On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 7:04:08 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 9:43 AM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > *how did the extra matter come from?* > > > Unlike the second law of thermodynamics which is based on logic and > observation the first law is based on observation alone, every time we test > it in a lab it seems to work, but it has never been tested at the very > largest scale, that of the cosmos. To answer your question the extra matter > comes from absolutely nothing and thus its true, Many Worlds violates the > law of conservation of mass/energy. But Many Worlds is not unique in that > regard; *ALL* modern cosmological theories violate the conservation of > mass/energy, they MUST. Noether's Theorem says if things generally look > about the same from one time period to another then matter/energy is > conserved, but in our expanding accelerating universe things do *NOT* > look the same from one eon to another so energy can't be completely > conserved. Mass/energy is only approximately conserved and to the same > extent that at the largest scale the universe looks approximately the same > from one minute to the next. > > And Einstein told us in the early 1920s that if empty space contains a > residual vacuum energy in the form of negative pressure (see below) it > would cause the universe to expand, that is to say more empty space would > be created which would contain more vacuum energy which would create more > empty space etc. If vacuum energy exists and has a value of 10^-10 joules > per cubic metre it would explain why our universe is expanding, One joule > is only enough energy to light up a one watt lightbulb for one second so > that's a very low energy density, but there is a lot of empty space and it > would be enough to get the job done. > > Note: The vacuum energy density is constant because there is nothing > around that would cause it to change. And the pressure is negative because > if you had a cylinder of vacuum in your lab and you pulled out a piston > containing it that would create more vacuum and thus more resulting vacuum > energy would be created, and that energy must have come from the cylinder. > So if the vacuum wants to pull the piston in your lab back into the > cylinder then the pressure must be negative. > > John K Clark > >
The mechanism of cosmological inflation making new matter is another question: http://nautil.us/issue/48/chaos/the-inflated-debate-over-cosmic-inflation ... In [Hawking's] view, in light of quantum mechanics, it doesn’t make sense to talk about the origin and evolution of the universe as if it followed a single unique trajectory. Instead, he argues, we ought to use the universe as we observe it *right now*—coupled with the assumption that it arose from nothing—and take a quantum superposition of every possible history that could have led from nothing to now. It’s not that we don’t know which history really occurred—it’s that they *all* occurred. Rather than a multiverse with a single history, you have a single universe with multiple histories. When Hawking takes the sum of these histories to determine the most probable path, it is—voila!—a history in which the early universe went through inflation. Inflation pops out on its own, from a theory that doesn’t involve a multiverse. Many roads, it seems, lead back to inflation and inflation in turn leads to unexpected places. Steinhardt, Ijjas and Loeb are standing by their criticisms of the theory, and have made a website <http://physics.princeton.edu/~cosmo/sciam/> to reiterate them. But the 33 leading physicists who signed the letter—and countless others—are more confident in inflation than ever, exploring its strange territory, optimistic that it will eventually lead them to its own replacement: a more complete theory of the universe’s origin. That, certainly, *is* science. And it is pretty spectacular. My question was about the mechanism of quantum many worlds generating new matter: every time a single particle is involved in a double-slit experiment the entire universe multiplies (branches) *Single Photon Interference* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzbKb59my3U What happens when single photons of light pass through a double slit and are detected by a photomultiplier tube? In 1801 Thomas Young seemed to settle a long-running debate about the nature of light with his double slit experiment. He demonstrated that light passing through two slits creates patterns like water waves, with the implication that it must be a wave phenomenon. However, experimental results in the early 1900s found that light energy is not smoothly distributed as in a classical wave, rather it comes in discrete packets, called quanta and later photons. These are indivisible particles of light. So what would happen if individual photons passed through a double slit? Would they make a pattern like waves or like particles? @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e804635b-03c1-421e-b19a-01d569c67a5c%40googlegroups.com.
