/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3920253]

If protons can appear from nowhere according to quantum mechanics, and they can just as easily disappear as quick as they came about, does this means that objects, or even the universe, could randomly just...disappear?

[Anonymous No.3920296]

This is the stupidest fucking thing i've ever read.
But i know where you're coming from bro.

[Anonymous No.3920310]

The time of this process depends on size of fluctuated object. And it always appears with its evil twin made of antimatter. At the end of their lives they annihilates and return borrowed energy from vacuum (which has no energy itself).
It's said that our universe is one of these fluctuates but who knows.

[Anonymous No.3920306]

bump

[Anonymous No.3920324]

>>3920253
Actually yes!

There is a physical probability that a golf ball will suddenly spawn in the middle of the Sahara at any moment.

And the prevailing theory for the origin of the big bang relies on quantum fluctuations

[Anonymous No.3920328]

The time of this process depends on size of fluctuated object (the smaller object is, the faster --relatively said-- its time goes). And it always appears with its evil twin made of antimatter. At the end of their lives they annihilates and return borrowed energy from vacuum (which has no energy itself).
It's said that our universe can be one of these fluctuates but who knows. We'll never be able to find out.

[Anonymous No.3920334]

>>3920253
Yes, although the probablity that the univserse will just "dissapear" is so fucking tiny that we don't really consider that a valid possibility.

GOOD QUESTION

[Anonymous No.3920340]

any second now OP who isn't a faggot will fluctuate into space-time for a quarter of a femtosecond...

somewhere, far... far... away

[Anonymous No.3920349]

>If protons can appear from nowhere according to quantum mechanics, and they can just as easily disappear as quick as they came about, d
no where in all of the holy quantum mechanics scriptures has anyone ever, EVER, said that. where the fuck did you get that idea? you are violating about 5 different laws with that statement.

>>3920324
>>3920334
wat is this? are you trolling OP?

[Anonymous No.3920360]

>>3920349

If by

>no where in all of the holy quantum mechanics scriptures has anyone ever, EVER, said that.

you mean Stephen Hawking said it on the Discovery channel, then I guess you are correct.

[Anonymous No.3920366]

>>3920349
What about your Strings theory scriptures?

[Anonymous No.3920380]

>>3920360
I can guarantee you he did not say that or was dumbing it down for the people.

you can have a proton and antiproton appear and disappear together, note that the total charge stays 0. same with about 10 different conserved quantities, if you just have a proton, it cant disappear because that would violate those laws. so no, the universe cant just disappear unless we happen to crash into an antimatter universe.

[Anonymous No.3920391]

>>3920253
Or reappear, according to that Exodus Mundi site or whatever. It's an insanely low probability, however.

>lawl

[Anonymous No.3920403]

no it cant, some particles such as electrons are the particles with the lowest mass that have sertain numbers, such as -1charge, +1 electron number and so forth. such particles cant decay or "disipear" becasue it would then chnage the total of those nombers, which is imposible.

[Anonymous No.3920411]

>>3920349
>Has never taken Quantum Field Theory

[Anonymous No.3920412]

It appears and creates anti-matter at the same time. So anti-matter is needed to make it disappear.

[Anonymous No.3920420]

>>3920411
>has never understood Quantum Field Theory
maybe i missed that class, where exactly in QFT does it say this is possible?

[Anonymous No.3920429]

>>3920380

Maybe he was, I don't really know much about physics.

here's the part of the video, at least.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpb7NMR-XOo#t=30m33s

[Anonymous No.3920432]

>>3920328
oh anon why no listen to you

[Anonymous No.3920430]

but yo,
if matter-antimatter pairs are created, why does the vacuum energy go back into quantum foam? if we were to have an electron-positron pair created, and we annihilate the positron with a DIFFERENT electron than the one that was creates in the pair, could we get free energy and another free electron?

whoa

[Anonymous No.3920449]

>>3920430
zero point energy field manipulator

[Anonymous No.3920453]

>>3920430
no, what you are talking about is equivalent to seeing an electron, in disappear and a new electron is created at the same spot. the pair that was created are virtual particles and so external conservation laws (on the original electron and the new one) must hold meaning you cant get any new energy out of it. that is basically what QFT is, trying to calculate how manny times this happens when an electron travels from A to B (actually while it interacts with something, not just while it sits there)

[Anonymous No.3920462]

>>3920380
>>3920420
Location is probablitic.
If the right "particles" materlized from there wavefucntions, in the exact configuration as to cause annilation and more antimatter creation (needed because of the current matter-antimatter imbalance), you could eventually wipe out all matter(antimatter) in the universe.

It is a very fucking unlikely senario, but does have a non zero probability.

[Anonymous No.3920471]

>>3920462
>in the exact configuration as to cause annilation and more antimatter creation
but you cant create more antimatter, the amount of antimatter - amount of matter is a conserved quantity, so you havre to make more matter for the antimatter and in the end you gain nothing.

[Anonymous No.3920479]

My understanding is that quantum mechanics describes properties of microscopic bodies; not macroscopic bodies.

A single molecule in a cube of sugar may be indeterminate, but the sugar cube as it appears to your eye remains ever-sweet and ever-tasty.

[Anonymous No.3920484]

>>3920453
What about hawking radiation?
THIS IS FREE ENERGY

Energy conservation is not a fundemental rule of physics, it is merely a derived rule for certain "nice" systems.

[Anonymous No.3920488]

>>3920484
>hawking radiation?
>FREE ENERGY

no its not, you get it out of the black hole.

[Anonymous No.3920550]

>>3920488
Nope, the energy is generated by vitual partciles becoming real particles at the horizion.

[Anonymous No.3920560]

>>3920479
Yes, but you can use QM to describe everything. Quantum behavior simply disseaprs given high statistics.

[Anonymous No.3920565]

>>3920550
...which then takes energy from the black hole, total energy is still conserved.

[Anonymous No.3920581]

Oh look; more popsci...

[Anonymous No.3920582]

>>3920550
black holes still observe conversation of mass and energy

[Vectrex Ops !bmKfQQvUuA No.3920717]

Nope, OP. Just nope.

Protons seem to be designed such that they're stable.

You're thinking of the uncertainty principle, which actually says there is a fundamental, universal limit to how precisely you can define time in the first place.