Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8748 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-23-2017 4:53 AM
403 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK, vimesey (3 members, 400 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: kmastes01
Post Volume:
Total: 808,845 Year: 13,451/21,208 Month: 2,933/3,605 Week: 275/933 Day: 17/154 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
4567
8
9Next
Author Topic:   How is the Universe here?
Agobot
Member (Idle past 2938 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 106 of 131 (491203)
12-12-2008 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Percy
12-12-2008 1:30 PM


Re: Back again, and let's first dispense with this nonsense...
Percy writes:

It says you need to read more carefully. Or, if you actually realize it didn't say anything to the effect that "matter is 99.9999% empty space and the other 0.0001% is... virtual," then it says you have to stop making stuff up.

But it did say that almost the entire mass of those 0.0001% comes from virtual particles that pop into "existence" for a very brief period of time from the vacuum of space. You seem to have a classical picture of the quantum world which is wrong. Mass in this context is energy and energy in this same context is what forms your idea of physical objects through mediating particles(photons). When almost everything about this mass/energy comes from virtual particles, the article concludes in:

The Higgs field is also thought to make a small contribution, giving mass to individual quarks as well as to electrons and some other particles. The Higgs field creates mass out of the quantum vacuum too, in the form of virtual Higgs bosons. So if the LHC confirms that the Higgs exists, it will mean all reality is virtual.

If you think hard enough about E=m.c^2, you'll see what they meant with the above quote.

Percy writes:

As Cavediver said, it says nothing new. It is a more accurate validation of already accepted theory. That's not to say it isn't a stunning analytical accomplishment, because it most certain is.

--Percy

I'll leave it up to cavediver to say if the whole scientific community was aware that 99% of the mass of the nucleus came from virtual particles, or that it was his conviction/conclusion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Percy, posted 12-12-2008 1:30 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 12-12-2008 2:40 PM Agobot has responded
 Message 110 by cavediver, posted 12-12-2008 3:13 PM Agobot has not yet responded
 Message 130 by kofh2u, posted 11-09-2012 9:02 AM Agobot has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15612
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 107 of 131 (491208)
12-12-2008 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Agobot
12-12-2008 2:14 PM


Re: Back again, and let's first dispense with this nonsense...
Agobot writes:

ut it did say that almost the entire mass of those 0.0001% comes from virtual particles that pop into "existence" for a very brief period of time from the vacuum of space.

Are we talking about the same article? It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations?

If so, please quote the sentence or two where you think it says this.

You seem to have a classical picture of the quantum world which is wrong.

I haven't said anything about any picture of the quantum world, so you couldn't possibly know what picture I have.

All I said was that you claimed the article says something which it does not. I did not agree or disagree with you because I couldn't figure out what your point was because YOUR CLAIM ABOUT WHAT THE ARTICLE SAID WAS FALSE.

Pardon the shouting, but we're going around and around on what is a very basic point. Please just reread the article and you'll see that it did not say what you claimed it said.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Agobot, posted 12-12-2008 2:14 PM Agobot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Agobot, posted 12-12-2008 2:51 PM Percy has responded

    
Agobot
Member (Idle past 2938 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 108 of 131 (491211)
12-12-2008 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Percy
12-12-2008 2:40 PM


Re: Back again, and let's first dispense with this nonsense...
Well when i posted this article, i was commenting it by figures from my memory(the way i interpreted it at the time of reading), so slight inconcistencies are possible. Here's what i found:

"Each proton is made of three quarks, but the individual masses of these quarks only add up to about 1% of the proton's mass."

"For now, Dürr's calculation shows that QCD describes quark-based particles accurately, and tells us that most of our mass comes from virtual quarks and gluons fizzing away in the quantum vacuum."

BTW, just to make sure we are talking of the same thing, that 0.0001% of the size of the atom is what constitutes the nucleus and that is generally not considered by physicists "empty space".

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 12-12-2008 2:40 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Percy, posted 12-12-2008 3:17 PM Agobot has responded

    
Agobot
Member (Idle past 2938 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 109 of 131 (491214)
12-12-2008 2:59 PM


The really good question is - if most of the mass comes from virtual particles, can we use e=m.c^2 to extract incredible amounts of power from the vacuum.

I read a book by Michio Kaku where he said the energy of the vacuum in a coffee cup is more than the energy of 1000 nuclear bombs(have to double check the number of bombs).


