Virtual particles are subatomic particles that appear out of empty space. Their existence was predicted early in the development of quantum theory. While I do not claim to be a physicist, I have had an interest in virtual particles for a long time. In an effort to understand them I spent quiet a bit of time reading the original literature about them. I struggled through until I thought I had a reasonably good idea of why it is we think them to be real entities.
Over on this blog there is an interesting thread going on between harji and Blackout on the existence of God. harji seems to believe either the universe created itself or else something else that existed beforehand ... God ... created it. Blackout correctly points out that this is a false dilemma. Perhaps nothing created the universe.
In his reply to harji, Blackout says, "... In fact, science has theorized the existence of virtual particles for almost a century. Virtual particles literally appear 'from nowhere,' exist in space-time for a brief period, and then 'wink' back out of existence".
Blackout is using virtual particles as an example of something that is created by nothing. The idea is that if they can be created by nothing then perhaps so can the universe (I will discuss this possibility later in this blog). However, chillbill takes issue with Blackout's use of the term calling it "Hogwash".
It is chillbill's response that has inspired this response. Since an in-depth discussion of virtual particles is way off topic for the original blog I am writing it up as blog of its own.
chillbill says:
Your use and mischaracterization of virtual particles should be an embarrassment to you. Did you even read the links you provided? It is clear that you did not understand them.
Each reader will have to decide for himself what constitutes an embarrassment. My personal opinion is that Blackout did not embarrass himself with the remark. Instead what I think is embarrassing is when you claim that someone else doesn't know what they are talking about when the evidence points the other direction.
This is the first link that Blackout provided. It is a Wikipedia article that has basic information on virtual particles. This is the second link Blackout provided. It is a Scientific American article on their website which mentions the Lamb shift as the first confirmed experimental prediction showing that virtual particles are real entities.
chillbill says:
"from nowhere," is not present in either article, and at most is a statement of your ignorance of where and how these particles come to be rather than an accurate description of their source. ...
While chillbill is technically correct ... the phrase "from nowhere" does not appear in either article ... he is about as wrong as wrong can be with respect to the intent of the articles.
Both articles discuss pairs of virtual particles "popping" into and out of existence. What does that mean? It means that at one point in time the pairs of virtual particles did not exist and then in very next instant (literally!!) they do exist, and then a short time later over an instant they no longer exist. So where did they come from?
One interpretation is that since they didn't exist ANYWHERE ... virtual particles appear spontaneously in EMPTY SPACE ... they came from NOWHERE (just as Blackout said). Another interpretation (if you don't like things coming from nowhere) is that empty space is not REALLY empty. Empty space is actually a sea of undetectable virtual particles and occasionally uncertainties inherent in quantum space allows a pair of these particles to pop into the universe in such a way that it is possible to detect its effects.
So which of those two is the real case? They both are. In actual fact the two are indistinguishable. There is absolutely no way to tell the difference between two particles suddenly being created from nowhere, and two particles suddenly popping out of an undetectable (even in theory) space. If the two scenarios are indistinguishable then they are by definition equivalent.
It so happens that Paul Dirac, an early theorist in quantum mechanics, liked to think of empty space being composed of a sea of undetectable virtual particles. So the term "Dirac sea" (referring to empty space being composed of teeming mass of undetectable virtual particles) became popular within the field of quantum mechanics. But that does not mean that Blackout was incorrect to refer to virtual particles as coming from nowhere.
chillbill says:
... Such particles ONLY exist, as far as we have observed, in direct relation to more mundane particles and the poorly understood forces surrounding them. ...
This is just the type of sentence I expect from people who know a little bit about the subject, but not enough to know what they are talking about. It is terribly unclear and mangled.
Perhaps chillbill is referring to virtual particles that act as carriers of the forces of nature. Modern physics does not like the concept of "action at a distance". Normally, things must come into contact before a particle state can be changed.
But let's look at a concrete example. The moon is held in its orbit by the force of gravity. The earth produces a gravitational field that causes the moon to orbit it. Isn't this action at a distance? After all, the moon is over 200,000 miles away from the earth.
Actually, it isn't action at a distance. On the quantum scale what is happening is that virtual particles from the earth carrying its gravitational force interact with particles on the moon in such a way that the two are attracted to each other.
So with respect to these types of virtual particles, I guess one could say that they are associated with the "more mundane" particles. But these are not the types of virtual particles that Blackout was referring to.
The type of virtual particles that Blackout was referring to are ones that "pop" into and out of existence in empty space all the time. They are the ones that I was talking about above. The only particle that one of these virtual particles is associated with is its matter/antimatter pair that popped into or out of existence along with it. How chillbill could not understand that is beyond me.
Furthermore, chillbill ... after questioning Blackout on whether or not he had actually read the articles he linked to ... flatly contradicts one the very same articles.
From the SciAm article:
Thus virtual particles are indeed real and have observable effects that physicists have devised ways of measuring. Their properties and consequences are well established and well understood consequences of quantum mechanics [emphasis added]
Repeating chillbill:
... Such particles ONLY exist, as far as we have observed, in direct relation to more mundane particles and the poorly understood forces surrounding them [emphasis added]
Hint to chillbill ... If the properties and consequences of virtual particles are well understood then the forces surrounding them must be well understood too.
chillbill says:
They NEVER exist "from nowhere," and have no bearing on the subject at hand.
Technically nobody has claimed that virtual particles EXIST from nowhere. They claim that they COME from nowhere. And they are perfectly within their rights to do so.
But whether one wants to quibble about the semantics of "nowhere" versus a "Dirac sea" hidden in empty space, virtual particles DEFINITELY DO have a bearing on the subject the thread between harji and Blackout. They were talking about possible origins of the universe. Here is a paragraph from the Wikipedia article that chillbill suggests Blackout hadn't read:
It is sometimes suggested that pair production can be used to explain the origin of matter in the universe. In models of the Big Bang, it is suggested that vacuum fluctuations, or virtual particles, briefly appear. Then, due to effects such as CP-violation, an imbalance between the number of virtual particles and antiparticles is created, leaving a surfeit of particles, thus accounting for the visible matter in the universe.
Clearly, chillbill did not understand the paragraph if he actually read it (or else he didn't understand what harji and Blackout were talking about). This is another example of the type of thing I find embarrassing ... when you fall prey to exactly what you accused the other guy of doing.
But, more importantly ... how can virtual particle production be responsible for all the observable matter in the universe? Isn't virtual particle production a quantum event? Two particles are produced and they almost always annihilate each other. There are over 1080 particles in the known universe, almost all of which are thought to have been produced during the Big Bang. How could a relatively inconsequential mechanism like virtual pair production be responsible for such a huge thing as that?
The answer is that virtual pair production is a quantum mechanical event. Quantum mechanical events take place under conditions in which forces are high and the space is very small. This is exactly the supposed conditions of the Big Bang. The known universe is thought to have begun on a VERY TINY SCALE ... perhaps as small as planck's scale (10-42 meters). That is certainly small enough for quantum effects to dominate. If we go with the INFLATIONARY MODEL of the Big Bang, the boundary of the universe expanded billions of time over the next instant. That is creating a lot of empty space from which virtual particles can appear and at that time there would not be surrounding matter to soak up and absorb the production of virtual particles. It is possible that a huge amount of particles could be produced this way.
But don't virtual particles annihilate each other? Wouldn't that cause them to all disappear. Well, the fact of the matter is that according to theory IT SHOULD do just that. BUT according to theory that should have happened no matter what naturalistic way the original matter was made. So what does that mean? It means that in reality, our theory is incomplete. There is something we do not fully understand.
