Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonius
The Uncertainty principle suggested that this was theoretically true - I think the Casimir effect with the two steel plates proved it experimentally.
But the idea of the universe being a result of quantum fluctuations on a grander scale is my own conjecture. It just seems like the default state of the universe is particles and wave functions. What we can know about a black hole - spin, charge, mass - are the same things we can know about a sub-atomic particle. A black hole is in effect a very large particle. Does our entire universe taken together also have charge and spin?
I always wonder what happens when the particle passes through *both apertures in the double slit experiment from the point of view of the particle. Does it seem to spontaneously expand from a dense state? Caused by nothing other than the probability of traveling through either slit being equal? No quantum level 'dark energy' is required - its just the completion of a cycle. What state is it in as it travels through both slits? How does it 'decide' how to get through to the other side? Is it in essence a simple quantum computer?
Similarly, the particle/anti-particle pairs that are generated in the quantum foam go through a stage of coalescing to form particles before disappearing again.
I wonder if our entire universe then, is a result of a similar quantum fluctuation just on a larger scale. The big bang, then is the moment the universe had to make a 'probabilistic decision' like with the double slit experiment. Viewed from inside, for a tiny fraction of expanding time, maybe it looks much like our current universe. In other words, maybe the universe as a whole is subject to quantum effects the same as a tiny particle is.
Which is all a long-winded way of saying that in order for that to happen, the laws of physics would have to change over time to allow expansion and contraction. Which would make it interesting if it turns out that that was indeed the case in the early universe. Maybe we just exist in the gaps between macro and micro scales of quantum foam.
All just conjecture, but it's fun to imagine.
Markus
|
Ah...the Casimir Effect...a perfect experiment to establish that gravity is a form of universal pressure
Hmmmm particles are particles that is certain and wave functions are mathematical expressions of same ...we can observe a particle but just because we express it with an equation that we call a wave function really does not change the particle ..the particle will remain a particle irrespective of what equation we assign to it such that we can create models.
Well we do not know anything for sure about a black hole ... the model has an event horizon and past that we have no observations..sure attempts with math suggest there is in effect nothing other than an i finity at the centre...now really what does that mean? I doubt very much that our models come anyways close to describing reality... it would be reasonable to describe a black hole as mostly nothingness with an infinitely small but somehow not an infinitely dense " centre".
I would like an observation that evidences this proposition that beyond the event horizon all we have is nothing until we reach the infinitely small central " infinity ".. Consider a black hole rated at billions of solar masses AND wonder just how it's central infinitily small "CENTRE" is capable of manifesting the necessary " attraction" to locate the event horizon at such a great distance from the centre...and remember past the event horizon has never obviously been observed and our model arises purely from math...
I think a fair statement would be "we don't know" in the absence of observation.
I think suggesting a black hole is in effect a particle is speculative.
Double slit experiment. I won't comment other than to say we observe what is happening but do we draw the correct conclusions.
It is good to think about these things even though one will be criticised for dabbling in matters way beyond ones level of education..which is fair..however that is no reason to give up thinking about such things...but I am tired and can't give a good account of a damn thing and can only express an opinion which is a "big bang" seems un likely ... the observations of expansion never did fit and now the observations are starting to suggest that if indeed there was a big bang that it now seems likey that our dating of that event is probably wrong...
Folk say one can't be intuitive in cosmology well I totally disregard such and intuitively can not accept that all we can observe ..the billions and billions of galaxies... at some point in time ( the start of time by big bang reasoning) could be found in a volume as small or smaller than an atom...really think about what we are expected to accept as reasonable then add "the rest of the universe" ie all that which may be outside the observable universe...all to fit into a volume no larger than an atom...
I think that really needs to be thought about.
Alex