Thanks To Science

[graybear13]

"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which
the established authorities are wrong." Voltaire

Yet the scientific community would welcome your ideas with open arms if you had evidence for your idea of free energy. You don't. Anybody can write science fiction, and some people can make it sound cool by talking about vortices and dark energy, but it's still fiction.

Science 'should' be grounded in reason, although imagination and conjecture are helpful in the extension of it's borders.

Science does provide for it's own progressive correction.

"Because things are the way they are,
things will not stay the way they are." Brecht

gray

[graybear13]

Hey Kevin, I meant to add....We 'should' get together and 'blow the froth off a couple of cold ones'. Maybe we can talk about the erotic nature of vortexes and how they lead to the birth of atoms and the cosmos.

gray

[Savonarola]

The process is the same for the creation of a galaxy as it is for the creation of an atom. IMHO

Well, at least you're humble about it. And rightfully so, I'm afraid: How is the process of creating a galaxy the same as the process of creating an atom if galaxies are made of atoms?

My number one reason is the involvement of the Catholic Church in it's inception.

Genetic fallacy.

Second...everything that is cited as 'proof' can attributed to something else.

Then I'd love to hear your explanation of:
1. redshift
2. CMBR
3. correlation of galactic age with CMBR cooling

It's as if science shot an arrow into the wall and then painted a bull's eye target around it with mathematics and conjecture.

You're an idiot. Penzias and Wilson didn't even know what they'd discovered when they found the CMBR. That's part of how theories get tested: Theories make a prediction, so we test that prediction. The big bang model predicted CMBR, and then CMBR was found.
What's strange is that you keep singing the praises of Einstein, yet relativity could equally (if not more!) be described as "an arrow shot into a wall with a bulls-eye painted around it." Einstein came up with these outlandish ideas of space curvature and time dilation with minimal evidence, but the predictions from his models were found to be true once tested. How is this different than the history of the big bang model?

And third...it really doesn't work, does it?

Would you like to explain what you think you mean by this, or will you be content to let yourself remain looking like you don't know what you're talking about?

Science 'should' be grounded in reason, although imagination and conjecture are helpful in the extension of it's borders.

Fine, but such attempts at extension "should" be supported with evidence, too. I keep asking for yours, and you haven't given any. Why not?

Science does provide for it's own progressive correction.

And this is why I again implore you to present your evidence to scientists. If we're wrong, we'd really like to know. Instead, you keep talking in grandiose, pompous, horn-tooting mode about how science is evil and wrong unless its yours because you know what's really going on. But we've seen your kind of show before. You won't present your evidence because you don't have any. You know that what little reasoning you do have will get trashed beyond repair by that pesky reality. Perhaps you've forgotten last time? Do you have anything new?

[Dardedar]

You won't present your evidence because you don't have any. You know that what little reasoning you do have will get trashed beyond repair by that pesky reality. Perhaps you've forgotten last time? Do you have anything new?

DAR
I just went back and read a bunch of those posts. Good stuff.

[Dardedar]

[graybear13]

Science 'should' be grounded in reason, although imagination and conjecture are helpful in the extension of it's borders.

Fine, but such attempts at extension "should" be supported with evidence, too. I keep asking for yours, and you haven't given any. Why not?

I never said 'science is evil' but if you go to bed with pigs you wake up smelling like them in the morning. I did say that science was confused by an unholy alliance with the Catholic Church.

I do not disagree with Einstein's definition of the effect of gravity. My question is...what 'causes' the warp in the fabric of time and space? What, actually, is gravity?

