Quantum Foam

[Tone]

http://io9.com/there-is-no-such-thin...quan-453814024

[Tone]

Quantum Foam

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11792.html

What is 'quantum foam'?

This is an idea that was originally proposed by Nobel physicist John Wheeler back in the early 1960's to describe what space-time 'looks like' at scales of 10^-33 centimeters.

The basic idea is that gravity is a field with many of the same fundamental properties as the other fundamental 'force' fields in Nature. This means that the state of this field is, at some level, uncertain and described by quantum mechanics. Since Einstein's general theory of relativity requires that gravitational fields and space-time be one and the same mathematical objects, this means that space-time itself is also subject to the kinds of uncertainty required by quantum systems. This indeterminacy means that you cannot know with infinite precision BOTH the geometry of space-time, and the rate of change of the space-time geometry, in direct analogy with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle for quantum systems.

Wheeler imagined that this indeterminacy for space-time required that at the so-called Planck Scale of 10^-33 centimeters and 10^-43 seconds, space-time has a foaminess to it with sudden changes in its geometry into a wealth of complex shapes and textures. You would have quantum black holes appear at 10^-33 centimeters, then evaporate in 10^-43 seconds. Wormholes would form and dissolve, and later theorists even postulated 'baby universe' production could happen under these conditions.

The problem is that we have no evidence that 1) gravity is a quantum field and 2) that space-time has this type of structure at these scales.

[Jerome Scuggs]

holy shit tone just proved god is real

[Jessup]

Or that god is NOT real.. These theories are in my opinion proving that there is more nothingness than somethingness when the macro level is discovered. Quarks / dark matter / Quantum Foam all exist because of nothingness. Plato was right. Experience of life is nothing more than a shadow being cast by a sun that we can never see. The universe is nothing more than a digital representation of itself.. It is NOT itself.

GOD IS DEAD and this should be empowering to us all. The nothingness is the glue that binds together physics.. A perfect melding which ='s 0

[Tone]

physicality is an illusion prison matrix created by demons to entrap us, godly being in the multiverse are destroying this universe, but 3 seconds over there is billions of years over here, thats why this has gone on so long without being destroyed yet, the time differential between the two realities

[Exalt]

holy shit tone just proved god is real

“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” q q q quantum foammm

[Jessup]

Brought to you from my house

http://www.foamyhome.com/foam/foam.html

[Fem.]

The article you linked to states that Einstein proved that energy and mass are equivalent; he did not prove that. E=mc^2 is not the same as E=m. E=mc^2 states that they are related to one another via c^2. The fact that they'd get something like that wrong is bothersome.

[Fem.]

I bought a book that contains an essay by Albert Einstein where he does state that mass and energy are equivalent. The first sentence of his essay reads:

In order to understand the law of the equivalence of mass and energy, we must go back to two conservation or "balance" principles which, independent of each other, held a high place in pre-relativity physics.

Essay titled (I assume anyway, the book isn't clear) E=mc^2
Written by Albert Einstein in 1946


This blew my mind because that is not what the equation states. I realized I disagree with Albert Einstein on some type of Physics principle...

What he said does not match the equation. The equation states that Energy and mass are equivalent under the condition of c^2. It is not universally true unless that condition is in place. Planck units that "normalize" out c^2 to provide a workable environment in which the equivalence of E=m becomes a viable theoretical concept...

This is important because of the massive debate about Albert Einstein's legitimacy as a Physicist and whether E=mc^2 was to be taken credit for by him. I assumed that he worked it mathematically and didn't think for a moment that his written words would ever contradict any of the mathematical concepts he presented, but I was wrong. His words don't match the equation, but I suppose the interpretation of it is up for debate. I was paying attention to the equation and not his words and made an assumption that was wrong. Something to study I guess, because I just might not be interpreting this correctly. Just thought I'd point out.

[Wazzaaa.nl]

[Fem.]

That guy is hilarious, but this is a serious subject.

[Minsc & Boo]

In order to understand the law of the equivalence of mass and energy, we must go back to two conservation or "balance" principles which, independent of each other, held a high place in pre-relativity physics. - Written by Albert Einstein in 1946

This blew my mind because that is not what the equation states. What he said does not match the equation.

I don't have much experience with Einstein's theory, but I think your making a simple mistake regarding the word "equivalence". The word equivalence, in this context, doesn't mean that E = m, if E =m*50 , there is still equivalence between mass and energy (you just need to multiply the mass by 50 to obtain the energy). What is meant here is that there is a "relationship" of equivalence, meaning that mass and energy are bound together, and a change in one, will necessarily change the other (by some proportionate amount).

