Quantum Foam (QF)

[Alan Grayson]

Some physicists deny the existence of the QF, which I take to mean particles spontaneously coming into being, interacting, and destroying themselves, all occurring in the context of non-zero vacuum energy. If the existence of the QF is denied, how does one explain the ultimate emergence of stable matter? Consequently, I surmise that the QF must exist. AG

[Brent Meeker]

On 2/27/2020 8:32 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
> how does one explain the ultimate emergence of stable matter?
> Consequently, I surmise that the QF must exist. AG

That's the same kind of logic that Bill O'Reilly used when he said "The
tides come in. The tides go out.  How do you explain that without God?"

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

So you have no idea how particles came into existence in the very early universe, other than to trash Wheeler? Is this your position? AG

[Brent Meeker]

No, I'm trashing you for inferring that QF must exist because there's no explanation for matter.

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

 I suppose I should have stated that quantum foam probably exists. But is there some other tentative theory for the emergence of matter? I haven't heard of one. What's your preferred theory at this point in time? AG

[Alan Grayson]

IIUC, Bruce rejects the theory of quantum foam because it depends (in his view) on a false interpretation of the HUP; namely, that energy in the form of particles emerges from the vacuum in a way which violates conservation of energy for very short durations. OTOH, LC seemed to embrace QF to explain the emergence of particles from the vacuum of the early universe. OTOH2, if the very early universe contained only photons, where did they come from? What is the theory, if any, of the emergence of particles in the early universe? AG

[Alan Grayson]

What is the present best model of the very early universe, before inflation started? Pure energy in the form of vacuum energy, or just photons, or photons emerging from the vacuum energy? AG