A. If there is a ball resting on some sheet metal, given near-infinite amount of time the ball will quantum tunnel in totality through the sheet metal.

B. Given an even more near-infinite amount of time, a second ball (or random assortment of nearby particles that effectively resembles a ball) will form in empty space, then disappear again.

C. Given even more near-infinite time, a third ball (random assortment of randomly generated quantum particles) will form in empty space.

I'm thinking A and B are true, but C has me somewhat confused.

The third ball would be composed of virtual particles?

I'm thinking that's what I'm thinking :p

Not so clear on that last one...

What's so confusing about C?

I don't think there's any such thing as an "infinite" amount of time. Mathematically, yes; physically, I don't think so...

Yes, we're assuming mathematical infinity. It's a hypothetical sort of thing.

C? I'm not exactly sure on the mechanisms...

No one has a vote?

They say that this can happen but I find it a little far fetched. Metal has a high boiling point and it's low temperature tends to suppress movement and promote hardness.

How small is this ball!

B is probably true but I'm just going to have to say no on principle. :p

WRT C, since I wouldn't see an energy ball, I wouldn't call it a ball.

If the ball is made of virtual particles it would vanish so quickly that noone can know that there has been a ball.
I'm not sure about A and B either. We don't know enough about physics in dimensions near the wavelenght of a macroscopic ball.

A is sort of true for mathematical infinity.

B and C violate energy conservation and that's not allowed for real particles.

DISCLAIMER: MY PHYSICS EDUCATION WHILE NONZERO IS NOT ENOUGH FOR ME TO CALL MYSELF AN EXPERT, DON'T THINK ANYTHING I SAY COULDN'T BE WRONG

That said: A0B1C0

A presumes that the ball below the sheet metal the lowest possible energy state, which is highly unrealistic. I couldn't think of a situation where that would arise. What would happen is the ball and sheet metal would deform via quantum tunneling acting like a liquid with very slow flow rates, until gravitational equilibrium is achieved,

B seems fine, although it would be difficult to describe this momentary quantum fluctuation as a ball, and would be difficult to differentiate it from similar non-ball events.

Unless C collapses as in B this would violate energy conservation.

For A, quantum tunneling doesn't require it to slowly pass through the sheet metal. The electrons and particles could find themselves tunneled to the second position immediately (or any other, although probabilities for further travel would be exponentially lower of course).
T=0 Ball=POS(X)
T=1 Ball=POS(Y)

Not

T=0 Ball=POS(X)
T=1 Ball=POS((Y-X)/10+X)
T=2 Ball=POS((Y-X)/5+X)
...
T=11 Ball=POS(Y)

I think that's correct math... :mischief:

Susskind agrees at least that A is possible, as I read today on accident :dunno:
I'm pretty sure most everyone does, but I'm never sure of my interpretation of things...

C would eventually collapse, yes. Is it required that it immediately collapse, or could it exist for 1 second before collapsing? My thinking is that a virtual ball could (technically would) do so, given time.

Now, the real question with C is:
could it form, stay formed for 1,000,000 years, then collapse? Energy would be conserved over time... eventually.

from my understanding of physics;
A is possible as long as the ball under the sheet has less energy than above the sheet
B is possible, but the lifetime of the ball would be < h/(m*c^2), which would be too short to observe the ball, so you will never know if the ball was created or not
C is impossible as it violates the conservation of energy

For A, quantum tunneling doesn't require it to slowly pass through the sheet metal. The electrons and particles could find themselves tunneled to the second position immediately (or any other, although probabilities for further travel would be exponentially lower of course).
T=0 Ball=POS(X)
T=1 Ball=POS(Y)

Not

T=0 Ball=POS(X)
T=1 Ball=POS((Y-X)/10+X)
T=2 Ball=POS((Y-X)/5+X)
...
T=11 Ball=POS(Y)

I think that's correct math... :mischief:

Susskind agrees at least that A is possible, as I read today on accident :dunno:
I'm pretty sure most everyone does, but I'm never sure of my interpretation of things...A is possible in the since that there
exists a beyond astronomically small chance (let me emphasize the beyond astronomically soundness of this). But you said, must happen, not is possible! It's far more likely and in zillions (about 10^30 IIRC, but the point is it's big) of years it becomes practically inevitable that the ball and sheet will via quantum tunneling will cease be a ball and sheet. It's astronomically more likely for a a lot of quantum tunneling events to occur on the small scale then a few events on the large scale. You should remember that quantum tunnel occurs all the time for such things as electrons.

C would eventually collapse, yes. Is it required that it immediately collapse, or could it exist for 1 second before collapsing? My thinking is that a virtual ball could (technically would) do so, given time.

Now, the real question with C is:
could it form, stay formed for 1,000,000 years, then collapse? Energy would be conserved over time... eventually.I would wager that it can happen, BUT it's it's like tossing on another 1 in a googleplex squared or something (I'm totally making up this number, the point is it's unbelievable massievley unimaginably tiny even compared to stuff like winning the lottery a million times in the row or) into the odds or something.