We even have some ideas about what that may be. If you go back to that Wikipedia paragraph I most recently quoted you will see the sentence, "Then, due to effects such as CP-violation, an imbalance between the number of virtual particles and antiparticles is created, leaving a surfeit of particles, thus accounting for the visible matter in the universe."
What does that mean? "CP" stands for "charge parity". Charge & parity are conserved features of the universe. With respect to this discussion, whenever a virtual particle is produced, its antiparticle is also produced. Thus if a virtual electron with a charge of -1 is produced, a virtual anti-electron (aka positron) is produced with a charge of +1. This keeps a parity between the type of particles (matter and antimatter), and the charge (-1 and +1 sum to 0). This is the case for any particle pair production.
CP conservation is often considered one of the fundamental laws of nature. But one should always be aware that we may be wrong ... even with respect to the fundamental laws of nature. Perhaps, "fundamental" laws are not as fundamental as we suppose them to be. There have been instances noted that appear to show that CP is NOT conserved all the time. These instances are called CP violations.
For instance, James Cronin and Val Fitch won the 1980 Nobel Prize in physics by showing that the breakdown of a certain type of subatomic particle (a kaon) seems to violate CP. Anti-kaons seem to breakdown more readily than do kaons.
How does that happen? The breakdown of unstable particles is mediated by the WEAK NUCLEAR FORCE. It seems that the weak nuclear force may not conserve charge/parity. Why it shouldn't isn't clear. But repeatable observations say it doesn't. In may very well be that the weak nuclear force is the reason that we have a proponderance of matter over antimatter in the universe today.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
That was... fascinating. And incredibly well-written for people like me, who have, regrettably, never taken a physics class. Thank you. :-)
Read my Blogs!
This is Why I'm Hot
And My Other Blogs
You have just saved me the effort (and did a much better job that I would have) of having to write a detailed response to chillbill's latest round of "I fell asleep in physics class" arguments.
Thanks for the assist,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
And for that reason, I would NEVER try to argue physics! You have to understand your own argument, you know?
Thanks, DB, for always putting things in terms I can understand. You should teach.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
"chillbill is technically correct"
Thank you for admitting that up front. In a technical discussion, or subject, it is the ONLY thing that matters. If I were not already familiar with your blinding prejudice in spiritual matters it would make me wonder why you devoted this much time defending a misrepresentation of a technical subject at such great length. Since the false statement by Blackout was done to defend your side of that issue it is obvious why you have set out on this extensive rationalization.
---
"Blackout is using virtual particles as an example of something that is created by nothing."
Virtual particles (that have actually been observed) are not created from nothing. They require the presence of other particles.
---
"virtual particles appear spontaneously in EMPTY SPACE ... they came from NOWHERE (just as Blackout said)."
The word "spontaneously" Is incorrect. These particles appear predictably and in response to recreateable conditions. Math does not predict them to appear "spontaneously" and scientists have never observed it. Virtual particles exist and have long before we predicted them or observed them. They came from the same place everything else in the universe came from, but that is the subject of the other blog.
---
"It so happens that Paul Dirac, an early theorist in quantum mechanics, liked to think of empty space being composed of a sea of undetectable virtual particles. So the term "Dirac sea" (referring to empty space being composed of teeming mass of undetectable virtual particles) became popular within the field of quantum mechanics. But that does not mean that Blackout was incorrect to refer to virtual particles as coming from nowhere."
Dirac knew a little more than any of us here, and his pioneering math predicting antimatter was the basis for the work that resulted in experiments to observe these particles. I commend you for mentioning his attempt to describe the source of these particles in layman’s terms. I did get a long hard laugh at the last sentence.
Which is right? Blackout or Dirac? The rationalization of "So which of those two is the real case? They both are." Is WRONG. Every unknown fact has one right answer and as many wrong ones as you like. Saying that a layman and the genius that INVENTED the math in question are both right when their descriptions are as different as night and day requires an amazing amount of self deception.
---
DB: "There is absolutely no way to tell the difference between two particles suddenly being created from nowhere, and two particles suddenly popping out of an undetectable (even in theory) space. If the two scenarios are indistinguishable then they are by definition equivalent."
CB: ""from nowhere," is not present in either article, and at most is a statement of your ignorance of where and how these particles come to be rather than an accurate description of their source."
I must be missing the argument here it seems like you are paraphrasing my objection then concluding that both are equally right when you don't know which is, or if it is a third possibility. If we follow your logic here I have a hard time comprehending why you object to theistic faiths so strenuously. Are not all indeterminate theories for unknown origins "by definition equivalent"? Making your beloved Atheism equal to any of the myriad religions of mankind?
---
"Technically nobody has claimed that virtual particles EXIST from nowhere."
Perhaps you did not read the statement that drew my objection:
"Virtual particles literally appear "from nowhere,"." -Blackout
---
"The breakdown of unstable particles is mediated by the WEAK NUCLEAR FORCE. It seems that the weak nuclear force may not conserve charge/parity. Why it shouldn't isn't clear."
Poorly understood?...Nah!
The forces I was referring to so briefly as to invite your speculation include, but are not limited to: Weak and Strong nuclear forces, Gravity, Magnetism and Time. We currently know more than we ever have about all of these, but more researchers are also studying them presently than ever before. Why? Is it because we know so much, or because we understand better than ever how little we know? I said 'poorly' because I think it is the latter.
Thanks for delving into this DB. A very readable, albeit dated, popularization on this subject by Robert Heinlein is "Paul Dirac Antimatter and you" Which can be found in his collection Expanded Universe at most Public Libraries
One interesting thing implied in virtual particles is the nature of time. Our linear way of perceiving time is only a true way of observing it from within the present moment. If you look at time differently it places an entirely different spin on any origin of the universe speculation. Is time travel possible? Is each moment fleeting, or eternal?
http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/timetrav.htm
... perhaps it is time to QUIT digging.
Argumentation, done honestly and fairly, can lead to productive interpersonal communication. Honesty and fairness does not necessarily imply liking the person, nor does it prohibit passion in an argument. What it does require is a concerted effort to understand what your opponent is really saying, and respond to that.
Argumentation with chillbill almost never leads to productive interpersonal communication. Let's catalogue his examples of dishonesty and lack of fairness.
Unfairness Notice that in my write-up I quote all of chillbill and respond to everything. This forces me to consider all his points. It also allows readers to see his points in their proper context. chillbill never affords me the same courtesy.
DishonestyInstead chillbill quotes fragments out of context so he can respond to what he wants to without ever having to consider what was actually said.
Notice his quote of me:
He then suggests that I have conceeded him the important point of being technically correct in a technical argument.
Here is my quote in a more appropriate context:
Does it REALLY seem like I am granting him technical correctness with respect to the articles he alludes to? No ... he is technically correct with respect to grammar. The phrase that he complains about is not there. But this is not a blog whose technical importance concerns grammar. It is a blog whose technical importance concerns virtual particles. And in my blog I go to great lengths to show exactly where in that field he is technically wrong.
Unfairness Next chillbill uses an ad hominem attack. The reason I went to the trouble of writing up this blog is that I have a "blinding prejudice in spiritual matters".
Since chillbill likes "technicals". Technically, it doesn't matter why I wrote the blog. The blog presents an argument. That arguments stands or falls on its own merit. Notice that chillbill does not address most of the argument at all. He is in effect using the ad hominem to avoid having to do so.
One may accuse me of hypocrisy here. Aren't I making an ad hominem argument against chillbill? After all, I am accusing him of being dishonest and unfair. No, it is not the same thing. I am not avoiding ANY of his argument when I accuse him of that. In fact, in addition to responding to his argument, I am making a separate argument that he is dishonest and unfair. And I am scrupulously documenting the evidence that he is.