As another example of this type of usage, you can think of weight. We can say that pounds and kilograms have equivalence, ie. they are the "same thing". If you have x pounds of mass, you can also say you have, x *0.45359237 kg of mass, and you will be saying the equivalent thing. Thus there is a relationship between the two things that is constant. In the same way Mass and Energy are just two different "units of measure" for the same thing and can be thought of as equivalent.

The equation states that Energy and mass are equivalent under the condition of c^2. It is not universally true unless that condition is in place. Planck units that "normalize" out c^2 to provide a workable environment in which the equivalence of E=m becomes a viable theoretical concept...

Another mistake is your usage of the word "condition" regarding c^2. That is not a condition, that is a constant. According to current physical theory, the speed of light [in a vacuum] is constant and does not change. c^2 is just a shorthand for writing a large (and possible approximate) number. Again, what your suggesting is that the "relationship" between pounds and kilograms is not "universal", it is only true if the "condition" x *0.45359237 kg is in place. Well lucky for us that "condition" is universally true (because its just telling you to preform a mathematical operation") and pounds convert very nicely into kilos.

[Fem.]

Just because there is a relationship between two things doesn't mean that those two things are equivalent. There is no context in which equivalence means something that it doesn't. Equivalence means just that, equivalence. If it isn't equal then it isn't equivalent and the definition of such isn't arbitrary.

You say:

There is a "relationship" of equivalence

While stating that I made a mistake in using the word condition regarding c^2. -facepalm- It is a constant that, in the context of the equation, is part of a conditional relationship between Energy and mass. Energy equals mass under the condition that mass be multiplied by c^2, otherwise the two aren't equivalent without Planck's "normalization" technique. It's not a relationship of equivalence, it is an equivalence that requires a certain relationship in order to be true.

And your comparison to the measurement of mass isn't relevant because measurement systems are arbitrary and changeable and the conversion between them doesn't change the fact that it's still a measurement--much like language, something can be measured in various systems and have different values while the identity of the thing being measured doesn't change. We're talking about the identity of the thing, not it's measurement.

I don't have much experience with Einstein's theory, but I think your making a simple mistake regarding the word "equivalence". The word equivalence, in this context, doesn't mean that E = m, if E =m*50 , there is still equivalence between mass and energy (you just need to multiply the mass by 50 to obtain the energy). What is meant here is that there is a "relationship" of equivalence, meaning that mass and energy are bound together, and a change in one, will necessarily change the other (by some proportionate amount).

As another example of this type of usage, you can think of weight. We can say that pounds and kilograms have equivalence, ie. they are the "same thing". If you have x pounds of mass, you can also say you have, x *0.45359237 kg of mass, and you will be saying the equivalent thing. Thus there is a relationship between the two things that is constant. In the same way Mass and Energy are just two different "units of measure" for the same thing and can be thought of as equivalent.



Another mistake is your usage of the word "condition" regarding c^2. That is not a condition, that is a constant. According to current physical theory, the speed of light [in a vacuum] is constant and does not change. c^2 is just a shorthand for writing a large (and possible approximate) number. Again, what your suggesting is that the "relationship" between pounds and kilograms is not "universal", it is only true if the "condition" x *0.45359237 kg is in place. Well lucky for us that "condition" is universally true (because its just telling you to preform a mathematical operation") and pounds convert very nicely into kilos.

[Minsc & Boo]

Just because there is a relationship between two things doesn't mean that those two things are equivalent.

True, I have a relationship with my mother but we are not equivalent. That wasn't my argument.

There is no context in which equivalence means something that it doesn't. Equivalence means just that, equivalence.

True again. Something can NEVER mean something it doesn't, that would be illogical.

If it isn't equal then it isn't equivalent and the definition of such isn't arbitrary.

False, you have a prior belief about what the word equivalence means, and therefore are assuming that Einstein used it incorrectly. That is definitely a possibility, but I find it more probable that my understanding of his usage is correct.

We're talking about the identity of the thing, not it's measurement.

What is the difference between the identity of a thing and its measurement? E=mc^2 tells you that E and M are just to different names/measurements of the same thing, and that MEASURING one, is equivalent to MEASURING the other.

If your curious and want a more in-depth discussion you can check out the (somewhat reliable) wikipedia article

Oh, and btw, "facepalming" doesn't strengthen your argument in any way.

[Fem.]

I'm not going to discuss this subject with you because if you think that understanding an objective, agreed upon definition of a word, which is usually found in a dictionary, counts as a "prior belief in what a word means" then you haven't expressed an understanding that warrants continuing this conversation without me having to explain everything for you first. It's okay, that happens sometimes. Fuckin' SubSpace.

Peace.