--------------------------------------------------- If there is NOTHING in the box, you set n to zero.
E=(1/2+0)h_bar w
which gives you: E=(1/2)h_bar w
---------------------------------------------
I think you (or your friend who explained it to you) is confusing the meaning of the variable 'n'. In this case, 'n' is the the energy level for the available quantum states of a particle that finds itself confined to a harmonic oscillator potential (e.g. connected to springs). In other equations, 'n' refers to the number of photons. You have probably seen E = nhw, where n is the number of photons, h is Planck's constant, and w is the photon frequency. In that case, setting n = 0 would imply no photons present. In the equation for the harmonic oscillator, setting n = 0 refers to the "ground state." As this lowest energy state is non-zero, it is referred to often as the zero-point energy. It is from this zero-point energy (and quantum fluctuations a la Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) that some models propose the energy for the Big Bang arose. Setting n = 0 does not imply that no particles occupy those states, only that they are in the ground state.
No, he explained all that, just as you've stated here, actually... and I went and read up on all of it... but I didn't go into it because that wasn't my point in BF's post.
Quote:
-------------------------------------------------------- Anyway, we were discussing how things 'got started,' and this of course brought up the discussion of the Big Bang... and how QM can only trace back to within a nanosecond (actually a smaller amount, but I forget what that number is...) of the Big Bang actually occuring... at which point, all known laws of physics break down... so the Big Bang remains a theory, rather than a provable thing. Now before you go off discussing all the other theories that have emerged to explain this very small (but very significant) amount of time... that wasn't the gist of the discussion. ---------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't say all known laws of physics break down near the Big Bang "singularity", just that there is a higher order model that has yet to be discovered (much like relativity is a higher order model of Newtonian mechanics). You might say our current electoweak, strong, and gravity models are just approximations to the "real" model that only take into account the data we currently can produce in a lab.
Oh, please. That is SUCH a scientist thing to say. Ya can't get the math to work. And each time you do, there will be someone else who comes along with a disputing 'hypothesis' that is just as accurate, but throws a wrench into the former. Or... you get SEVEN accurate but disputable hypothesis and you need someone like Edward Witten to come along and develop an M Theory so that EVERYONE gets to be valid, at least on some level...
I'm just yanking your chain.
Quote: The Big Bang theory is truly a theory. While there are many unexplained parts to it, its core statement that the universe is expanding from a previously very tiny state is sound and backed up by a LOT of evidence. Big Bang is pretty much on equal footing with biological evolution. We have a good handle on the process, just not the starting point.
Backed up by a lot of evidence. Yeah. Well. There have been a number of innocent people put to death based upon a lot of evidence. Then that one little fact emerges that changes everything. Oops. Well. They did the best they could with what they had at the time, huh?
Quote: Another important point, there is no such thing as a provable theory in science. Theories are all human-invented models to explain events. They either do a good job explaining the observations to within the experimental error, or they don't. If they do a good job, they are accepted, until new data comes along that requires a revision or a rejection.
LOL!!! Great way of saying 'it's an educated guess,' or 'we're hedging our bets.' And that is my point exactly when scientists look with disdain upon "philosophical" points.
For example... do I love my kids? Yep. Without a doubt. I love them. Do you love your kids? I will assume, for agrument's sake, an affirmative answser. Do you know you love your kids? Yes. Great.
Prove it. Theorize it. Mathematically represent it. But until you can do that... does it change the fact that you love your kids?
Quote:
-------------------------------------------------------- "There is NO starting point, for time and space did NOT exist until ROOM was created for it to exist." -------------------------------------------------------
An interesting hypothesis, and one put forth by several leading cosmologists. The Big Bang event could be said to have created by time and space. One way of thinking about it was that the universe had no dimensionality, and the Big Bang was simply the event that gave it its current dimensionality (3 spatial + 1 time). Of course, if you follow along with string theory, there may be many more dimensions "wrapped up" so they look like less. But as I stated earlier, that is really only a very preliminary hypothesis.
And absolutely no way to prove it. Well. At least not yet.
Quote:
-------------------------------------------------------- "Meaning... I don't think the miracle of the universe is all the 'stuff' in it... the galaxies, the gases, the stars, the super novas, etc., etc... the miracle of the universe to me... what was created... was the 'space' for it to be. --------------------------------------------------------
I think most cosmologists would agree with you. Space itself, irrespective of the "stuff" in it is very interesting. The expansion of the universe is expansion of space, NOT galaxies flying apart from one another. There is also a theoretical time in the universe's history in which space expanded at speeds much faster than the speed of light. It is the space itself that is warped by gravity according to General Relativity.
Hm. Well, everything I've read so far says that there is NOTHING that moves faster than the speed of light. Oh. But wait. In order for light to move, it must have SPACE... and unhindered space at that (NOTHING) in which to do it, or it is forced into a perpetual ground state.... darn, I hate when that happens...
Quote:
-------------------------------------------------------- Meaning... if you were God... and you were the ALL OF EVERYTHING, everything that IS... and you know that... how then do you experience that? Well... at this very simple point, the only way for you to experience that which you are... is to become that which you are not. Some people call that 'division.' But how can you divide if all there is... is SOMETHING? How does one gain perspective between here and there, this and that? ---------------------------------------------------------
I see, this is a twist on the whole "what is good if there is no evil" or "what is God without the devil" philosophical argument. An interesting way of phrasing it Corri.
No. Not really. I'm not talking polarity here, but the creation of polarity. Consider this. Let's say that all which exists is 1. That's it. That's all you've got. Actually, you don't even have perspective, so it's just 1. You can't add to it, you can't take away from it, you can't multiply it or divide it, for there is no 'you' and nothing else to consider.
Now what?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------- Dam straight. That's my point exactly. He tells me I can't prove my points, and I tell him... welp, neither can you. ----------------------------------------------------------
Here is one point where I will disagree a bit with you Corri. What you are talking about, something needing nothing to define itself, is truly a philosophical point.
Really? When did polarity come into being?
Quote: There is no laboratory experiment that can ever be devised to show that your statement is "true." However, QM, Big Bang, and other scientific models make predictions that can be tested. Unfortunately, our theory has gotten ahead of experiment. We don't have the equipment to adequately test many of the predictions of these theories ... yet. However, at some point they will be either validated or falsified, so they are truly scientific in nature, and not philosophical.
They are theoretical in nature. From where do you think theory emerges? A philosophical mind. That which is able to consider itself. And how does that happen?
Quote: Do you see the difference?
No. It all begins with a question. Otherwise, all is as it is.
Quote: It is like the current Intelligent Design debate. Sure, many people BELIEVE that a higher power created the universe and made it so orderly and complex, but that belief can never be "proven" in a lab,
Well, no, not yet but there are some pretty good theories out there that have stood the test of time which many believe and will stick with until something comes along to prove otherwise.
Quote: so such discussion has no place in a science class (but does have a very appropriate place in philosophy and theology).
Gotta disagree with you there. I think it has every place in science class. I personally believe science is suffering from its unwillingness to explore philosophy and theology, just as they can suffer without science.
And each time you do, there will be someone else who comes along with a disputing 'hypothesis' that is just as accurate, but throws a wrench into the former. Or... you get SEVEN accurate but disputable hypothesis and you need someone like Edward Witten to come along and develop an M Theory so that EVERYONE gets to be valid, at least on some level... 