At https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/why-does-higgs-particle-matter
Frank Wilczek makes the clearest statement I have seen that space is full of “stuff”, even if it is very different stuff to the stuff we sit on and breath.

Very different to Krauss’s insistence on calling space “nothing”.

So what do we think about this approach?

(Site found via Letters to Nature: http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/fundamental-harmony-between-mind-and-matter/)

space is redefined as stuffed?

roughbarked said:

space is redefined as stuffed?

I think we would be stuffed if there was no stuff in space.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

space is redefined as stuffed?

I think we would be stuffed if there was no stuff in space.

It’s the bubbles of something that make it really something?

i think they are talking about two completely different things.

Boris said:

i think they are talking about two completely different things.

Boris said:

i think they are talking about two completely different things.

Why do you think that?

that’s what i said.

well the higgs particle and field have bee theorised for some time so i doubt that krauss isn’t aware of the theory so he would hardly be referring to that as nothing.

+n

Boris said:

well the higgs particle and field have bee theorised for some time so i doubt that krauss isn’t aware of the theory so he would hardly be referring to that as nothing.

But he does.

no. he is referring to if you take all of these things away you are left with the “nothing” he is talking about.

Boris said:

no. he is referring to if you take all of these things away you are left with the “nothing” he is talking about.

He does at right at the end of the book, but all the way through he quite specifically refers to space as nothing.

so why would he do it at the end of the book and not mean it at the start?

Boris said:

so why would he do it at the end of the book and not mean it at the start?

Lack of clarity in his own mind as to exactly what he’s trying to say?

Lack of clarity in his own mind as to exactly what he’s trying to say?

LOL. No.

I don’t know, when people are talking about nothing they sometimes let their minds wander.

Bubblecar said:

I don’t know, when people are talking about nothing they sometimes let their minds wander.

I’ve got a book on my shelf which I always leave where people can see the title.. it is titled.. “How to live on nothing”.

Bubblecar said:

Boris said:

so why would he do it at the end of the book and not mean it at the start?

Lack of clarity in his own mind as to exactly what he’s trying to say?

a summary is a summary.

“Thus the LHC ring is the coldest extended region in the universe, unless of course some extraterrestrial civilization is doing similar tricks. “

I loved that tidbit from the article.

sibeen said:

“Thus the LHC ring is the coldest extended region in the universe, unless of course some extraterrestrial civilization is doing similar tricks. “

I loved that tidbit from the article.

I’m glad that someone wants to talk about Wilczek rather than Krauss :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

“Thus the LHC ring is the coldest extended region in the universe, unless of course some extraterrestrial civilization is doing similar tricks. “

I loved that tidbit from the article.

I’m glad that someone wants to talk about Wilczek rather than Krauss :)

Especially since it’s his birthday today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Wilczek

is normal space different to nothing

ie if you were in a space ship and were to somehow tp get outside of the expanding universe

would you still be able to move in nothing

ie if you were in a space ship and were to somehow tp get outside of the expanding universe

i don’t think you’d be allowed to do that. mainly because there is no outside.

CrazyNeutrino said:

is normal space different to nothing

ie if you were in a space ship and were to somehow tp get outside of the expanding universe

would you still be able to move in nothing

I suspect that you would not be able to exist in nothing

Boris said:

ie if you were in a space ship and were to somehow tp get outside of the expanding universe

i don’t think you’d be allowed to do that. mainly because there is no outside.

Well people say that, I’ve never seen any evidence for it.

well the definition of universe, the whole universe not just our little bit, is everything so by that there can’t be an outside as that would be included in the universe.

Boris said:

well the definition of universe, the whole universe not just our little bit, is everything so by that there can’t be an outside as that would be included in the universe.

That’s a cop-out. When people talk about “the universe” they either mean the observable bit or the bit that can be traced back to the hypothesised Big Bang. We have no idea about what, if anything, might be outside that.

We have no idea about what, if anything, might be outside that.

but it isn’t part of this universe. you’ve just read a book on it.

Boris said:

We have no idea about what, if anything, might be outside that.

but it isn’t part of this universe. you’ve just read a book on it.

Make up your mind, is the universe everything that exists, or just the little bit we inhabit?

the bit we inhabit is part of the bigger bit. and my mind is made up it is you who don’t see.

Boris said:

the bit we inhabit is part of the bigger bit. and my mind is made up it is you who don’t see.

Then you need to explain yourself more clearly.

First you said that the universe was “everything”, by definition, then you said it was just the things that originated at the Big Bang, which may well not be everything, so which is it?

our visible universe is part of a larger universe which we can’t see. all of this came from the bb not just the bit we can see.

Boris said:

our visible universe is part of a larger universe which we can’t see. all of this came from the bb not just the bit we can see.