For completeness though, I'll address his remark:
(1). My philosophy on blogging is that unless you have something of value to say then there is no reason to blog. When I blog I picture myself writing to an intelligent person who doesn't necessarily know anything about the topic I am writing about. I try to explain things as I go. This blog does not go into excessive detail compared to the 63 other blogs I have done while at ProgU. I invite anyone reading to check that out. So contrary to chillbill's implication, the time spent on this blog is not out of proportion for the time that I spent on others.
(2) It is true that I am an atheist, and a vocal one at that. That is the reason I read the thread between harji and Blackout and saw chillbill's post. The reason I responded to it was because, (a) chillbill made some rather ridiculous statements, and (b) virtual particles are something that I have invested a reasonable amount of effort to understand.
I thought I had something to contribute to the discussion. It is as simple as that.
There is nothing unfair or dishonest in this statement. I guess that is a plus for chillbill. Unfortunately, it is wrong. Technically wrong & actually wrong.
Virtual particles, including ones that have been observed, are produced in empty space. The casimir effect is the most obvious example. The casimir effect was first postulated as a test for virtual particles. As technology advanced it became possible to actually do the experiment and it confirmed the presence of virtual particles. Here is a brief synopsis:
Two electrically neutral plates are placed in a vacuum (read EMPTY SPACE here). They are brought close together to each other. If the theory is correct then virtual particles will be produced in empty space. Some of those virtual particles will hit the plate before disintegrating and leaving the detectable universe. Since there is much more empty space on the outside of the plates than there are between the plates one would expect more virtual particles to strike the plates on the outside creating a force driving the plates together. That is just what is seen.
Again this is wrong as wrong can be. Spontaneously is EXACTLY how virtual particles appear. It is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle that allows for an UNCALCULATABLE uncertainty in energy to allow them to "pop" into existence. The math associated with quantum mechanics is STOCHASTIC. That means it allows one to predict a distribution of events while leaving each individual event as to location or species of virtual particle totally unpredictable.
Dishonesty chillbill tries to present this as a dilemma between a Nobel winner (Dirac) vs a lowly blogger (Blackout). This is a logical fallacy called the ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY. Dirac knows more than Blackout so Dirac is right.
(1) It is always possible for an authority to be wrong. But we do not even have to postulate that here.
chillbill is trying to imply that Dirac said that virtual particles do NOT come from nowhere. He didn't. He simply used the concept of a "Dirac sea" as an aid to visualize a phenomenon that by definition cannot be seen. But that is all that it is, an aid to visualization. One could simply say that a DIRAC SEA is simply a way for us to visualize NOWHERE. Even Dirac would not have objected to that.
So scientists are perfectly within their rights to say that things appear out of "nowhere" (as is done here, here", here, here, and many many other places).
chillbill is trying to imply that both he and I have said the same thing. I am not sure if this is simply ignorance (which is forgivable) or intentional misrepresentation (which is not). NO, we did not say the same thing. Saying that the particles appear from nowhere is NOT due to our ignorance, it is a direct consequence of the theory. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ensures it.
Equating the DIRAC SEA with NOWHERE is justifiable because there is no way possible to distinguish between the two. That point was made quite forcefully I thought in my original post. You would see the exact same thing if a particle suddenly appeared from nowhere or if it appeared from an unobservable (and by UNOBSERVABLE I do not mean "unobservable due to technological limitations" I mean "unobservable by any means conceivable") space. That unobservable space is exactly the same thing as NOWHERE.
According to the theory behind virtual particles, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, there IS no third alternative. NOWHERE/DIRAC SEA is a direct consequence of the theory. Things like Lamb's shift and the casimir effect are tests of the theory, and so far the theory has passed all the tests.
Unfairness chillbill brings up a bizarre and totally off-topic objection with:
References such as "your beloved Atheism" is ad hominem with respect to this argument, and a blatantly dishonest thing to do. The argument I am making does not rely on my "beloved Atheism" at all.
It is also a rather stupid argument to make. First of all, chillbill does not clearly define what he means by "indeterminate theories". One would suspect from the references to "theistic faith" and "myriad religions of mankind" he is talking about theism. But to my knowledge no one has ever claimed that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (a theory that really does postulates indeterminancy) is equivalent to theism. Hell, nobody even claims that Heisenberg indetermancy is equivalent to the Godel indermancy. One concerns indetermancy inherent at the quantum level and the other concerns indetermancy of axioms within any formal system of logic.
Notice that this is simply nothing more than a distraction. It is a technique that I have found chillbill to employ often. It is another form of dishonesty
Here is another example of dishonesty caused by selective quotation. Here is what I said in context:
Now, let's look at the quote that chillbill gives as his justification for his claim that Blackout was claiming that virtual particles EXIST "from nowhere"
Blackout said that the particles APPEAR from nowhere. Unless I miss my guess that means that they COME from nowhere. Just like I said.
Sigh, chillbill is sometimes a very poor writer. For any lurker who might have taken the time to read this gobbledygook, I'll explain his objection for him.
chillbill accused Blackout of not reading the links that Blackout had left for people to follow up. In one of the links there was this sentence:
Not long after chillbill accused Blackout of not reading the articles, chillbill says:
Clearly, chillbill either didn't read the article himself, didn't understand what it was saying, or felt secure enough in his own knowledge to dismiss it. I took him to task with this line:
chillbill is taking me to task for saying:
I suppose he is trying to make this formal argument:
(1) IF the theory underlying the weak nuclear force cannot explain why there should be instances of charge/parity (CP) violations;
(2) THEN the forces surrounding virtual particles must be poorly understood.
I can rightfully dismiss that argument by simply stating that nowhere in the definition of "well understood" is there a requirement for "complete understanding". I can also provide some rather strong quibbles such as CP violations potentially explain the preponderance of matter over antimatter and NOT virtual particle production.
Quibble 1 -- There are only four known fundamental forces of nature, gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. All of which chillbill mentions. Everything else that is considered a force is ultimately mediated by these forces. So when chillbill says that his "speculation" is not limited to these forces he is beyond the cutting edge of science and into the bleeding edge of crankdom.
He also lists time as a force. Time is not a force. Physicists model time as a dimension (like the 3 dimensions in normal space). Dimensions form the space-time arena in which the forces of nature work.
Furthermore, physicists know a LOT about the forces of nature. They have spent so much time studying them that all of them except gravity have been unified into a single theory calle quantum electrodynmics. There is a lot of work going on to unify gravity with the others, these putative theories are called GUTs (Grand Unified Theories). There are textbooks galore on them. Thousands of scientific papers have been put out dealing with these forces. The forces have become predictable enough that we can use mathematics to accurately propel a rocket from earth to the outer planets to within a few miles of our intended target. While it is not completely understood it is pretty well understood.
This is speculation on my part and I could be wrong. But I think this is another one of chillbills dishonest attempts at distraction. It seems to me he is trying to sound knowledgeable ... but note that he is not giving us any useful knowledge. He is giving us a book by a science FICTION writer who has been dead since 1988. I am always suspect of someone presenting themselves as an authority who does not give us synthesized information of his own.
This is meaningless gobbledygook, that much I know. I have found that oftentimes people who don't know what they are talking about try to say things that they think are profound. What comes out is bullshit. I suspect this is what chillbill is doing here.
Let's take his sentences one at a time.
Er ... virtual particles do not imply anthing about the nature of time.
Here is a list from Wikipedia on the putative effects mediated by virtual particles:
=The Coulomb force between electric charges. It is caused by exchange of virtual photons. In symmetric 3-dimensional space this exchange results in inverse square law for force.