Where is my evidence...??? I'm not a scientist, that's not my job. There is plenty of evidence out there that is not being seen for what it is, misinterpreted because of of the big bang confusion i.e. The detection of background radiation...was it pigeon shit or a relic of the big bang? Now that's some real science. Or was is it caused by the ongoing birth of billions of stars and planets? Also there were several eminent scientists - especially the committed atheists, including Hoyle - who were not convinced. The idea of the universe somehow growing from something smaller than an atom seemed too preposterous for them to take seriously. Why not suppose, they argued "that we are just not seeing the whole picture? The universe we can see may be expanding, but other parts, beyond our field of vision, might be moving in the opposite direction and contracting. Overall, the universe could be in a steady state, embracing pockets of expansion and contraction, bubbling and boiling forever not unlike a giant cauldron of water. After all, Einsteins mathematics would allow for both expansion and contraction." The "cosmic egg" could just as easily fit this model rather than being a relic of the big bang.

Another problem with the big bang is the 'singularity' that must have existed before. "Singularity is a word for saying I don't know, a word for saying I'm clueless." Singularity has to be eliminated! There is no such thing. IMHO

If energy alone can lead to the creation of an entire universe why did it have to come from a fictitious singularity? Maybe the universe is a lot older than 14 billion years. Maybe that first second of the big bang theory actually took a trillion years to play out and there was no bang, just energy moving from nothing (Dark Energy) to something.

The red shift just proves that galaxies are moving. It does not prove why, or what the causality is.

Maybe if you weren't so contentious you wouldn't be so confused by what I say.

gray

[Dardedar]

Where is my evidence...??? I'm not a scientist, that's not my job. There is plenty of evidence out there that is not being seen for what it is...

Speechless.

[Doug]

I did say that science was confused by an unholy alliance with the Catholic Church.

Right. But religion is not in an alliance with the Catholic Church, right?

Where is my evidence...??? I'm not a scientist, that's not my job.

If you don't gather evidence for your positions, and you are not a scientist, how can you expect to be taken seriously when you claim that all professional scientists are wrong about, say, the Big Bang? You haven't a leg to stand on.

[Savonarola]

I never said 'science is evil'

Perhaps not in those words, but that certainly appeared to be the meaning of your first post in this thread. Heck, just look at the title!

I did say that science was confused by an unholy alliance with the Catholic Church.

Please explain how findings like universal redshift and CMBR are tied to the Catholic Church.

I do not disagree with Einstein's definition of the effect of gravity.

I know. That was my point. Einstein's methodology is exactly the approach that you said is essentially cheating: coming up with an idea, and then looking for evidence to support it. Cosmology had support for the big bang theory even before the discovery of the CMBR, so the big bang model is less "guilty" of this "tainted" approach than is Einstein's model, yet you don't have a problem with his conclusions.

My question is...what 'causes' the warp in the fabric of time and space?

Mass. Next question?

Where is my evidence...??? I'm not a scientist, that's not my job.

It is your job to support your assertions whether you're a scientist or not (and you're certainly not). If you want to win over the scientific community, then you'll have to provide evidence.

There is plenty of evidence out there that is not being seen for what it is,

Then you must provide not only an alternate explanation but also sufficient reason for accepting your explanation in favor of the mainstream interpretation. Instead, all you do is talk about mysterious dark energy in an attempt to provide only an alternate explanation. Not only is your "explanation" batshit insane, you haven't even tried to show why we should accept your alternate explanation.

was it pigeon shit or a relic of the big bang?

It was mathematically predicted by models of the big bang, and then it was discovered by people not even looking for it. You, however, think that it's more likely that it's pigeon shit.
Are you, just maybe, beginning to see why scientists don't take you seriously?

Also there were several eminent scientists - especially the committed atheists, including Hoyle - who were not convinced.

And there are some people who believe that the earth is flat. Do you have a point that isn't inane?

The idea of the universe somehow growing from something smaller than an atom...

Yeah, I'll clearly have to ask you again. If you don't understand the big bang theory, stop pretending that you understand the big bang theory. It's a simple request, really.

but other parts, beyond our field of vision, might be moving in the opposite direction and contracting.

And maybe there are small but super-strong gremlins pushing galaxies around at random, and we just can't see them! No, you don't get to make shit up and consider the evidence refuted. You have no evidence that significant portions of the invisibly distant universe are moving toward us.

Overall, the universe could be

controlled by gremlins. Stop making shit up.

