Corey Hammer

That is philosophy. This is physics. The only concern is what the data show about the predictions from the hypotheses. It matters little if it follows our rules of logic as long as the data was collected in a methodologically sound manner. Deductions and inductions from the data and supporting literature have to be logical, but that's it. If the hypothesis is incorrect, then the data will not support it.

You do know that in quantum physics there can be effects with causes, right?

"Not only is the universe stranger than we think; it is stranger than we can imagine."

-Albert Einstein

[ March 01, 2002: Message edited by: Corey Hammer ]</p>

Boro Nut

"Except for me of course".
-Albert Einstein

"And that beenbag robot bloke in the wheelchair".
-Albert Einstein

eh

I don't think that quote is from Einstein, Cory.

Viti

"Not only is the universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think." --Werner Heisenberg

Corey Hammer

Is that the actual quote? I would have sworn I saw the one I posted attributed to Einstein somewhere.

Viti

This is the quote as I found it in my resaerch. Just put your original quote into a search engine...I used Yahoo

Sauron

Does the Heisenberg principle really allow for the possibility (however vanishingly small) for a dog to pop out of nothingness?

Or is this a misunderstanding/misapplication of the Heisenberg principle - a situation where the layman has oversimplified what it means, and accidentally created a non-supportable claim?

Thanks.

HallaK9

By Echidna:
Can anyone answer this? It's something I've been wondering lately as well. It becomes a problem of infinite regression, though, so I don't know if it could be answered even in theory. On a related note, is causality a necessity outside of our universe (or even within)?

Yours,

Antti (the layman)

Bill

Your sense that this becomes a problem of infinite regression is right on the money. There is no logical way to answer this question. For a more formal treatment of this subject, please read Jim Still's article about Wittgenstein entitled <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/w_why.html" target="_blank">The Mental Discomfort of “Why?”</a> That is a damn good question. Quantum mechanics holds that "uncaused effects" occur. That holding is controversial enough so as to have inspired Dr. John Cramer's paper on <a href="http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html" target="_blank">The Transactional Interpretation
of Quantum Mechanics</a>. The main feature of his theory is that causality can be maintained within quantum mechanics if you will just look at things differently.

I don't know string theory well enough to know if it is consistant with causality in all respects, but I do know that it unifies relativity (which is entirely causal) with quantum mechanics (which has at least some interpretations where causality is not maintained). Frankly, I would far prefer if causality were fundamental rather than an emergent quality at higher levels of reality. But I may not get my preference when the final Theory of Everything (ToE) is formulated.

Until then, I continue to preach causality even at the quantum level, based upon ideas taken from Cramer and others. And I continue to believe that what appears to be acausal within quantum mechanics will eventually be seen to be fully causal, once all of the inputs and outputs are fully understood.

And as for other universes, the Theory of Everything (ToE) will cover them too.

== Bill

Bill

As I read through this thread, I see a basic confusion here over word usage. Both sides of the debate over whether or not the "universe" can emerge from "nothing" are correct. They are just using different definitions for the words "universe" and "nothing."

Some people use the word "universe" to refer to only that space/time continuum which emerged from the so-called "Big Bang." When those people speak of the space/time continuum out of which the "Big Bang" emerged, and the possibility of other (parallel) space/time continuums existing, they use the word "multiverse" to refer to that possibility. On the other hand, people like myself will frequently use the word "universe" to mean what most people take it to mean: "all that exists." In this sense, the "Big Bang" space/time continuum is most assuredly not "the universe" because it is clear that a plethora of other space/time continuums can exist, and that at least one other space/time continuum most certainly does exist (the one out of which the "Big Bang" emerged).

The word "nothing" also invokes a similar confusion. To a philosopher, "nothing" connotates the ontological state of non-existence. To a physicist, the word "nothing" connotates a quantum vacuum. Strictly speaking, a quantum vacuum cannot truly be the "nothing" of the philosopher because that quantum vacuum state exists within a space/time continuum. The existence of that space/time continuum allows for the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to operate, and that principle allows for quantum fluctuations to occur within the state of quantum vacuum, and it is just such a fluctuation (within the state of quantum vacuum) which the authors of the article in Discover are referring to. However, that fluctuation most certainly did not occur within "a state of non-existence" (the philosophical "nothing") because the quantum fluctuation requires at least a state of quantum vacuum to exist, and that in turn requires an entire space/time continuum to exist.

Hopefully, after reading through all of this, you will now undertand the confusion which has beset this thread, and we can be on to better understanding the realities with which we ought to be dealing here.....

== Bill