=The so-called near field of radio antennas, where the magnetic effects of the current in the antenna wire and the charge effects of the wire's capacitive charge are detectable, but both of which effects disappear with increasing distance from the antenna much more quickly than do the influence of conventional electromagnetic waves, for which E is always equal to cB, and which are composed of real photons.
=The strong nuclear force between quarks - it is the result of interaction of virtual gluons. The residual of this force outside of quark triplets (neutron and proton) holds neutrons and protons together in nuclei, and is due to virtual mesons such as the pi meson and rho meson.
=The weak nuclear force - it is the result of exchange by virtual W bosons.
The spontaneous emission of a photon during the decay of an excited atom or excited nucleus; such a decay is prohibited by ordinary quantum mechanics and requires the quantization of the electromagnetic field for its explanation.
=The Casimir effect, where the ground state of the quantized electromagnetic field causes attraction between a pair of electrically neutral metal plates.
=The van der Waals force, which is partly due to the Casimir effect between two atoms,
=Vacuum polarization, which involves pair production or the decay of the vacuum, which is the spontaneous production of particle-antiparticle pairs (such as electron-positron).
=Lamb shift of positions of atomic levels.
=Hawking radiation, where the gravitational field is so strong that it causes the spontaneous production of photon pairs (with black body energy distribution) and even of particle pairs.
Nowhere is there any allusion to time.
And what other option do we have other than observing at the present moment?
And what do virtual particles do that allow observing time from a future moment or a past moment?
In case you're wondering the answers are NONE and NOTHING respectively.
How do you "look at time differently"?
What spin does it place on origin of the universe speculation?
What does virtual particles have to do with that?
If it is possible, how come we aren't overrun by tourists from the future? Where are the time travelers? What has virtual particles got to do with it?
So far, for everybody that has ever lived the evidence says "fleeting". But what does virtual particles have to do with it?
Notice that chillbill gives us no REAL information here. I suspect it is because he doesn't have any to give. He does give us a link to website by science writer, John Gribben though. It is reasonably interesting. However, the only mention of virtual particles in it concerns a discussion of the casimir effect, which I have already done. It does not suggest that virtual particles have anything to do with the perception of time.
This is all another example of chillbill's construction of elaborate distractions another dishonest technique.
The final dishonest technique chillbill uses is ignoring substantial portions of the argument. I'm pretty tired at the moment so I'll just use one example:
chillbill had claimed that virtual particles was irrelevant to the discussion between harji and Blackout. That discussion concerned the origin of the universe. I presented a quote from the very Wikipedia article that chillbill accused Blackout of having NOT read which affirms that Blackout was using the example appropriately:
I further went into an elaboration of the idea behind that paragraph. I explained how it was plausible that virtual particles could produce the matter inherent in the universe, and exactly what a CP violation was. That was a major part of the post. chillbill's only mention of that segment was where he tried to claim that I was in essence admitting that the forces surrounding virtual particles were poorly understood. It had nothing to do with the crux of the argument that virtual particles were extremely relevant to their discussion.
I think I have clearly demonstrated that chillbill uses dishonest and unfair argumentation. He cherry-picks quotes out of context. He misrepresents what one says. He engages in distraction. He ignores substantive parts of the argument. I suspect he will respond to this in kind. He uses ad hominem arguments in place of addressing issues. He resorts to inappropriate use of the argument from authority. In short, he lacks integrity. I suspect he will get around to replying to this post eventually. Unless he actually says something substantive I see no reason to reply back. I am perfectly happy to leave it as an exercise to any reader interested to spot the dishonest techniques.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Count the personal attacks in each of our posts DB. That will give you a quantitative idea of which of us is most prone to them.
---
"That unobservable space is exactly the same thing as NOWHERE."
At the risk of yet again picking only the most unsupportable portions of your vast essay to comment upon (and thus not playing fair) this is the heart of the disagreement on VP. I find that if I allow any unobsevervable space to be defined as "nowhere" that I have no need to object to Blackouts' misstatement. I find it impossible to honestly agree with this because of the implication that ignorance of their source is equivalent to one of many speculative possibilities being correct.
As a biologist perhaps 'nothing' and the unknown seem, to you, to be the same. The two are clearly distinct (null and zero) in the field of information theory. Blackout has claimed and to some degree demonstrated enough knowledge of that branch of mathematics that I cannot help but see his use of the two interchangeably, to serve his side of a discussion, as deception. You may be merely unaware of the difference.
Null is a lack of data. It represents the unknown source or value.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_(SQL)
Nothing is zero. It is an actual quantity of none.
---
VP do appear in what we call a 'vacuum' where there are no (or extremely rare) particles of matter, yet even that state is filled with fields of forces (gravity, magnetism, etc.) and particles such as Photons or (even when sealed from light of all spectrums) neutrinos pass through every vacuum ever created or observed by man.
A vacuum is not nothing.
---
I love search engines too. Your attempt to prove your point by finding a few obscure articles that discuss VP and also use the term nothing is amusing, but fails to prove your thesis with anyone that actually reads the articles you link to.
--
"According to the theory behind virtual particles, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, there IS no third alternative."
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea&topicID=13
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tachyons.html
Are you lying purposefully, or just a really dim bulb? In light of the claim you made in the original blog that "from nothing" and the Dirac sea are interchangeable descriptions I am tempted to assume the low wattage theory. MANY alternative theories are present, and "from nothing" is not even a credible one.
---
"References such as "your beloved Atheism" is ad hominem with respect to this argument, and a blatantly dishonest thing to do."
Feel free to refer to my beloved God freely, as you always have. That phrase is anything but an attack, unless your beliefs embarrass you, or you feel they ruin your credibility. Since you started this separate blog from comments on a blog concerning a whimsical theory of the origin of the universe and its creator this comment is dead on the topic at hand.
---
The rest of your 'quibbles' seem to me to be 'meaningless gobbledygook' concerning the OPINION of 'well', or 'poorly' when it comes to our present understanding of forces. I stand by my opinion, and would be happy to discuss the nuances of present conflicting theory, or the history of scientists that were unable to accept each modern theory as it replaced their older world view, but doing so with a closed minded person would be pointless.
---
sub atomic time travel expanded.
You are correct that time was mentioned in passing. Perhaps I assumed too much in accepting your claims that this area was one in which you held an interest. Here another link that may help you connect the dots:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/warps.html
From page3: "We thus have experimental evidence from the bending of light, that space-time is curved, and confirmation from the Casimir effect, that we can warp it in the negative direction. So it might seem possible, that as we advance in science and technology, we might be able to construct a wormhole, or warp space and time in some other way, so as to be able to travel into our past. If this were the case, it would raise a whole host of questions and problems."
Another quote from the same page where professor Hawking seems to dismiss the POSSIBILITY of NOTHING, at least in theory:
"The uncertainty principle also applies to fields, like the electro-magnetic field, or the gravitational field. It implies that these fields can't be exactly zeroed, even in what we think of as empty space. For if they were exactly zero, their values would have both a well-defined position at zero, and a well-defined speed, which was also zero. This would be a violation of the uncertainty principle. Instead, the fields would have to have a certain minimum amount of fluctuations. One can interpret these so called vacuum fluctuations, as pairs of particles and anti particles, that suddenly appear together, move apart, and then come back together again, and annihilate each other."
I really find it amusing when a liar calls me dishonest, then uses that to claim I am the one attempting to distract readers from the subject at hand.
Love the Truth
Let's see
Not here, this is an attempt at distraction. It has nothing to do with virtual particles and doesn't even pertain to the argument that I was making about chillbill being dishonest. If I am going to make that argument then of course there is going to be personal attacks. What is important is the evidence that is used in those attacks. ... and chillbill doesn't address that.
