While sitting in a quantum physics class late last year a friend of mine made a realisation that had the lecturer stumped!
In quantum physics each particle or body or whatever has a wave function. If a particle is inside a potential well, with infinitely high walls, its wave function cannot extend outside the boundaries, and the distance between the walls must be a multiple of half the wavelength of the wave function (otherwise the wave function collapses and the particle doesn't exist).
Now, lets assume that such a potential well is our Universe. Let's also assume that it's closed, and thus its 'walls' are infinitely long. If a particle is to exist inside the Universe then its wave function must 'fit' inside the Universe. However, we can see that the Universe is expanding, so therefore the distance of the boundaries must be changing. As it expands, the wave functions of every particle in the Universe should at one moment 'fit' inside, and then not fit the next. As a result, everything should be popping in and out of existence the whole time! But this isn't happening, so maybe we can assume that there are no boundary conditions, and maybe we can say that the Universe is either infinitely large, or an open Universe.
Any ideas where my friend may have went wrong? Or is he onto something??
Any ideas where my friend may have went wrong? Or is he onto something??
Yes, your friend is onto something.
I always held a diametrically opposite opinion to that of Professor Einstein.
I think that the universe is infinite and bounded rather than finite and unbounded.
Einstein's conception is that of a spherical cloud, which is obviously finite topologically but unbounded such that it can expand, which is rather a cheat by backwards engineering the empirical data and not a theoretical model at all.
The opposite of that concept is in realising that the space existing between the particles inside that cloud is part of its definition, and thus, the space outside that boundary is continuous with the space inside the boundary.
By including the space continuum we can be sure that our cloud is infinite in size but bounded internally rather than externally by the matter being identified. This is known to be difficult to understand but not impossible.
An infinite space is logically not expected to be externally limited or bounded, but it must be internally bounded to define a reference for the being measured infinitude.
Therefore, while Professor Einstein defined the universe by the matter it consists of, less the volume of its space, I am convinced that it should be defined by the space that contains its matter.
This means that each system of order can be expressed as a wave function or a universe by its own rights.
Everything external to that wave function is the space that contains it and not walls limiting it.
Hence, a wave function is always a zero point within the absolute infinity and internally bounding it.
In my model, a wave function may never collapse. _________________ Hemetis
Any ideas where my friend may have went wrong? Or is he onto something??
Conor
There is a valid point to be made by waves bigger than the universe.
What if light is emitted of a wavelength that is bigger than the universe itself?
I call it the Redshift Paradox. Light emitted close enough to a black hole will have an arbitrarily large wavelength due to the gravitational redshift or Einstein shift. If it's bigger than the universe then where is it going to fit?
If you go all the way with black holes then light emitted on the event horizon will have an infinite wavelength. It will be infinite in size. I must point out this prediction of energyless light is the evidence of GR failure in the extreme of black hole theory.
I say there are no black holes but there is an extreme of gravity!
I do not believe in an infinite universe because
we know it had a begining in the finite past and
is observed to be expanding at a finite rate.
You can't get infinity out of that.
I don't believe in infinite physical quantities or sizes.
I do not believe in an infinite universe because we know it had a
begining in the finite past and is observed to be expanding at a finite rate.
Dear Nickolas,
You are confusing between facts and assumptions.
We do not "know" that the universe had a beginning when the big bang is an assumption that can neither be proved or disproved. The assumption stems from assuming that the Universe is not only expanding but also assuming that it had been always expanding, which makes two assumptions being a foundation of another assumption. The funny thing is that those two assumptions were made by assuming that that is the reason behind the red shift, which is assumed to be a shifted frequency of hydrogen spectrum.
Well then, logically, if an assumption was made by assuming that another assumption was true, while that causal assumption was also assumed to be true by assuming a third assumption to be true, you should get lost on the extremely weak probability of all those piled assumptions stemming from a frail observation.
It is a fact that I am older than you, which makes me, in assumption, fit to be you father, which I am not.
Can you now make an assumption that because I am older than you and quite assumptionally probable to be your father, that we should assume that you Nick have ancient Egyptian ancestors because since I am an Egyptian then I am assumed to have ancient Egyptian ancestors!
Certainly not, and a chain of ridiculously compounded assumptions do not build a case.
You should also know that Einstein was trying to fit the universe into his model rather than fitting his model into the universe, and that is why he assumed that the universe is the collection of its matter less its space. The biggest mistake Einstein did was to set the law for his model that what he cannot observe cannot exist. He went even further and claimed that time is what he can observe clocks to measure. That illogical foundation forced him to denounce logic itself claiming that reality has nothing to do with logic or intuition, confusing both.
If you drop your intellectual guard, lose your mind and logic, only to have faith in what Einstein said, is extremely absurd to my taste as a scientist.
My logic is that the matter of the universe is not continuous, and is separated by space, which is included into its volume, and if that is so obviously true, then why exclude the space that contains that matter?
Space is continuous, and that is why all the space must be infinite and I can prove it, physically and mathematically. Therefore it all depends on the hypothesis one makes not the reality of nature.
By including all the excluded space, the universe cannot be expanding into itself (logically); therefore the universe must be infinite as a space, but bounded internally by the matter it contains. This is the diametrical opposite of assuming that the universe is finite matter but unbounded by anything and can expand into nothingness while disregarding the internal space between matter particles to account for action at a distance that is being negated along with the logic of negation, which is wanton and fiction not science; it is insanity incarnated. _________________ Hemetis
I do not believe in an infinite universe because we know it had a
begining in the finite past and is observed to be expanding at a finite rate.