Another problem with the big bang is the 'singularity' that must have existed before.

Existed "before" what? Existed before the beginning of the universe? As time is part of the universe, and as "before" is a temporal reference, there is no such thing as "before" the universe. Why do some people have such a problem with this conceptualization?

"Singularity is a word for saying I don't know,"

Let's pretend that this is entirely true. It's way more honest -- and scientifically fruitful -- to acknowledge that we don't know something than to make shit up and call it good.

If energy alone can lead to the creation of an entire universe

Similar problem as before. Energy exists within the universe, so energy did not create the universe.

Maybe the universe is a lot older than 14 billion years.

Making shit up.

Maybe that first second of the big bang theory actually took a trillion years to play out and there was no bang, just energy moving from nothing (Dark Energy) to something.

Making shit up in violation of known laws of physics.

The red shift just proves that galaxies are moving.

And that the universe is expanding.

Maybe if you weren't so contentious you wouldn't be so confused by what I say.

I'll try to make this as simple as possible: just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I am confused by your positions. But because I'm right, it means that you're wrong.

[kwlyon]

Hey Kevin, I meant to add....We 'should' get together and 'blow the froth off a couple of cold ones'. Maybe we can talk about the erotic nature of vortexes and how they lead to the birth of atoms and the cosmos.

gray

And maybe I can convince you to substitute "waves" for "vortices"....

[kwlyon]

I never said 'science is evil' but if you go to bed with pigs you wake up smelling like them in the morning. I did say that science was confused by an unholy alliance with the Catholic Church.

Okay this needs to be addressed. Just because the catholic church jumped on the bandwagon of the "Big Bang Theory", prematurely I might add, primarily because they like the idea of the universe having a finite beginning doesn't mean the catholic church was in any way associated with or had any influence on the development of the theory. The man who is primarily credited with proposing the earliest rendition of the "Big Bang Theory" was a priest named Lemaître....yes...he was a priest. There are a lot of good scientist, particularly astronomers, who are priest, monks, or generally catholics. This does not inherently diminish the validity of their work.

I do not disagree with Einstein's definition of the effect of gravity. My question is...what 'causes' the warp in the fabric of time and space? What, actually, is gravity?

This question keeps me awake some nights. How can two orthogonal mutually inducing fields propagating out at the speed of light somehow interact and give rise to a localized wave-packet with an associated electric (and possibly magnetic depending on your frame) field of a completely different geometry. Oh...and also give rise to mass. The Feynman diagrams seem to yield little explanation as to what is actually going on. They treat most interactions as simple recipes for what goes in and what comes out. Though I have no doubt that a more thorough understanding of QED/QCD would aid me in this understanding, at the end of the day I kinda get the feeling we don't understand the dynamics that are surely going on at the subatomic scale--I don't think we really know what matter is. I suspect it is nothing more nor less than the net result of complicated wave interference. The principal of least action suggest to me that the universe is desperately trying to not exist...but coming up short in the end. I think the answer to why is there something rather than nothing may be found here. Perhaps God was short a single quanta in his quest to not exist.

What I am getting at with my random babbling is that we don't know what mass is. We have a good idea of what gravity is but we don't know why it arrises. Currently it is accepted, along with the other fundamental forces, as a necessary axiom. I am rather uncomfortable with this. We have too many axioms. But again, I don't really understand how a "vortex" explains any of this.

Where is my evidence...??? I'm not a scientist, that's not my job.

I would like to nominate this for copout of the month award.....

There is plenty of evidence out there that is not being seen for what it is, misinterpreted because of of the big bang confusion i.e. The detection of background radiation...was it pigeon shit or a relic of the big bang?

What?...Um...it is an intensity curve that is VERY distinctive of blackbody radiation arising from a cooling body. It's peak corresponds to an age that falls within the relatively narrow range already accepted for the age of the universe. It is about the most compelling evidence I have ever seen for any theory. I mean I am hella impressed. It's certainly not any avian fecal matter.

