Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My mind's in a knot... (Re: Who/what created God?)
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 121 of 156 (494352)
01-15-2009 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Agobot
01-15-2009 11:51 AM


Re: Still... what's the big deal?
Reading comprehension... I did say collective, which means collective for all atheists. Something that you can all agree on?
This is why I hate using labels like "atheist". You automatically assume that there is some atheist mandate that all atheists have to believe the same thing.
Atheism just means you don't believe in a supernatural all powerful being(s)/deity that created/guide/control the universe. That's it. That is all this term imposes. In fact everyone on the planet is an atheist to one degree or another. Christians are atheists to every supernatural being except the God of the Bible, Muslims are atheists to every supernatural being except Allah, etc ad infinitim. I think Hindus are immune to this rule since you can throw in every supernatural entity created or yet to be created and they would accept it. Buddhists are essentially deists with no assertion to a specific deity (though some consider themselves atheists). Do you catch my drift? Atheism is a default belief or more accurately a lack of belief. Babies are atheists, young unindoctrinated children are atheists. Just like babies when they are born do not believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, so too they do not believe in the existence of God, Allah, Jesus, etc. They have to be indoctrinated (taught) the existence of these people/entities/whatever.
There is no underlying axiom of atheism other than you don't believe in supernatural beings. Atheism is ammoral (not immoral). In other words you can believe (or not believe) in any type of moral system and be an atheist.
If you want to pidgeon hole and label me. I am an agnostic atheist (defacto atheist) moral universalist humanist. Meaning that I am an atheist because I do not believe in the existence of any deity and I am also an agnostic because I do not claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does or does not exist.
Can you show me a single Thing that you All atheists agree on as a purpose of life?
No, because that is not what the word atheism means as I described above.
And not some subjectively inferred notion like love, objectivity, justice, peace and other BS... (all these can be subjectively interpreted as being good or bad, depending on the particular situation).
I think you are getting atheism (a lack of belief in supernatural deities) mixed up with specific human moral systems.
It's got to be something that you can objectively and verifiably put to a test and see that what you call Nature designed it in that way, through certain means, as the Meaning of life. I claim the only thing all atheists can agree on and that can be scientifically verified as the meaning of life is replication(sex).
This has nothing to do with atheism but has more to do with morality.
So is there such anything beyond replication? Name it please. Or is life meaningless?
That is why I am a moral universalist humanist. I do believe that life has meaning. I believe that morals are created by humans for humans and that all humans should have the same rights and freedoms (unless they attempt to remove these rights and freedoms from others). I just don't ascribe that it has to come from some supreme creator in the sky. We make our purpose in life. Our own destiny. Our own fate. One of my favorite poems, Invictus by William Ernest Henley illustrates this philosophy of self-determination well:
William Henley, 'Invictus' writes:
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find me, unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Correct spelling & grammer
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Agobot, posted 01-15-2009 11:51 AM Agobot has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 122 of 156 (494413)
01-15-2009 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Agobot
01-15-2009 11:51 AM


Re: Still... what's the big deal?
It's your choice to believe what you want. If you think that matter doesn't come from nothingness, ok. If you believe Bell's theorem non-locality is wrong, ok. If you think string theorists proposing the Holographic Model of the Universe are crazy, ok. If you believe the universe is expanding into something, ok. But that's a religious belief because evidence to the contrary is in your face on all 4 points.
In what ways have I disagreed with Bell's theorum, the holographic model (which seems to only imply that information is encoded into the dimension of spacetime itself not onto individual particles), non-locality, etc. I just think it is a leap of faith from the proposition of quantum entanglement and non-locality to the conclusion that we are a conjuration of some supernatual deity, scientist from the future or program on a machine.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Agobot, posted 01-15-2009 11:51 AM Agobot has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 123 of 156 (494415)
01-15-2009 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Agobot
01-15-2009 4:24 AM