OK, I didn’t suggest otherwise.

But do you mean by “the universe” everything that exists, as you said initially, or just everything that originated in the Big Bang?

then there may be an underlying universe that has always been and inflation created our “smaller” or “bubble” universe. this is the multiverse. we are causally disconnected from this as well as the bigger universe which our visible bit is part of.

I can’t see how anything could be defined as “outside the universe” unless you were to assert that such a relationship could be mathematically or empirically established without that automatically making it part of the universe. If not, the term “outside the universe” can only refer to imaginary stuff.

Boris said:

then there may be an underlying universe that has always been and inflation created our “smaller” or “bubble” universe. this is the multiverse. we are causally disconnected from this as well as the bigger universe which our visible bit is part of.

So if by “universe” you mean the former, this might include regions of nothing, and if you mean the latter then that universe is probably not everything.

Bubblecar said:

I can’t see how anything could be defined as “outside the universe” unless you were to assert that such a relationship could be mathematically or empirically established without that automatically making it part of the universe. If not, the term “outside the universe” can only refer to imaginary stuff.

Which definition of “universe” are you using?

doesn’t matter which, they aren’t part of this universe.

Which definition of “universe” are you using?

the one which our visible bit is part of i would imagine.

Boris said:

doesn’t matter which, they aren’t part of this universe.

So this universe is not everything, so there can be both something and nothing outside this universe.

>Which definition of “universe” are you using?

Anything that can theoretically or empirically be established as existing (or potentially existing) due to its inclusion in a viable cosmological model (which will obviously include us).

Boris said:

Which definition of “universe” are you using?

the one which our visible bit is part of i would imagine.

If he is then the statement seems to make no sense.

go read some more book because it is pointless when you don’t think and at least read what people write.

Bubblecar said:

>Which definition of “universe” are you using?

Anything that can theoretically or empirically be established as existing (or potentially existing) due to its inclusion in a viable cosmological model (which will obviously include us).

OK, but such a universe might well include separate regions of something, with nothing in between.

Boris said:

go read some more book because it is pointless when you don’t think and at least read what people write.

Please explain the error in my logic rather than resorting to abuse.

don’t start that shit about being hurt. read some fucking books.

>OK, but such a universe might well include separate regions of something, with nothing in between.

Such regions are included in the old “universe = everything” concept by use of the term “multiverse”, albeit split into various levels.

Come on, let’s try to be nice please. It’s just back-of-envelope cosmology, not politics :)

look at it this way. people say that to ask what was before the bb makes as much sense as asking what is north of the north pole. now maybe if we went into another dimension we could go north of the north pole. but we can’t so it still makes no sense.

having “nothing” between universes is the same.

<marquee behavior="alternate">you should see what marquee does to the boris</marquee>

>OK, but such a universe might well include separate regions of something, with nothing in between.

If you’re referring to regions that are not actually part of the model, then they’re just imaginary and we needn’t worry about them.

thanks bubblecar, glad someone sees what is going on.

Boris said:

don’t start that shit about being hurt. read some fucking books.

What the hell’s your problem? Who said anything about being hurt?

Just tell us clearly whatever it is you mean or just shut up if you aren’t interested.

Bubblecar said:

>OK, but such a universe might well include separate regions of something, with nothing in between.

If you’re referring to regions that are not actually part of the model, then they’re just imaginary and we needn’t worry about them.

I’ not talking about a model, I’m talking about what actually might exist.

I’ not talking about a model, I’m talking about what actually might exist.

hahaha. all science is models. and if we can never observe it then whether it exists or not doesn’t matter.

>I’ not talking about a model, I’m talking about what actually might exist.

Yes but in order to scientifically establish that they might exist, they’d have to be part of a cosmological model, included either on empirical grounds or because they’re a product of the mathematics.

>>>I suspect that you would not be able to exist in nothing

/yoda
hard to prove? this nothing, outside of universe, it is
/yoda

Boris said:

I’ not talking about a model, I’m talking about what actually might exist.

hahaha. all science is models. and if we can never observe it then whether it exists or not doesn’t matter.

So why make definitive statements about it then?

Yes but in order to scientifically establish that they might exist, they’d have to be part of a cosmological model, included either on empirical grounds or because they’re a product of the mathematics.

just repeating it. could have put +1.

hard to prove? this nothing, outside of universe, it is

not prove but observe.

Bubblecar said:

>I’ not talking about a model, I’m talking about what actually might exist.

Yes but in order to scientifically establish that they might exist, they’d have to be part of a cosmological model, included either on empirical grounds or because they’re a product of the mathematics.

In that case I’m not talking about things that can’t exist.

I’m talking about what can exist.