Dear Nickolas,
You are confusing between facts and assumptions.
We do not "know" that the universe had a beginning when the big bang is an assumption that can neither be proved or disproved.
Excuse me Hemetis but space-time shrinks back to a point.
If you do not see this you have not gone far back enough.
Like I said it had a begining and is expanding at an
accelerating but finite rate. You can't get infinity out
of that.
Excuse me Hemetis but space-time shrinks back to a point.
I am quite aware of the popularity of pseudoscience that is well dressed in scientific clothes.
I can demonstrate to you shrinking wool-knitting by washing in hot water.
Do you have any small scale experiment of a "shrinking spacetime?"
According to the empirical facts of emission, I am confident to demonstrate that the speed of light is variable across media or within a gradient of a medium, because they are only waves.
Light may not propagate faster than light, which should be logically obvious and if energy cannot go foster than light then matter cannot be propelled to exceed that speed.
Time was never "what clocks read," and that is because I designed a nonlinear clock.
The idea is that many of us do not check the time while they sleep, therefore the accuracy of time is insignificant during that period (say 8 hours of night). Then we can reduce that time on the scale to 5 degrees of arc and dedicate 355 degrees of arc to gradually reach that scale from the working 8 hours. We shall not even call them hours anymore, but we shall call them hmines.
Hmines begin out very short in succession and gradually expand on the scale while the mechanics act in reverse logic, they begin very slow and then speed up.
Do you think that my clock will change the way the natural Universe behaves?
Or will my clock deform my mental health into a bizarre way of seeing things?
You cannot impose a personal assumption on others as a fact, unless you have political power and sponsors that constantly hammer the consciousness of the mainstream. You might be able to twist the minds of a loud-voiced faction but you cannot change any facts as perceived by consensus. _________________ Hemetis
In quantum physics each particle or body or whatever has a wave function. If a particle is inside a potential well, with infinitely high walls, its wave function cannot extend outside the boundaries, and the distance between the walls must be a multiple of half the wavelength of the wave function (otherwise the wave function collapses and the particle doesn't exist).
Now, lets assume that such a potential well is our Universe. Let's also assume that it's closed, and thus its 'walls' are infinitely long. If a particle is to exist inside the Universe then its wave function must 'fit' inside the Universe. However, we can see that the Universe is expanding, so therefore the distance of the boundaries must be changing. As it expands, the wave functions of every particle in the Universe should at one moment 'fit' inside, and then not fit the next. As a result, everything should be popping in and out of existence the whole time! But this isn't happening, so maybe we can assume that there are no boundary conditions, and maybe we can say that the Universe is either infinitely large, or an open Universe.
Any ideas where my friend may have went wrong? Or is he onto something??
Conor
A particle’s wave interaction only applies to particle-to-particle interaction not space. So if you enclose a particle you have trapped it within a wall composed of other particles. The universe isn't containing the particle as if it were a well. In fact the particle would have an indeterminate spatial footprint described by the Schrodinger equation.
A particle’s wave interaction only applies to particle-to-particle interaction not space. So if you enclose a particle you have trapped it within a wall composed of other particles. The universe isn't containing the particle as if it were a well. In fact the particle would have an indeterminate spatial footprint described by the Schrodinger equation.
Okay. But let's look at it from another viewpoint (or maybe the same way in just a little more detail):
One way to see why electrons are stuck in the energy levels they are is by picturing them as waves, with their wave functions going around the nucleus. A particle can't move up and down energy levels in a non-quantized manner because if it moves up or down only a little bit, then its wave function will interfere with itself and collapse.
Apply this to a closed Universe model. If one travels in a straight line for long enough, they'll eventually return to place they started, because of the curvature of space. Similarly, a particle's wave function should meet itself where it started. If the integer multiple of a half-wave of the particle is not equal to (2pi)*(15x10^6 ly) (see below for this) then the entire wave function should collapse.
From above: where did I get this number? I think I could be wrong with the math, but if the Universe is 15Gyr old, then the 'radius' would be 15x10^6 light years in length. Of course, this only happens if the expansion of the Universe is the same as the speed of light. I don't know much about recessional velocities of the Universe to come up with a proper number, but you get the idea I'm sure
One way to see why electrons are stuck in the energy levels they are is by picturing them as waves, with their wave functions going around the nucleus. A particle can't move up and down energy levels in a non-quantized manner because if it moves up or down only a little bit, then its wave function will interfere with itself and collapse.
Electrons don't go around an atomic nucleus in any orbital fashion. However electrons are described to be in quantum valance shells or orbitals but this nomenclature is not describing any gravitational type orbital analogy. The reasons as to why matter is quantize is not known but particle self interference has been demonstrated in the infamous double slit experiments where one particle will produce interface patterns with its self.
The square of the wave is the particle Frank. Only the wave property interferes with itself. Square that and you have the amount of time a particle will be in any position!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Predictions
Community
Links and Downloads
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.zapfuture.com/images/valid-rss.GIF "Validate my RSS feed")
![[Valid Atom 0.3]](http://www.zapfuture.com/images/valid-atom.GIF "Validate my Atom 0.3 feed")