Re: Adding too many layers onto an already obfuscated reality
We are talking about 10^-21 to 10^-23 sec. Particles come and go, at those short intervals it is thought that the 1st LOT remains unbroken. The expression "borrow energy from the future" is methaphorical IMO, it's the same as saying it comes from the vacuum or from the nothingness.
There is a difference between matter being converted from vacuum energy and vice versa and something coming from nothing. Nothing implies no energy nor matter. No one is implying this. Vacuum energy i.e. quantum flunctuations of spacetime is "something".
Agobot writes:
Myself writes:
Is the Higg's particle nothing?
Define "nothing". Until it's officially found, it is nothing as per dictionaries' definition.
The unknown is not "something" or "nothing", it is unknown. The Higg's particle is unknown. Therefore we can not unequivocly say that matter comes from nothing or is made of nothing, yet. You may be right in the end or vice versa. Jury is still out.
They are the same thing. A neutrino doesn't care if we call it matter or energy. Billions pass through your body every second. Then they go ahead and pass... right thru the Earth, then they go on on their long journey and pass right thru the Sun and go on an on.
Ok, not disputing this.
It is observed, but you are thinking classically in the quantum domain.
In what way? The only thing I have disagreed with you on, is the assumption that all of this evidence points to a higher reality, deity, etc.
Oh yes? You want to teach Stephen Hawking that the quantum fluctuation universe hypothesis is wrong? Everything cannot come from nothing? You can bet it can. That's how matter is formed according to QCD.
Wrong, matter is created from energy and vice versa. I don't consider this coming from nothing. The amount of total energy in a closed system stays the same. It can change form (i.e. matter, entropy) but it cannot increase or decrease. The amount of energy in singularity = the same amount of energy existing in at the present in our universe. Your NASA quote does not promote a "something" from "nothing" proposition it just describes entropy (useful to nonuseful energy conversion) and emergence of complex matter (stars, galaxies, etc) occuring as a result of energy/matter convertance.
The only exception to this is if multiple-dimensions/multiverse (brain/bulk) exists and energy can seep into and out of our universe from the multiverse. Again though the multiverse itself would be a closed system and thus preserve energy with itself.
No no. I didn't say that we are nearing a wall of weirdness and human comprehension. I meant that we are hitting the wall of nothingness, where matter appears to take its mass/energy content - the quantum fluctuations.
The total amount of matter in the universe is a mere pitance to the total amount of energy in the universe. Matter is derived from existing energy in the universe. Again conservation of energy holds.
I have to go, but will continue this interesting discussion later.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Agobot, posted 01-15-2009 4:24 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Agobot, posted 01-16-2009 4:04 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 124 of 156 (494441)
01-16-2009 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by DevilsAdvocate
01-15-2009 8:49 PM