    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1052 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 110 of 131 (491217)
12-12-2008 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Agobot
12-12-2008 2:14 PM


Re: Back again, and let's first dispense with this nonsense...
I'll leave it up to cavediver to say if the whole scientific community was aware that 99% of the mass of the nucleus came from virtual particles, or that it was his conviction/conclusion.

The whole scientific community? No. But professional particle and theoretical physicists? Yes, of course, and have done since we first forumulated QCD back in the early 1960s! (not that I was around then)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Agobot, posted 12-12-2008 2:14 PM Agobot has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15612
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 111 of 131 (491218)
12-12-2008 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Agobot
12-12-2008 2:51 PM


Re: Back again, and let's first dispense with this nonsense...
You still don't seem to realize that when you said this:

Agobot in Message 100 writes:

ust wanted to add something cavediver didn't mention - matter is 99.9999% empty space and the other 0.0001% is... virtual.

That this is not anywhere close to what the article said. The article definitely does not say that 0.0001% of the atom is virtual. It says that the entire nucleus of the atom is virtual. It says it in the title:

It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations

And it says it again in the opening paragraph:

Matter is built on flaky foundations. Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently substantial stuff is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum.

Do you get it now? The article did not say that 0.0001% of the atom is virtual. It said that the entire nucleus (the majority of the mass of an atom) is virtual.

Just as theory predicts.

Electrons are theorized to be virtual, too, but this experimental work didn't focus on elections.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Agobot, posted 12-12-2008 2:51 PM Agobot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Agobot, posted 12-12-2008 3:31 PM Percy has responded

    
Agobot
Member (Idle past 2938 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 112 of 131 (491220)
12-12-2008 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Percy
12-12-2008 3:17 PM


Re: Back again, and let's first dispense with this nonsense...
Percy writes:

Do you get it now? The article did not say that 0.0001% of the atom is virtual. It said that the entire nucleus (the majority of the mass of an atom) is virtual.

No it's your fault. The 0.001% is the nucleus of the atom. The size of the nucleus is 1/100 000 of the size of the atom, hence the 0.001% which is nucleus :).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Percy, posted 12-12-2008 3:17 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Percy, posted 12-13-2008 10:40 AM Agobot has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15612
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 113 of 131 (491272)
12-13-2008 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Agobot
12-12-2008 3:31 PM


Re: Back again, and let's first dispense with this nonsense...
Ah, okay, I see connection now. But this point is something you were arguing in the Uncovering a Simulation thread. I don't think your "matter is mostly empty space" argument makes sense here, or at least the tie-in isn't apparent to me.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Agobot, posted 12-12-2008 3:31 PM Agobot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Agobot, posted 12-13-2008 10:52 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
Agobot
Member (Idle past 2938 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 114 of 131 (491273)
12-13-2008 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Percy
12-13-2008 10:40 AM


Re: Back again, and let's first dispense with this nonsense...
Percy writes:

Ah, okay, I see connection now. But this point is something you were arguing in the Uncovering a Simulation thread. I don't think your "matter is mostly empty space" argument makes sense here, or at least the tie-in isn't apparent to me.
--Percy

I was replying to message 82 of cavediver in this thread:

cavediver writes:

Suddenly we're back to our question of what is 'touch'? If 'things' are 99.99999999% empty space, why do they seem solid? Why do our hands not pass through each other when we clap? Clearly it isn't the 'things' - electrons and nucleus - that are giving rise to the solidity. It is actually the electromagnetic forces generated by those charged electrons. The reason you cannot pass your hands through each other is because of ELECTROSTATIC REPLUSION; not because of any sense of there being 'things' in the way or the common sense view of 'clearly things cannot pass through other things'. When you 'touch' something, all that is happening is that you are being pushed away from some area of space by electromagnetism. Switch off that electromagnetism, and your hands will happily pass straight through each other, just as with colliding galaxies, where the chances of any single pair of stars actually hitting each other is very remote.

