Fitting [0]x[0]x[0] space, to Big Bang.

Originally posted by Soothfast
If an electron has a positive volume, like a billiard ball does, then what exactly is "filling" that volume of space?

I believe that even if the electron had a point like volume and location we cannot ever know where it is to greater accuracy than the plank length. However, when it does interact with another object, then we can, in theory, know the location of that interaction with an accuracy up to, but not exceeding the plank length. It is only before and after the interaction that its location is unknown and follows a probability curve that is infinite. And the better we know where it interacted, the less we know about where it will be next.
I am not sure if it can get to another location in the universe faster than the speed of light. I haven't yet got a clear answer on that from our quantum physicist friends on this forum.


Negativium jelly? I just can't see how there can be an answer, unless the electron is made up of other "smaller" particles, which only kicks the can down the road as we ask what the volumes of the "smaller" particles are. It might be better to think of all particles/waves as merely geometrical "wrinkles" or "patterns" in space, rather the way relativity characterizes gravity as a bending of the spacetime continuum.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Amoung others:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

I was thinking more of an eternal universe that has always been expanding but never had a singularity.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I believe that even if the electron had a point like volume and location we cannot ever know where it is to greater accuracy than the plank length. However, when it does interact with another object, then we can, in theory, know the location of that interaction with an accuracy up to, but not exceeding the plank length. It is only before and after the int ...[text shortened]... ight. I haven't yet got a clear answer on that from our quantum physicist friends on this forum.

I believe that quantum particles jump from place to place instantaneously, according to the theory. An electron on Earth can flit to Mars and back again in an instant, and thus faster than light. It is because a "quantum leap" does not entail any travel through the intervening space, and so the speed of light as a universal speed limit on travel through space is not violated. This is why the probability that a given electron on Earth could be in the Andromeda galaxy within the next moment is technically nonzero.

Quantum entanglement, meanwhile, seems to be an instantaneous conveyor of information, albeit useless (i.e. random) information.

I don't know too much about quantum theory. My suspicion is that within 30 years it will have changed beyond recognition, and it will be much the better for it. I partially agree with Einstein's sentiment: "Quantum mechanics calls for a great deal of respect. But some inner voice tells me that this is not the true Jacob. The theory offers a lot, but it hardly brings us any closer to the Old Man's secret. For my part, at least, I am convinced that he doesn't throw dice."

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I was thinking more of an eternal universe that has always been expanding but never had a singularity.

To achieve that you need to have very slow expansion at some point (infinitely slow). Then you need an explanation as to why.

Originally posted by twhitehead
To achieve that you need to have very slow expansion at some point (infinitely slow). Then you need an explanation as to why.

I vaguely remember a variant of the steady state theory that says the universe is infinite in size and eternal and is for ever expanding and has always been expanding and new matter spontaneously forms in the expanding voids thus explaining why we don't have the distribution of matter in our universe with infinitely low density per given finite volume.

As I see it, the main problem with that hypothesis, apart from it breaking the first law of thermodynamics, is that, if it was true, we should not be seeing a consistent pattern of the apparent age of the galaxies getting less as we look at the galaxies further and further away from us. If that hypothesis was true, I would expect to see not much difference between the apparent average ages of galaxies close to us as the apparent average ages of galaxies that are the ones that we see the furthest away from us. I don't see any easy way you can get round that one, but, still, interesting to explore these alternative possibilities.

Originally posted by Soothfast
I believe that quantum particles jump from place to place instantaneously, according to the theory. An electron on Earth can flit to Mars and back again in an instant, and thus faster than light. It is because a "quantum leap" does not entail any travel through the intervening space, and so the speed of light as a universal speed limit on travel [i]throu ...[text shortened]... ser to the Old Man's secret. For my part, at least, I am convinced that he doesn't throw dice."

How would you explain the electrons in pure metal, thinking of silver and copper. I remember something of an "electrone cloud", electrones shared among perhaps million (billion?) of nucleuses.

I don't really know much about physics but. I thought that instantanious jumps required temperature to be close to 0 Kelvin. (-273 Celcius, don't trust me, took it from memory, with close to I here mean: Perhaps a few degrees warmer than 0 Kelvin).

With this I mean. There is (I don't know much about physics in metal) some kind of unit for "resistance" in metal. Silver beeing the best conductor.

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

http://implications-of-quantum-physics.com/qp04_visualizing-the-wave-function-quantum-physics.html

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

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

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

Originally posted by Soothfast
I don't know too much about quantum theory. My suspicion is that within 30 years it will have changed beyond recognition, and it will be much the better for it.

I do know a bit about quantum theory. It hasn't changed much since the 30s. Heck, I'm writing papers which are basically nothing more than solving Schrödinger's equation. What makes you think quantum theory will be changed "beyond recognition" in three decades?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I do know a bit about quantum theory. It hasn't changed much since the 30s. Heck, I'm writing papers which are basically nothing more than solving Schrödinger's equation. What makes you think quantum theory will be changed "beyond recognition" in three decades?

Somehow, I think it unlikely that quantum theory will be changed much in just the next 30 years. Its application though may be a very different matter esp if we finally get a total grip on superconductors, spintronics and quantum computers.

Originally posted by twhitehead
To achieve that you need to have very slow expansion at some point (infinitely slow). Then you need an explanation as to why.

Yes, I agree.
Just wondered if there were any "off the wall" theories
out there that proposed that?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Yes, I agree.
Just wondered if there were any "off the wall" theories
out there that proposed that?

I wonder why? What difference would it make to you whether the universe expanded from a small size of infinite age or a small size that was very young? Is one a more satisfying explanation in some way?
Its just that physics points towards a universe that either expands or contracts pretty fast, and there is no reason to think it would have been expanding infinitely slowly, so why even look for a hypothesis that would make that work, unless there is something about expansion from a point that makes you uncomfortable?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I wonder why? What difference would it make to you whether the universe expanded from a small size of infinite age or a small size that was very young? Is one a more satisfying explanation in some way?
Its just that physics points towards a universe that either expands or contracts pretty fast, and there is no reason to think it would have been expanding ...[text shortened]... that work, unless there is something about expansion from a point that makes you uncomfortable?

Wow.
Get out the wrong side of bed today?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Wow.
Get out the wrong side of bed today?

No, not at all. Sorry if posts just don't seem to express well what I am saying.
I see nothing wrong with speculating about any possibility you can dream up then seeing if a hypothesis can work. However there is usually some motivating factor for trying a given hypothesis. Usually, either there is something elegant about the hypothesis, or there is something worrying about the current state of affairs.
I am just curious as to what draws you your scenario.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, not at all. Sorry if posts just don't seem to express well what I am saying.
I see nothing wrong with speculating about any possibility you can dream up then seeing if a hypothesis can work. However there is usually some motivating factor for trying a given hypothesis. Usually, either there is something elegant about the hypothesis, or there is somet ...[text shortened]... rying about the current state of affairs.
I am just curious as to what draws you your scenario.

The other thread on diminishing probabilities (but never getting to zero)
made me wonder. Mathematically no matter what rate of contraction one never gets to zero (of course that is avoiding all the physics questions).

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I do know a bit about quantum theory. It hasn't changed much since the 30s. Heck, I'm writing papers which are basically nothing more than solving Schrödinger's equation. What makes you think quantum theory will be changed "beyond recognition" in three decades?

I suspect that quantum theory and relativity theory will be subsumed by a unifying theory that explains both as natural outcomes of some as-yet unknown mechanism operating at a more fundamental level of physical reality. Some of the hippy-dippy "it's all in our heads" claptrap that courses through the veins of the current body of quantum theory (e.g. whether something has a given property or not depends on whether someone is observing it) is not the stuff of serious science and begs to be expunged by a more proper understanding of "the true Jacob," as Einstein put it.

I'm not saying the universe is ultimately deterministic, as such. However, much of what we ascribe to random chance may be less an intrinsic property of the universe and more a reflection of our ignorance of the universe's inner workings.