Re: Adding too many layers onto an already obfuscated reality
DA writes:
There is a difference between matter being converted from vacuum energy and vice versa and something coming from nothing.
Matter is "converted" from energy and energy comes from nothing through quantum fluctuations.
DA writes:
Nothing implies no energy nor matter. No one is implying this.
I am. I am very strongly implying that even if there is a region of space with a zero net energy, quantum fluctuations occur that are the foundation of the existence of matter.
DA writes:
Vacuum energy i.e. quantum flunctuations of spacetime is "something".
Yes and it comes from nothing.
DA writes:
Wrong, matter is created from energy and vice versa. I don't consider this coming from nothing.
This isn't in any way related to what i said in the quoted paragraph. At all.
DA writes:
The amount of total energy in a closed system stays the same.
Yes, quantum fluctuations do not break the 1LOT. So?
DA writes:
It can change form (i.e. matter, entropy) but it cannot increase or decrease.
Yes and it doesn't. So?
DA writes:
The amount of energy in singularity = the same amount of energy existing in at the present in our universe.
We are treading into territory i am not comfortable in, but i want you to point me to a peer-reviewed paper that says the total energy of the universe is not zero. AFAIK, there is no way to know this.
DA writes:
Your NASA quote does not promote a "something" from "nothing" proposition it just describes entropy (useful to nonuseful energy conversion) and emergence of complex matter (stars, galaxies, etc) occuring as a result of energy/matter convertance...
...from nothing. That's what it says, if you have grasped the meaning.
DA writes:
The only exception to this is if multiple-dimensions/multiverse (brain/bulk) exists and energy can seep into and out of our universe from the multiverse. Again though the multiverse itself would be a closed system and thus preserve energy with itself.
Before a layman can indulge in theoretical physics speculation, we have to be formally trained physicists. Let's stick to what we know from experiments, and not look like idiots who imagine they can deal with these highly speculative sophisticated mathematical theories and what lies behind them. You cannot hope to grasp them without formal training and at least partly being introduced to the mathematical formalism involved, it's not that easy to catch up with modern physics. At all. In fact, if you are a physicist dealing with certain field of physics, you cannot hope to be up to date with all developments in all of physics. Let's not look like Beavis and Butthead, please.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-15-2009 8:49 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by cavediver, posted 01-16-2009 6:15 AM Agobot has replied
 Message 126 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-16-2009 10:50 AM Agobot has replied
 Message 132 by cavediver, posted 01-16-2009 1:24 PM Agobot has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 125 of 156 (494448)
01-16-2009 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Agobot
01-16-2009 4:04 AM


Re: Adding too many layers onto an already obfuscated reality
Before a layman can indulge in theoretical physics speculation, we have to be formally trained physicists. Let's stick to what we know from experiments, and not look like idiots who imagine they can deal with these highly speculative sophisticated mathematical theories and what lies behind them.
Excellent advice, now let's see the application please
Let's not look like Beavis and Butthead, please.
Far, far too late for that, I'm afraid

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Agobot, posted 01-16-2009 4:04 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Agobot, posted 01-16-2009 11:09 AM cavediver has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 126 of 156 (494484)
01-16-2009 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Agobot
01-16-2009 4:04 AM


