Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[exchemist]

What you are describing as ;continuous(?) time at the Quantum scale is not the same as continuous time/3 D space with gravity of our macro scale universe,

I'm sorry, that does not seem to be a sentence. Can you re-express it more clearly, with accurate punctuation?

 

[YoursTrue]

There are more subtleties in this than you seem to be aware of.

For example, does 'nothing' mean the absence of matter and energy? Or also the absence of space and time? Or is it the complete absence of anything?

Does 'come out of' imply the existence of time? That causality is applicable? That the laws of physics are applicable? If none of those, in what sense is there 'coming out of'?

Next, if 'nothing', in the definition you choose, simply doesn't exist, then we can both agree (maybe?) that existence doesn't 'come out of nothing'. But then, you have to show that anyone is claiming that happens, again, using the definitions you are choosing.

The way of looking at it--the word nothing--depends on context and the viewer. For instance, if I were to go into a room with no furniture and I described it later to someone, I might say there was nothing there. It was empty. And the person would likely know what I meant.

 

[YoursTrue]

You think all things need a creation story that has to be known? As if we demand and deserve to know the creation of all things.
So for thousands of years, before Genesis all those humans never knew about Genesis. So even if Genesis was true millions of humans didn't get to know?
But getting back to real life for a second, if evolution was wrong, it does not make the Hindu creation story true. It does not make the Mesopotamian creation stories true. Same with Genesis which IS A RE-WRITE of that mythology.
It would mean we don't yet know and we keep looking for clues from all branches of related science.
You sound like you are saying if evolution is false then we would NEED Genesis to be true to have a creation story. We don't need a mythology and we don't get to know everything anyways. We are fortunate to know so much because of science.

Back in only-religion days, germs did not exist, Gods were the cause of illness, weather and everything else. They also healed us. IF someone died it was Gods will. Now, we take a penacillin and live or have surgery and live.

HOWEVER, the evidence at least for natural selection and those aspects of evolution is proven beyond a doubt. We have all the hominid species right from an ape that walked only a little and was fully covered in hair and ate plants. Right up to H. Heidelburgensis which had no fur, made tools, had language, buried their dead and H. Sapien emerged out of over thousands of years.

Evolution is fine and birds and insects are part of it. As I explained self replicating molecules, amino acids, peptides, have been seen and we will continue to piece that puzzle together. Just like we have not finished A.I., we have not finished explaining the origin of life. We are fairly close.

Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying?

In actuality (Biblical, that is) germs did exist. the Israelites were told to bury their excrement and to cleanse themselves after touching a dead person. I don't believe that humans evolved. I also don't believe that fish evolved to get flippers and bounce out of water and eventually become landrovers permanently because of evolution. I can see and understand Mendel's research that genetic changes certainly do occur amongst organisms. This does not demonstrate the theory of evolution. It demonstrates that sheep can genetically produce sheep with different colors. And humans can produce populations with short legs.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, the earth does not clearly hang on nothing. In fact, it is constrained to follow a well defined relative movement around the sun by a gravitational field. That is, the earth actually hangs on curved spacetime, and it is constrained by it. And curved spacetime is not nothing. Ergo, the earth does not hang on nothing.

unless you can offer us a definition of “nothing” that would save your case, without damaging others.

ciao

- viole

Again, it is clear to me that the use of the word nothing means different things to different people. If a person goes into a room with no furniture and describes it later, he can properly say there was nothing in the room. ciao and have a good one.

 

[joelr]

Continuous time refers specifically to the nature of time in the macro scale of our universe with 3 D space and gravity. These properties do not exist at the Quantum scale based on basic Quantum Mechanics. Time only exists at the Quantum scale in terms of momentary events involving Quantum particles as described in the 'Particle in a Box.' The Quantum Particle cannot get out of the box.

But virtual particles are everywhere and obey strict time limits. As does particle decay. We don't understand the time dimension in a physical way so we cannot make statements that are definite.

 

[joelr]

To add: Yes the Quantum field is continuous and boundless, and yes particles do propagate continuously, but it remains the time in the Quantum field remain momentary related to Quantum events involving Quantum Particles. This is not the continuous time/space of the 3 D universe with gravity. The Quantum field does not have the 'arrow of time' of the 3 D universe with gravity. Gravity as defined is dependent on continuous time/space of the 3 D universe.

Gravity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Gravity - In physics, gravity (from Latin gravitas 'weight'[1]) is a fundamental interaction which causes mutual attraction between all things with mass or energy[clarification needed]. Gravity is, by far, the weakest of the four fundamental interactions, approximately 1038 times weaker than the strong interaction, 1036 times weaker than the electromagnetic force and 1029 times weaker than the weak interaction. As a result, it has no significant influence at the level of subatomic particles.[2] However, gravity is the most significant interaction between objects at the macroscopic scale, and it determines the motion of planets, stars, galaxies, and even light.

Yes gravity is weak at the quantum scale. Except in black holes which can be subatomic and in this case gravity is the dominant force, stronger than even the strong force.

The arrow of time is sometimes considered to go with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but we do not fully understand time or what the time dimension is (in the Minkowski interpretation where there is a time dimension).

However, it's part of spacetime. So spacetime has a quantum realm and there is no known size limit on time. Particles move inside time or they would have no causality so time exists at the quantum realm just fine.

 

[joelr]

In actuality (Biblical, that is) germs did exist. the Israelites were told to bury their excrement and to cleanse themselves after touching a dead person.

That doesn't mean they said germs exist? It could mean it's bad luck? Had they said there are little tiny living things you cannot see that cause illness people would have made a big deal out of it because when it was proposed the scientists were called crazy.

I don't believe that humans evolved.

Some people don't believe the world is round. So? Evidence.

I also don't believe that fish evolved to get flippers and bounce out of water and eventually become landrovers permanently because of evolution.

Some people believe aliens run the government. Evidence is what demonstrates it's true. Some animals evolve INTO sea animals, it's not always one way. At Galapagos island there are land animals turning into fish because of demand for food. They are developing gills and spending more time under water looking for food. In thousands of years they will be fully in the water.

And, pretty sure we have fossils of all the intermediate stages of sea to land animals.

I can see and understand Mendel's research that genetic changes certainly do occur amongst organisms. This does not demonstrate the theory of evolution. It demonstrates that sheep can genetically produce sheep with different colors. And humans can produce populations with short legs.

There is vast amounts of other evidence. I don't care if people believe flat Earth or no evolution. None of that proves Biblical mythology is real. None of it proves a God exists and created humans.
The specific case of the Bible, Genesis is Mesopotamian mythology re-written. Creation, flood, of this there is no doubt.

Also the cosmology, cosmic waters above and below heaven, doors to keep the ocean off earth, is wrong.
Like I just mentioned in another post, - creation stories and laws like in Deuteronomy, we have from 3rd millennium BC from Mesopotamia

Wisdom literature, like Proverbs, in some cases verbatim, word for word, from Egypt, well before Proverbs.

-Epic poetry and ritual text like Leviticus from Ugarit.

-Laws like Deuteronomy from the Hittite Empire
-Historiography from Greece, all far before the Bible was written or Israel were a people.

 

[Audie]

In actuality (Biblical, that is) germs did exist. the Israelites were told to bury their excrement and to cleanse themselves after touching a dead person. I don't believe that humans evolved. I also don't believe that fish evolved to get flippers and bounce out of water and eventually become landrovers permanently because of evolution. I can see and understand Mendel's research that genetic changes certainly do occur amongst organisms. This does not demonstrate the theory of evolution. It demonstrates that sheep can genetically produce sheep with different colors. And humans can produce populations with short legs.

Bounce out of water? Bounce?

You are not aware that there are fish
living today that climb out of the water?
Some that will drown if forced to stay
in the water?

You show no evidence of even dim awareness.

Such low quality in what contributes to your
beliefs.

 

[Polymath257]

The way of looking at it--the word nothing--depends on context and the viewer. For instance, if I were to go into a room with no furniture and I described it later to someone, I might say there was nothing there. It was empty. And the person would likely know what I meant.

Sort of my point. Define the terms you are using first, so there is no doubt. Then ask the question precisely.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, it was not.

No, it is not. That is what we have been trying to tell you. And, by the way, you now have *three* people who have actually studied quantum mechanics that are pointing out that you are wrong in your understanding in this regard.

Uh huh. Tell that to the professors that graded my PhD qualifying exam in quantum mechanics.

<the rest deleted as irrelevant>

I thought you were done! Redundant meaningless posts continue unabated. Your predictable in repeating yourself and failing to provide coherent posts for your argument.

I never stated time in the Quantum Field does not exist. What you perpetually ignore the fact that time in Quantum Mechanics is not the same as time in the macro world. The particle cannot get out of the box.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes gravity is weak at the quantum scale. Except in black holes which can be subatomic and in this case gravity is the dominant force, stronger than even the strong force.

