the zero point field and quantum determinism

i think a major contributor to anybody believing, against all non-religious intuition, that the universe is not deterministic is the seeming randomness of our universe on small scales.

one of the main things is that particles like electrons and maybe atoms seem to jump out of existence and then reappear somewhere else where it was thought they shouldnt be able to go.

imagine the universe is a pool table, and particles are the balls. the only particles we can see are the ones who are touching the felt surface. the surface is two dimensional while the space that the balls actually inhabit is three dimensional.

so when you are observing two balls bounce around by themselves on your two dimensional plane universe, eveything seems to make coherent sense. but you are observing a two dimensional representation of three dimensional objects. its entirely possible that something you dont see touching the felt surface of your universe can affect those things that are.

and if you assume that the felt surface of your universe is all that there is, and there is no third dimension right under your nose, youll be pretty confused when somebody lifts a ball up off the surface. youll think it dissapeared!

so imagine instead of somebody like god pulling it up, it gets jostled around a little too hard and gets pushed up off the surface.

wed like to think that, when doing experiments, we are just dealing with the independent pool balls. but there is also a thing called the zero point field, a sea of messenger particles flying through every nanometer of space.

imagine that instead of open space between the billiard balls you are studying, there is a roiling sea of much smaller balls being knocked around and pressurized and exerting reactions. its not hard to imagine that if you force all the balls together, one of them is going to pop up off the surface.

usually just the little balls pop up in the chaos, the ones that represent the zero point field, and the big atomic balls stay put because they are heavier. but if you make it really hot or violently pressurized and chaotic, the big ones can pop up off the two dimensional plane and then land who knows where. if we could see the zero point field, we would know that this happens all the time and we wouldnt be so surprised when we see larger particles doing it and we would probably know a little more about the dynamics of the next spatial dimension(s).

unfortunately, the only way we could possibly see any of this stuff happening is by bouncing our own balls at the ones we want to see and then recording where they are touching the felt when they ricochet. big particle accelerators are the most important tool for seeing this. and the output that they produce for study is a photographic plate with lines on it that represent the paths of the billiard balls that bounced off of the billiard balls they are trying to look at.

is there any reason to think that any of this isnt true? isnt it way too easy? is this just my brain’s “linearity” trying to conform itself to the “non-linear” reality? what does that even mean?

The analogy is that as pool balls would pop off of a two dimensional surface, particles pop “out” of three dimensions an into higher physical dimension, where they can then travel and “land” or “arrive” back into three-dimensional space.

 It wouldn't have been clear what the actual theory about particle behavior that you were trying to illustrate was if I didn't already know what you were talking about.  Just trying to clarify so that if someone doesn't know, they aren't left in the dark.
 Seeming randomness is just the result of an uncalculable number of interactions - so that whether or not we can predict an event or observe its cause, it is determined that it will happen by the preceding states of the universe.

Not at all. It is not a matter of calculation, it is a fundamental limit to the observable universe.
Heisenberg has you…

Randomness is the result of the hard limits of knowledge making our only possible experience indeterministic.

WOW! physics is fun

Don’t confuse epistemology with ontology.

 Regardless of how the effects of special relativity cause events to appear (giving the lower limit to the possibility of measuring and thus determining the outcome of an event,) the events still happen - following this standard interperetation of quantum theory leads you towards the idea that observation (POV) defines objective events, which leads to the paradox of wave function-collapse so often illustrated as Shrodinger's Cat.

 Heisenburg's uncertainty principal (and thus, relativity in general) place a lower limit on what is possibly [i]observable[/i] if the laws of physics are to be consistant, but unless you assume that observability is the only requisite for the existance of an event, Heisenburgs lower limit doesn't have to apply to the actual nature of interactions.

there are so many things wrong with this.

for starters, there is no standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. If anything, the standard interpretation is not to interpret. most physicists would think we are both talking crap.

heisenberg uncertainty has nothing to do with relativity. nor does it simply place a ‘limit’ on what is observable. And nor is observation disctinct from any other interaction, and so uncertainty applies to them all. Absolutely fundamentally.

