de Broglie equation...and YES, this does prove that Reality Physics
agrees with
observed physical reality (the atom)whereas Relativity and current QM
do NOT!


You mean the de Broglie-Bohm theory, that has been experimentally
refuted
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0206196 does?


By your posting I knew you were not a real physicist, but now you know,
that neither are "they". Time to STEP ASIDE and make room for the truth-
Say goodbye to current Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, its just
"office fiber" physics anyway, and make room for the truth: Reality

Physics!

Time to make room for another crackpot.


Seriously, Quantum Physicists have been trying for decades to discover
how to use the de Broglie equation to correctly describe the wavelengths
of the standing orbit pilot waves of the atom. With the new discovery of
Reality Physics: that subatomic particles are actually "spinning light"
(in that all subatomic particles get their physical configuration and
mass from the "angular momentum of photon spin")we are now able to
understand how this is possible. It may be a while before this is
generally known but, as the Catholic Church found out with Galileo:
"The Truth is inevitable.


Time to face up to the truth the de Broglie-Bohm theory is dead as a
doornail.

Bill



Sounds like its time for you and the others to go and join the Catholic
Church, as Scientists have already made subatomic particles from light
(photons) conclusively proving that Reality Physics is correct. Bye bye-

PS:

you might also want to try this new formula of Reality Physics whe


h = Plank's constant

MD[Ni] = mass decrease of electron inner orbit

Vp[Ni] = photon spin of electron inner orbit

MD[No] = mass decrease of electron outer orbit

Vp[No] = photon spin of electron outer orbit


You left out the fudge factor.



freq. of photon emitted from
electron jump between orbits: = h / (MD[Ni]xVp[Ni])-(MD[No]xVp[No])

for example: it has been experimentally verified that a photon emitted
by an electron jump from the third to the second orbit is 656 nm (RED),
exactly as calculated here by this formula of Reality Physics.

I can see by your reflection in the "doornail"

Obvious something must compensate for you lack of brain cells - in you case
it looks like it was eyesight.

that even though you will
probably try out this formula and find, as anyone would, that it works
for ALL of the orbits of the atom, you will still not admit that Reality
Physics is correct. So why don't you show me how to calculate these
emitted photon frequencies using current QM - tell me, do your answers
EXACTLY agree with physical reality as do mine?


Submitted it to a journal yet? Dare to print the reply?

Bill

Bill Hobba wrote:
wrote in message ...

Bill Hobba wrote:


wrote in message ...


Bill Hobba wrote:


wrote in message ...



Bill Hobba wrote:



"Heimdall" wrote in message
ogle.com...




I have seen it proposed that our universe may have arisen from
"quantum fluctuations of the vacuum".

I don't see how this can possibly be consistent with the

conservation

of energy, because there is an awful lot of energy in the mass of

the

universe that was presumably not there when the vacuum was "empty".

Also, if quantum fluctuations could have created our entire universe
it would make sense that they could also occasionally be creating

new

particles out of nothing.

If that were so, then there would (I think) be some average rate of
creation of such particles per cc of space. Then, you could, in
principle, measure your speed relative to "space" by counting the
number of particles you see being created per cc (like estimating

the

speed of a boat by counting the whitecaps as they go by).

Thus the "creative" power of fluctuations of the vacuum seems to
contradict not only the conservation of energy, but the theory of
relativity as well.

Is there anything wrong with this reasoning? If not, why do some
believe our universe could have been created by quantum

fluctuations?

Are they cranks?


Thanks.


A note to the original poster. You can trust what Steve Carlip (see
http://www.physics.ucdavis.edu/Text/Carlip.html) and Bilge say.

Draobix


and



Jeff Lee are another matter.

Thanks
Bill



The difference being that Jeff Lee (CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS) has
DIRECT, ABSOLUTE PROOF that he is correct and the others are not.


You have just labelled youself a crakpot. Scientists never claim such.

But


post your supposed proff anyway - I fully ocnvesent with QM and

relativity.


If I can not see the problem I ma sure Bilge and Dr Calip or others

will.


I will be more than glad to make this proof available to anyone who

can

understand it. (It takes some basic understanding of Quantum Mechanics
(the de Broglie wavelength equation and some basic space-time motion
physics) meaning it is obviously a waste of time for the above

mentioned

to try and comprehend.

