Searching \ for '[OT]: Something for nothing <-- Gas Chromatography' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=something+nothing
Search entire site for: 'Something for nothing <-- Gas Chromatography'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: Something for nothing <-- Gas Chromatography'
2000\11\15@071617 by Russell McMahon

picon face
radO said -

>I dropped Sci. American about the time they had a cover story emblazoned
>with the notion that protons 'might' appear/create themselves,
>'spontaneously'
>in 'space', even I knew this was wrong.


Why might Protons not just pop into existence occasionally without an
invitation? The guiding rule of nature about what can happen appears to be
that

       "If things do happen they can happen and if they don't
         happen they might be able to".

Not too long ago the "steady state model" of the universe was all the rage
and the idea that God created everything out of nothing instantaneously was
considered a ludicrous fabrication of feeble minds. To account for observed
"reality" the steady state model requires the continual "popping into
existence" of Hydrogen atoms every now or then. The required rate is slow
enough to be not reasonably measurable with our available technology.
Apparently the idea of nothing creating something a little bit at a time
didn't require a feeble mind :-)

Then came the "big bang" theory where everything created itself out of
nothing all at once in one spot that was so small (< Planck length) that we
can never EVER explore what happened, and then began to expand, probably at
rates in excess of the speed of light along the way. My mind is feeble
enough that I've never been able to understand why it makes good scientific
sense that everything can create itself out of nothing (no matter, no
energy, no space, no time, no ...) but that one has to have a feeble mind to
seriously consider the possibility that an external creator caused it to
happen. So it goes, apparently.

So, if one is willing to accept as a fact that the total universe
boot-strapped itself into existence from utter  nothingness just for fun,
then having the occasional Proton create itself spontaneously seems far from
the most unlikely thing able to happen in nature :-)
But maybe not.


regards


       Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2000\11\15@103411 by Dan Michaels

flavicon
face
Russell McMahon wrote:
.........
>
>Not too long ago the "steady state model" of the universe was all the rage
>and the idea that God created everything out of nothing instantaneously was
>considered a ludicrous fabrication of feeble minds.
........

Give me a break --> I thought you guys had decided to take your
"religious" discussions into another forum - if not, how about
doing NOW.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2000\11\15@130128 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
>Why might Protons not just pop into existence occasionally without an
>invitation? The guiding rule of nature about what can happen appears to be
>that

Particle pairs (particle and antiparticle) are forming and anihilating all
the time. The net result is zero, so there's no macro effect.

It only gets interesting at the small scale, where these "virtual"
particles interact with other "real" particles.


--
Where's dave? http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?kc6ete-9

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2000\11\16@043909 by Russell McMahon

picon face
>>Why might Protons not just pop into existence occasionally without an
>>invitation? The guiding rule of nature about what can happen appears to be
>>that  ..........

>Particle pairs (particle and antiparticle) are forming and annihilating all
>the time. The net result is zero, so there's no macro effect.
>
>It only gets interesting at the small scale, where these "virtual"
>particles interact with other "real" particles.


While the effect of spontaneous particle generation and annihilation occurs
at small scale it has a very real macro effect (or so the gurus tell us)..

This is the Hawking proposed mechanism for Black Hole radiation (or one way
of looking at it anyway). When virtual particles pairs are generated "just
outside" the event horizon the anti-particle is more likely to be acquired
by the Black Hole. This leaves a  newly born free real particle and a net
loss of mass / energy from the BH.

Interestingly, the resultant now very real piece of matter/energy was the
result of a
spontaneous appearance of matter and energy "Ex Nihilo" even though overall
it is a zero sum game. .

This act of something creating itself out of nothing is a necessary
consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principal, as (simplistically), if
the space was empty and stayed that way we would know that there was
"nothing" there and that the nothing had zero velocity.
As we are not allowed to know exactly both exactly where something is and
exactly what its velocity is (even if the "something" is a piece of
'nothing") then
the vacuum MUST arbitrarily generate bits of matter/energy so we can't know
what is exactly happening.


By spontaneously generating mass / energy at random, Nature has found a very
elegant, intuitive and sensible way of overcoming what would otherwise have
been a very embarrassing problem for it :-).