As someone who is a follower of all things science and not a dirty hippy, I have to say that I’ve always found pretty much every ‘String Theory’ related bit of ‘science’ not so much hard to grasp as a bit on the suss side. This ‘thing called the zero point field, a sea of messenger particles flying through every nanometer of space’ seems to be getting a bit close to the old ‘Aether’ theories of yesteryear, and particals popping in and out from another dimention seems to be making a stretch into science fiction. Why do there have to be particals that pop in from another dimention as opposed to a thin bunch of componant particals floating about (protons, neutrons, etc) which occationally meet to temporarily form a hydrogen atom before being torn apart again by the void of space? I just made that up but why the heck not? That thing about the Aether analogy is probably being a bit unfair, but it was always used in a ‘there’s an enexplained property left over? It must be invisible wonderstuff!’ kinda way and that seems to be happening again in modern theories rather than throwing a mysterious property in the ‘WTF’ box and admitting that they don’t understand it yet. (And the next religious zealot who even thinks about using the idea that there is something that scientists don’t understand as a proof of god will get a uber-wedgie) I may be being a stick in the mud, but I prefer a little more investigation in an occum’s razor kind of way before we start throwing alternate dimentions into the mix.

Many physicists consider, that: " The Physics is first of all Vacuum. "
P. Dirac wrote:
" Тhe problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem worth now before physics.
Really, if you can’t correctly describe vacuum, how is it possible
to expect for the correct description of anything more complex? ".
It is completely correct.
In Vacuum physicists have groped true.
And the condition of infinite / eternal Vacuum is characterized
with one simple physical parameter Absolute Zero: T=0K.
The philosophy of science begins from T=0K.
The physics begins from T=0K
The religion begins from T=0K.
The origin of Existence begins from T=0K.

im pretty sure no scientist denies the claim that particles pop into and out of existence seemingly at random, and im sure none deny the existence of the zero point field. the problem is only that it is difficult to describe since no instruments can pinpoint the location of any of the zpf particles, let alone all of them in a large area.

im not sure how easy it is to create a hydrogen atom out of floating particles, but im pretty sure that once you get one, its going to stick around for a while like that until something extremely massive happens to it.

the main reason why im sure this isnt true is because science would have noticed. you can tell if a hydrogen atom is there and then disappears. and you can also tell if a single photon spreads out into a positron and electron for a split second and then sucks back together. they saw that, it happens. books describe this quantum mechanical craziness with very solid matter of factness. there is no simple solution that adheres to any laws that have been developed.

the reason why i would bother to write this here is because there are not currently any laws that describe this zpf, and i have used my incomplete knowledge of it to create more satisfying explanations to common questions than have been possible with regular physics.

i agree. the aether is real. the only problem is that nobody can see it clearly enough with instruments, or think up theories that reach broadly enough to fully explain unexplained phenomena.

When just mathmatical plotting. It doesn’t matter theoretical reasoning as to why stuff happens,… as long as you mathmatically apply all significant energies to these numbers.

Magnatism and electricity have an array of atomic mediums. The one that best conducts electromagnetics, is closest to a zero point giving us a graph of other close materials.

Yet this can also give us the power to predict atomic forces. If you can use this to attract/repel electricity on a graph. You’d be able to push electrons into a path of least resistance (circuit board technology applied).