B and C violate energy conservation and that's not allowed for real particles.

C is impossible as it violates the conservation of energy

I'm assuming the energy comes from ambient space, and arranges itself in such a way that a ball is formed. Hell, if we're taking things to such extremes, lets say they break the coulomb barrier and fuse into whatever particles the ball is composed of, eventually binding chemically to form the ball.

so mise, what's you're abc values?

I'm assuming the energy comes from ambient space, and arranges itself in such a way that a ball is formed. Hell, if we're taking things to such extremes, lets say they break the coulomb barrier and fuse into whatever particles the ball is composed of, eventually binding chemically to form the ball.

He said it would form in empty space. If there was any energy in there to form the ball then it wouldn't be empty space any more.

Well, yes, Perfection, I am talking astronomical time periods here, and am aware that probably the ball would do some other stuff, in part or in whole, before it did that.

uppi, I'm approaching empty space as both just regular empty room space (still energy, photons, etc) OR vacuum of vacuums space. It's all quite open-ended.

I should have made the poll public!

uppi, I'm approaching empty space as both just regular empty room space (still energy, photons, etc) OR vacuum of vacuums space. It's all quite open-ended.


"empty room space" isn't empty, though. If you pump infinite energy into some "empty space", it actually becomes very probable that a ball (or many balls) will form (example: big bang).

Therefore once you move away from the strict definition of empty space, the outcome will vary widely depending on what the conditions are in that "empty space"

Is there some causality between the three situations?

If not, I'm confused why the time increases successfully. If you have near infinite time (period), isn't the answer yes in all cases, regardless of the relative time diffences in the choices, as long as no laws of physics are violated?

Well, yes, Perfection, I am talking astronomical time periods here, and am aware that probably the ball would do some other stuff, in part or in whole, before it did that.Well, my point is there would cease to be a ball and sheet before any of this silly stuff would happen, the question was would the ball move below the sheet, the answer is no, it would disintegrate before it had a chance. The question wasn't would some ball end up under some sheet metal in far beyond-astronomical time, it was what would happen to this ball and this hunk of sheet metal. The answer is not that the ball would tunnel through the sheet metal, it is that the ball and sheet metal disintegrate from the tunneling of their constituents.

I think the problem is the conceptual formulation isn't very clear as "near-infinite amount of time" isn't really a physical term. I would redefine the question to something like:
Given a finite amount of time (1s should be enough) is the chance of A,B,C happening grater than 0?

So, the real question is are we all just virtual particles in some virtual universe... man... :p

Alright, I think I've gotten what I came for, questions answered and such. Was just curious about the fundamentals. I understand that the actual likelihood of any of this happening is.. remote.

Now, Perfection, technically given enough time that sheet metal would reappear with the ball underneath it. I love quantum mechanics like this, you make s- up, and give it enough time and you're right. Now... we play the waiting game :mischief:

With an infinite improbability drive it's a piece of cake.

so mise, what's you're abc values?

Well, the specific details of the question determine my abc values. But so far, I can't think of a reason why a, b or c couldn't be true, for a properly specified question.

Personally I'm still hung up on this "infinite" thing.

So, the real question is are we all just virtual particles in some virtual universe... man... :p

There actually is already an answer to this, and it's worse than you think.

Read it here. (http://http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink) ;)

There actually is already an answer to this, and it's worse than you think.

Read it here. (http://http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink) ;)Damn, I thought I was the only one that thought that.

I think I said this exactly in another thread, and got crap from a lot of people for it:
"It is part of a much bigger set of questions about how to think about probabilities in an infinite universe in which everything that can occur, does occur, infinitely many times,”

But that's a great article, thanks. It gets to the heart of what science has extreme difficulty touching on, and I'm glad at least the experts, unlike so many internet fanboys, are capable of rationally discussing things like reincarnation and consciousness between physical entities and acknowledging their ignorance on such matters.

The answer is obivously true for all of them, as a boltzsman brain will appear and do what is necessary

Now, Perfection, technically given enough time that sheet metal would reappear with the ball underneath it.Nope! Some sheet metal would appear with a ball underneath it!

I REJECT YOUR USAGE OF DEFINITE ARTICLES! :smug::smug::smug::mwaha::mwaha::mwaha:

Nope! Some sheet metal would appear with a ball underneath it!

I REJECT YOUR USAGE OF DEFINITE ARTICLES! :smug::smug::smug::mwaha::mwaha::mwaha:You know, I could probably make up a reasoning to defeat this, but it's 330am and I just got finished playing a 4-hr game of trivial pursuit, so yeah, you win.

7 people.... 3 teams... everyone helping each other... TWO F-ING HOURS CIRCLING AROUND THE CENTER TRYING TO GET THAT ONE QUESTION RIGHT.

Ridiculous.