So why make definitive statements about it then?

cause i’m not going to make shit up just to please you. basically.

I’m talking about what can exist.

can? that sound definite. are you sure you don’t mean “might”?

Boris said:

So why make definitive statements about it then?

cause i’m not going to make shit up just to please you. basically.

But that’s just what you are doing (not to please me, obviously).

You are making definitive statements about what can or can’t exist, but so far have not produced any evidence at all.

Sounds like making shit up to me.

Boris said:

I’m talking about what can exist.

can? that sound definite. are you sure you don’t mean “might”?

In the context, the two words mean the same.

Boris said:

hard to prove? this nothing, outside of universe, it is

not prove but observe.

you have to observe it, to prove or disprove it

the universe is expanding

expanding into what?

nothing!

ok what is the difference between space and nothing

CrazyNeutrino said:

ok what is the difference between space and nothing

What Wilczek says in the link in the OP.

if the universe can expand into nothing

then why cannot I move around in a spaceship, in which the spaceship is external to the universe

so I move around in nothing

after all the universe is moving in nothing

its expanding

heres another possibility

that outside of the universe is not nothing

but another state of space that we know nothing about

It doesn’t have to be expanding into space, Crazy. It’s expanding because the objects in it are getting further apart, i.e. new space is created within the universe as it becomes less dense. No “outside” is required and I’m not aware of any attempt to model one.

CrazyNeutrino said:

if the universe can expand into nothing

then why cannot I move around in a spaceship, in which the spaceship is external to the universe

so I move around in nothing

after all the universe is moving in nothing

its expanding

A small lump of something embedded in nothing would probably not be stable.

>>>What Wilczek says in the link in the OP.

ok Ill have a look

I havent read the book yet

This discussion reminds me of an argument I had a while ago about QM. Since the solutions to the Schroedinger equation are quantised, and the same initial conditions and constraints can lead to different solutions, a QM system is said to exist in a superposition of states until it’s observed. When it’s observed, the wave packet picturesquely collapses into the observed state. One interpretation of this, the Many Worlds interpretation, says that any time the wave packet collapses, the universe splits into as many new universes as there were states superposed in the original solution. If so, there must be many – perhaps even uncountably infinitely many – universes, all different.

If there are infinitely many universes, each different to all the others, it’s possible to argue that not only are all things possible, but all things must be certain in at least one of the universes. If so, there must be at least one universe which contains a god. If so, since by definition god is omnipresent, god must exist in all universes, including ours.

I have issues with the Many Worlds interpretation, not least of which is that each newly-split universe has the same amount of energy as the universe from which it split – which also still has that much energy.

Wocky said:

If there are infinitely many universes, each different to all the others, it’s possible to argue that not only are all things possible, but all things must be certain in at least one of the universes. If so, there must be at least one universe which contains a god. If so, since by definition god is omnipresent, god must exist in all universes, including ours.

Not all things are possible, there are things that are logically impossible that will never occur.

Amongst these things are a quantum event giving rise to an entity that created the universe in which the quantum event occurred, before it occurred.

CrazyNeutrino said:

if the universe can expand into nothing

then why cannot I move around in a spaceship, in which the spaceship is external to the universe

so I move around in nothing

after all the universe is moving in nothing

its expanding

To add to Bubblecar’s answer, according to standard cosmology, our universe is not a ball of stuff sitting inside a void. It does not have a boundary outside of which is nothing.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Not all things are possible, there are things that are logically impossible that will never occur.

Amongst these things are a quantum event giving rise to an entity that created the universe in which the quantum event occurred, before it occurred.

Whilst I agree that not all things are possible, I can’t see a logical inconsistency with your second paragraph. See Frank J. Tipler’s “Rotating cylinders and the possibility of global causality violation” in Phys. Rev. D 9 (8): 2203-2206, available here: http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.geocities.com/theophysics/tipler-rotating-cylinders.pdf&date=2009-10-25+23:01:39 for a discussion of a physical object creating closed timelike loops and thus allowing causality violation.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Not all things are possible, there are things that are logically impossible that will never occur.

Agreed. And that implies that everything that happens in a given world of MWT has to be consistent with the laws of physics of that world. Actually, the same laws of physics govern all worlds in MWT, i.e., all the worlds share the same basic equations of physics, but it’s possible that some of the parameters of those equations vary from world to world, so it may appear superficially that different rules of physics are operating.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Amongst these things are a quantum event giving rise to an entity that created the universe in which the quantum event occurred, before it occurred.

Well, I agree that that would violate causality as we understand it, but I don’t think we can therefore dismiss it as logically impossible.

