The big bang, something from nothing?

[joelr]

In QM, potential energy is the average energy of the carrier particles for the field. And yes, the energy is the fourth (time) component of the energy-momentum four-vector. If you think that is 'random', then please go study special relativity.

That isn't what energy is. That might equal the energy divided by light speed or something.

As to potential energy there is potential energy from particles in the nucleus held together by the strong force and the weak force also has potential energy but there is also gravitational potential energy between particles of mass.

A wave function is NOT energy. In fact, the units are more closely related to probability (they are actually probability per unit volume after being squared).

When a wavefunction spikes it has energy.

Yes, photons are the boson associated the the electromagnetic field. The virtual photons that define that field also define the energy of that field. And the degree of interaction with those virtual photons is what defines the potential energy of a charged particle in that E&M field.

Your talking about QED. Photons are still not potential energy. Particles can have potential energy from their position related to other particles.

Light itself is not potential energy, but the energy of the photons for the E&M field and the degree of interaction with a charged particle *is* the potential energy.

In QED there is a probability amplitude, not potential energy.

Heat is an average kinetic energy of a system of particles. A single photon does not have *heat*. It does have energy and momentum (not momentum energy). Yes, spin is a particle phenomenon and photons are particles. They have spin 1.

Yes, a photon has to hit an atom to transfer energy and cause more vibration/heat. Doesn't have to be a system of particles.

Frequency is directly related to the energy of the photons. In particular, E=hv where v is the frequency and E is the energy of a photon. So, yes, it *is* related to the discussion of energy.

Not really. We were talking about energy in a photon. Not what effects it. Frequency goes up and the energy goes up, this has nothing to do with what type of energy does it carry.
You brought it up like I "forgot" to mention it. I didn't.

No, the waves are probability waves for detection of the particle. Light is not made of both. Both descriptions are equivalent.

Actually, if you knew you r physics you might be aware that there are different interpretations of the wavefunction and what it really is. Some physicists believe the wavefunction to be purely mathematical while some back the idea that there is some sort of physical component. It's not fully known, same with interpretations of QM.

It's recently been discovered that the principle of complementary by Bhor - that a particle acts as either a wave or a particle is wrong. More fine tuned experiments have shown them acting as both at the same time.

Exactly how much physics have you studied and at what level? I've done the PhD qualifying exams and passed them. I have done a graduate level class in particle physics including the computation of reaction cross sections.

Uh huh.

I'm not sure why you seem to think what I post is 'random' and 'nonsensical'. It is the standard physics you get at the graduate level. Maybe you should learn how to deal with the *real* aspects of QM as opposed to the popular treatments written by journalists?

Huh, that's weird cuz you used the popular treatment of zero point energy.

 

[joelr]

This is a rather confused description. Photons, being massless, go at light speed. Any massive particle has to go slower than light, but not because it is 'diverted into time.

I get that your confused but it can be looked at this way. I first heard it from a physicist.

“Yes, the time-like component of the four-velocity of a stationary object is c. It's also correct that "everything moves at the speed of light through spacetime" -- this just means the magnitude of the four-velocity is c (or rather, 1), and its direction keeps changing (note that the transformation here isn't really a rotation, it's a skew/boost, because of how the Minkowski dot product is calculated) as the vector slides on an invariant hyperbola (much like rotations slide on an invariant circle). “

In lay terms light moves at c through space and 0 through the time vector.
Once you start moving through time your space movement has to be slower. At 99% of light speed you time is very slow. At 0 light speed you are moving at max through the time direction in spacetime.

Close to 10^80, I believe.

I thought 10^80 was how many particles the universe could hold so I took off ^20. Either way, big number.

Talk about the 'initial object' is probably not meaningful. Quarks exist once the strong force separates out from the others.

Yeah but at high energies the idea is that all the forces unify. Talking about the initial object isn't meaningful in the stuffy classroom. But the uptight classroom vibe can stuff quarks up it's butt.

 

[joelr]

Are there electrons inside of photons ? And how do they get to a higher level ?

No. Forgetting about weird quantum strangeness, electrons and photons are different particles.
Electrons can jump to higher orbital levels, higher energy. They jump in discreet units.

Has anyone seen a gluon ? What is in the nucleus of a photon ? And the `force carriers` ?

Generally seeing things means you bounce a photon off something and it hits your eye or a lens. Stuff like that are too small to interact with photons. Also photons don't even interact with gluons.

We see them by the tracks they leave in decay chambers and we know to look for them by predictions.