Thus i said the other 0.001% were virtual which was based on these new findings in newscientist magazine. There is no new point i am trying to make, well at least not based on this property of matter and not in this thread. I was simply adding information that wasn't available in the quoted paragraph and that i thought useful for the point he was making.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Percy, posted 12-13-2008 10:40 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 10:41 AM Agobot has not yet responded

    
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 2560 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 115 of 131 (502562)
03-12-2009 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Agobot
12-13-2008 10:52 AM


Re: Back again, and let's first dispense with this nonsense...
It's actually all energy. The only "Solid" stuff is just an energy field as well. The "Flux" theory is just a handle to explain how it may have come into being without an pre-intelligent source. Scientifically, nothing comes into being without an intelligent or engineered source, except in this one case of course. But it's all ancient history and subject to the whim and whimsy of the stroke of a pen.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Agobot, posted 12-13-2008 10:52 AM Agobot has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Rahvin, posted 03-12-2009 12:15 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded
 Message 118 by onifre, posted 03-12-2009 12:54 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3500
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 116 of 131 (502563)
03-12-2009 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by cavediver
10-26-2008 11:44 AM


13.7 billion years ago? By who's reference?
Hi Cavediver,

Perhaps you can't answer a question which has been bothering me when I try to figure these things out: you say time is relative, so there is no universal timeframe. Okay, I can understand that. But it's also said that the Big Bang happened 13.7 Ga ago. If there isn't a universal timeframe, how can it be meaningful to describe the big bang as happening a certain number of years in the past?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by cavediver, posted 10-26-2008 11:44 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Stile, posted 03-12-2009 1:33 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded
 Message 121 by cavediver, posted 03-12-2009 4:00 PM Dr Jack has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 595 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 117 of 131 (502581)
03-12-2009 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 10:41 AM


Re: Back again, and let's first dispense with this nonsense...
It's actually all energy.

No, "it" is all a series of fields. Fields != energy. Mass may be equivalent to energy as expressed in the equation E=MC^2, but space is not energy, for example.

The only "Solid" stuff is just an energy field as well.

More specifically, the "solid" feel of matter is due to repulsion in electromagnetic fields, not actual contact with other matter.

The "Flux" theory is just a handle to explain how it may have come into being without an pre-intelligent source. Scientifically, nothing comes into being without an intelligent or engineered source, except in this one case of course. But it's all ancient history and subject to the whim and whimsy of the stroke of a pen.

Scientifically, nothing "comes into being" ex nihilo, period. Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed (with the blurry exception of virtual particle pairs, but they re-annihilate almost instantly).

Even positing an "intelligent source," Creation ex nihilo still requires the violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Not to mention the assumed idea that all things must have been Created and thus need a Creator is an unfounded assumption to begin with, making such Creationist arguments worthless from the beginning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 10:41 AM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 359 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 118 of 131 (502588)
03-12-2009 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 10:41 AM


Re: Back again, and let's first dispense with this nonsense...
Scientifically, nothing comes into being without an intelligent or engineered source, except in this one case of course.

What sort of scientific evidence are you using to support that?

I'm specifically interested in the "intelligent or engineered" source. Has science specifically said an "intelligent" source is needed to create anything?

Are you saying the universe needed a creator to initiate the Big Bang?

If so, why exactly?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 10:41 AM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 2870
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 119 of 131 (502600)
03-12-2009 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Dr Jack
03-12-2009 10:49 AM


The Earth, maybe?
Mr Jack writes:

If there isn't a universal timeframe, how can it be meaningful to describe the big bang as happening a certain number of years in the past?

I think that what can be assumed is "13.7 billion years ago as far as the Earth is concerned."

But I'm really not very sure.

A photon emitted at the Big Bang wouldn't have such a date, correct? Because photons (or "things that travel at the speed of light") do not experience time.

So, yeah, my guess is that the 13.7 billion year age is in reference to the Earth. Maybe our Sun? Or would our entire solar system (galaxy?) have about the same reference anyway?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Dr Jack, posted 03-12-2009 10:49 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by onifre, posted 03-12-2009 3:29 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 359 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 120 of 131 (502626)
03-12-2009 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Stile
03-12-2009 1:33 PM


Re: The Earth, maybe?
I think that what can be assumed is "13.7 billion years ago as far as the Earth is concerned."

It's no assumtion, this is an actual number based off the current rate of expansion, using general relativity.

I think that what can be assumed is "13.7 billion years ago as far as the Earth is concerned."

Right, the photon won't experience time, or any change, but it's travelled distance can be measured.

So, yeah, my guess is that the 13.7 billion year age is in reference to the Earth. Maybe our Sun? Or would our entire solar system (galaxy?) have about the same reference anyway?

It's based off of the furthest distance of the observed Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation - CMBR, detected by the WMAP.


"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Stile, posted 03-12-2009 1:33 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Prev1
...
4567
8
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017