Another way of looking at BH radiation is that the time variant Heisenberg
uncertainty in the location
of the event horizon allows energy to "leak" across it. (One moment you're i
n, next moment you're out - if they move the wall and let you out you shoot
through). There are no doubt a semi-infinite number of other models which
also model this as yet (and quite possibly always) unobserved effect.

regards

               Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spam_OUTlistservTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2000\11\16@055242 by David Lions

flavicon
face
> This act of something creating itself out of nothing is a necessary
> consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principal, as (simplistically), if
> the space was empty and stayed that way we would know that there was
> "nothing" there and that the nothing had zero velocity.
> As we are not allowed to know exactly both exactly where something is and
> exactly what its velocity is (even if the "something" is a piece of
> 'nothing") then
> the vacuum MUST arbitrarily generate bits of matter/energy so we can't
know
> what is exactly happening.

WTF??

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listservKILLspamspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2000\11\16@072958 by Russell McMahon

picon face
>> This act of something creating itself out of nothing is a necessary
>> consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principal, as (simplistically),
if
>> the space was empty and stayed that way we would know that there was
>> "nothing" there and that the nothing had zero velocity.
>> As we are not allowed to know exactly both exactly where something is and
>> exactly what its velocity is (even if the "something" is a piece of
>> 'nothing") then
>> the vacuum MUST arbitrarily generate bits of matter/energy so we can't
>know
>> what is exactly happening.
>
>WTF??


I take it that that acronym is "an earthy Anglo Saxon expletive/
interrogative" :-)
Maybe not.

If so, are you asking what I am talking about or something else ???

I'll assume the former and go for an attempt at a "short simple statement"
of how I understand things.
Read this until your head hurts and then apologise for asking :-).
Anyone who has a good grasp of Cosmology & particle Physics 101 may wish to
correct my more glaring generalisations. Warning: Any corrections are liable
to make things weirder.

James wants course notes and working (fair enough too !) and as I seem to
have left these at home today I'll give some links instead at the end :-).

Heisenberg in his HUP (Heisenberg uncertainty Principle) established that it
was impossible to simultaneously measure both an object's position and
velocity with absolute certainty. As one measurement is made with increasing
accuracy the other result automatically becomes worse.

This is a basic tenet of quantum theory.

This can be thought of in terms of the measuring system necessarily
perturbing the item measured but this is a simplistic model and not actually
correct (even though this is how it's explained in ref 1 below) . The real
assertion is 'that's just how things are folks". You cant have velocity AND
position to 100% accuracy both at once.

For real world size objects the errors are so small as to be utterly
irrelevant.

For sub-atomic particles the limits imposed on measurements are significant.

If we observe a complete "vacuum", at a point we observe that there is
absolutely nothing there and that it is not moving at all.
We now know the exact velocity and the exact position of something (even
though it is nothing). This violates the HUP
While this may sound stupid to us, nature takes the violation very
seriously.
Nature WILL allow such violations for very short periods. (Based on
momentum, mass and Plank's constant - search for these and vacuum
fluctuations to know more (or less).

Nature's clever solution is qf - "quantum foam" - a random spontaneous
generation of particles and their antipartticles in the vacuum in such a
manner that at any stage the HUP is not violated for more than an acceptable
period. If these particles stay in existence too long they start affecting
things as if they are "real" particles (which they indeed are) so nature
arranges to have them annihilated shortly after their creation.

Spontaneous qf particles do not have to annihilate with their original
partners as long as they are back in jail before the Plank time quantum
traffic cop gets upset.

Apparently Nature (which didn't;'t exist until it had done this) contrived
to burp the universe up as a super version of such a fluctuation as an
Instanton although this does rather seem to do violence to the quantum
traffic cop who is probably desperately trying to put it back in its
non-existent bottle ever since. Whether it succeeds depends on whether the
result is "open or closed" and this nobody yet knows.

The nature of the initial burp is also rather unknown and ref 3 below gives
two theories which are incompatible with each other and to a large extent
with themselves (this is referred to in the vernacular as "bold" ). I like
the Hawking version as it has naked singularities and when you have them the
universe can be a really fun place !!!.

You don't of course have to believe any or all or most of this (or the parts
that I have got wrong) but if you don't you are liable to find yourself
taking a position of faith against received truth.