What is a `virtual photon` ? From where do they originate ? Can they be `static` before birth ?

A small disturbance in the field. Laws of probability allow for particles to pop in and out of existence very quickly.
Check out the wiki page on some of this stuff because it's interesting and there is much more good information.

I'll ask again:"What exerts the inertia in the way of `gravity` that keeps the particles together ?"

Forces, no gravity only forces. The strong force and EM use force carriers and virtual particles as well which ends up either attracting or repulsing.

What is added when a photon strikes a particle of matter ?

Energy.

From where does the inertia come that accelerates photons to full speed, from static form ?

They are never static they begin already moving through space at c. A particle with mass begins moving through time at a certain speed but photons have no time movement so it's all in their space movement.

What `holds` photons in their static form until energy is applied, in the form of inertia ?

Only the potential for a photon exists. The photon is a quanta of a force, electromagnetism.
This stuff is complicated because there are many different rules that apply. Classical physics rules don't often work in the quantum realm. If I was describing a pool ball I would just say 4-inch ball, blue, hard like marble and you would understand everything. How it could be used, that it was constructed, that it was probably solid.
Quantum stuff has many weird rules that don't make sense. It helps to browse around and look for good science websites or youtube videos.
Check out this series on youtube:
PBS Space Time PBS series called Space Time

In refering to an original `singularity` (the pseudo apparrant begining of `time`) what is quantum energy ?
10 to the 60th...really ?

10^80, universe is big. Quantum energy is just a buzzword for a possible type of super high energy where all the 4 forces have unified into one force. Maybe all spacetime, quantum fields, energy and forces become one unified thing at insane energy. It makes sense.
Since the universe is all potential this quantum energy probably had potentials to become many different things once it expanded. Or it might have been already set. Who knows? Maybe every time it's different.

 

[Milton Platt]

Any one read the book by Lawrence Krauss "Something From Nothing"?

He is not pro string theory or the multiverse per se, but suggest there is energy in empty nothing space, that universes pop in and out of existence all the time on a quantum scale so fast that it can not be measured and not breaking laws of conservation of energy. But in the big bangs case enough energy and conditions causing the Higgs field kept the universe from collapsing and it became flat, thus inflation began, causing the reaction of creation of matter. That's just a crunched down paragraph of his explanation.

Reading that, wouldn't it imply time and space, though not like we see it, eternal?

It's one of a number of competing hypotheses. It's way above my pay grade to confirm if any one hypothesis is correct.

 

[ChristineM]

Why? I already looked it up

Well your all set then Just a suggestion for further reading.[/QUOTE]

Thanks but too late, any other ideas.

 

[gnostic]

Oh god
‏I don’t like fakes advertising ideas by scientists

Oh, goodness, I don’t like it when a person pretending to know science, when they cannot grasp the most basic science.

 

[Polymath257]

hey Joelr
Are there electrons inside of photons ? And how do they get to a higher level ?

No, electrons and photons are both fundamental particles (as far as we know). Higher level, in this context, means a different orbital for the electron for the electron that has more energy. When an electron in an atom absorbs a photon, it changes to a higher energy orbital. If it changes back to a lower energy orbital, it will emit a photon.

Has anyone seen a gluon ? What is in the nucleus of a photon ? And the `force carriers` ?

Nobody has seen a gluon. Neither has anyone actually seen a quark. We can see their effects, though. In the case of gluons, there is a hypothetical particle called a gluball that is made only of gluons.

The nuclei of atoms are made from protons and neutrons, which are in turn made of quarks held together by gluons.

There are 4 basic forces: Gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. Each has bosons associated with it. Interaction with those bosons is how the force is mediated between other particles. So, the boson for electromagnetism is the photon. For the strong force, there are the gluons, for the weak force, there are W and Z particles, and for gravity there is a hypothetical graviton.

What is a `virtual photon` ? From where do they originate ? Can they be `static` before birth ?

There is a technical sense in which all photons are virtual, actually. Virtual particles are, in essence, the quantum fields for whichever particle you are talking about. There can be virtual electrons, for example, in an electron field.

I'll ask again:"What exerts the inertia in the way of `gravity` that keeps the particles together ?"

All the forces are described by the exchange of bosons. That interaction can be attractive or repulsive depending on a particulars of the interaction.

What is added when a photon strikes a particle of matter ?

Added to what? The matter? Generally energy and momentum.

From where does the inertia come that accelerates photons to full speed, from static form ?