Now that's some real science. Or was is it caused by the ongoing birth of billions of stars and planets? Also there were several eminent scientists - especially the committed atheists, including Hoyle - who were not convinced. The idea of the universe somehow growing from something smaller than an atom seemed too preposterous for them to take seriously. Why not suppose, they argued "that we are just not seeing the whole picture? The universe we can see may be expanding, but other parts, beyond our field of vision, might be moving in the opposite direction and contracting.

It is likely they are right in that we are not seeing the whole picture. However I see no reason not to accept, based upon current evidence which is, to say the least, substantial, that the universe was once much much smaller and much much hotter. The part about not seeing the whole picture will come into play when people try to assert that this was the beginning of all that is, ever was, or ever will be.

Overall, the universe could be in a steady state, embracing pockets of expansion and contraction, bubbling and boiling forever not unlike a giant cauldron of water. After all, Einsteins mathematics would allow for both expansion and contraction." The "cosmic egg" could just as easily fit this model rather than being a relic of the big bang.

I can think of a couple examples where there may be a corresponding contraction somewhere else in the universe. It is possible the universe is simply beating between two nodes and at every half cycle we undergo a big bang. This does not nullify the big bang theory, however, only modify it. At this point, however, there is no evidence to support such a conjecture, well, exceedingly insufficient evidence anyways. Such thought experiments may be interesting and ultimately useful however they are nothing more than conjecture.

Another problem with the big bang is the 'singularity' that must have existed before. "Singularity is a word for saying I don't know, a word for saying I'm clueless." Singularity has to be eliminated! There is no such thing. IMHO

There may have never been an actual "singularity". This arises from the point at which our current mathematical models cease to be of use. I don't think any physicist actually believes there is a point of infinite density at the center of a black hole. This is just a mathematical relic that arises from applying a model beyond its range of applicability. That is not to say that singularities can not exist...it is possible they do. They certainly do not constitute any violation of reason or known physical laws. However they have a tendency to crop up in regions where we are, to say the least, less than confident regarding the veracity of our models.

If energy alone can lead to the creation of an entire universe why did it have to come from a fictitious singularity? Maybe the universe is a lot older than 14 billion years. Maybe that first second of the big bang theory actually took a trillion years to play out and there was no bang, just energy moving from nothing (Dark Energy) to something.

May be...but I caution you that when we start talking about time around the occurrence of the big bang things get a little screwy. Time has several meanings...and by one, rather stringently defined version, the universe appears to be around 13.6 billion years old.

The red shift just proves that galaxies are moving. It does not prove why, or what the causality is.

Indeed...and why they are accelerating is anybody's guess.

Kevin

[kwlyon]

Energy exists within the universe, so energy did not create the universe.

I may like to contest this point. Energy does exist within the universe...but that does not exclude it from "causing" the universe in some since. But then I may be taking this out of context.

***Why oh why do I ALWAYS choose the wrong sense/since...Huked on Foniks Wurked four M2.71828

[Savonarola]

...but that does not exclude it from "causing" the universe in some [sense].

I'm not interested in "some sense," which could include any tortured logic typical of creationists. I care about in the sense of answering the questions about the origin of the universe.

I should try to elucidate and clarify my positions. This way, you can object to any parts in addition to the conclusion. My knowledge of the latest physical/cosmological findings is probably incomplete.
P1. A cause cannot preexist itself.
P2. A component of the universe cannot cause the existence of the universe.
P3. Energy exists only within the universe.
C1. Energy did not create the universe.

As mentioned above, my position is that the universe was not created at all; it has existed for all time.

[kwlyon]

I am sorry to say I am almost entirely in agreement with you. However, I see no harm in nitpicking this for the sake of interesting conversation.

P1. A cause cannot preexist itself.