This is ignoring the argument. chillbill repeatedly claims that nowhere represents our ignorance of where they arise from. But as I have said AND AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY ARGUED, this is patently untrue. WE ARE NOT IGNORANT OF THEIR SOURCE. The source of virtual particles is the inherent uncertainty of the energy contained within empty space. We know that from Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
ad hominem and non-sequitur
non-sequitur We KNOW their source.
distraction chillbill wants to change the argument to what constitute a 'Null"
more distraction
Nothing of consequence so far
distraction It is true but not particularly relevant to our discussion.
distraction Not relevant to our discussion..
ad hominem and wrong. The term was "nowhere" not "nothing"
dishonesty by quoting out of context. The "third alternative" referred to virtual particles being created from "nowhere" or "a Dirac sea". My contention was (and still is) that the source of the virtual particles is the uncertainty in the energy within empty space as mandated by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. "Nowhere" and "a Dirac sea" are equally compatible ways of visualizing the same process. Re-reading it, I did make a mistake. I should have said "no OTHER alternative" since "nowhere" and "a Dirac sea" are essentially the same thing.
Notice also that chillbill gives links but doesn't give one word of explanation about what they say. He implies that they contradict my explanation of the source of virtual particles. In fact, they do not. In fact, none of them specifically mention a source for virtual particles. Interestingly, the first link is the exact same link Blackout used that chillbill accused him of not reading or not understanding. It is the same link that I have taken him to task on not reading or not understanding. One would think that he would actually try to take the time to read it and understand it. I suspect though that he did a Google search, thought it was complicated enough that if he linked to it, someone might believe his assertion.
mild misrepresentation. I have said that virtual particles come FROM NOWHERE, not FROM NOTHING. Technically, the only one who has used the phrase "FROM NOTHING" with respect to the origin of virtual particles has been chillbill. Blackout and I have said that virtual particles were created BY NOTHING, and by that we both mean that there is no causal agent for them.
But wait a second, isn't there a contradiction in my writings? Don't I claim that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP) causes virtual particles? Strictly speaking (or to please chillbill, "Technically speaking") HUP doesn't CAUSE anything. It ALLOWS them to happen. Occasionally, and totally at random, the uncertainty in the energy inherent in empty space allows for virtual particle pairs to be produced. That is what I mean, and I have been consistent in that meaning.
Before I leave this section, I would like to point out a difference between chillbill and me. I have in essence called chillbill all sorts of bad things. He has done significantly less of that than I have. Yet it is my contention that I have been fair in doing so and he hasn't. How can that be?
Requoting chillbill:
Notice he accuses me of lying. I have also accused him of the same thing. But when I ACCUSE HIM, I present the evidence. I explain the evidence as I see it. What did he do? He put up some links and implied that they contradict me.
Notice he accuses me of being a "dim bulb". I have accused him of the same thing. Yet again when I do it I have presented the evidence and explained why it is that I think that is the case. ... not chillbill.
Notice he claims I am wrong and badly wrong. I have accused him of that. Again I have gone out of my way to show exactly where and why he is wrong. ... not chillbill. He sticks the knife in by implication. And when we check it out ... the implication isn't there.
I will let the reader decide who has come across more as a liar and dim bulb.
Blatant dishonesty and misrepresentation Perhaps it is due to chillbill's lack of understanding about what constitute an ad hominem argument. He seems to think that an ad hominem argument occurs whenever anything bad is said about a person. That is not the case.
The phrase ad hominem is latin and means "toward the person". An ad hominem argument occurs when there is an attempt to dismiss a person's argument by referring to the person and not the argument.
Suppose Doris Lessing (the 2007 Nobel-Prize winner in Literature) had made the same argument I have made. It would be ad hominem to say, "The argument is flawed because a Nobel Prize winner in Literature doesn't necessarily know anything about physics".
It is not ad hominem because being a Nobel Prize winner in Literature is a bad thing. It is a most noteworthy acheivement. Nor is it ad hominem for CORRECTLY claiming that a Nobel Prize winner in Literature doesn't necessarily know anything about physics. It is ad hominem because that is the justification that is given for ignoring the argument. It does NOT touch on the argument that was actually made.
What chillbill said was ad hominem not because atheism is bad. It is ad hominem because he tries to use it as justification for casting doubt on the argument I made. My argument has nothing to do with atheism. My argument has to do with particle physics.
That is why I WONT feel free to refer to chillbill's "beloved God" with respect to this conversation. That would be irrelevant to the conversation at hand.
As for my having "started this separate blog from comments on a blog concerning a whimsical theory of the origin of the universe and its creator" providing justification for "this comment [to be] dead on the topic at hand" ... again, that is wrong.
At the beginning of this blog, I stated:
Hint for chillbill ... that means this blog deals with virtual particles NOT specifcally with the subject of the previous blog that harji and Blackout were talking about.
But even more importantly, my argument stands or falls on the evidence, not on my atheism. It REALLY is as simple as that.
disingenuousness. If chillbill would be "perfectly happy to discuss the nuances of present conflicting theory" then one might expect him to have done so. I certainly have. I continue to do so when I come to a point in which I think there may be something of importance that is unclear. I try my best to straighten it out. I am not doing this for chillbill's sake ... I think that would be useless for the reasons I have presented above. I do it for others and for myself. So doesn't chillbill? So far the evidence has shown that chillbill doesn't know what he is talking about.
ad hominem and distraction. This requires some explanation but I think it will be useful in further demonstrating that chillbill doesn't know what he is talking about.
Since chillbill does not quote in context ... in fact he didn't quote at all, did he? ... I will fill in the missing context. chillbill, in what I think was a phony attempt to sound knowledgeable said:
This is simply ridiculous. Virtual particles do not "imply" anything about the nature of time. I took chillbill to task for claiming they do. His response here is to link to a Stephen Hawking article that speculates on the possibilities of time travel and happens to mention the casimir effect. And I have stated on several occasions that the casimir effect is experimental evidence that virtual particles are real. So he infers that virtual particles must imply something about time.
Hawking is talking about the possibility of time travel through "wormholes". A wormhole is a theoretical entity that would allow one to instantaneously travel from one point in our space-time to a distantly separated point in our space-time. How could that happen?
Suppose that we lived in a two-spatial-dimension universe instead of a three-spatial-dimensional one. Think of that 2-D universe as a piece of paper thousands of miles long. Also think of that paper as folded back on itself and the two leafs of the paper very close to each other. A wormhole in such a universe would be a hole that would allow one to go from one point on the paper to a point just above it on the folded back half.
In other words, wormholes allows one to travel to apparently disconnected regions in our space-time by opening up a pathway through higher spatial dimensions. The important thing though is that space-time must be curved.
So where does the casimir effect come in? Let me explain what the casimir effect is with respect to virtual particles. Two electrically neutral plates are placed in a vacuum and brought within close contact (if I recall correctly, they are brought to about 15 nanometers of each other). The space between the two plates is very limited. The space outside the plates isn't. Virtual particles are more likely to be produced outside the plates than between them. So a virtual particle is more likely to collide on the outside of the plate than between the plates. This will cause the plates to be pushed together. The casimir effect is the repeatable demonstration of this attractive force.
So what does that have to do with Hawking's argument on time travel? Since the average energy density of a vacuum is zero, the energy density on the outside of the plates must be zero. If that is the case then the only way the two plates can be pushed together is if the energy density BETWEEN the plates is LESS than zero, or negative. And the only way that is going to happen is in curved space. So not only does the casimir effect confirm that virtual particles are real, Hawking is claiming that it confirms that space is curved.
So it is NOT virtual particles that have consequences for time travel. It is CURVED SPACE that has that consequence. This is not what chillbill implies at all.
