RE: Ultimate free lunch ?
April 5, 2011 at 3:27 pm
(This post was last modified: April 5, 2011 at 3:34 pm by lilphil1989.)
(April 3, 2011 at 5:33 am)Welsh cake Wrote: Zero-energy universe is merely a hypothesis with zero explanatory power (no pun intended) since negative energy hasn't been demonstrated to exist yet
The anti-particle solutions of the relativistic wave equations (Dirac, Klein-Gordon, Proca...) are negative energy solutions. Whether you take them to be negative energy just depends on whether you like the Feyman-Wheeler interpretation (antiparticles as particles moving backwards in time) or not.
Also, the energy of something in a bound state is usually defined to be negative. They're saying that the total energy of the universe (rest mass and kinetic) should be balanced by the total gravitational binding energy of the universe.
Reverend Wrote:- Is quantum mechanics replacing the theory of relativity?
- How does Quantum mechanics approach Hawkings statement that "if one were to say the universe has an intent, then I would say its intent was to create black holes" (I am not quoting him exactly)
- Is Quantum mechanics approaching a GUT (Grand unified feild theory between the very small and the very large)?
- How can quantum mechanics declare that it knows the origin of the universe (work with me here, I know my words arent perfect) when it is generally agreed upon that time and space did not exist before the singularity of the big bang? In other words, how can you have something "outside" of time and space? It sounds like magic to me.
- E=MC2 has a long proven track record. Hawking said it ultimately means the universe has an undivisible sum of "1", meaning that wether you have converted matter to energy, or energy to matter, the value ratios between the 2 always amount to the same sum at any moment in time regardless of the flux. How does this equate to "ultimate free lunch"?
- Is there any videos or sites that you can send me to to help me educate myself to Quantum mechanics. At least the basics. Something in laymans terms that can teach by giving examples instead of abstract formulas.
Quantum mechanics doesn't replace relativity. It's already been successfully combined with the special theory of relativity, and this (along with quantum field theory) is the basis of the standard model of particle physics.
A huge topic in current physics research is to look for a way to combine general relativity with quantum theory.
Quantum mechanics does not declare knowledge on the origin of the universe. The ideas about the universe beginning as a quantum fluctuation are really just speculation. So is the idea that "space and time did not exist before the big bang". We're not in a position to say anything about conditions before the big bang, and perhaps never will be.
A great video on the basics of quantum mechanics is this lecture by Feynman:
In fact, if you have 7 hourse free at any time, I'd recommend the whole lecture series.
Quote:I tend to go with Einstein's statement that Quantum mechanics sounds too much like magic and not enough like physical sciences
It's definitely counter-intuitive. But QM is well-supported by a huge amount of experimental evidence. Einstein didn't like the idea of non-locality associated with wavefunction collpase in QM. In the 80's Alain Aspect's experiments showed that this non-locality really does exist in nature (This is what the entanglement experiments that occasionally make it into the press are usually about).
EDIT: great quote on the counter-intuitiveness of quantum theory:
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