If, by this, you mean that causality is not violated, i.e. an event can not be caused by another event occurring at some latter time, then I tend to agree this is the case. There have been hints that this may not have always been the case. Again, time gets kinda fishy at the earliest points in the universe's history. Many of the models proposed to avoid that nasty singularity apparently give rise to scenarios where causality is violated. But this is WELL into the realm of conjecture at this point. To be honest, I have often wondered if the very concept of cause and effect itself might not be as much an illusion of the macroscopic realm as is the apparent solidity of matter.

P2. A component of the universe cannot cause the existence of the universe.

This one I tend to disagree with. Just because there is energy IN this universe now doesn't mean energy didn't give rise to our current universe. For example, M-theory, as much as it tends to chafe my undercarriage, may suggest that the energy of two or more colliding "membranes" gave rise to all we see around us. However I don't think this is what you mean by this. I think you mean to say a part can not be responsible for the existence of the whole--in the context of crazy creationist propaganda. What is different here is that we aren't talking about you, or me, or some god that is an implicit part of this universe "creating" the universe but rather simply that the "stuff" the universe is made of may not be that uncommon and may even inherently give rise to its own existence.

P3. Energy exists only within the universe.

This is mere assertion. It may well be true. It may well not be true. We simply have no way of knowing one way or the other at the present time.

C1. Energy did not create the universe.

As mentioned above, my position is that the universe was not created at all; it has existed for all time.

As stated before, I am not convinced by your conclusion C1...however I do believe you are likely right that the universe, whatever the hell it is may well have existed in some state for all times. If not this PRESENT universe we observe, then something, in some form existed. I think it likely that nothingness is a very difficult state to obtain and maintain. I base this assertion on little more than an "intuitive feel". Always beware your intuition on such matters, however.

Also let's not argue semantics. Energy did not wake up one day and say, "LET THERE BE LIGHT". By asserting that energy may have "created" the universe, I only mean that it may have, by it's very nature, given rise to the universe--that is all.

[Savonarola]

Caveats to my positions:

One could probably argue that I am committing the fallacy of composition: Rules that apply within the universe may not apply to the universe as a whole.

I recognize that our knowledge prior to Planck time is essentially nonexistent, which means that the rules we usually think of as applying all the time... might not.

But this is WELL into the realm of conjecture at this point.

Then what is more reasonable to accept as true, if anything?

For example, M-theory ... may suggest that the energy of two or more colliding "membranes" gave rise to all we see around us.

Are those branes a part of the universe? Are they a component of "all we see around us"? If so, we're back to the paradox of these things violating causality.

... the "stuff" the universe is made of may not be that uncommon and may even inherently give rise to its own existence.

Of course the stuff the universe is made of isn't that uncommon. There are 10^80 particles of it in the universe!

This is mere assertion. It may well be true. It may well not be true. We simply have no way of knowing one way or the other at the present time.

But it seems, based on observation, that energy doesn't enter or leave the universe. (And that only makes me think that there is no "outside" the universe... or -- if there is -- it doesn't matter to this universe.) If there is no energy transfer, then what is the trigger for change?

I think it likely that nothingness is a very difficult state to obtain and maintain.

I think it likely that nothingness is an impossible state to obtain, based on the first law of thermodynamics.

Always beware your intuition on such matters, however.

Yes, a merely brief introduction to quantum mechanics makes this apparent. Sadly, that fact makes answering these questions really bleepin' difficult.

[kwlyon]

]Then what is more reasonable to accept as true, if anything?

I must admit I am not sure. MANY of these ideas seem reasonable but as of yet there is no evidence to support them. Thus it is most reasonable that they are all off the mark. My guess is the answers to these questions will surprise us every bit as much a GR or Quantum mechanics cam as a surprise. Who knows...there may yet be a vortex in the mix:)...whatever the hell that would be.

Are those branes a part of the universe? Are they a component of "all we see around us"? If so, we're back to the paradox of these things violating causality.

I would say no. This is a matter of semantics. I think that, no matter what we discover in the future, our galaxy will always be a small subset of the universe as a whole. If it turns out that there are things "outside" our currently known universe, I think we should come up with a new name for this extended expanse.