Re: Adding too many layers onto an already obfuscated reality
Agobot writes:
Matter is "converted" from energy and energy comes from nothing through quantum fluctuations.... am. I am very strongly implying that even if there is a region of space with a zero net energy, quantum fluctuations occur that are the foundation of the existence of matter.
I think we are misunderstanding each other. It seems I am more of a literalist than you are. I deem "nothing" to be nothing, no energy, no matter, no quantum fluctuations, no gravity, no forces of nature. Nothing i.e. the nonexistence of anything and everything. This is not the case with quantum fluctuation. Quantum fluctuations are in fact, fluctuations of a small amount of energy called zero point energy (referring to the energy level at one specific point i.e. zero-point in space) however the ground state of the zero point field of spacetime is not zero but rather is something. New energy is not so much "created from nothing" as it is being in fact created by the interactions between the four fundamental forces of nature: weak, strong, electromagnetism, and gravity.
The famous astrophysicist, director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson puts this eloquently in a article in the scientific journal of Natural History (Natural History; Oct2005, Vol. 114 Issue 8, p14-20):
Neil deGrasse Tyson writes:
Across the cosmos, energy takes on multiple identities and spans a staggering range of strengths. At the lowest end, though not quite at zero, is the so-called quantum vacuum, also known as the zero-point field. It's the closest possible approximation of total lethargy offered by the universe. (Paradoxically, the zero-point field of the entire cosmic vacuum may account for the mysterious acceleration of the universe.)
Agobot writes:
We are treading into territory i am not comfortable in, but i want you to point me to a peer-reviewed paper that says the total energy of the universe is not zero. AFAIK, there is no way to know this.
Did I say this? I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say (or maybe I just didn't spell it out) in that I was implying that at any one point in space, energy is constantly fluctuating (zero-point energy/virtual particles/quantum foam/vacuum energy) at or near 0, but the total energy in an entire closed system is not nothing (that is there is no energy being created at all), rather the total energy content of the universe is at a constant level at or close to 0 resulting from the summation of the total amount of negative energy (dark energy) + positive energy which equals near or at 0 total energy. Let me know if this doesn't make sense and I will expound.
Agobot writes:
from nothing. That's what it says, if you have grasped the meaning.
I do concede that the universe in essence could have been initially created from "at" or "near" nothing in regard to the present universe that we are part of, being "created" from net near or at 0 amount of energy and matter. However, this cosmogenesis is a result in the fluctuations of spacetime itself (independent of energy and matter), as proposed by many physicists such as Hawkins, Kaku, Thomas, Gamow, Gibbon, Green, Dirac and many others,.
Michio Kaku and Jennefer Trainer Thomas in their book "Beyond Einstein: The Cosmic Quest for the Theory of the Universe" describe this idea of the universe springing forth from spacetime itself:
Kaku and Thomas writes:
For years physicists have been intrigued by the possibility that the universe came from a quantum transition from nothing (pure spacetime, without matter or energy).
The idea of creating something from pure space-time is an old one, dating back to World War II. Physicist George Gamow, in his autobiography, My World Line, relates how he presented this theory to Einstein. Once, while strolling with Einstein on the streets of Princeton, Gamow mention an idea proposed by quantum physicist Pascual Jordan. A star, by virtue of its mass, obviously has energy. However, if we calculated the energy lock within its gravitational field, we would find that it is negative. The total energy of the system may, in fact be zero.
What argued Jordan, would then prevent a quantum transition from the vacuum into a full-blown star? Since the star had zero energy, there was no violation of the conservation of energy when it was created from nothing. When Gamow mentioned the possibility to Einstein, Gamow recalled, "Einstein stopped in his tracks and, since we were crossing a street, several cars had to stop to avoid running us down."
In 1973, Ed Tyron of Hunter College of New York proposed, independently of these earlier theories about stars, that perhaps the entire universe was created from pure spacetime. Again, it appears that empirically the total energy of the universe is close to 0. What if, argued Tyron, the entire universe was created as a "vacuum fluctuation," a random quantum leap from the vacuum into a full-fledge universe.
Physicists pioneering the inflation theory have treated this idea of creating the universe from nothing as a serious concept, however speculative it may be. What relevance does this "everything from nothing" theory have for superstrings?
As we saw earlier, the superstring theory predicts our universe started as a ten-dimensional universe, which was initially unstable and collapsed down into four-dimensions. This cataclysmic event, in turn, created the original Big Bang. However if "everything from nothing" theory proves to be correct, it means perhaps that the original ten-dimensional universe started out with zero energy.
At present, superstring theorists are unable to calculate mathematically the precise mechanism by which the ten-dimensional universe can rupture into a four-dimensional one. The mathematics involved is beyond the capabilities of most physicists, because the problem involves a complicated quantum mechanical effect. However, the problem is well-defined mathematically, and hence it is only a matter of time before it is solved. Once the dynamics of how a ten-dimensional universe can crack into a four-dimensional one are understood, we should be able to calculate the energy stored in the original ten-dimensional universe. If the energy of the ten-dimensional universe turns out to be zero, then this would support the "everything from nothing" theory.
This is my current understanding from my background knowledge of physics and reading of current and past physicists research. Discussions with you on EvC have caused me to look more intently into this field of science and have resulted in me having to rethink some of my previous misconceptions about cosmology and quantum physics in general. Of that I would like to thank you for such a vigorous and enjoyable discussion.
It looks like some of our misunderstanding is semantics however there are some more fundamental difference. For example, I still don't see how you can draw some the conclusions that the universe is part of some grand cosmic computer program/scientific experiment/dream of some supernatural being, etc from some of the concepts that we have been discussing previously. To me it still seems like a leap of faith to an unsubstantiated proposition.
Again let us keep researching, collecting evidence, build and test theories and see where science points us. To me I see no other way around this without resorting to pure fanciful unsubstantiated speculation.
Before a layman can indulge in theoretical physics speculation, we have to be formally trained physicists. Let's stick to what we know from experiments, and not look like idiots who imagine they can deal with these highly speculative sophisticated mathematical theories and what lies behind them. You cannot hope to grasp them without formal training and at least partly being introduced to the mathematical formalism involved, it's not that easy to catch up with modern physics. At all. In fact, if you are a physicist dealing with certain field of physics, you cannot hope to be up to date with all developments in all of physics. Let's not look like Beavis and Butthead, please.
Who is proposing that we some social experiment by some mad scientist in the future, or a conjuration of a supernatural entity? Not me! I am trying to take the pragmatic approach and am just trying to interpret for myself the scientific research by these scientists (some of which is written for layman readers like ourselves).
And btw, I have taken many college science courses (Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Calculus, Anthropology, Psychology, Sociology, Humanities, Old Testament Bible, World History, etc) and so do consider myself somewhat of an amateur (beginner) scientist and philosopher (though in no way am I even close to being an expert).
Also, some of the greatest minds of scientists had little previous formal "training" in the subjects they would later be considered experts in i.e. Socrates, Charles Darwin, etc.
Albert Einstein himself after dropping out of high school studied on his own, passed the entrance exam on his second try to the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland (the same year he performed his famous thought experiment visualizing traveling alongside a beam of light which became the basis for his Theory of Special Relativity 9 years later (in 1905 when he also earned his doctorate).
Not to say that "formal training and education" is not important, but rather that equally important are critical thinking skills and a firm grasp of logic to filter the gold from the bullshit.
Just my thoughts on the subject.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Agobot, posted 01-16-2009 4:04 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Agobot, posted 01-16-2009 11:27 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
 Message 136 by cavediver, posted 01-16-2009 1:40 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 127 of 156 (494485)
01-16-2009 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by cavediver
01-16-2009 6:15 AM