Notice again how chillbill gave a link and implied that it shows what he wants us to believe that it shows. Notice also that chillbill gives us no original interpretation of his own on how it actually does do that. The reason is that he apparently doesn't know what he is talking about.
Again, we (Blackout and I) have said that virtual particles come form NOWHERE. We have said that NOTHING created them, and by that we have said that there is no causal agent. I have said numerous times now, just as Hawking says above, that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is what allows it to happen. Yet, chillbill believes that this somehow supports what he has said. ... go figure.
Let's look at this sentence from Hawking:
"suddenly appear"?? Where were they before they suddenly appeared?
"annihilate each other"?? Where did they go when they annihilated each other?
These two questions form the crux of the original argument. One answer is "NOWHERE". Another potential answer is that they came from an "UNDETECTABLE (even in principle) REGION OF SPACE". But how can one possibly distinguish between the two? There is no way. NOWHERE and an UNDETECTABLE REGION OF SPACE have exactly the same qualities. If something has all the qualities of a duck then we are right to call it a duck. If an UNDETECTABLE REGION OF SPACE has all the qualities of NOWHERE we are right to use either term.
The difference between chillbill and my accusations against each other is that I back mine up with evidence. He backs his up with bluster. Again that is why I think that productive argumentation with chillbill is not possible. But I think it has been instructive to analyze his dishonest techniques.
BOOM, that just blew the shit out of another irony meter.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
In the interest of loving those who choose enmity as their posture I'll ignore the insults. Unfair as you may find that.
---
"The source of virtual particles is the inherent uncertainty of the energy contained within empty space. We know that from Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle."
No argument with that, but it also occurs in space we perceive as filled. This 'empty space' exists everywhere. Most of even the densest matter on earth is empty space. Consider a few of the descriptions for this 'empty space':
Aether
Sea of matched particles
Fabric of space
Curved space time
Geometry of space
Spacetime
---
"We KNOW their source.
And you are saying the source is 'nowhere'?
---
"Re-reading it, I did make a mistake. I should have said "no OTHER alternative" since "nowhere" and "a Dirac sea" are essentially the same thing."
Go back to the comment made by Blackout on the other blog and substitute the two. If he had used ANY of the more descriptive terms in place of the misrepresentative 'nowhere' I would have had no reason to object, but then he would have also had no point to make if he had stated it correctly.
---
"I have said that virtual particles come FROM NOWHERE, not FROM NOTHING."
Can you expand on that? It seems like nonsense, but maybe if you could prove there is a nowhere...somewhere...no. I guess that would ruin it.
---
"HUP doesn't CAUSE anything. It ALLOWS them to happen."
Predicts, not causes or allows. The other blog deals with the primary cause.
---
"I have in essence called chillbill all sorts of bad things."
That's OK I forgive you. The concept of 'fair' would make a good blog. How can it not be entirely subjective? In objective terms fair and possible seem equal to me.
---
"My argument has nothing to do with atheism. My argument has to do with particle physics."
Au Contraire. The concept of 'from nowhere' is only relevant to particle physics if one is trying to prove (or provide evidence of) one of atheisms' dubious theories of universal origin. The 'bootstraps' theory that the universe 'just happened' is not proven in any way by the truth about the source of VP. HUP also has no support for 'from nothing' as an accurate descriptor of this mechanism. Yet YOU insist on its' validity. Why? Considering how this discussion started I stand by the accusation I have made concerning your motivation for defending this misrepresentation.
---
"So it is NOT virtual particles that have consequences for time travel. It is CURVED SPACE that has that consequence. This is not what chillbill implies at all."
"Notice also that chillbill gives us no original interpretation of his own on how it actually does do that. The reason is that he apparently doesn't know what he is talking about."
Stick it in your wormhole LOL If you got the impression that I personally came up with ANY of this theory You are mistaken. I have ONLY objected to your 'original interpretation' where it conflicts with those more qualified to theorize such as Paul Dirac or Stephan Hawking. If I had added anything to their theories, as you have, I might feel the need to explain rather than quote.
---
"suddenly appear"?? Where were they before they suddenly appeared?
"annihilate each other"?? Where did they go when they annihilated each other?
These two questions form the crux of the original argument. One answer is "NOWHERE". "
That is the wrong answer. They come from everywhere. I suppose there is no difference between the two to you. Quack all you want, but nothing you have provided thus far is even close to demonstrating that nowhere exists at all. One of the definitions of nowhere is an unknown place….Which is the only definition that fits here, and the only point being contended, absent a few insults.
chillbill uses the same techniques I described above ... distraction, misrepresentation, etc. I think anyone interested enough to read this exchange up to this point can see that readily.
Unless someone wants me to repond to chillbill's dishonest blather, I will assume my case has been made and go on to more productive discussions.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
...which is (as usual) an example of either frank disingenuity, or simple ignorance (seeing as it is sometimes very difficult to tell which is truly the case with you).
First of all, I used neither the term "zero" nor "null" in my original comment, which for the sake of clarity read thus...
Now, if you were paying close attention, you might noticed that I enclosed the term "from nowhere" in quotes, indicating my unusual useage of the phrase. In my attempt to respond to the grossly unscientific challenges of the parent discussion, I was attempting to phrase my comment in terms that would be understandable to my opponent, who obviously lacked the necessary education in the relevant fields of study to comprehend a more more technical answer.
Regardless, your assertion that "zero" and "null" are not equivalent terms in the context of this discussion is (not surprisingly) completely incorrect. If you had read your own source more closely, you might have realized that you were quoting from material that was specific to the way that some computer languages (in this case, SQL) treat "null" (a null pointer value) and "zero" (an integer) as unequal values (and the way that SQL handles this is actually one of the main industry criticisms against that product). The difference that SQL enforces in its syntax does not, however, reflect the common English defintions of these terms...
So, even if I had used the terms that you claim I "misstated" in the way that you (inaccurately) suggest, your criticism would still lack validity, as the common English definitions of these terms as referenced above clearly indicate.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Perhaps you missed the phrase 'in the field of information theory.' in reference to null and zero. The link I provided was specific to relational theory in order to make it easier for you to follow, unsuccessfully I see. E.F. Codd did in fact have to repeatedly stress the importance of the distinction between zero and null since programmers creating the first relational database applications were fond of reducing the complexity of their task by equating the two. Null pointers do not exist in SQL they are found in languages such as those based on C.
---
"Now, if you were paying close attention, you might noticed that I enclosed the term "from nowhere" in quotes, indicating my unusual usage of the phrase. In my attempt to respond to the grossly unscientific challenges of the parent discussion, I was attempting to phrase my comment in terms that would be understandable to my opponent, who obviously lacked the necessary education in the relevant fields of study to comprehend a more more technical answer."
Of the list of examples provided by your link to unusual usage I am left wondering if this is the form yours took:
"…that a quoted phrase pre-supposes things that the author does not necessarily agree with."
If so then we have no disagreement.
Nowhere is an odd way to paraphrase the source of VP which in fact come from everywhere. It seemed that your assertion was that science had found particles that came from nowhere. This being offered as a 'proof' or even evidence of the validity of Atheism was the hogwash to which I referred.
I noticed it, but thought it "odd" that you would refer to a source on computer languages while trying to define "null" and "zero" in terms that would apply to a question of particle physics. Your comments were (and remain) completely inaccurate in the context of the actual scientific disciplines involved in this discussion. It seemed to me that you didn't understand the material you were quoting (again).
The idea of Virtual Particles is an "odd" concept. And, as whenever one attempts to discuss an extremely complex technical subject in "layman's terms," one invariably has to rely on less that completely accurate (from a technical perspective) metaphors and explanations (which is kind of the whole point behind using "layman's terms" to begin with, n'est pas?).