However, I will be glad to post it for you and anyone else out there

who

may be interested.

wavelength (de Broglie) = plank's constant / mass x velocity

instead of using the electron's orbital velocity and mass, try

dividing

the orbital energy of the first electron orbit 13.6 eV by C^2

(m=E/c^2)

to get the "MASS LOSS" as described by Reality Physics to be: 2.42x
10^-35 kg., and put the electron orbital velocity: 2.1885x10^6 into

the

Fitzgerald Formula and then multiply this result by "c" to get a

"PHOTON

SPIN" velocity within the particle (since according to Reality Physics
particles are made of light(photon spin)of 299,992,017m/s:

De Broglie Wavelength of [N1] orbit = h / 2.42x10-35kg.x

299,992,017m/s

= 9.1x10-8 meters

Now, look up the inner orbit [N1] wavelength of the Bohr atom.

Now, try this same formula for all of the other orbits of the Bohr
hydrogen atom.

Now you, and they, know who the REAL physicist IS!


Yea - a real physicist would base it on modem quantum theory, not on
outdated theories of Bohr or DeBroglie or some loose analogy that

indicates


a person does not understand physical concepts. For example relativity

does


not say m=E/c^2 where E is the energy of the particle because the m

that

appears in E = MC2 is the rest mass of a particle and does not vary - E

=


mC2/sqrt (1 - (v/c)2). But post away anyway - I have no doubt it will

give


the real physicists around here a laugh (I am not one - just a guy
interested in physics).

Thanks
Bill




YES! With "Reality Physics", not the current Quantum Mechanics or
Relativistic BS


No exprimnet has ever refuted QM.



you and your other so-called "real" physicists proclaim, we can now
correctly
describe the wavelengths of the standing pilot waves of the atom with

the


de Broglie equation...and YES, this does prove that Reality Physics
agrees with
observed physical reality (the atom)whereas Relativity and current QM
do NOT!


You mean the de Broglie-Bohm theory, that has been experimentally

refuted

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0206196 does?



By your posting I knew you were not a real physicist, but now you know,
that neither are "they". Time to STEP ASIDE and make room for the truth-
Say goodbye to current Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, its just
"office fiber" physics anyway, and make room for the truth: Reality

Physics!

Time to make room for another crackpot.



Seriously, Quantum Physicists have been trying for decades to discover
how to use the de Broglie equation to correctly describe the wavelengths
of the standing orbit pilot waves of the atom. With the new discovery of
Reality Physics: that subatomic particles are actually "spinning light"
(in that all subatomic particles get their physical configuration and
mass from the "angular momentum of photon spin")we are now able to
understand how this is possible. It may be a while before this is
generally known but, as the Catholic Church found out with Galileo:
"The Truth is inevitable.


Time to face up to the truth the de Broglie-Bohm theory is dead as a
doornail.

Bill




Sounds like its time for you and the others to go and join the Catholic
Church, as Scientists have already made subatomic particles from light
(photons) conclusively proving that Reality Physics is correct. Bye bye-

PS:

you might also want to try this new formula of Reality Physics whe


h = Plank's constant

MD[Ni] = mass decrease of electron inner orbit

Vp[Ni] = photon spin of electron inner orbit

MD[No] = mass decrease of electron outer orbit

Vp[No] = photon spin of electron outer orbit



You left out the fudge factor.



freq. of photon emitted from
electron jump between orbits: = h / (MD[Ni]xVp[Ni])-(MD[No]xVp[No])

for example: it has been experimentally verified that a photon emitted
by an electron jump from the third to the second orbit is 656 nm (RED),
exactly as calculated here by this formula of Reality Physics.

I can see by your reflection in the "doornail"


Obvious something must compensate for you lack of brain cells - in you case
it looks like it was eyesight.


that even though you will
probably try out this formula and find, as anyone would, that it works
for ALL of the orbits of the atom, you will still not admit that Reality
Physics is correct. So why don't you show me how to calculate these
emitted photon frequencies using current QM - tell me, do your answers
EXACTLY agree with physical reality as do mine?



Submitted it to a journal yet? Dare to print the reply?