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

if the universe can expand into nothing

then why cannot I move around in a spaceship, in which the spaceship is external to the universe

so I move around in nothing

after all the universe is moving in nothing

its expanding

A small lump of something embedded in nothing would probably not be stable.

so a small lump of matter embedded in nothing / or existing in nothing, external to the universe, the lamp of matter would not be stable

so no forces of gravity or other forces controlling normal matter that exist in the normal universe

so if I were to suddenly appear in nothing the space ship would disintegrate and fall apart

presumably when I fired the rockets, or maybe even before I fired the rockets

lets do the experiment

:)

There are some great articles on Frank Wilczek’s Web Site , mostly in PDF format. These articles are pre-LHC, so some of the info is now a little out-of-date, but they’re still worth reading, IMHO.

Wocky said:

I have issues with the Many Worlds interpretation, not least of which is that each newly-split universe has the same amount of energy as the universe from which it split – which also still has that much energy.

I’m not much of a fan of the Many Worlds interpretation, either. But the energy thing isn’t really a problem, at least, not according to David Deutsch. In his model of Many Worlds, there are no new universes: an infinite number of universes came into being at the instant of the Big Bang.

Initially, the quantum states of all the universes were identical, and as time goes by their states gradually diverge. So rather than having a universe branching into two (or more) universes, we have a “sheaf” containing an infinite number of identical universes diverging into two (or more) sheaves, with each new sheaf containing an infinite number of identical universes.

>>>To add to Bubblecar’s answer, according to standard cosmology, our universe is not a ball of stuff sitting inside a void. It does not have a boundary outside of which is nothing.

Yes I keep reading that,

this, Higgs-particle medium that exists in the universe is like some sea of space

if I got Mollwollfumble right, that this Higgs-particle medium exists when something moves through space say when an atom moves through space, or a planet, star, black hole or anything moving thats made up of atomic particles, that these higgs boson particles pop out of nowhere to support moving matter of any size

have I got that bit right? Im happy to go with that

but Im not convinced about our boundary of the universe,

the universe is expanding

and Im not convinced about no existence outside of the expanding universe

and Im not convinced about there being “no outside of the universe”

what is the difference between a sea of higgs medium in space and nothing, nothing that is exists external to the universe

what if thee is a type of space external to the universe

say a type of space that we dont know about

so it is open to speculation

say they are multi universes all expanding

what if “nothing” between all these expanding universe is expanding as well?

PM 2Ring said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

if the universe can expand into nothing

then why cannot I move around in a spaceship, in which the spaceship is external to the universe

so I move around in nothing

after all the universe is moving in nothing

its expanding

To add to Bubblecar’s answer, according to standard cosmology, our universe is not a ball of stuff sitting inside a void. It does not have a boundary outside of which is nothing.

So does it have a boundary which has nothing inside it? or perhaps it has an infineately wide boundary made of nothing?

bob(from black rock) said:

PM 2Ring said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

if the universe can expand into nothing

then why cannot I move around in a spaceship, in which the spaceship is external to the universe

so I move around in nothing

after all the universe is moving in nothing

its expanding

To add to Bubblecar’s answer, according to standard cosmology, our universe is not a ball of stuff sitting inside a void. It does not have a boundary outside of which is nothing.

So does it have a boundary which has nothing inside it? or perhaps it has an infineately wide boundary made of nothing?

Don’t know if this helps or not? but a net can be defined as a series of holes joined together by string.

PM 2Ring said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

if the universe can expand into nothing

then why cannot I move around in a spaceship, in which the spaceship is external to the universe

so I move around in nothing

after all the universe is moving in nothing

its expanding

To add to Bubblecar’s answer, according to standard cosmology, our universe is not a ball of stuff sitting inside a void. It does not have a boundary outside of which is nothing.

But at the risk of getting repetitive, I know of no evidence for this, one way or the other.

bob(from black rock) said:

PM 2Ring said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

if the universe can expand into nothing

then why cannot I move around in a spaceship, in which the spaceship is external to the universe

so I move around in nothing

after all the universe is moving in nothing

its expanding

To add to Bubblecar’s answer, according to standard cosmology, our universe is not a ball of stuff sitting inside a void. It does not have a boundary outside of which is nothing.

So does it have a boundary which has nothing inside it? or perhaps it has an infineately wide boundary made of nothing?

maybe the higgs medium just dissipates into nothing at this boundary, similar to how earths atmosphere dissipates into space/ higgs medium space

Wocky said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Not all things are possible, there are things that are logically impossible that will never occur.

Amongst these things are a quantum event giving rise to an entity that created the universe in which the quantum event occurred, before it occurred.