Re: Adding too many layers onto an already obfuscated reality
cavediver writes:
Far, far too late for that, I'm afraid
The universe split at a quantum event and in this universe this copy of me is neither Beavis nor Butthead.
Now seriously - do we give up locality or QM? How do we keep both QM and realism without hidden variables? Should we give up what the 5 senses tell us or the results of the experiments and can you think of a way they can both co-exist?
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by cavediver, posted 01-16-2009 6:15 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by NosyNed, posted 01-16-2009 1:13 PM Agobot has replied
 Message 131 by cavediver, posted 01-16-2009 1:16 PM Agobot has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 128 of 156 (494488)
01-16-2009 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by DevilsAdvocate
01-16-2009 10:50 AM


Re: Adding too many layers onto an already obfuscated reality
Agreed this time, it doesn't mean we are 100% correct but if space is non-local as is the current understanding and matter comes from quantum fluctuations, what does it say about reality?
It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations | New Scientist
BTW, when i said unknown/god/scientists from the future/?? i left the door open for other scenarios. This isn't even close to explaining purported purely hypothetical branes(not brains) and universes, as in:
DA writes:
The only exception to this is if multiple-dimensions/multiverse (brain/bulk) exists and energy can seep into and out of our universe from the multiverse. Again though the multiverse itself would be a closed system and thus preserve energy with itself.
That's why i objected, we need to stay where we can find experimental support and most of all - correct understanding.
Otherwise i agree, Einstein was a clerk in a patent office when he wrote SR. Then he became a physicist. John Wheeler used to say - if you want to learn - teach(referring to his students as a mode of feedback of ideas).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-16-2009 10:50 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by cavediver, posted 01-16-2009 1:15 PM Agobot has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 129 of 156 (494497)
01-16-2009 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Agobot
01-16-2009 11:09 AM