Nonetheless...prior to their manifestation, Virtual Particles do not exist anywhere (or everywhere) in space-time, then they do for a brief moment, and then they are gone again. In non-technical terms, that sounds like they come "from nowhere" to me. Of course, in technical terms the same thing is true, it's just more difficult to grasp (and thanks to D.B. for helping us all out with that).
Perhaps you should go back and read the original exchange. My opponent in that discussion was attempting to revisit the tired fallacy that nothing can exist unless it is "created" by another entity (except his "god" of course, which he asserted always existed without ever being created). I pointed to the existence of Virtual Particles as a concreted, provable example that his argument was not based on a sound understanding of the facts.
As for offering "proof" of atheism, why would I do that. Atheism is a lack of belief in supernatural forces and beings. The burden of proof lies with Theism, which asserts that supernatural forces and beings exist. Atheism is a default position. It requires no proof.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
"I noticed it, but thought it "odd" that you would refer to a source on computer languages while trying to define "null" and "zero" in terms that would apply to a question of particle physics.”
Information theory is a term that describes a much broader field of mathematics than simply 'computer languages'. The example I used is specific to Relational Algebra which is the theoretical basis for Relational model used in most computer databases today. The branch of math (Relational Algebra) that this is based on predates computers by about 100 years. All information can be modeled in this way; computers are just the most effective tool we have to deal with information. The principles apply just as well to paper and pencil or any other tool.
The point you are side stepping in defense of your (purposefully?) sloppy expression is the difference between 'nowhere' (Nonexistence or zero) and undetected (unknown or null). Yet the source of these particles IS detectable.
Evidence is available to indicate that the particles exist, but their existence is also evidence of 'space-time'. Thus you are quoting the evidence that it exists, and then denying its existence in the same sentence. Another evidence of the fabric of space is gravity. Even in a vacuum there is a mathematically describable testable presence. Virtual Particles are just one way in which the theoretical 'fabric of space' is predictable and demonstratable. Is it wrong to refer to something that exists everywhere as 'nowhere simply because your eyes do not see it.
To call it 'nowhere' when to our best knowledge it is everywhere is a lie. I am vastly amused by the way DB and yourself cling to that lie It reminds me of a ‘creation science researcher' ignoring all argument and fact.
---
"My opponent in that discussion was attempting to revisit the tired fallacy that nothing can exist unless it is "created" by another entity (except his "god" of course, which he asserted always existed without ever being created)."
LOL I might have handed hogwash or two to him as well, but you were doing a fine job of insulting his religion. Attacking the religious beliefs of others because you think yours are superior is egalitarian bigotry. The white people of the 15th-19th century running roughshod across the globe exploiting every other race while feeling superior to them exhibited roughly the same behavior, and had reasons very similar to yours for thinking that they were the 'right' culture and race. Science gave them the superior force of arms which allowed them to do it, as you seem to think a superior education grants you the right since it gives you the tools you use. Since both of you were sharing that behavior I was content to read without comment until you chose to misrepresent science to support your position.
---
"As for offering "proof" of atheism, why would I do that. Atheism is a lack of belief in supernatural forces and beings. The burden of proof lies with Theism, which asserts that supernatural forces and beings exist. Atheism is a default position."
Why indeed. I am familiar with the argument you use to justify your evangelical Atheism. Everyone that thinks that their religion is the only 'right' one shares your feelings. If yours was the neutral 'default position you would not have to promote it so vigorously. Agnosticism is the position you are confusing with your own. We have several agnostics here at proU, but none of them feel compelled to promote their beliefs, for the reason you note.
I am on the side of anyone that seeks truth; I hope that anyone that thinks they own it will someday grow up.
Your contention in this case is simply not valid in the context of this discussion. Your refusal to see this is either a lack of education, or an unwillingness to accept when you have been proved wrong. Neither speaks very well for your argument.
Furthermore, your arguments concering virtual particles are similarly uniformed. You obviously do not understand the material, and your arguments regarding the subject are a frank misrepresentation of the subject matter. Again, whether this is simple due to a lack of education or simply another example of your disingenuity is unclear. There is nothing in the theory behind virtual particles that would indicate that they come from "everywhere." These particles do not exist anywhere in space-time. They appear without any predication from any point in space-time, and vanish just as completely after their very short existence.
Also, you either don't know the actual defintion of agnosticism, or you haven't been paying attention in our many discussions if you think that I am an agnostic. An agnostic by definition believes that it is inherently impossible to determine the truth-value of certain claims regarding the supernatural (such as the existence of "god" or an "afterlife"). I do not believe this to be the case. If such things exist, then the truth can be discovered, if by no other method then by "god" showing him/her'itself to us directly. If such things do not exist, then the search for them would provide us with exactly what we have now, which is absolutely no actual, objective evidence of their existence. I only hold back from the absolute statement that "there is no 'god'," because there is still a great deal of the universe that we haven't (yet) actually explored. But that exploration IS possible, and thus the answer IS out there.
Finally, your attribution of the title "evangelical" to my atheism is likewise innaccurate. You might not like the fact that logic dictates the burden of proof to YOU when it comes to the question of whether or not the "god" YOU claim exists is real, but that fact remains nonetheless. I could care less if you ever grow a brain and begin to think like a rational person. However, in the hopes that you might one day do so, I find satisfaction in helping you by pointing out the (often glaring) logical flaws which have lead you astray into your irrational beliefs.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
"The definitional shell game of chillbill..."
Key definition: Nowhere.
---
"Your contention in this case is simply not valid in the context of this discussion. Your refusal to see this is either a lack of education, or an unwillingness to accept when you have been proved wrong. Neither speaks very well for your argument.
"Furthermore, your arguments concering virtual particles are similarly uniformed. You obviously do not understand the material, and your arguments regarding the subject are a frank misrepresentation of the subject matter. Again, whether this is simple due to a lack of education or simply another example of your disingenuity is unclear. "
This comment is meaningless without specifics, but very Beagle like.
---
"There is nothing in the theory behind virtual particles that would indicate that they come from 'everywhere' These particles do not exist anywhere in space-time. They appear without any predication from any point in space-time, and vanish just as completely after their very short existence."
You are the one that is hard to understand, not the theory. To be a bit more clear explain this apparent contradiction:
""There is nothing in the theory behind virtual particles that would indicate that they come from 'everywhere'"
"They appear without any predication from any point in space-time..."
Perhaps you could start by telling me about the places where 'space-time' does not exist. Otherwise I am afraid I think it exists everywhere.
---
"Also, you either don't know the actual defintion of agnosticism, or you haven't been paying attention in our many discussions if you think that I am an agnostic."
No BO you are not an agnostic, even in my opinion. Your 'default position' rant is applicable to that position, not your own Atheism. Atheism draws the very dubious position you describe below.
---
"An agnostic by definition believes that it is inherently impossible to determine the truth-value of certain claims regarding the supernatural (such as the existence of 'god' or an 'afterlife'). "
Actually the existence of God is the only claim that Agnosticism relates to. That was a very tricky attempt to include superstition in general though.
---
"I do not believe this to be the case. If such things exist, then the truth can be discovered, if by no other method then by 'god'; showing him/her/itself to us directly."
Millions claim they have seen God 'directly'.
---
"If such things do not exist, then the search for them would provide us with exactly what we have now, which is absolutely no actual, objective evidence of their existence."
Dubious conclusion, but your right to doubt the testimony of others is just as valid as their personal experience.
---
I only hold back from the absolute statement that "there is no 'god'," because there is still a great deal of the universe that we haven't (yet) actually explored. But that exploration IS possible, and thus the answer IS out there.