I believe some parts of it but I don't know which ones.
.

regards


       Russell McMahon

refs follow:

____________________________________________________________________

From 1st ref below. Note that he explains "why" this is so, even though it
isn't why :-)


In the Quantum Mechanical world, the idea that we can measure things exactly
breaks down. Let me state this notion more precisely. Suppose a particle has
momentum p and a position x. In a Quantum Mechanical world, I would not be
able to measure p and x precisely. There is an uncertainty associated with
each measurement, e.g., there is some dp and dx, which I can never get rid
of even in a perfect experiment!!!. This is due to the fact that whenever I
make a measurement, I must disturb the system. (In order for me to know
something is there, I must bump into it.) The size of the uncertainties are
not independent, they are related by

dp x dx > h / (2 x pi) = Planck's constant / ( 2 x pi )
______________________________________________________

Excellent simple overview

   http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html

Good bio

   http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p01.htm

Vaguely relevant, fun and confusing.
Whose instanton do you choose from ?

   http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_qc.html

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservspamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2000\11\16@073207 by Alok Dubey

flavicon
face
Russel u actually bothered to reply???
alok


-----Original Message-----
From: Russell McMahon [.....apptechKILLspamspam.....CLEAR.NET.NZ]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 6:01 PM
To: EraseMEPICLISTspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: [OT]: Something for nothing <-- Gas Chromatography,--
Here's a weird one for you!


>> This act of something creating itself out of nothing is a necessary
>> consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principal, as (simplistically),
if
{Quote hidden}

I take it that that acronym is "an earthy Anglo Saxon expletive/
interrogative" :-)
Maybe not.

If so, are you asking what I am talking about or something else ???

I'll assume the former and go for an attempt at a "short simple statement"
of how I understand things.
Read this until your head hurts and then apologise for asking :-).
Anyone who has a good grasp of Cosmology & particle Physics 101 may wish to
correct my more glaring generalisations. Warning: Any corrections are liable
to make things weirder.

James wants course notes and working (fair enough too !) and as I seem to
have left these at home today I'll give some links instead at the end :-).

Heisenberg in his HUP (Heisenberg uncertainty Principle) established that it
was impossible to simultaneously measure both an object's position and
velocity with absolute certainty. As one measurement is made with increasing
accuracy the other result automatically becomes worse.

This is a basic tenet of quantum theory.

This can be thought of in terms of the measuring system necessarily
perturbing the item measured but this is a simplistic model and not actually
correct (even though this is how it's explained in ref 1 below) . The real
assertion is 'that's just how things are folks". You cant have velocity AND
position to 100% accuracy both at once.

For real world size objects the errors are so small as to be utterly
irrelevant.

For sub-atomic particles the limits imposed on measurements are significant.

If we observe a complete "vacuum", at a point we observe that there is
absolutely nothing there and that it is not moving at all.
We now know the exact velocity and the exact position of something (even
though it is nothing). This violates the HUP
While this may sound stupid to us, nature takes the violation very
seriously.
Nature WILL allow such violations for very short periods. (Based on
momentum, mass and Plank's constant - search for these and vacuum
fluctuations to know more (or less).

Nature's clever solution is qf - "quantum foam" - a random spontaneous
generation of particles and their antipartticles in the vacuum in such a
manner that at any stage the HUP is not violated for more than an acceptable
period. If these particles stay in existence too long they start affecting
things as if they are "real" particles (which they indeed are) so nature
arranges to have them annihilated shortly after their creation.

Spontaneous qf particles do not have to annihilate with their original
partners as long as they are back in jail before the Plank time quantum
traffic cop gets upset.

Apparently Nature (which didn't;'t exist until it had done this) contrived
to burp the universe up as a super version of such a fluctuation as an
Instanton although this does rather seem to do violence to the quantum
traffic cop who is probably desperately trying to put it back in its
non-existent bottle ever since. Whether it succeeds depends on whether the
result is "open or closed" and this nobody yet knows.

The nature of the initial burp is also rather unknown and ref 3 below gives
two theories which are incompatible with each other and to a large extent
with themselves (this is referred to in the vernacular as "bold" ). I like
the Hawking version as it has naked singularities and when you have them the
universe can be a really fun place !!!.

You don't of course have to believe any or all or most of this (or the parts
that I have got wrong) but if you don't you are liable to find yourself
taking a position of faith against received truth.

I believe some parts of it but I don't know which ones.
.

regards


       Russell McMahon

refs follow:

____________________________________________________________________

From 1st ref below. Note that he explains "why" this is so, even though it
isn't why :-)


In the Quantum Mechanical world, the idea that we can measure things exactly
breaks down. Let me state this notion more precisely. Suppose a particle has
momentum p and a position x. In a Quantum Mechanical world, I would not be
able to measure p and x precisely. There is an uncertainty associated with
each measurement, e.g., there is some dp and dx, which I can never get rid
of even in a perfect experiment!!!. This is due to the fact that whenever I
make a measurement, I must disturb the system. (In order for me to know
something is there, I must bump into it.) The size of the uncertainties are
not independent, they are related by

dp x dx > h / (2 x pi) = Planck's constant / ( 2 x pi )
______________________________________________________

Excellent simple overview

   http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html

Good bio

   http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p01.htm

Vaguely relevant, fun and confusing.
Whose instanton do you choose from ?

   http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_qc.html

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email @spam@listservKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2000\11\16@130107 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
>because,
>zero plus zero --- always equals zero
>
>weather you or anyone 'accepts' it or not

imho you are absolutely right in this excepting for a small detail. The
void referred to is space, and not an abstract void. afaik we (humans) do
not have the means to determine that a given volume is indeed perfectly
void or not (due to Heisenberg's inequality I think). So the void (space)
is not really void, even if one disregards passing radiation used to
inspect the voidness, and, there is no way to prove it is void if indeed
it is (which is very unlikely imho). So I think that there is something to
the idea that protons may be formed 'by themselves' from time to time.
Especially since I seem to remember some high energy physics experiments
where particles were created from colliding beams (not sure if mass was
created from the collision of beams with massless particles - but E=mc^2
seems to indicate that anything that moves or contains some form of energy
(and is thus detectable) has some kind of mass).

just an opinion,

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email KILLspamlistservKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2000\11\16@180854 by Russell McMahon

picon face
>>because,
>>zero plus zero --- always equals zero
>>
>>weather you or anyone 'accepts' it or not
>
>imho you are absolutely right in this excepting for a small detail. The
>void referred to is space, and not an abstract void. afaik we (humans) do
>not have the means to determine that a given volume is indeed perfectly
>void or not (due to Heisenberg's inequality I think). So the void (space)
>is not really void, even if one disregards passing radiation used to
>inspect the voidness, and, there is no way to prove it is void if indeed
>it is (which is very unlikely imho). So I think that there is something to
>the idea that protons may be formed 'by themselves' from time to time.


The positional accuracies introduced by the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principal are quite impressive. Around 1 cm !!! for  an electron whose
velocity is measured to 1 cm per second and  5
uM for a Proton for the same measurement (as it is much more massive). This
is still about a billion
times larger than the diameter of the Proton (not that Protons really have
diameters but we like to pretend).

For a nice small laboratory instrument sized space I think we would have
some trouble telling if an electron was in our chosen space if we could not
measure its position to within 1 cm! Also - vacuum fluctuation electrons
have a lifetime of around 10E-21 seconds (10E-25 for Protons) so the
measurements would be challenging even if they didn't turn out to be, as
they are, impossible (at least according to Quantum Mechanics).

>Especially since I seem to remember some high energy physics experiments
>where particles were created from colliding beams (not sure if mass was
>created from the collision of beams with massless particles - but E=mc^2
>seems to indicate that anything that moves or contains some form of energy
>(and is thus detectable) has some kind of mass).


Mass and energy are interchangeable for the purposes of the HUP.

"Matter" has quite recently (last 2 years or so AFAIR) been "created" by
focusing lasers into a suitably concentrated space.
The energy equivalence of photons and other particles is well "known" - the
tools are just a little underdeveloped as yet :-).

Photons are their own anti-particles! -  which makes them very nice for
doing interesting things with if you have enough energy.
Due to this property and the fact that they have NO rest mass and are
completely non time-aware (and other reasons) one could regard them as the
particle of choice for creating things from. You can most anything you want
by banging pieces of light together energetically enough, provided you know
what you are doing.