Whilst I agree that not all things are possible, I can’t see a logical inconsistency with your second paragraph. See Frank J. Tipler’s “Rotating cylinders and the possibility of global causality violation” in Phys. Rev. D 9 (8): 2203-2206, available here: http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.geocities.com/theophysics/tipler-rotating-cylinders.pdf&date=2009-10-25+23:01:39 for a discussion of a physical object creating closed timelike loops and thus allowing causality violation.

The possibility of causality violations is one thing (and I guess I’d have to agree that it’s possible it’s possible (but also possible it’s impossible), but a causality violation giving rise to an entity that created the universe in which the violation occurred is another matter.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Wocky said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Not all things are possible, there are things that are logically impossible that will never occur.

Amongst these things are a quantum event giving rise to an entity that created the universe in which the quantum event occurred, before it occurred.

Whilst I agree that not all things are possible, I can’t see a logical inconsistency with your second paragraph. See Frank J. Tipler’s “Rotating cylinders and the possibility of global causality violation” in Phys. Rev. D 9 (8): 2203-2206, available here: http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.geocities.com/theophysics/tipler-rotating-cylinders.pdf&date=2009-10-25+23:01:39 for a discussion of a physical object creating closed timelike loops and thus allowing causality violation.

The possibility of causality violations is one thing (and I guess I’d have to agree that it’s possible it’s possible (but also possible it’s impossible), but a causality violation giving rise to an entity that created the universe in which the violation occurred is another matter.

“Something” and “nothing” are two mutually exclusive totalities. The fact that there appears an obvious something, should subsequently rule out the possibility of a nothing state. As nothing has been arbitrarily ruled out, everything remains as the result.

rpt:

It doesn’t have to be expanding into space, Crazy. It’s expanding because the objects in it are getting further apart, i.e. new space is created within the universe as it becomes less dense. No “outside” is required and I’m not aware of any attempt to model one.

and

To add to Bubblecar’s answer, according to standard cosmology, our universe is not a ball of stuff sitting inside a void. It does not have a boundary outside of which is nothing.

that is all.

:-)

>>>It doesn’t have to be expanding into space, Crazy. It’s expanding because the objects in it are getting further apart, i.e. new space is created within the universe as it becomes less dense. No “outside” is required and I’m not aware of any attempt to model one.

yes the objects in it are getting further apart, new space is created

in

https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/why-does-higgs-particle-matter

if I have interpreted some of Frank Wilczek’s concepts correctly he is referring to space as a higgs field medium

do you mean the higgs medium that Frank Wilczek is referring to as space?

or some other type of pure space perhaps?

do you mean the higgs medium that Frank Wilczek is referring to as space?

spacetime. the higgs field is one property of it.

Boris said:

rpt:

It doesn’t have to be expanding into space, Crazy. It’s expanding because the objects in it are getting further apart, i.e. new space is created within the universe as it becomes less dense. No “outside” is required and I’m not aware of any attempt to model one.

and

To add to Bubblecar’s answer, according to standard cosmology, our universe is not a ball of stuff sitting inside a void. It does not have a boundary outside of which is nothing.

that is all.

:-)

No, it isn’t all, because the question is not whether there “has to be” something for space to expand into, the question is whether it is possible that space is expanding into nothing. I have never seen any evidence or argument presented to demonstrate that this is impossible. Just flat statements that it is not what happens.

in a couple of years they’ll be saying there was no big bang

in a couple of years they’ll be saying there was no big bang

will that be a concern?

wookiemeister said:

in a couple of years they’ll be saying there was no big bang

Can’t hear any echos of it anymore, perhaps it never happened?

wookiemeister said:

in a couple of years they’ll be saying there was no big bang

I don’t know about a firm conclusion in a couple of years, but I’d certainly like to see more debate on that possibility.

The Rev Dodgson said:

PM 2Ring said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

if the universe can expand into nothing

then why cannot I move around in a spaceship, in which the spaceship is external to the universe

so I move around in nothing

after all the universe is moving in nothing

its expanding

To add to Bubblecar’s answer, according to standard cosmology, our universe is not a ball of stuff sitting inside a void. It does not have a boundary outside of which is nothing.

But at the risk of getting repetitive, I know of no evidence for this, one way or the other.

Fair enough. Obviously, it’s not possible to get direct empirical evidence of what the universe is like beyond the observable universe. So the best we can do is to make models that cover what we can observe and see what those models have to say about regions we can’t observe.

We currently don’t have a complete theory of cosmology. Big Bang theory doesn’t address the question of what caused the Big Bang, and without a theory of Quantum Gravity it can’t accurately model what happened during the earliest moments of the BB (or other extreme gravity scenarios, like inside black holes).

OTOH, observations indicate that the model of our universe provided by the current Big Bang theory is fairly accurate, as far as it goes, i.e., any theory that supersedes BBT would need to mostly agree with BBT. And BBT says that on the large scale the universe is homogeneous. (The uniformity of the CMB is probably the best evidence of this, but of course it’s possible that on a larger scale the CMB isn’t as uniform as it appears to us).