Take a hint....
Agobot, an actual,real-life theoretical physicist seems to think that you are talking out of your ass. Maybe you should take a hint and stop talking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Agobot, posted 01-16-2009 11:09 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Agobot, posted 01-16-2009 1:35 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 130 of 156 (494498)
01-16-2009 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Agobot
01-16-2009 11:27 AM


Re: Adding too many layers onto an already obfuscated reality
Einstein was a clerk in a patent office when he wrote SR. Then he became a physicist.
He already had his degree in physics by this time, and had spent five years working on primarily electromagnetism in the course of his work at the patent office.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Agobot, posted 01-16-2009 11:27 AM Agobot has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 131 of 156 (494500)
01-16-2009 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Agobot
01-16-2009 11:09 AM


Re: Adding too many layers onto an already obfuscated reality
Now seriously - do we give up locality or QM?
Neither
How do we keep both QM and realism without hidden variables?
We don't, nor do we want to keep both.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Agobot, posted 01-16-2009 11:09 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Agobot, posted 01-16-2009 1:38 PM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 132 of 156 (494501)
01-16-2009 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Agobot
01-16-2009 4:04 AM


Re: Adding too many layers onto an already obfuscated reality
Matter is "converted" from energy and energy comes from nothing through quantum fluctuations.
No and no. And quantum fluctuations are anything but 'nothing', and they do not 'come from' 'nothing'.
I am very strongly implying that even if there is a region of space with a zero net energy, quantum fluctuations occur that are the foundation of the existence of matter.
This doesn't quite make sense, but in any case, this has nothing to do with 'nothing'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Agobot, posted 01-16-2009 4:04 AM Agobot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-16-2009 1:33 PM cavediver has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 133 of 156 (494503)
01-16-2009 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by cavediver
01-16-2009 1:24 PM


Re: Adding too many layers onto an already obfuscated reality
No and no. And quantum fluctuations are anything but 'nothing', and they do not 'come from' 'nothing'.
It would probably more correct to say that matter (specifically fermions and bosons) is coalescesing from vacuum energy vice "converting from energy" in the sense that matter is in itself a form of energy and thus matter pops into and out of existence based on the non-zero state of the zero-point energy in that specific locality of spacetime. Am I correct in this Cavediver?

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by cavediver, posted 01-16-2009 1:24 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 134 of 156 (494504)
01-16-2009 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by NosyNed
01-16-2009 1:13 PM


Re: Take a hint....
NosyNed writes:
Agobot, an actual,real-life theoretical physicist seems to think that you are talking out of your ass. Maybe you should take a hint and stop talking.
And here are other famous real-life physicists who don't agree(although CD didn't specifically say what he disagrees with, you assume you know):
Reality in the melting pot | Paul Davies | The Guardian
An experimental test of non-local realism - PubMed
http://www.quantummechanicsandreality.com/...o_objective.htm
Page not found – Physics World
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646v2
Deletion notice | Scribd
I will not clutter this thread with more links to Heisenberg, Bohr, Amit Goswami, John Wheeler and others but i need to know on what basis do you assume to know who's right among physicists? Did you do yourself any research to know what it's all about before jumping to conclusions? And do you know what cavediver disagrees with?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by NosyNed, posted 01-16-2009 1:13 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-16-2009 1:46 PM Agobot has not replied
 Message 139 by cavediver, posted 01-16-2009 1:56 PM Agobot has replied
 Message 141 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-16-2009 2:19 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 135 of 156 (494506)
01-16-2009 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by cavediver
01-16-2009 1:16 PM


Re: Adding too many layers onto an already obfuscated reality
cavediver writes:
How do we keep both QM and realism without hidden variables?
cavediver writes:
We don't, nor do we want to keep both.
OK, then what do we discard, the most tested field of physics or realism?
cavediver writes:
No and no. And quantum fluctuations are anything but 'nothing', and they do not 'come from' 'nothing'.
Don't they come from a non-local medium, as stated by Bell's theorem? BTW, I didn't say quantum fluctuations were nothing.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by cavediver, posted 01-16-2009 1:16 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024