This creation of other hadrons / bosons from photons or the reverse is a
fairly standard part of particle physics theory. If you let there be light
as a starting point then you can arrive at most
other species.

In a sure-to-never-be-completed SciFi story I have laaarge solar pumped
lasers hanging in "low solar orbit" (like LEO but warmer) generating
anti-matter to be used for compact propulsion systems elsewhere in the solar
system and beyond. Don't even ask about the technology for the shielding
systems that allow you
to operate in low solar orbit.

You can go to Mars and back on milligrams of antimatter! A gram of
antimatter is equivalent to about 20,000,000 kg of rocket fuel.
You get about 2E14 joules per gram ! Breakeven point for propulsion is
around $10 billion per gram but that will not happen for quite some time (if
ever). Dealing with the uncharged pions is the hard part although NASA have
a current proposal for efficient use, using the AMAT starter as a fusion
promoter in otherwise uninterested fuels. Gives you a cost advantage
multiplier for the fuel.




Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2000\11\17@091706 by Mark Skeels

picon face
I must confess _this_ is WAY beyond me....

Mark

----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell McMahon" <spamBeGoneapptechspamBeGonespamCLEAR.NET.NZ>
To: <TakeThisOuTPICLISTEraseMEspamspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: [OT]: Something for nothing <-- Gas Chromatography


{Quote hidden}

to
> >the idea that protons may be formed 'by themselves' from time to time.
>
>
> The positional accuracies introduced by the Heisenberg Uncertainty
> Principal are quite impressive. Around 1 cm !!! for  an electron whose
> velocity is measured to 1 cm per second and  5
> uM for a Proton for the same measurement (as it is much more massive).
This
> is still about a billion
> times larger than the diameter of the Proton (not that Protons really have
> diameters but we like to pretend).
>
> For a nice small laboratory instrument sized space I think we would have
> some trouble telling if an electron was in our chosen space if we could
not
> measure its position to within 1 cm! Also - vacuum fluctuation electrons
> have a lifetime of around 10E-21 seconds (10E-25 for Protons) so the
> measurements would be challenging even if they didn't turn out to be, as
> they are, impossible (at least according to Quantum Mechanics).
>
> >Especially since I seem to remember some high energy physics experiments
> >where particles were created from colliding beams (not sure if mass was
> >created from the collision of beams with massless particles - but E=mc^2
> >seems to indicate that anything that moves or contains some form of
energy
> >(and is thus detectable) has some kind of mass).
>
>
> Mass and energy are interchangeable for the purposes of the HUP.
>
> "Matter" has quite recently (last 2 years or so AFAIR) been "created" by
> focusing lasers into a suitably concentrated space.
> The energy equivalence of photons and other particles is well "known" -
the
> tools are just a little underdeveloped as yet :-).
>
> Photons are their own anti-particles! -  which makes them very nice for
> doing interesting things with if you have enough energy.
> Due to this property and the fact that they have NO rest mass and are
> completely non time-aware (and other reasons) one could regard them as the
> particle of choice for creating things from. You can most anything you
want
> by banging pieces of light together energetically enough, provided you
know
> what you are doing.
>
> This creation of other hadrons / bosons from photons or the reverse is a
> fairly standard part of particle physics theory. If you let there be light
> as a starting point then you can arrive at most
> other species.
>
> In a sure-to-never-be-completed SciFi story I have laaarge solar pumped
> lasers hanging in "low solar orbit" (like LEO but warmer) generating
> anti-matter to be used for compact propulsion systems elsewhere in the
solar
> system and beyond. Don't even ask about the technology for the shielding
> systems that allow you
> to operate in low solar orbit.
>
> You can go to Mars and back on milligrams of antimatter! A gram of
> antimatter is equivalent to about 20,000,000 kg of rocket fuel.
> You get about 2E14 joules per gram ! Breakeven point for propulsion is
> around $10 billion per gram but that will not happen for quite some time
(if
> ever). Dealing with the uncharged pions is the hard part although NASA
have
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestEraseMEspam.....mitvma.mit.edu


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2000 , 2001 only
- Today
- New search...