Good! I hope you look with an open mind.
---
"Finally, your attribution of the title "evangelical" to my atheism is likewise innaccurate. You might not like the fact that logic dictates the burden of proof to YOU when it comes to the question of whether or not the "god" YOU claim exists is real, but that fact remains nonetheless. I could care less if you ever grow a brain and begin to think like a rational person. However, in the hopes that you might one day do so, I find satisfaction in helping you by pointing out the (often glaring) logical flaws which have lead you astray into your irrational beliefs."
Did you do that here? I missed it. I commented on your entire post to be sure I gave it a third reading and still can't find reference to any ' logical flaws' just two definitional issues. Perhaps there is no hope that I'll ever learn to think like you. Luckily it is not the only way to think. While not meaning any insult to your above average intellect, you, like me, will never think perfectly. Within my faith perfect thought would belong only to God, by definition.
Both D.B. and I have given you specifics.
The question itself shows that you lack any basic grounding in particle physics. I would suggest that you start with Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time and The Universe in a Nutshell.
The question of "god" is certainly the central focus of the philosophy, but it is not limited to that singular question.
"Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable."
Unfortunately, none of those people can credibly support those claims with actual, objective evidence.
I am a skeptic. I doubt everything unless it can be supported by actual, objective evidence.
To quote one of my favorite authors...
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." ~ Mark Twain
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
First of all, beautiful explanation (and basically, translation into layman's terms) of everything. I do have a couple questions that I thought of while I was reading your entry.
The major premise of virtual particles revolves around the fact that they appear from unobservable space. Do you think it's possible virtual particles could be coming from another universe (evoking one of the multiverse theories here)? From your entry (again, I don't really have any knowledge on the matter as a whole), it seems like virtual particles are kin to the "real" particles that exist in our universe. You also stated that there is a theory that virtual particles created the particles in our own universe (at least, that's how I understood it to be what you said). Could that possibly be evidence for the theory that universes spawn others (though, in at least a slightly different manner than was originally speculated in that theory)?
And, a not so serious question (though I'd still like to hear your answer)...how does something "exist from nowhere"?
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
First let me begin by reiterating that I am not a physicist. I have made a concerted effort to understand at a qualitative level as much as I could about virtual particles, but I by no means understand everything about them. OK, with that caveat I will answer to the best of my understanding.
Virtual particles just "pop" into existence. The question is, "where do they come from?" The answer comes from quantum mechanics, and quantum mechanics deals with a world at very small scales. At that scale the universe acts in ways that are quite counter-intuitive to what our everyday experiences would lead us to suspect. Thus, an attempt to visualize it is sometimes difficult. In fact, some physicists think it is a mistake even to try. They say that if the equations used in quantum mechanics give us verifiable and predictable results then you should be happy ... nevermind the picture of the universe that it may imply.
An example of that is the wave-particle duality of nature. When you test a subatomic particle for wave-like characteristics ... you find it has them. When you test the same type of particle for particle-like characteristics ... you find it has them too. So physicists treat subatomic particles as though they were both waves and particles. But this violates a strict rule of logic ... the law of non-contradiction. Something cannot be and not-A at the same time. A wave is a wave and a particle is NOT a wave. So it cannot be so. Yet the math allows us to make verifiable predictions about the bahavior of some of these particles/waves, and the predictions ALWAYS turn out to be incredibly accurate.
Quantum mechanics says that virtual particles arise out of the inherent uncertainty associated with small space. This is a consequence of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. In other words, the particles pop into existence because at small scales there is an indeterminable amount of energy inherent in that space. The indeterminancy allows for particle/antiparticle pair production to happen on a random basis.
THAT IS WHERE the particles come from. They just pop into existence. But if we try to visualize it we have problems. Our macroworld experience has taught us that something has to come from some other space. That prejudice is ingrained in us, and it is so unquestionably true (about macrospace) that we have trouble imagining things coming from absolutely nowhere. So as an aide to visualization you can imagine them coming from a space that is impossible to detect from our universe. That is OK, because it is not really any different than nowhere. ... Where is this undetectable space? I can't find any place in the universe to show it to you. If it is no place in the universe then it is nowhere.
There is nothing in the mathematics of virtual particles to suggest that they come from a reservoir of particles in some type of parallel universe. So there is no reason to think that is the case. Does it absolutely rule out such a scenario? I doubt it. I could imagine a mechanism in which something like that might be possible. String theory postulates hidden dimensions that are wrapped up and inaccessible to us. Perhaps, at these very small scales one could get access to these hidden dimensions which could give access to hidden universes.
While things like that might be fun to speculate about, in science such speculation isn't particularly useful. Even if it were to be true, it explains no phenomenon in our universe at this point. Nor does it offer the potential to settle any pressing question of science (that I know of). So any speculation is way premature. In science if you start doing that you risk spending a great deal of effort in developing a theoretical framework that has no foundation in reality ... and that is a waste.
So the bottom line ... there is nothing that rules out such a scenario, but there is no reason to suspect it is true either.
Originally (and perhaps still if one is a stickler) virtual particles referred to particles that pop into existence AND then annihilate themselves and disappear before we have a chance to sense them. Theoretically, almost all virtual particles should be that way. However, theory also allows for an occasional pair of virtual particles to become separated from each other and survive long enough to interact with the real particles of universe. Strictly speaking these particles have just become real particles themselves.
Yes, part of the idea is that the rapid expansion of space would be more likely to separate the virtual particles allowing them to become real particles.
There is no shortage of scenarios in which multiple universes COULD have been created. Multiple universes solve the ANTHROPIC PROBLEM. The anthropic problem concerns why the universe is the way it is. There are certain parameters of the universe that do not arise as a consequence of any version of the Big Bang theory. For us to determine what they are we have to measure them. These parameters include things like the speed of light, the mass of protons and electrons, the comparative strengths of the known forces of nature, etc.
Since we have to measure them, there is no reason that we know of that they could not have been something else. If we try to model other potential universes in which these parameters are different, then we find that these models suggest that these other potential universe are unlikely to be able to foster life ... they collapse back on themselves or they evaporate away within seconds; they cannot form any elements more complex than hydrogen or helium; etc.
So the anthropic problem asks the question, "Are we just incredibly lucky or what?" If these parameters happen to be as they are by random chance then it is an incredible coincidence that it happen to produce a universe that was capable of sustaining life. This has caused some (and even some very well respected) cosmologists to see the hand of God intentionally setting up the parameters the way they are for the expressed purpose of allowing life to exist.
Multiverse scenarios resolve this problem by saying that for all we know there could be an infinite number of universes produced, and in that case, some of them were bound to have parameters that allowed for a universe like ours to exist ... and of course we could ONLY find ourselves in one of those universes that was capable of supporting life.
I am somewhat ambivalent about multiverse scenarios. On the plus side they offer at least as good an explanation for the origin of the universe as does the God hypothesis (in fact, I think better). On the minus side, there is nothing we can possibly do to confirm that they exist.
Again that is only a problem for our visualization. But for fun, I will engage in a bit of sophistry myself. If we consider the Dirac sea to be a way for us to visualize "nowhere" then virtual particles could exist there waiting for the proper moment to pop into the detectable universe. In that way I suppose you could imagine them "exist[ing] from nowhere".
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Yes, virtual particles are weird, but real particles are just as weird. Real particles seem to disappear and are replaced by probability waves when they are not being measured or observed. These probability waves, created just because no one is looking, immediately extend throughout the universe.
When someone again looks, the infinite waves collapse back into a tiny particle.
This interpretation of quantum mechanics came about, in the early 20th century, when a bunch of waves collapsed in Copenhagen.
That's so bizarre, it actually makes sense....
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge