Little Bang Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 Suppose that we had a microscopic camera that could zoom down to any size that we want and that it could snap pictures at the rate of one every 10^ -100 seconds. We aim our camera at a spot in space where a vitual particle pair is about to pop into existence, lets say an electron positron pair. What is your idea of what we might see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 Suppose that we had a microscopic camera that could zoom down to any size that we want and that it could snap pictures at the rate of one every 10^ -100 seconds. We aim our camera at a spot in space where a vitual particle pair is about to pop into existence, lets say an electron positron pair. What is your idea of what we might see. Little Bang, you just blew me away with that question. It is an excellent one. I have to think about it...I'm sure Dirac would love you for even asking it...and...I'm sure you have an idea.....I'd like to hear it......the answer to it is fundamental to science.....I'll be back... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bumab Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 Well, Plank time is something like 10^-38 seconds, so you can't take pictures that fast... What's the lifespan of virtual particle pairs? They should have some timespan that they operate under, on average. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Bang Posted June 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 bumad, they don't exist long enough to be observed directly unless the energy density in the area is high enough for them to become real. coldcreation, I have an idea but I would like to hear what others think first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 Hello Little Bang, Science has become accustomed to particles popping spontaneously in and out of the vacuum, and even more radically, the notion of the universe itself popping in and out of the vacuum, a kind of hypothetical leap of faith. But your question is a good one. Visualizing what's happening is not easy, and may not even be possible. Try a simpler mind experiment. Try to visualize just a hole in the vacuum, let alone a particle with is twin anti-self. One might ask what is real and what is semblance? One might also ask; does Hawking and antihawking annihilate when they come into contact with each other at the Cambridge cafeteria? Don't even try to answer that, you'd be headed straight towards a wall of wheelchairs. Your thought experiment is important because it touches upon material creation. Note that the interesting aspect of Dirac's concept is that creation (and annihilation) occurs in the vacuum, not in a big bang type event. It's a kind of cryogenic creation process because space is after all very cold judging from the CMB. Dirac's concept is even more interesting if you couple it with thermodynamics. It is generally acknowledged that the state of a system can change either spontaneously due to internal dynamics or as a result of interactions between subsystems, or both. The conclusion that as time proceeds entropy can either be created, if the process is irreversible, or remain constant, if the process is reversible but can never be destroyed is of great generality and practical importance in the creation of matter. During the interactions between infinitesimally differing ground energy fluctuations of the vacuum (both on the scale of particles and large clusters of particles) the degree of disorder is amplified resulting in the increase of temperature of certain regions of space. The interactions between these regions result in exchanges of energy and increase irreversibly the value of entropy, which in turn results in the increase in the amounts of constituents and in the values of parameters as a function of time. As far as you question Little Bang, I don’t know what it would look like. But I do know one thing: the result of the processes multiplied by a number of other factors (e.g., add pressure, angular momentum, electromagnetic force, gravitational effects), and you arrive at the universe we observe today (over timescales that dwarf the suspected age of the universe of course) without Abbé Lemaître. There, you got a little foretaste of the future.A.M. Coldcreation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 Suppose that we had a microscopic camera that could zoom down to any size that we want and that it could snap pictures at the rate of one every 10^ -100 seconds. We aim our camera at a spot in space where a vitual particle pair is about to pop into existence, lets say an electron positron pair. What is your idea of what we might see.Excellent exercise Little Bang, We know of course that this experiment in imagination is just that, imagination. Any real visual evidence for this process is sadly lacking at this time in history, but I'll give it a try. I believe that everything in the universe can be reduced to a geometric process. Let me explain; If you ask someone to define the difference between energy and matter, you'll probably get a different answer from everyone you ask. According to Einstein, they are equivalent. E=Mc^2We all assume that this is true, and rightly so, there is much evidence to support the notion. So, back to the exercize; Energy density has a part to play, so we will assume that a sufficient energy exists at point 0. I believe energy has direction, from point of origin energy changes time and space in terms of its direction. In the case of the electron positron pair, you'll have two energy vortices spiraling togeather with direction in time and space. As one quanta of time changes from one to the next, the vortex will form and spiral in one direction to form an electron, and likewise, but counter spiral a positron in the opposite direction. After a very short duration, they will spiral back togeather and reunit to cancell out the matter and form two photons. This may not be exactly precise in detail but I gave it my best shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 Not bad infamous. I like your style. Your geometrical argument is insightful, nothing less than the realization of the creative faculty that every true artist carries in him. The initial resort to geometric standards with the objective no longer of arranging nature nor creating it but recognizing its structural composition—explicitly constructed from elements and systems known in the real world—without any psychological or anthropomorphic expression, should be the only rule. ...A rule that fundamentally constitutes the only and the very simple empirical principle that Einstein represented as universal. Therefore I see Dirac's particles popping in and out of the vacuum as a four dimensional distorted image...curved and sexy, cold and getting hotter... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 Not bad infamous. I like your style. QUOTE] Why, thank you coldc...., but I'll be very truthful with you, I have more questions than answers. By the way, here is something for you to ponder:Hold on to your shorts because this is could be considered heresy in the world of contemporary physics. Are you ready, well here goes anyway. Contemporary science tells us that there are only 3 spacial dimensions, that in space devoid of any frame of reference there is no distinction between, right and left, up and down, forward and backward. If that is so, how do mindless particles know the difference? Some know how to spiral left as they move through space and others know how to spiral right. From point of origin there must be a difference. As in the mathematical number line, negative to the left, positive to the right.They will also talk about the arrow of time, future and past. Why do they concede to a direction in time and not in spacial reality? Here is my view: From point of origin, there are 6 spacial dimensions with 2 of time. I don't have time nor the space in this post to argue the point but, just stop and try to imagine this concept. It is basic to my theory, and I know I'll be called crazy, a heretic, you name it, but I will stand by this concept until someone tells me why a mindless particle can tell the difference but we humans cannot. From point of origin, quantum changes in direction spell out the need for us to view space in 6 spacial dimensions and quantum changes in time require 2 more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleAl Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 Suppose that we had a microscopic camera that could zoom down to any size that we want and that it could snap pictures at the rate of one every 10^ -100 seconds. Planck time is 10^(-44) second, sqrt[(h-bar)G/c^5]. Learn something before you spew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amt7565 Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 Planck's Constant is 6.6 x 10^ -34 J.sThis is also the quantity of energy (in packets of photons) that is transmitted in 1 second.Considering this, a faster camera would have no significance right? AMT- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 Planck's Constant is 6.6 x 10^ -34 J.sThis is also the quantity of energy (in packets of photons) that is transmitted in 1 second.Considering this, a faster camera would have no significance right? AMT- UncleAl is correct with his figures: plank time = 5.39066.....E-44.If we could ever get that quick of a shutter, which we can't, we would still be eternally limited to the shortest time possible, plank time, listed above. But this was however just an imaginary exercize, no point in getting to technical with imagination, right?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amt7565 Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 Plank's Constant is 6.6 x 10^ -34http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_constant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Bang Posted June 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 amt when theorists talk about the Big Bang they go back as far as 10^ -43 seconds, how do they do that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amt7565 Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 amt when theorists talk about the Big Bang they go back as far as 10^ -43 seconds, how do they do that? Littlebang-Time can be devided into infinite small parts. So, even 10^ -100 is a valid time and so is 10^ -1000. However since we were talking about using a camera, the light energy that travels in packets of photons would only travel every 10^ -34 sec. We would still have to wait 10^ -34 sec to view what's going on. Wouldn't we? What do you think? AMT- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Bang Posted June 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 If there are very high energy photons in the area of the virtual particles, I think we would see two things. #1 We would see the MAGIC (because we don’t understand the process) of electromagnetic energy being converted to matter. #2 My imagination says the camera would show a picture that mimics the description the theorists use to describe the Big Bang. That said, why couldn’t our universe be the same, a universe anti-universe scenario. This would eliminate the problem of having more matter than anti-matter being created. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amt7565 Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 Another thing to consider is at the start of the big bang, all matter was travelling faster than the speed of light. And did light even exist that early? Was it still made up of photons? no one knows... AMT- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Bang Posted June 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 I agree amt, but it is only a thought experiment which allows us to overcome any technological problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.