Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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:   Can somebody help me get my feet wet?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 31 of 36 (130663)
08-05-2004 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by NOTHINGNESS
08-04-2004 10:11 PM


Re: Virtual particles
Hi Nothing,
I'm still confused about what you're trying to say. If you're saying that spontaneous events may have causes of which we're presently unaware, then of course that's true. Until we know everything there is to know, that will always be the case.
Nothingness writes:
In other words, the very fact that the same old particles keep arising, complete with the sae old recognizable properties, proves that these particles cannot be uncaused.
This sounds just like the Creationist argument that everything that happens must have a cause. Creationists go on to argue that therefore something must have caused the universe to exist, and that that something must be God. I don't know if this is where you're heading, but the argument that everything that happens must have a cause seems a philosophical point with no possibility of satisfactory resolution.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-04-2004 10:11 PM NOTHINGNESS has not replied

NOTHINGNESS
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 36 (130664)
08-05-2004 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Wounded King
08-05-2004 10:35 AM


Re: Virtual particles
Now my addition to what I already wrote about it is the following.
The way you might understand- quantum mechanics particles appear and disappear in space all the time without a cause. There isn't some set exact time for individual atoms to decay, or a cause that sets it off.
Maybe it only seems that way due to our perspective of a life full of causes and effects. We don't know for sure how or why these atoms pop into existence though, at least I don't think we have an ansewr so far. So, you can't really say yet with "assurance that there is no cause for it.
The way I see it, they do not simply evaorate into nothingness but rather their energy is released in the form of photons, yet their energy is still conserved.
continuation.........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Wounded King, posted 08-05-2004 10:35 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Wounded King, posted 08-05-2004 1:22 PM NOTHINGNESS has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 33 of 36 (130700)
08-05-2004 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by NOTHINGNESS
08-05-2004 11:59 AM


Re: Virtual particles
Dear Nothingness,
I didn't ask you to add to what you already wrote, I asked you to answer whether or not, in your opinion, the Casimir effect shows that virtual particles are not merely theoretical constructs, or indeed to give any indication that you even know what the Casimir effect is. If you don't think the Cassimir effect shows this then why not?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-05-2004 11:59 AM NOTHINGNESS has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 36 (130710)
08-05-2004 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by NOTHINGNESS
08-04-2004 10:11 PM


Re: Virtual particles
quote:
Quantum theory is able to make meaningful predictions about these very same particles, albeint statistical predictions concerning large numbers of them.
And that is kind of the point. Let's use the lottery (keep it simple, 5 numbers between 1 and 50) as an analogy. We can model the probabilities of an outcome, but are incapable of predicting a certain outcome ahead of time. That is, we know the odds of getting the following combo:
4,6,18,20,45
However, we don't know what caused that precise combination. That is, that combination doesn't have a cause other than being a randomly assorted combo. This is the same thing with the Casimir effect. Once in a while, a certain number will come up as an inherent property of nature.
Also, you seem to claim that the Big Bang came from nothingness and no cause, yet the Casimir effect is causal and from something. My argument is that they are one in the same, only differentiated by scale not by mechanism. Would you then say that the Big Bang is caused by something and came from something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-04-2004 10:11 PM NOTHINGNESS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-05-2004 4:49 PM Loudmouth has not replied

NOTHINGNESS
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 36 (130759)
08-05-2004 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Loudmouth
08-05-2004 1:49 PM


Re: Virtual particles
Let me see if I can get this straight once and for all.:.
This is what I believe.
1)The Big Bang occured and it created time, and space.
2)The Big Bang did need a cause in order to get started.
3)Not everything needs a cause, only things that "exist" need a cause.
4)Since the Big Bang created time and space, then "time" also needs a cause. It goes back to the Bang, but two entities were created at once-time and space.
5)The universe has a beginning-The Bang Initiated It- The expansion of the universe declares a singular point( Big Bang).
Why I believe the universe started at some point?
Since an infinite past would involve an actual infinite number of events, then the past can't be infinite.
Imagine I had an infinite number of rocks in my posession, and that I wanted to give you some. In fact, I gave you an infinite number of rocks. One way I could do that would be to give you the entire pile of rocks.
One way I could do that would be to give you the entire pile of rocks. In that case I would have zero rocks left for myself. Another way to do it would be to give you all the odd numbered rocks. Then I would still have an infinity left over for myself, and you would have infinite too.
You would have just as many as I would-and in fact, each of us would have just as many as I would-and, in fact, and, in fact, each of us would have just as many as I originally had before we divided into odd and even (emphasise on the basis of infinite) or I can give you all the rocks numbered four and higher.
That way you would have an infinite of rocks, but I only have three. These illustrations demonstrate that the return of an actual infinite number of things leans to contradictory results.
Example:
1) I give all rocks = infinity minus infinity = 0
2) I give all odd number rocks = infinity minus infinity = infinity.
3) I gave all four and greater = infinity minus infinity = three
The Idea of an actual infinite is just conceptual mathmaticians can deal with infinity quantities and infinite numbers in the conceptual realm.
However- and heres the point, its not descriptive of what can happen in the real world. You can't have an infinite numbers of events in the past.
Substitute past events for rocks and you can see the absurdities that would result. So the universe can't have an infinite number of events in the past, it must have had a beginning.
This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-06-2004 08:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Loudmouth, posted 08-05-2004 1:49 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 36 of 36 (133788)
08-14-2004 2:52 AM


Closed because of topic drift
This topic started off as being about the "fact" of evolution. It is currently something very much different.
Closing down.
Adminnemooseus

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024