Is the Universe a quantum fluctuation?

[Cypress]

Actually Louis Debroglie was the first to propose wave-particle duality based on the double slit experiments which more directly pointed to wave particle duality as opposed to the Photoelectric Effect which more accurately points to QUANTIZED ENERGY states.

He was only 13 years old when Einstein published his paper on the photoelectric effect.

Debroglie clearly made advances in the concept, and may have even coined the phrase wave particle duality, as far as I know.
.

But Einstein was a pioneer for showing that light has both particle and wave properties.

"Einstein won the Nobel prize for this idea (his paper on the photo electric effect). He essentially suggested what we now call the wave-particle duality of light, showing that light can be both particle and wave and will manifest differently depending on the circumstance.

https://bigthink.com/13-8/quantum-nature-of-light/

[Cypress]

Fair enough.

The atomic hypothesis conventionally goes back to Democratis in the fifth century BCE.

But Einstein's genius was using the mathmatics to show that Brownian motion was convincing evidence that atoms were actually real.

[IBDaMann]

I'd say Thompson's gold foil experiment did a pretty good job of it along with Einstein's Brownian Motion work. And then there's TEM's which seem to show they are real.

You would be incorrect. You need to learn what science is and what the scientific method is. Nothing is ever confirmed in science. There is no quantity of sheer confidence in any quantity of people that makes something true. There's a reason all science must be falsifiable.

[Lightbringer]

Perhaps the whole Universe is the result of a vacuum fluctuation, originating from what we could call quantum nothingness.

In quantum mechanics, there is no zero-energy state. There is only the lowest possible energy state of a system, its ground state. Now, if there is an inherent uncertainty in the energy of a system, then the energy of the ground state can fluctuate. If we call this ground state a quantum vacuum, it follows that the quantum vacuum always has some structure to it. There is no such thing as a true vacuum in the sense of complete emptiness. Quantum mechanics forbids nothingness.

If there are energy fluctuations in a quantum vacuum, very interesting things can happen. For example, the E = mc2 relation tells us that energy and matter are interconvertible. A vacuum energy fluctuation can be converted into particles of matter. Sounds weird? Maybe, but it happens all the time. These particles are called virtual particles, living a fleeting existence before plunging back into the ever-busy quantum vacuum.

Physicist Edward Tryon extrapolated the idea of quantum fluctuations to the Universe as a whole. He reasoned that if all that existed was a quantum vacuum, a bubble-like energy fluctuation out of this vacuum could have given rise to the Universe. Tryon proposed that the whole Universe is the result of a vacuum fluctuation, originating from what we could call quantum nothingness.

Tryon’s proposal falls into the category of universes with a beginning, but created out of nothing. However, nothingness here, as well as in all the other examples of quantum-created universes that followed Tryon’s inspiring idea, must be understood in terms of quantum mechanical nothingness, and not from an absolute nothingness that translates to complete emptiness. In physics you simply cannot get something out of nothing. Creation ex nihilo is not the way of nature.

https://bigthink.com/13-8/universe-quantum-fluctuation/

What you're really saying is a cow with a bowel problem farted somewhere and here we are!!!!

[IBDaMann]

The atomic hypothesis conventionally goes back to Democratis in the fifth century BCE. But Einstein's genius was using the mathmatics to show that Brownian motion was convincing evidence that atoms were actually real.

No, that was not Einstein's genius. Einstein certainly had more than his share of genius, but nobody gets brownie points in science for simply agreeing with a model that already exists. Try it, write a paper showing profound agreement with the 2nd law of thermodynamics and see if you get some type of award.

Remember: science does not use supporting evidence. The scientific method focuses on finding one repeatable falsifying case. All science is that which has not yet been shown to be false.

Remember: cherry-picking is the gold standard for the scientific method.

[IBDaMann]

What you're really saying is a cow with a bowel problem farted somewhere and here we are!!!!

It was a mostly dark cow with an udder stuffed full of nothingness. The prime mover simply milked it and got the ball rolling.

And here we are.

[Trumpet]

No, that was not Einstein's genius. Einstein certainly had more than his share of genius, but nobody gets brownie points in science for simply agreeing with a model that already exists. Try it, write a paper showing profound agreement with the 2nd law of thermodynamics and see if you get some type of award.

Remember: science does not use supporting evidence. The scientific method focuses on finding one repeatable falsifying case. All science is that which has not yet been shown to be false.

Remember: cherry-picking is the gold standard for the scientific method.

You really and truly are totally disconnected from reality.

[Trumpet]

It was a mostly dark cow with an udder stuffed full of nothingness. The prime mover simply milked it and got the ball rolling.

And here we are.

Sounds like your mind is stuffed full of nothingness

[Trumpet]

What you're really saying is a cow with a bowel problem farted somewhere and here we are!!!!

I don't know about the rest of us, but you certainly did originate from a cow turd.

[Saint Guinefort]

You would be incorrect. You need to learn what science is and what the scientific method is. Nothing is ever confirmed in science. There is no quantity of sheer confidence in any quantity of people that makes something true. There's a reason all science must be falsifiable.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha

[IBDaMann]

You really and truly are totally disconnected from reality.

The Following User Says Thank You to Trumpet For This Post:
Cypress (Today)

@Trumpet, relax, no one ever accused you of knowing anything. Take a deep breath. You're still better off than Terry.
@Cypress, never let it be said that you know anything about science. It's good for you that you mostly avoid it.

[IBDaMann]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha

We're all going to be laughing when you try to explain something about science. You don't know anything and I'm going to make that abundantly clear.

Have a great day.

[Saint Guinefort]

We're all going to be laughing when you try to explain something about science. You don't know anything and I'm going to make that abundantly clear.

Have a great day.

You're hilarious. Such a treat to have you on the board. Thanks for the laughs.

[Jarod]

Perhaps the whole Universe is the result of a vacuum fluctuation, originating from what we could call quantum nothingness.

In quantum mechanics, there is no zero-energy state. There is only the lowest possible energy state of a system, its ground state. Now, if there is an inherent uncertainty in the energy of a system, then the energy of the ground state can fluctuate. If we call this ground state a quantum vacuum, it follows that the quantum vacuum always has some structure to it. There is no such thing as a true vacuum in the sense of complete emptiness. Quantum mechanics forbids nothingness.

If there are energy fluctuations in a quantum vacuum, very interesting things can happen. For example, the E = mc2 relation tells us that energy and matter are interconvertible. A vacuum energy fluctuation can be converted into particles of matter. Sounds weird? Maybe, but it happens all the time. These particles are called virtual particles, living a fleeting existence before plunging back into the ever-busy quantum vacuum.

Physicist Edward Tryon extrapolated the idea of quantum fluctuations to the Universe as a whole. He reasoned that if all that existed was a quantum vacuum, a bubble-like energy fluctuation out of this vacuum could have given rise to the Universe. Tryon proposed that the whole Universe is the result of a vacuum fluctuation, originating from what we could call quantum nothingness.

Tryon’s proposal falls into the category of universes with a beginning, but created out of nothing. However, nothingness here, as well as in all the other examples of quantum-created universes that followed Tryon’s inspiring idea, must be understood in terms of quantum mechanical nothingness, and not from an absolute nothingness that translates to complete emptiness. In physics you simply cannot get something out of nothing. Creation ex nihilo is not the way of nature.

https://bigthink.com/13-8/universe-quantum-fluctuation/

Interesting as it corresponds to ideas of the Kabbalah.

[Cypress]

Interesting as it corresponds to ideas of the Kabbalah.

I'm curious, how so?

I don't know much about Kabbalah