The arrow of time is sometimes considered to go with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but we do not fully understand time or what the time dimension is (in the Minkowski interpretation where there is a time dimension).

However, it's part of spacetime. So spacetime has a quantum realm and there is no known size limit on time. Particles move inside time or they would have no causality so time exists at the quantum realm just fine.

I never asserted time did not exist at the Quantum scale. Yes time exists but not continuous time/space and 3D space of the macro scale of our universe. No, the Quantum scale is NOT apart of space time of classical physics, It has its own rules under Quantum Mechanics.

Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that provides a description of the physical properties of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles.[2]: 1.1  It is the foundation of all quantum physics including quantum chemistry, quantum field theory, quantum technology, and quantum information science.

Classical physics, the collection of theories that existed before the advent of quantum mechanics, describes many aspects of nature at an ordinary (macroscopic) scale, but is not sufficient for describing them at small (atomic and subatomic) scales. Most theories in classical physics can be derived from quantum mechanics as an approximation valid at large (macroscopic) scale.[3]

Quantum mechanics differs from classical physics in that energy, momentum, angular momentum, and other quantities of a bound system are restricted to discrete values (quantization); objects have characteristics of both particles and waves (wave–particle duality); and there are limits to how accurately the value of a physical quantity can be predicted prior to its measurement, given a complete set of initial conditions (the uncertainty principle).

Please reread my posts and respond to what I said.

 

[ratiocinator]

I never asserted time did not exist at the Quantum scale. Yes time exists but not continuous time/space and 3D space of the macro scale of our universe. No, the Quantum scale is NOT apart of space time of classical physics, It has its own rules under Quantum Mechanics.

Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

...

Don't know why you feel the need to post great chunks of web pages, people can follow links, you know.

And yet again you've referenced an article that does not support your view about non-continuous space and time. What's more it's full of mathematics that only works on continuous variables, from the very first equation (Schrödinger equation):

onwards. The derivative d/dt simply doesn't make sense unless t (time) is continuous.

Still waiting for any reference at all that backs up what you say as current science.

 

[Polymath257]

I thought you were done! Redundant meaningless posts continue unabated. Your predictable in repeating yourself and failing to provide coherent posts for your argument.

I never stated time in the Quantum Field does not exist. What you perpetually ignore the fact that time in Quantum Mechanics is not the same as time in the macro world. The particle cannot get out of the box.

Yes, time in QM is the same as on the macro level. What makes you think they are different?

And whether a particle can get out of a box with infinite potential walls is irrelevant to the nature of time.

I am hoping you will actually give a reference that supports your view that time at the quantum level is not the same as time on the classical level.

 

[Polymath257]

I never asserted time did not exist at the Quantum scale. Yes time exists but not continuous time/space and 3D space of the macro scale of our universe. No, the Quantum scale is NOT apart of space time of classical physics, It has its own rules under Quantum Mechanics.

Give a reference for these different rules.

Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that provides a description of the physical properties of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles.[2]: 1.1  It is the foundation of all quantum physics including quantum chemistry, quantum field theory, quantum technology, and quantum information science.

Classical physics, the collection of theories that existed before the advent of quantum mechanics, describes many aspects of nature at an ordinary (macroscopic) scale, but is not sufficient for describing them at small (atomic and subatomic) scales. Most theories in classical physics can be derived from quantum mechanics as an approximation valid at large (macroscopic) scale.[3]

Quantum mechanics differs from classical physics in that energy, momentum, angular momentum, and other quantities of a bound system are restricted to discrete values (quantization); objects have characteristics of both particles and waves (wave–particle duality); and there are limits to how accurately the value of a physical quantity can be predicted prior to its measurement, given a complete set of initial conditions (the uncertainty principle).

Please reread my posts and respond to what I said.

Nowhere in this does it say anything about time being different at the quantum level.

 

[exchemist]

I thought you were done! Redundant meaningless posts continue unabated. Your predictable in repeating yourself and failing to provide coherent posts for your argument.

I never stated time in the Quantum Field does not exist. What you perpetually ignore the fact that time in Quantum Mechanics is not the same as time in the macro world. The particle cannot get out of the box.

Why does the fact that, in the particle in the box scenario, the particle can't get out, make a difference to the nature of time?

 

[shunyadragon]

Which one? The first is the typical definition. And the hydrogen atom is on that scale. But the second is, well, without any meaning that I can fathom.

The time in quantum mechanics is *exactly* the same as time anywhere else. In Dirac's equation, it is x_0 (for convenience). In Schrodinger's equation, it is t.