If the earth is neutral, then what creates nutral has something to do with the average of atomic energies inside the earth. Since pressure/heat changes atomic properties, the average’s medium is different on the surface of the earth.

whats an atomic medium? the ways that electro and magnetism manifest themselves in atoms? you mean like the strong force and weak force are both subtly related to the electromagnetic force when particles are heated to near-big-bang temperatures?

the one “what” that best conducts electromagnetics? by conducts electromagnetics, do you mean the elements that are most conducive, like those special metals (i forget what they are called) like aluminum, on the periodic table, going diagonally up left to down right on the right side of the transition metals?

when scientists describe the ‘zero point field’ as ‘zero’, i always thought they just meant that it exists in the empty vacuum. the empty vacuum containing ‘zero’ things of interest except for the one, all encompassing zpf. what do you mean when you say that conducive materials are “closer” to “zero point”? what is “zero point”?

is this path definite? i am under the impression that there was some significant discovery that led to all scientists agreeing that there is no way to accurately, definitively, specifically predict the position of any particle. are you saying that there is a way? how can we explain the apparent randomness of the electron’s position in the orbit around the atom if the path is predictable as you say?

do you mean that under controlled conditions, we can predict the position? i agree. i think science disagrees only because they are completely unable to control or even observe the everpresent effects of the chaotic, huge, all encompassing zero point field.

why does it seem like we are talking about different things?

electrons flow through the path of least resistance. Witch happens to be metal. Why it is metal has to be atomic density/ number of protons vs neutrons/ heat and pressure. Earth is nutral, and is no effect,… a zero point. Metal have less resistance,… and show little side effect (heat/friction) witch is another zero point (only if you could mathmatically predict a better path by studying the most basic variables on a subatomic level?).

phil i think you are talking about the conductivity of metal vs earth. i think the reason why metals cause more electrons to flow through them is because of their (what is the opposite of “-sub”?!)post-atomic structure.

im pretty sure that science actually has no idea what holds a solid piece of material together. they dont know why the molecule of aluminum forms into a sort of matrix of symmetrically aligned particles. they know about the crystallization of certain things like glass or quartz, and i guess the basic concept of solid matter would fall into that category.

but i think they just dont know. they cant look at atomic activities with particle accelerators unless they shoot one atom around in a cricle at near the speed of light. and when they do that, no solid construction (like a bar of aluminum) can withstand that force in the solid state. it turns into individual molecules.

so science doesnt officially know. but i think there may be a vague intuitive answer: the molecules of the aluminum are lined up nicely, like a nice jigsaw puzzle, with even spaces between particles, and predictable, repeating patterns as you travel along the interconnected atoms. and soil or some messy alloy composed of many minerals would be a more chaotic, jumbled, tangled mess of much larger molecules. the tangled alloy mess or soil doesnt have a ‘matrix’ or puzzle of symmetric patterns that a more solid metal like aluminum or copper would.

i think when you say “zero point” you ar talking about what is referred to as a “ground.” a “ground,” in electrical terms is something that has netural charge and isnt conducive. like rubber. when you touch electricity to a ground, it doesnt transfer through it, it just stays put and heats up the ground.

thermal heat is simply particles banging around faster. the faster banging around is caused by the fact that the electrons slammed into the tangled mess of huge molecules and just pushed them all over the place and absorbed into a bunch of them and caused them to have a higher energy level, and they also bounced off of some and caused those ones to have more kinetic energy; and the stream of electrons just made a huge chaotic mess as soon as it slammed into the tangled web of non-metallic molecules. and if the stream of electrons hit the nicely organized metallic puzzle-construct, then it would have smoothly passed over them all, transfering its energy from one atom to the next in a symmetrical, predictable, cancelling-oscillation sort of way. it would pass across the metal alloy and look for somewhere else to go, and if it had nowhere else to go, it would just shoot back up where it came from, leaving little heat and chaotic collisions behind it.

what you call the ‘zero point’ is what i think is called a ‘ground.’ and what i call the ‘zero point Field’ is an all encompassing sea of extremely tiny bursts of energy that occur on the atomic level, throughout every nanometer of space, regardless of the surrounding area.

since the zero point field was discovered, scientists have literally ignored it, since it cancels out on large scales. they literally just know that they cant study it at all with current technology, so they ignore it and try to explain everything without mentioning the ever-present sea of massive energy.

i and others say that there are many phenomena that can be explained by incorporating the effects of a mysterious sea of energy particles that pop into existence, seemingly at random, in every nanometer of space. enough energy in any cubic meter to boil all of the oceans on earth.