Inertia doesn't accelerate. It is the hindrance to acceleration and is the same as mass. Photons have no mass, and always go the speed of light.

 

[Polymath257]

That isn't what energy is. That might equal the energy divided by light speed or something.

I'm sorry. I thought you were using the standard units where c=1.

As to potential energy there is potential energy from particles in the nucleus held together by the strong force and the weak force also has potential energy but there is also gravitational potential energy between particles of mass.

Yes, indeed. The strong and the weak force are mediated by the gluons and the W and Z particles, gravity by the graviton. Those are what produce the potential energy for the interactions.

When a wavefunction spikes it has energy.

Ambiguous. The energy of a particle is associated with its frequency and so to a change in time. It need not be a 'spike', though.

Your talking about QED. Photons are still not potential energy. Particles can have potential energy from their position related to other particles.

The photon mediates the E&M force. The energy of the field is produced from the virtual photons of that field. The interaction of a particle with those photons defines the potential energy of that particle.

In QED there is a probability amplitude, not potential energy.

In QED, the potential energy is described by the interaction of the charged particle with the photon field.

Yes, a photon has to hit an atom to transfer energy and cause more vibration/heat. Doesn't have to be a system of particles.

No, heat is only defined via an average of kinetic energy in a system of particles. Now, any collision can put an atom (its electrons) into a different state. Technically, vibrational states would be those for atoms in a chemical bind and are for the stretching modes of that bond.

Not really. We were talking about energy in a photon. Not what effects it. Frequency goes up and the energy goes up, this has nothing to do with what type of energy does it carry.
You brought it up like I "forgot" to mention it. I didn't.

Once again, just like mass and energy are linked in special relativity, so are energy and frequency in quantum mechanics. You can't have one without the other.

Actually, if you knew you r physics you might be aware that there are different interpretations of the wavefunction and what it really is. Some physicists believe the wavefunction to be purely mathematical while some back the idea that there is some sort of physical component. It's not fully known, same with interpretations of QM.

It's recently been discovered that the principle of complementary by Bhor - that a particle acts as either a wave or a particle is wrong. More fine tuned experiments have shown them acting as both at the same time.

They *are* both at the same time.

Uh huh.

Huh, that's weird cuz you used the popular treatment of zero point energy.

I didn't mention zero point energy at all.

 

[`mud]

Quote:
"That isn't what energy is. That might equal the energy divided by light speed or something.
As to potential energy there is potential energy from particles in the nucleus held together by the strong force and the weak force also has potential energy but there is also gravitational potential energy between particles of mass."
~
Ahh...just more chalk on the blackboard !
~
Just one more question:
Where do `photons` begin ?

 

[joelr]

Well your all set then Just a suggestion for further reading.

Thanks but too late, any other ideas.[/QUOTE]
Ideas for what?

 

[joelr]

I'm sorry. I thought you were using the standard units where c=1.

It isn't what energy is, it's a form of energy.

Yes, indeed. The strong and the weak force are mediated by the gluons and the W and Z particles, gravity by the graviton. Those are what produce the potential energy for the interactions.

Right but there is also gravitational potential energy which is relevant to the original question.

Ambiguous. The energy of a particle is associated with its frequency and so to a change in time. It need not be a 'spike', though.

Nitpicky. A system is described a a wavefunction. There is energy is the system. A wave can have a energy eigenfunction with an energy eigenvalue.

The photon mediates the E&M force. The energy of the field is produced from the virtual photons of that field. The interaction of a particle with those photons defines the potential energy of that particle.

There is other potential energy that defines the total potential energy. Electrons get potential energy by jumping to a higher orbit.
But QED is the theory that uses virtual photons, I don't know of potential energy in QED.

In QED, the potential energy is described by the interaction of the charged particle with the photon field.

The interactions are described with Feynman diagrams, I don't see where it's potential energy?

No, heat is only defined via an average of kinetic energy in a system of particles. Now, any collision can put an atom (its electrons) into a different state. Technically, vibrational states would be those for atoms in a chemical bind and are for the stretching modes of that bond.

That's why I said vibration, this kinetic energy becomes heat eventually.

Some sources seem to say light contains heat energy, like google:
"Light energy is free movement energy which includes both heat energy and kinetic energy. But it is not potential energy. Heat energy is a kind of kinetic energy --- vibration movement energy for microscopic particles."

Once again, just like mass and energy are linked in special relativity, so are energy and frequency in quantum mechanics. You can't have one without the other.