As far as violation of causality...I really don't know. I see where you are coming from and I would like to agree that a cause, at least in the case of M-theory, would just be carry over into the other expanse. However the universe has always surprised me at how queer it can be when you get down to its underpinnings. I don't feel very comfortable in my own understanding of exactly what time is. Suffice it to say I am slightly less confident in the non-violation of causality as a general rule as I am in conservation of energy. There may be points in our history where neither is upheld. But that is, of course, an irrelevance to the universe in it's present state.

****Now for some total bullshit (unlike grey I like to warn people before I devolve into a tangent of random babble and shit shooting). What I was getting at with causality being an illusion was the possibility that the entire universe is just one massive evolving wave-function. If this happens to be the case, and in many ways it certainly seems this is the case, then what we label as particular events and cause and effect may be, at its heart, just a bunch of phasers spinning around. It may not make any sense at all, on this level, to speak of something "causing" something else.*****End of bullshit.

Of course the stuff the universe is made of isn't that uncommon. There are 10^80 particles of it in the universe!

Fair enough. I phrased this poorly. What I meant to say is this "stuff" may exist outside our known universe. It may even, by it's very nature, tend to give rise to itself--Vacuum particle/antiparticle pair creation comes to mind.

But it seems, based on observation, that energy doesn't enter or leave the universe. (And that only makes me think that there is no "outside" the universe... or -- if there is -- it doesn't matter to this universe.) If there is no energy transfer, then what is the trigger for change?

Yes....and this is precisely why, without some experimental verification, I find multiverse theory and M-theory to be little more than mental masturbation. I only bring them up here because, well, it feels good. We have never observed ANYTHING that would lend credence to these ideas. I tend, in general, to agree entirely that, with all likelihood, this universe is all that is. Not to sell it short, however, as we have absolutely no idea at the end of the day what it is.

I think it likely that nothingness is an impossible state to obtain, based on the first law of thermodynamics.

Yes, I see where you are going with this. Because energy exist now, it must always exist...thus anthropically it exist now and forever because it does. I was also referring to exactly how hard it is to utterly and completely destructively interfere a wave into non-existence. I have a nifty little program I play with...It is my version of grey's basement science:) The only difference is I don't think I am overturning deep rooted physical axioms or anything--its just for lolz. I have a nifty little particle in a box program. I was thinking it might get used, or rather parts of it, for some actual research down the road however for now it is a toy. One thing I am trying to get together in my spare time is to "dress" the states for the purpose of driving Rabi Oscillations just to see what the phases look like as they evolve between states.

Anyways part of this program lets me create light of different frequencies that will ultimately factor into the hamiltonian of the particle in a box though I haven't gotten that part working yet. I have it set up so that I can manipulate the light by selecting the amplitudes of different frequency components. One thing I have played around with, mostly for shits and giggles, is to try to create light pulses and to see to what degree I can suppress the inevitable repeating of the pulse (not so much pulses in this case really as repeating squiggly lines as I have limited myself for now to frequencies corresponding to actual particle in a box transitions). As it turns out, you can't have just a single pulse of light without it containing ultimately an infinite number of different frequencies. If you lack even one component in the continuum you are doomed to have the wave-function ultimately repeat itself indefinitely. This applies equally well to matter waves. Technically speaking any particle wave packet has an infinite continuum of momentums in order to exist localized in space and time....or does it? I don't know that this has ANYTHING to do with the existence of the universe however it is nifty food for thought. A very smart guy once pointed out that the universe may be trying like hell not to exist but ultimately short a photon...or something to that effect. This is how the principal of least action arises--wave interference.

Yes, a merely brief introduction to quantum mechanics makes this apparent. Sadly, that fact makes answering these questions really bleepin' difficult.

Indeed... possibly even impossible. But I kinda doubt that.

[Savonarola]

I must admit I am not sure.

This is why I included the, "if anything." I consider "I don't know" to be the best answer sometimes.

As far as violation of causality...I really don't know.

Well you're not being very much help today, are you?!

