Something from Nothing

[bschneid]

My original question is on the group page.

From what I have read, "empty space" isn't really empty like we would think it to be. At the subatomic levels there are particles that can pop in and out of existence. These particles also interact with each other. So I am assuming that because of the uncertainty principle, during experiments, when there is an empty space and then a particle pops up this does not require time as a dimension? Maybe this is an attempt to explain that at a point before time exists something can come from nothing? But regardless it seems there is a huge logical flaw when we define a space filled with subatomic particles as "nothing".

I understand I did not cover or answer very much in detail, I have had several tests and essays to do the last few weeks. I am hoping that someone could possibly correct/ elaborate/ or answer more questions than I have.

[Anselm33]

Originally Posted by bschneid

My original question is on the group page.

From what I have read, "empty space" isn't really empty like we would think it to be. At the subatomic levels there are particles that can pop in and out of existence. These particles also interact with each other. So I am assuming that because of the uncertainty principle, during experiments, when there is an empty space and then a particle pops up this does not require time as a dimension? Maybe this is an attempt to explain that at a point before time exists something can come from nothing? But regardless it seems there is a huge logical flaw when we define a space filled with subatomic particles as "nothing".

I understand I did not cover or answer very much in detail, I have had several tests and essays to do the last few weeks. I am hoping that someone could possibly correct/ elaborate/ or answer more questions than I have.

Hi bschneid. I have an answer to your original question posted as a reply to the OP "is a quantum vacuum nothing?"
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=486908
Here is the original question and my reply:
Quote:

Originally Posted by MindOverMatter2
If a Quantum Vacuum is nothing at all, to what extent does it qualify as a scientific theory? You cannot measure that which is nothing. That which is nothing is not physical.

According this wikipedia article, the Quantum Vacuum (perhaps misleadingly) is described as something. So what are we actually talking about when we speak of a Quantum Vacuum? Is this really science?

Vacuum state
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. Generally, it contains no physical particles. Zero-point field is sometimes used as a synonym for the vacuum state of an individual quantized field.

According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space",[1] and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."[2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.[3][4][5]

The QCD vacuum of quantum chromodynamics is the object of study in the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider and the Large Hadron Collider, and is related to the so-called vacuum structure of strong interactions.[6]


It seems to me that electromagnetic waves are something. I have never heard of a science of nothing.

I'm replying to this OP at a late date, after climbing up a steep learning curve: going back to my notes on Schwinger's advanced qm (1953), some later texts, and articles on quantum cosmology, and email questions asked of physicists whose opinion I resepct. If you look at standard quantum field theory, in which anhilation and creation operators can give rise to particle pair production as a result of an external perturbation, then you see that the raising and lowering operators contain a coordinate x and a time t, so they don't operate on a nothing, they operate on a space; this is the inconsistency in Tryon's orginal proposal (1970?). Vilenkin's proposal (1988) involved quantum tunneling from a "superspace" of hypothetical universes into our universe. So there was certainly "something" preceding the creation of our universe, this superspace.
Christopher Isham discusses Vilenkin's and other quantum theories of the origins of the universe in his article in "Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Nature" the CTNS compilation of on of the conferences called by JP II at Castel Gandalfo (sp?) on "Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action".
GFR Ellis has a review article on "Philosophical Issues in Cosmology", which I'll be commenting on in the Magis Center group forum, very shortly. (I hope ). In this article he specifies many theories for the origination of the universe as unverifiable and therefore speculative--their domain is in philosophy and metaphysics.
In particular, IMHO, the notion of Creation via quantum fluctuations of the vacuum is not science but metaphysics, since there will be no way to verify it by measurement, direct or indirect

Going back to your original question, the creation and anhilation operators for pair production include both a space coordinate and a time coordinate, so they operate on a vacuum, i.e. a something--spatial and time extension. And, let me add, energy is required. You don't get mass energy from nothing; either the energy is supplied by an electromagnetic field in the vacuum, or some other energy source.

Hope this is helpful.

anselm

[bschneid]

Hooray! Very well put together Anselm. Answered just about all of my questions. Thanks for taking the time to organize all this information.