Clearly, a universe that consists of a big ball of stuff in the middle of an otherwise empty void is not homogeneous. True, the image of a ball of stuff sitting inside a void is easier for humans to visualise than an expanding, infinite, homogenous universe with no boundary. But mathematically it’s more complicated: an homogenous universe can get by with laws of physics that operate the same way throughout space and time, but an inhomogenous universe needs more complicated laws to ensure that different things happen in different regions of space.

Of course, the universe isn’t obliged to conform to Occam’s Razor, but why add complexity to a theory without evidence that we actually need that added complexity?

PM 2Ring said:

Of course, the universe isn’t obliged to conform to Occam’s Razor, but why add complexity to a theory without evidence that we actually need that added complexity?

I don’t think we need to.

We have a theory that works well for the bit we can see, and I believe there are good reasons to accept that it still applies for a good way beyond that.

But to extend that to say that the Universe is required to be flat by the theory seems to me to be going to far. I don’t think that the theory has anything to say on the matter (or lack of it :)).

The Rev Dodgson said:

But to extend that to say that the Universe is required to be flat by the theory seems to me to be going to far. I don’t think that the theory has anything to say on the matter (or lack of it :)).

Where “flat” = “infinite”

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

so theory says yes but limits of observation says can’t tell.

CrazyNeutrino said:

this, Higgs-particle medium that exists in the universe is like some sea of space

Ok.

CrazyNeutrino said:

if I got Mollwollfumble right, that this Higgs-particle medium exists when something moves through space say when an atom moves through space, or a planet, star, black hole or anything moving thats made up of atomic particles, that these higgs boson particles pop out of nowhere to support moving matter of any size

have I got that bit right? Im happy to go with that

Sorry, I don’t get what you mean by “support moving matter”.

As the linked article by Wilczek says, W & Z bosons (the force carrier particles of the weak force) would have zero rest mass (and hence travel at the speed of light) if it weren’t for the fact that they interact with the Higgs field (which fills all of space). This interaction slows them down and effectively gives them non-zero rest mass / energy. All fundamental fermions (i.e., the particles of matter: quarks, electrons & neutrinos) feel the weak force, so they indirectly inherit some mass from their virtual W & Z bosons.

CrazyNeutrino said:

but Im not convinced about our boundary of the universe,

the universe is expanding

and Im not convinced about no existence outside of the expanding universe

and Im not convinced about there being “no outside of the universe”

As I said to the Rev, fair enough.

CrazyNeutrino said:

what is the difference between a sea of higgs medium in space and nothing, nothing that is exists external to the universe

what if there is a type of space external to the universe

say a type of space that we dont know about

so it is open to speculation

Our universe could be one little bubble in a vast cosmos full of universes, with each universe being (mostly) its own little self-contained bubble of spacetime, and (possibly) with its own local laws of physics that are ultimately derived from the ultimate laws that govern the behaviour of the cosmos itself. Some people are wrestling with the mathematics needed to describe such a cosmos, but it’s not easy! For one thing, the “space” of that vast cosmos is likely to be rather different to the kind of space that we’re familiar with.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But to extend that to say that the Universe is required to be flat by the theory seems to me to be going to far. I don’t think that the theory has anything to say on the matter (or lack of it :)).

Where “flat” = “infinite”

If it’s not infinite, then (according to BBT) it has positive global curvature, but it still doesn’t have a boundary.

PM 2Ring said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But to extend that to say that the Universe is required to be flat by the theory seems to me to be going to far. I don’t think that the theory has anything to say on the matter (or lack of it :)).

Where “flat” = “infinite”

If it’s not infinite, then (according to BBT) it has positive global curvature, but it still doesn’t have a boundary.

an internal limitation might be assessed as a boundary. c is a boundary and terminal velocity is another. What are physical boundaries?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

an internal limitation might be assessed as a boundary. c is a boundary

I’ll pay that. Similarly, time zero of the Big Bang is a boundary. But that’s a bit different to the type of boundary CrazyNeutrino is talking about. I think.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

and terminal velocity is another.

How?

PM 2Ring said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

an internal limitation might be assessed as a boundary. c is a boundary

I’ll pay that. Similarly, time zero of the Big Bang is a boundary. But that’s a bit different to the type of boundary CrazyNeutrino is talking about. I think.

I was looking to point out that the form of boundary CN is looking for is an intellectual illusion. The BB and c are likely the nearest definable analogy

Riff-in-Thyme said:

and terminal velocity is another.

How?

I was going to include a disclaimer with that.

So we understand about 4% of the universe

That leaves 96% we don’t understand….