Still it had nothing to do with the original discussion. There are many things that effect the energy and there are many aspects of the wavefunction. These things have nothing to do with what TYPES of energy are there.

They *are* both at the same time.

I said that. You said that the descriptions are "equivalent." Particles and waves can be described differently as they both demonstrate different behavior.

I didn't mention zero point energy at all.

Uh, I think you did......"ot quite correct. particles *are* excitation states of the fields. They are equivalent descriptions of the same phenomenon. And there is a lowest possible energy level for any field in any volume (corresponding to a lowest resonance for that volume). You *cannot* have a zero energy level---this is known as the zero-point energy."
The big bang, something from nothing?

 

[ChristineM]

Thanks but too late, any other ideas.

Ideas for what?[/QUOTE]

Reading material, you were the one who began the reading ad hom, i thought perhaps you could suggest something else. But never mind

 

[Polymath257]

It isn't what energy is, it's a form of energy.

Right but there is also gravitational potential energy which is relevant to the original question.

Nitpicky. A system is described a a wavefunction. There is energy is the system. A wave can have a energy eigenfunction with an energy eigenvalue.

There is other potential energy that defines the total potential energy. Electrons get potential energy by jumping to a higher orbit.
But QED is the theory that uses virtual photons, I don't know of potential energy in QED.

The interactions are described with Feynman diagrams, I don't see where it's potential energy?

The Feynman diagrams are an approximation technique, essentially an expansion in powers of the fine structure constant. Go back to the Lagrangian from which the Feynman rules are derived. There is a kinetic energy term. The other terms are the potential energy (L=T-V). In particular, in QED, the potential energy term is described by the interaction between the electron/positron field and the photon field. if you want, I can give you the page in Peskin and Schroeder.

Uh, I think you did......"ot quite correct. particles *are* excitation states of the fields. They are equivalent descriptions of the same phenomenon. And there is a lowest possible energy level for any field in any volume (corresponding to a lowest resonance for that volume). You *cannot* have a zero energy level---this is known as the zero-point energy."
The big bang, something from nothing?

Fair enough. I had forgotten.

Is what I said wrong? No.

 

[`mud]

Geeeeeezzzzzzz.....there's chalk everywhere ! ! ! ! !

 

[joelr]

The Feynman diagrams are an approximation technique, essentially an expansion in powers of the fine structure constant. Go back to the Lagrangian from which the Feynman rules are derived. There is a kinetic energy term. The other terms are the potential energy (L=T-V). In particular, in QED, the potential energy term is described by the interaction between the electron/positron field and the photon field. if you want, I can give you the page in Peskin and Schroeder.

Yes. They have to renormalize the fine structure constant but that's neither here nor there.

Fair enough. I had forgotten.

Is what I said wrong? No.

I think it was. Like I said it's a relationship between classical and quantum energy levels.

 

[joelr]

Geeeeeezzzzzzz.....there's chalk everywhere ! ! ! ! !

This "chalk" is also answers to your questions.

 

[`mud]

I believe that it's the color of the chalk,
and the invisible blackboard.
~
And I think you misquoted me up there.
I didn't say:
"Fair enough. I had forgotten.

Is what I said wrong? No."

I think !

 

[wellwisher]

Something from nothing can be demonstrated in the lab. The way you do this is to set up a water wave tank, where you have two wave generators, one on each side of the tank. The wave generators will make waves that are 180 degree out of phase. The result is the wave crests and troughs from the left waves will cancel the wave trough and waves from the right wave, so there is stillness in the middle of the tank. We are adding constant energy to the tank, but due to the wave addition, there appears like nothing is happening in the center of the tank. We have hidden energy due to destructive interference.

The wave generators are adding energy to the tank, but the wave addition cancels the impact on the water, so if someone just came in, they would see nothing in the center of the tank, even though something energetic is happening on both sides. It sort of a magic trick to the untrained eye.

To make something appear from this nothing, we only need to add a partition in the center of the tank. The partition disrupts the wave addition, and causes the hidden energy to appear from nothing; let there be light. The physics of the partition is beyond the scope of this discussion. However, suffice to say, in the case of the wave tank, we added something that is not a wave but acts more like a particle. The primordial atom was a type of particle partition that could reverse the destructive interference of nothingness.

 

[`mud]

Ahh...How about subtracting the energy added to energize the inertia of those entities themselves.
Now add the nothing of nothingness to the lack of inertia provided by no added phase of the lack of momentum to start with.
That and a piece of pie makes an Alamo

 

[`mud]

Another problem...where did they get the `tank` ?