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.

Heimdall (not a professional physicist)

The Universe was not generated by quantum fluctuations in a vacuum. Such a
concept is only valid for Harry Potter type physicists who believe that our
reality is built on magic. Try reading
http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/hoax.htm. If you read it with an open
mind you might find it useful.

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".

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.

Heimdall (not a professional physicist)

The possibility of a "Quantum Vacuum" or "Zero Point Energy" has already
been completely disproved by Jeff Lee of the CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS.
(It seems their "Rindler Flux" demonstration contains an obvious
"causality violation" that completely destroys this line of reasoning.)
[documentation available if desired]

all the best,

Jeff Lee CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS

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

Heimdall:
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".

The implication would be that the energy of the universe is precisely
zero.

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.

I believe you are referring to inflation. I found an article which
gives a fairly good description of the theory for non-physicists:

http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ke...inflation.html

[...]
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.

Actually, vacuum fluctuations do not produce new particles, but rather,
the particle number fluctuates. While this a rather complex subject,
I located an article that describes that to which you refer in non-
mathematical language:

http://www.cvil.wustl.edu/~dawei/lif...n_discover.htm

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

Since the universe appears to be expanding, the implication of that is
that at some point it had to have a beginning. That leaves you with only a
couple of options. One is that it began from literally nothing. The other
is that this universe is part of some recurring chain of universes, i.e.,
expansion, followed by recollapse, or some variation on that in which new
universes are created from some process in an existing universe. If one
takes the first option, then every process one could describe boils down
to some sort of ``fluctuation about nothing''. But, loosely speaking,
the gravitational potential energy is negative, so this isn't necessarily
a problem. If one adopts the second option, you still end up with the
same sort of problem to explain.

However, you should realize that trying to say much about the universe
before about 10^-43 seconds following the big bang is more in the realm of
speculation than science at the moment. While cosmologists might speculate
on how the universe _might_ have begun such that it leads to the universe
which is ammenable to scientific study, I don't think anyone would call
the speculative part a scientific theory.

"Heimdall" wrote in message
m...
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

Bill Hobba wrote:
"Heimdall" wrote in message
m...

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.

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^ 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!

all the best,

Jeff Lee CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS

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.

Suppose two particles of mass m pop into existence. Then, from what
you say I gather that the total gravitational potential energy would
be -2*m*c**2. This would be true regardless of how far apart the
particles are. But, how can that be? It would take work to turn two
particles one inch apart into two particles two inches apart, wouldn't
it?

Heimdall

wrote in message ...
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Heimdall" wrote in message
m...

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^ 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


all the best,

Jeff Lee CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS

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
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!

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!

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.

all the best,

Jeff Lee CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS

PS. I'm eagerly awaiting any challenges to the reasoning of the above
equation!