So we understand about 4% of the universe

That leaves 96% we don’t understand….

not really. lots of people say it that way to make it look like we know little. it would be more accurate, though just as wrong, to say we know 33% (matter) and don’t know 66% (DM and DE).

Boris said:

So we understand about 4% of the universe

That leaves 96% we don’t understand….

not really. lots of people say it that way to make it look like we know little. it would be more accurate, though just as wrong, to say we know 33% (matter) and don’t know 66% (DM and DE).

It’s 33% matter + dark matter and 67% dark energy

Or thereabouts

In the bit we can see.

Wocky said:

I have issues with the Many Worlds interpretation, not least of which is that each newly-split universe has the same amount of energy as the universe from which it split – which also still has that much energy.

The quantum multiverse doesn’t behave in that way. There is no splitting of universes. A quantum superposition evolves to a quantum superposition, with each component of the superposition evolving to each component of the superposition. What a measurement does is to quantum entangle each classical configuration (of the measuring device, of any observers of the measuring device, etc) with each component of the microscopic quantum state. In this way, the observers see only one outcome for the measurement, the alternative possible outcomes being seen by other members of the superposition of observers. And it’s completely random because each component of the superposition of observers cannot determine which component of the microscopic quantum state they are going to be entangled with.

A microscopic quantum state behaves like a superposition of microscopic classical states. Each microscopic classical state interacts with the measuring device to produce the corresponding macroscopic state of the measuring device. But because the microscopic quantum state is a superposition, so is the macroscopic state of the measuring device. Furthermore, because only one component of the superposition of microscopic classical states produces a given component of the superposition of macroscopic states of the measuring device, after the measurement, the microscopic quantum state will behave as if it is and had always been that particular component.

PM 2Ring said:

I’m not much of a fan of the Many Worlds interpretation, either.

The way I see it, the many-worlds interpretation, coupled with quantum decoherence, is the most natural explanation of quantum mechanics. As far as I’m aware, it is the only interpretation that explains quantum mechanics without invoking some form of new behaviour. Of course, the invocation of many worlds may be regarded as something new, but it’s not because configuration spaces are not new and are a natural extension to reality. The many worlds interpretation (with quantum decoherence) explains the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, quantum entanglement, and the measurement problem, by providing a precise explanation of the nature of the quantum state. It also explains why we can’t observe the other worlds. In other words, the many-worlds interpretation (with quantum decoherence) provides the most complete explanation of quantum mechanics.

Wocky said:

I have issues with the Many Worlds interpretation, not least of which is that each newly-split universe has the same amount of energy as the universe from which it split – which also still has that much energy.

In addition to what I said above, the unitary evolution of the universal wavefunction ensures that probability is conserved, thus in effect ensuring that energy is conserved within the quantum multiverse. It is noteworthy that the blackhole information paradox that led to Hawking’s well-known bet is about the unitary evolution of the universal wavefunction with regards to blackhole evaporation via Hawking radiation.

With regards to the topic of this thread, I have the view that the nature of quantum theory renders the distinction between the vacuum containing “nothing” and “something” to be somewhat meaningless. The problem is that making this distinction conflicts with the notion of <I>counterfactual indefiniteness</I>. That is, unless one actually measures the vacuum, one can’t say what it contains, and furthermore, the measurement of the vacuum on one occasion says nothing about the vacuum at other unmeasured occasions. This basically means that I regard the notion of virtual particles as an oversimplification of the reality. However, I should also say that the vacuum looks like a vacuum because it is invariant to Lorentz transformations, not because it is empty.

KJW said:

That is, unless one actually measures the vacuum, one can’t say what it contains, and furthermore, the measurement of the vacuum on one occasion says nothing about the vacuum at other unmeasured occasions.

This doesn’t mean that one can’t make predictions about the measurement of the vacuum. But, such predictions are about the measurement of the vacuum, and say nothing about the unmeasured vacuum. Also, indirect measurements of vacuum effects on other particles are still measurements. The point is that as soon as we make assumptions about unmeasured systems based on measured systems, we are in conflict with the notion of counterfactual indefiniteness.

KJW said:

The point is that as soon as we make assumptions about unmeasured systems based on measured systems, we are in conflict with the notion of counterfactual indefiniteness.

Maybe we should be.

sibeen said:

“Thus the LHC ring is the coldest extended region in the universe, unless of course some extraterrestrial civilization is doing similar tricks. “

I loved that tidbit from the article.

HA!

Wilczek, you lying bastard! How can I possibly believe anything you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang_Nebula

sibeen said:

sibeen said:

“Thus the LHC ring is the coldest extended region in the universe, unless of course some extraterrestrial civilization is doing similar tricks. “

I loved that tidbit from the article.

