
Philosophy Philosophy discussion about everything from politics to daily living to ethics and morals 
 LinkBack  Thread Tools  Display Modes 
December 30th, 2016, 05:07 PM  #1  
Governor Joined: Nov 2016 From: Victoria, BC Posts: 1,356  Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?
' ]' When Einstein examined her work, he wrote to Hilbert: "Yesterday I received from Miss Noether a very interesting paper on invariants. I'm impressed that such things can be understood in such a general way. The old guard at Göttingen should take some lessons from Miss Noether! She seems to know her stuff." Emmy Noether The solution to this problem began a hundred years ago with the work of the greatest woman mathematician and physicist you've never heard of  Emmy Noether : Quote:
Suppose this were not the case. Suppose the Gravitational Constant varied in time  that it was greater on Monday than it was on Wednesday. Then you could drop an object on Monday and carefully store the energy it produced by its fall. On Wednesday, when gravity was weaker, you could use that energy to raise the object to a greater height than it had on Monday. The following Monday, you drop the object again and store its energy, which will be greater than it was before. Repeating this every Monday, you will gain more and more energy, essentially creating a perpetual motion machine, and negating the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Thus, the Law of the Conservation of Energy arises from the timesymmetry of physical processes. Noether's Theorem roughly says : If a system has a continuous symmetry property, then there are corresponding quantities whose values are conserved in time. Some of these symmetries are quite abstract, yet they produce very concrete Conservation Laws. For example, a particle's quantum wavefunction in complex space is represented by a complex vector for each point in that space. Each vector is defined by a length and a rotation ("phase shift"). The square of the length of each vector is the probability of finding the particle in a particular region of space. The probability is not affected by rotations in complex space. This means that if all the vectors in the complex space, at every point in that space, undergo the same identical phase shift, the state of the particle in physical space does not change  the probabilities stay the same. The quantum wave is symmetric with respect to "rotations in complex space," or, symmetric to "global" phase change  one might say that the entire space "rotates" by the same amount everywhere  this is called global "gauge" symmetry. The quantum wave is symmetric with respect to global rotations in complex space. Noether's Theorem may be used to determine the Conservation Law associated with this very abstract symmetry in quantum mechanics. It turns out to be the Law of the Conservation of Electric Charge !! So what happens if the vectors in the wave function are rotated by different amounts at each point in complex space? Only changes in the lengths of the vectors change measurable properties of the particle. However, hidden beneath what is measurable, the wave function changes. The phase shifts cause the wave function to "interfere" with itself, just like waves in water, where ripples from different sources can "boost" each other, or cancel out. In this case, the wave function is not symmetric with respect to "local" rotations in complex space  where, from a global standpoint, the rotations are all higgledypiggledy. However, Conservation of Electric Charge requires global phase symmetry! How can one restore this symmetry under these myriads of local phase shifts? This seemingly herculean task is accomplished by a field of force which pervades space. Wonderfully, this field of force turns out to be the electromagnetic field !! The laws of electromagnetism, which students of physics struggle so hard to understand, are simply the consequence of a simple symmetry principle : the laws of motion for a quantum particle must be the same under arbitrary rotations in complex space at different points in space. The electromagnetic field exists for one reason, and one reason only  to restore local "gauge" symmetry. Symmetries pervade all of physics. Yet the world around us looks to be anything but symmetric. Why is this? In general, symmetries spontaneously break as the temperature drops. Consider a container of water. In its liquid state, it is highly symmetric. Cool it down, and at a certain point, the symmetry spontaneously breaks, the molecules line themselves in lattices in which directions are distinguishable, cracks and fissures appear. The electromagnetic force and the weak force in physics appear wildly different. Yet, a Nobel Prize was won by theorists who, by following certain symmetry principles, managed to work out how these two forces, at sufficiently high temperatures, become a single, unified electroweak force. It now appears that if we ran the universe backwards, like a film, it would become hotter and hotter, and simpler and simpler. Forces and particles would become more and more one thing. It seems that the universe, in its earliest moments was in a state of maximum possible symmetry. Everywhere, in every direction, from every conceivable point of view, it would look the same. It would conform to every conceivable symmetry, concrete and abstract. But the state of maximum symmetry appears to be the state of a completely empty void. The symmetries which are the root of the fundmental laws of physics are nothing more than the symmetries of the void. For this reason it has been said that, "the laws of physics are the laws of nothing"  or, if you prefer, the laws of Nothing. Why did Nothing turn into Something? "Because Something is more stable than Nothing." The universe, in its most symmetrical phase turns out to be unstable. "Nothing" spontaneously breaks down, moving to states of less energy, as the Law of Entropy dictates. The universe has no net electrical charge, as one would expect if it had evolved from Nothing. The positive massenergy of all the matter in the universe appears to be exactly balanced by the negative potentialenergy of all the gravitational fields of that matter. The sumtotal of all the energy of the universe appears to be zero. The universe, still, in a sense, is nothing. The laws of physics appear to be the way they are, because  they could not be anything less than complete, total symmetry. One is driven to the conclusion that the universe is simply structured, rearranged Nothing. .  
 
December 30th, 2016, 09:34 PM  #2 
Retired Joined: Oct 2012 From: Louisville, Ky Posts: 3,775 
I have always found the term "IF" to be a major detriment when describing physics outside hypothesis. It is useful in thought experiment, if not required but when placed in theory becomes a tool for confusion rather than exploration. Her work has Obvious merit to a point and is useful foundation for base calculation yet of limited use beyond initial hypothetical calculation.

January 5th, 2017, 03:22 PM  #3  
Governor Joined: Nov 2016 From: Victoria, BC Posts: 1,356  Quote:
.  