By the way, winner of the game? Annie Oakley, aka, me. But this has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.

Let's look at the initial statement here:
A. If there is a ball resting on some sheet metal, given near-infinite amount of time the ball will quantum tunnel in totality through the sheet metal.This says quantum tunnel through, not identically show up in a different position an absuird amount of time later.

So when you get over the Trivial persuit, please tell me how your idea fits the description.

BTW. I get done with Trivial Pursuit in 10 minutes.

:dunno: a different definition of "that": you see the "that" semantically tunnels to the new piece of sheet metal.

Quantum semantics. It's a new field I'm pioneering.

So in other words, you think I'm right, but are too chicken to admit it.

False True True

edit: i haven't read the thread though. maybe i should.

So in other words, you think I'm right, but are too chicken to admit it.In an alternate universe, you're an actual chicken. Just think about that one for a bit... :lol:

Only if you use a sloppy meaning of "you" as in (something bearing some properties similar to Perfection), In that case I don't care, because it's not me in the strict sense. ChickenPerfs can go to Hell.

In any case you're avoiding the issue, you're wrong and I'm right and you won't admit it.

Only if you use a sloppy meaning of "you" as in (something bearing some properties similar to Perfection), In that case I don't care, because it's not me in the strict sense. ChickenPerfs can go to Hell.

In any case you're avoiding the issue, you're wrong and I'm right and you won't admit it.:mischief:

Really, what is the definition of "is" here? Is the sheet metal different, what is the sheet metal in case A and case B? Who can say?

I can. It's pretty obvious that a chance virtual particle presentation that happens to be the same construction as something is not that something but in fact something else.

If it's exactly the same in any recordable way?

I die tomorrow. Five trillion years from now an exact copy of me today appears on this couch. Same person?

Do you define "sameness" as causally coherent or simply physically coherent?

...because I could make up a scenario in that it is causally coherent also, given enough time :satan:

Please do.

Same atoms in exactly the same place reappear. It's possible that given enough time this would occur after so many near-infinite iterations of non-exactly-similar sheets of metal appearing with non-exactly-similar balls beneath them, the exact same atoms would eventually get "rolled" and BAM! Same piece of sheet metal, same ball, different position of ball, just a few near-infinite centuries later.

And if you then want to say, "well, those atoms would have gotten altered, decayed, split apart, whatever, over time," then I'd say, "give it time, give it time, it will all come back together eventually..."

But here's a real tricksy question: if we can't quantize time, then would all these particles exist in every possible spot within any finite period of time? Is it actually not a matter of time but a matter of duration that we need to discuss?

Two objections:

1. You don't understand quantum mechanics, fundamental particles are indistinguishable, and the notion of something being the same fundamental particle betrays what we know about quantum mechanics,

2. This is not causally linked. The only link here is coincidental.

Point is, it makes little sense to call hypothetical quantum fluctuation duplicates and their real counterparts the same thing.

Indistinguishable but causally connections are possible. Not recordable, no, but they're there. But do explain how this is not so, maybe I'll learn something from this thread.

A lot of things make little sense. I'm just trying to fit in with the crowd :p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indistinguishability
I'm too lazy to look it up in my QM books and explain it

In any case you fail to explain how this is causally linked

I didn't say they were distinguishable, I simply said they would be causally connected through time.

You said, "the exact same atoms would eventually get "rolled" and BAM" but indistinguishability makes that notion pretty untenable, and at least unverifiable.

And you still fail to explain how this is causally linked

And lastly look at your statement
"Same atoms in exactly the same place reappear. It's possible that given enough time this would occur after so many near-infinite iterations of non-exactly-similar sheets of metal appearing with non-exactly-similar balls beneath them, the exact same atoms would eventually get "rolled" and BAM! Same piece of sheet metal, same ball, different position of ball, just a few near-infinite centuries later."

It doesn't fit this:
"there is a ball resting on some sheet metal, given near:-infinite amount of time the ball will quantum tunnel in totality through the sheet metal"

It doesn't say reappear after a googleplex to the googleplexth power later, it says quantum tunnel, your argument is not for the A in the opening post, but some other hypothetical.

Not totally sure on this (questions are a bit more nebulous to what I'm more used to)

A0

Even if some of the particles in the ball tunnelled through, eventually there will also be some tunneling back, this is taking some liberties with what it means when you said "at rest on the metal sheet" and because its 'at rest' on the metal sheet in the first place, the majority of the particles will remain there.

B1

As far as I understand, I can only think of this from a conservation perspective, in which case its allowed, quantum stuff? I dunno, is there a anti-ball hanging around waiting to destructivly interact with the ball? :s

C0

Energy Conservation, 'nuff said.

I don't believe in impossibility.

C: Couldn't dark energy transform into matter?

All true, easy. I'm still waiting for Rachel Steven's wavefunction to tunnel through to my bedroom. :(

Yeah, but she'll disappear within a second, so make good use of it :p