Bill



Thanks for the interaction, it's just the response I was looking for -
so I got want I wanted, and so did you...now you can show your sun day
school teacher that you don't need to use the Stroddinger equation any
more- you can simply use Reality Physics to calculate the wavelengths of
the atom's orbits, and the wavelength of a photon emitted. Gosh, I'm
sure glad that we both are happy, I know I sure am! bye -

all the best,

Jeff Lee CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS

:


Thanks for the interaction, it's just the response I was looking for -
so I got want I wanted, and so did you...now you can show your sun day
school teacher that you don't need to use the Stroddinger equation any
more- you can simply use Reality Physics to calculate the wavelengths of
the atom's orbits, and the wavelength of a photon emitted. Gosh, I'm
sure glad that we both are happy, I know I sure am! bye -

Then, could you use ``reality physics'' to describe the emission
for the 2s - 1s transition in hydrogen?

Bilge wrote:

:


Thanks for the interaction, it's just the response I was looking for -
so I got want I wanted, and so did you...now you can show your sun day
school teacher that you don't need to use the Stroddinger equation any
more- you can simply use Reality Physics to calculate the wavelengths of
the atom's orbits, and the wavelength of a photon emitted. Gosh, I'm
sure glad that we both are happy, I know I sure am! bye -

Then, could you use ``reality physics'' to describe the emission
for the 2s - 1s transition in hydrogen?


Using the "Active Geometry" of Reality Physics you can, not only explain
the wavelengths of the electron pilot waves, and all photon emissions
from the atom, but you can also explain the fundamental structure of the
entire atom using the concept of "LIGHT DILATION" (obviously a very
"dirty" word in the company of Relativists). Reality Physics describes
the atom as a ultra miniature "Light Machine" spinning at about a
quadrillion times per second. The secret - don't think of particles a
"billiard ball" type entities. Subatomic particles are actually made of
"SPINNING LIGHT". I guess time will show whether I'm a crackpot or not.
However, they have already made particles from light, so I guess we will
see what the future brings.

all the best,

JLee CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS

:
Bilge wrote:

:


Thanks for the interaction, it's just the response I was looking for -
so I got want I wanted, and so did you...now you can show your sun day
school teacher that you don't need to use the Stroddinger equation any
more- you can simply use Reality Physics to calculate the wavelengths of
the atom's orbits, and the wavelength of a photon emitted. Gosh, I'm
sure glad that we both are happy, I know I sure am! bye -

Then, could you use ``reality physics'' to describe the emission
for the 2s - 1s transition in hydrogen?


Using the "Active Geometry" of Reality Physics you can, not only explain
the wavelengths of the electron pilot waves, and all photon emissions

The question wasn't intended to be hypothetical. Change ``could''
to ``would''. If you know that it _can_ be explained that way, then
obviously you must know how to do it, since it's your theory.

wrote in message ...
Heimdall wrote:
I have seen it proposed that our universe may have arisen from
"quantum fluctuations of the vacuum".

I don't see how this can possibly be consistent with the conservation
of energy, because there is an awful lot of energy in the mass of the
universe that was presumably not there when the vacuum was "empty".

You also have to take into account (negative) gravitational potential
energy. While energy is ambiguously in general relativity, there are
reasonable definitions of ``quasilocal energy.'' These typically
give zero for a spatially compact universe, heuristically because
gravitational potential energy cancels the energy of matter.

Also, if quantum fluctuations could have created our entire universe
it would make sense that they could also occasionally be creating new
particles out of nothing.

Yes, at least in an expanding universe (though the process is *very*
slow).

If that were so, then there would (I think) be some average rate of
creation of such particles per cc of space. Then, you could, in
principle, measure your speed relative to "space" by counting the
number of particles you see being created per cc (like estimating the
speed of a boat by counting the whitecaps as they go by).

When you're talking about cosmology, you can't apply special relativity
to the universe as a whole. A cosmological model in general relativity
has an approximate ``preferred frame,'' namely the frame in which the
universe is most nearly homogeneous. The particle production rate per
unit volume is approximately constant in that frame; it won't be in
others.

Steve Carlip

xxein: You surprise me. I didn't think you had it in you (a halfway
decent cosmology). Seldom do people on this ng consider anything
other than what it takes to get by with a subjective measurement.