I don't feel very comfortable in my own understanding of exactly what time is.

This is something I'd like to think about if I were more confident that it wouldn't make my head explode.

(unlike grey I like to warn people before I devolve into a tangent of random babble and shit shooting)

Some of us appreciate this very much.

Fair enough. I phrased this poorly.

Yeah, but I knew what you meant. I was being a jerk because it's fun.

... Vacuum particle/antiparticle pair creation comes to mind.

But this requires the existence of energy in that space, right?

I find multiverse theory and M-theory to be little more than mental masturbation.

That makes two of us.

Yes, a merely brief introduction to quantum mechanics makes this apparent. Sadly, that fact makes answering these questions really bleepin' difficult.

Hey, punk, that was my line, not yours.


It seems to me that we're in nearly total agreement. Tell me if I'm getting anything wrong about your position.

1. The operation of the universe on the quantum level introduces not only uncertainty but -- more importantly -- a reason to, at the very least, be suspicious of what we would normally consider "reasonable" deductive conclusions.
2. From the perspective of the laws of thermodynamics, all matter-energy has existed for all time.
3. There is no evidence that energy can jump from our universe to elsewhere or vice versa.
4. There is no sufficient evidence that causality has been violated at any time in the past.
5. Manipulating wavefunctions is uber-cool.
6. We can probably expect that -- should we find answers to these questions -- they will be very weird.
7. #1 makes pretty much all of the things that I could continue to add to this list moot.

Hmph. Stupid universe. Let's mutiny.

[kwlyon]

But this requires the existence of energy in that space, right?

In general yes. However I THINK it has been determined possible for particle/antiparticle pair creation to violate conservation of energy so long as they only exist on the order of a planck second. Of course this would make direct measurement of their existence impossible...so IF this is true what must be happening is people have measured perturbations in some spectroscopic system due to the flux of these particles. I would have to look into it. Afraid I am again not very useful as this is just something I have heard about in passing once upon a time. I am sure it could be googled however. I KNOW it is possible, and even typical for particles to lie off their mass shells during nuclear interactions...just so long as all the particles that exist at the end of the day lie on their respective mass shells everything is peachy keen. This is kinda a similar situation. It should be noted that we are well out of my area of expertise throughout this entire discussion!

It seems to me that we're in nearly total agreement. Tell me if I'm getting anything wrong about your position.

1. The operation of the universe on the quantum level introduces not only uncertainty but -- more importantly -- a reason to, at the very least, be suspicious of what we would normally consider "reasonable" deductive conclusions.
2. From the perspective of the laws of thermodynamics, all matter-energy has existed for all time.
3. There is no evidence that energy can jump from our universe to elsewhere or vice versa.
4. There is no sufficient evidence that causality has been violated at any time in the past.
5. Manipulating wavefunctions is uber-cool.
6. We can probably expect that -- should we find answers to these questions -- they will be very weird.
7. #1 makes pretty much all of the things that I could continue to add to this list moot.

Hmph. Stupid universe. Let's mutiny.

As much as I would like to continue this exchange...I find myself in complete agreement with these assertions--even to the nitpick level.

[Doug]

But this requires the existence of energy in that space, right?

In general yes. However I THINK it has been determined possible for particle/antiparticle pair creation to violate conservation of energy so long as they only exist on the order of a planck second. Of course this would make direct measurement of their existence impossible...so IF this is true what must be happening is people have measured perturbations in some spectroscopic system due to the flux of these particles. I would have to look into it.

Isn't that the Lamb Shift?

[kwlyon]

But this requires the existence of energy in that space, right?

In general yes. However I THINK it has been determined possible for particle/antiparticle pair creation to violate conservation of energy so long as they only exist on the order of a planck second. Of course this would make direct measurement of their existence impossible...so IF this is true what must be happening is people have measured perturbations in some spectroscopic system due to the flux of these particles. I would have to look into it.

Isn't that the Lamb Shift?

You know as much about the Lamb Shift as I do...