Quantum Time – Exactly What Is Time?

www.exactlywhatistime.com

Some quantum physicists (e.g. Don Page and William Wootters) have developed a theory that time is actually an emergent phenomenon resulting from a strange quantum concept known as entanglement, in which different quantum particles effectively share an existence, even though physically separated, so that the quantum state of each particle can only be described relative to the other entangled particles. The theory even claims to have experimental proof recently, from experiments by Ekaterina Moreva which show that observers do not detect any change in quantum particles (i.e. time foes not “emerge”) until becoming entangled with another particle.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why does the fact that, in the particle in the box scenario, the particle can't get out, make a difference to the nature of time?

The particle cannot leave the box. I believe continuous time is an emergent property of entanglement that results in time in the macro scale. universe. I never said time does not exist at the Quantum scale. The smallest scale of the beginning of continuous time is possible entanglement of Quantum particles.

Quantum Time – Exactly What Is Time?

www.exactlywhatistime.com

Some quantum physicists (e.g. Don Page and William Wootters) have developed a theory that time is actually an emergent phenomenon resulting from a strange quantum concept known as entanglement, in which different quantum particles effectively share an existence, even though physically separated, so that the quantum state of each particle can only be described relative to the other entangled particles. The theory even claims to have experimental proof recently, from experiments by Ekaterina Moreva which show that observers do not detect any change in quantum particles (i.e. time foes not “emerge”) until becoming entangled with another particle.

 

[Polymath257]

Quantum Time – Exactly What Is Time?

www.exactlywhatistime.com

Some quantum physicists (e.g. Don Page and William Wootters) have developed a theory that time is actually an emergent phenomenon resulting from a strange quantum concept known as entanglement, in which different quantum particles effectively share an existence, even though physically separated, so that the quantum state of each particle can only be described relative to the other entangled particles. The theory even claims to have experimental proof recently, from experiments by Ekaterina Moreva which show that observers do not detect any change in quantum particles (i.e. time foes not “emerge”) until becoming entangled with another particle.

OK, so it is a hypothesis and not accepted physics, right?

 

[ratiocinator]

Quantum Time – Exactly What Is Time?

www.exactlywhatistime.com

Some quantum physicists (e.g. Don Page and William Wootters) have developed a theory that time is actually an emergent phenomenon resulting from a strange quantum concept known as entanglement, in which different quantum particles effectively share an existence, even though physically separated, so that the quantum state of each particle can only be described relative to the other entangled particles. The theory even claims to have experimental proof recently, from experiments by Ekaterina Moreva which show that observers do not detect any change in quantum particles (i.e. time foes not “emerge”) until becoming entangled with another particle.

From the very same page:

An obvious question, then, would be: is time divided up into discrete quanta? According to quantum mechanics, the answer appears to be “no”, and time appears to be in fact smooth and continuous (contrary to common belief, not everything in quantum theory is quantized). [my emphasis]​

The clue in the passage you quoted was the "Some quantum physicists....". We are again talking about speculative hypotheses, not standard quantum mechanics as you have claimed. On that, the above quote from the same page flatly contradicts your claim.

 

[exchemist]

The particle cannot leave the box. I believe continuous time is an emergent property of entanglement that results in time in the macro scale. universe. I never said time does not exist at the Quantum scale. The smallest scale of the beginning of continuous time is possible entanglement of Quantum particles.

Quantum Time – Exactly What Is Time?

www.exactlywhatistime.com

Some quantum physicists (e.g. Don Page and William Wootters) have developed a theory that time is actually an emergent phenomenon resulting from a strange quantum concept known as entanglement, in which different quantum particles effectively share an existence, even though physically separated, so that the quantum state of each particle can only be described relative to the other entangled particles. The theory even claims to have experimental proof recently, from experiments by Ekaterina Moreva which show that observers do not detect any change in quantum particles (i.e. time foes not “emerge”) until becoming entangled with another particle.

OK, this may be what you choose to believe, but you have to realise that this is not in any way accepted science, as your link in fact makes clear. That article is getting into the various philosophical interpretations of quantum theory, about which is there is, notoriously, no consensus.

It seems to me these people, whoever they are, have a bit of a conundrum to deal with since time is a variable assumed in the construction of QM . There is in fact a Wiki entry on all this, which if you have not seen it is worth a read: Problem of time - Wikipedia

Please note it states that "In classical mechanics, a special status is assigned to time in the sense that it is treated as a classical background parameter, external to the system itself. This special role is seen in the standard formulation of quantum mechanics. It is regarded as part of an a priori given classical background with a well defined value."