HA!

Wilczek, you lying bastard! How can I possibly believe anything you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang_Nebula

naturally the coolest place currently known in the Universe.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

sibeen said:

sibeen said:

“Thus the LHC ring is the coldest extended region in the universe, unless of course some extraterrestrial civilization is doing similar tricks. “

I loved that tidbit from the article.

HA!

Wilczek, you lying bastard! How can I possibly believe anything you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang_Nebula

naturally the coolest place currently known in the Universe.

There is a discrepancy between the coldest part of the LHC and the Boomerang_Nebula?

Thus the LHC ring is the coldest extended region in the universe,…

and here’s me thinking it was my ex’s heart.

The Rev Dodgson said:

KJW said:

The point is that as soon as we make assumptions about unmeasured systems based on measured systems, we are in conflict with the notion of counterfactual indefiniteness.

Maybe we should be.

Maybe we should be what?

The violation of Bell’s inequality shows that quantum mechanics cannot be both local and counterfactually definite (local realism). While there is plenty of evidence that interactions are local, there is no evidence that reality is counterfactually definite. Indeed, the very nature of counterfactual definiteness prevents the existence of any evidence for it. Thus, the notion of counterfactual definiteness is only an assumption that we make, and quantum mechanics has a tendency to invalidate assumptions based on intuition.

It turns out that a generalised form of general relativity can be mathematically derived from first principles. But, the theory derived is a purely classical theory that cannot describe quantum mechanical behaviour. This means that the mathematical derivation makes an (implicit) assumption that is violated by quantum mechanics. Counterfactual definiteness is that assumption, and a quantum theory of general relativity must operate in a multiverse, not spacetime (which is a classical notion).

KJW said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

KJW said:

The point is that as soon as we make assumptions about unmeasured systems based on measured systems, we are in conflict with the notion of counterfactual indefiniteness.

Maybe we should be.

Maybe we should be what?

In conflict with the notion of counterfactual indefiniteness.

The suggestion was intended to be provocative (in the De Bono sense).

The Rev Dodgson said:

In conflict with the notion of counterfactual indefiniteness.

The suggestion was intended to be provocative (in the De Bono sense).

No. Counterfactual indefiniteness is the more provocative notion (in the De Bono sense) since it is highly counterintuitive. To me, explanations of quantum mechanics that assume counterfactual definiteness seem highly contrived. Admittedly, it took me quite a while to accept the many-worlds interpretation, but I eventually did because I realised that general relativity cannot describe the double-slit experiment, forcing me to accept the alternative realities as real rather than virtual.

KJW said:

forcing me to accept the alternative realities as real rather than virtual.

I have always accepted the notion of alternative realities in the sense of a statistical ensemble. But even this will satisfy Bell’s inequality in violation of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics requires that a superposition of alternatives actually exist within the one reality, thus forcing the alternative realities to actually exist.

KJW said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

In conflict with the notion of counterfactual indefiniteness.

The suggestion was intended to be provocative (in the De Bono sense).

No. Counterfactual indefiniteness is the more provocative notion (in the De Bono sense) since it is highly counterintuitive. To me, explanations of quantum mechanics that assume counterfactual definiteness seem highly contrived. Admittedly, it took me quite a while to accept the many-worlds interpretation, but I eventually did because I realised that general relativity cannot describe the double-slit experiment, forcing me to accept the alternative realities as real rather than virtual.

OK, fair enough, but we should always try to be sceptical about our own reasoning, and I thought you were sounding a bit definite about Counterfactual Indefiniteness.

I can’t give you any sort of a proper debate about it though. I really need to read about the Bell’s Inequality thing again.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Admittedly, it took me quite a while to accept the many-worlds interpretation, but I eventually did because I realised that general relativity cannot describe the double-slit experiment, forcing me to accept the alternative realities as real rather than virtual.

The other thing that convinced me was a better understanding of the mathematics of quantum mechanics. From this, the many-worlds interpretation seems obvious.

KJW said:

The other thing that convinced me was a better understanding of the mathematics of quantum mechanics. From this, the many-worlds interpretation seems obvious.

Part of this was an understanding of quantum decoherence which clarifies the measurement problem and provides an explanation of the distinction between the microscopic quantum realm and the macroscopic classical realm.

KJW said:

KJW said:

The other thing that convinced me was a better understanding of the mathematics of quantum mechanics. From this, the many-worlds interpretation seems obvious.

Part of this was an understanding of quantum decoherence which clarifies the measurement problem and provides an explanation of the distinction between the microscopic quantum realm and the macroscopic classical realm.

With quantum decoherence, one is at a level of mathematical abstraction in which the notion of spacetime seems small and insignificant.