Discussion in 'Science and the Universe' started by socrat44, Jan 16, 2019.
Reminds me of "wattless power" .. bit of a contradiction watt?
"Physicists such as Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss have offered explanations that rely on quantum mechanics, saying that in a quantum vacuum state particles will spontaneously come into existence. Nobel Laureate Frank Wilczek is credited with the aphorism that "nothing is unstable.""
"In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as explained in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in the effective charge of the electron, different from its "naked" charge.
Quantum fluctuations may have been necessary in the origin of the structure of the universe: according to the model of expansive inflation the ones that existed when inflation began were amplified and formed the seed of all current observed structure. Vacuum energy may also be responsible for the current accelerating expansion of the universe (cosmological constant)"
They also appear as an infinite set of states to be summed or integrated over in the calculation of a semi-non-perturbative effect. In the latter case, it is sometimes said that virtual particles contribute to a mechanism that mediates the effect, or that the effect occurs through the virtual particles.
There are many observable physical phenomena that arise in interactions involving virtual particles. For bosonic particles that exhibit rest mass when they are free and actual, virtual interactions are characterized by the relatively short range of the force interaction produced by particle exchange.
For the gravitational and electromagnetic forces, the zero rest-mass of the associated boson particle permits long-range forces to be mediated by virtual particles.
Perhaps the virtual particles are the non-existence phase of space/time. The jury is out. No answer till my time, which may not be more than 10 years.
Perhaps the whole universe is that, Zero-Energy Universe. You thought Allah is the greatest miracle!
Ok. I'm not tryng to argue what I do not understand. They seem to be a useful way of describing something that bridges the gaps.
However these quantum effects are happening in space. Not in nothing? The vacuum of space is not nothingness. I do understand the question is where they originate from.
They are quantum peturbations of the vacuum tself. They come from space and return to space? A bit like disturbances on water caused by gusts and breezes. So what makes them happen?
To me it just proves that the universe is alive.
To me, it just proves how much we say what can and cannot be about what we don't know.
I think it's safe to say that science never actually speaks with such emphasis about that which it cannot prove either way, or rather there are voices from the cutting edges of their fields whom I hear say as much. It always seems to me its the populist voices (and Hawkings at times, God bless 'im, was given to throwing out a sound-bite, but I think he had a cheeky sense of humour) who reduce everything to simple black-and-white determinations.
I watched Prof Brian Cox (a UK science-media luvvie) being absolutely dogmatic about what can and cannot be, to such an extend he came across as someone on the spectrum of something ...
And this is exactly what's happening here. Celebrity scientists like Lawrence Krauss are using the word 'nothing' as a soundbite. 'Energy from nothing' etc.
"The zero-energy universe hypothesis proposes that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity.
"Some physicists, such as Lawrence Krauss or Alexander Vilenkin, call this state a "universe from nothingness" but, in fact, the zero-energy universe model requires both matter field with positive energy and gravitational field with negative energy to exist..."
"Nobel Laureate Frank Wilczek is credited with the aphorism that "nothing is unstable."
You are right. 'Nothing is unstable' Frank Wilczek said. It is alive.
To me it means we do not fully understand it and more work is required.
As long as that doesn't mean yet more work on the semantics?
There's no escaping the argument. Nothing comes from nothing. If a thing appears to originate from nothing at all, that means it comes from 'somewhere beyond the universe' -- which means from outside/beyond space/time nature -- and anything else is just words, imo?
There is no standstill in nature. Stagnation is dying.
I have no trouble thinking of the Earth or the universe as alive
Not even that. Each atom of my body will have a life beyond my (so-called) death.
I do not know. That is why I said more work is required. It is a question of science and not of semantics. If we do not know something, why hesitate in saying that or why make false stories about that?
It's the assumption that we will know that is the problem.. There's no justification for assuming we will ever know why the electron/proton charge exactly balances, for instance?
My problem is with the assumption. It's never going to be possible to reduce everything to mathematical equations. People hang on every word of these celebtity atheist scientists like Lawrence Krauss, and boy do they (the scientists) think highly of themselves. Humility has gone.
How can anyone look at the universe and think it all just a mindless self-created dirty big machine? It turns me off.
There will always be more to know. It will always be 'only' the mechanism we are learning about. And no matter how long we wait, nothing will still be nothing?
For what reason I should presume that we will never know?
May be it turns you off, why should we presume even that something created, dirty or clean?
Perhaps there is nothing created. It is only our mind that creates it. Otherwise, there is just space/energy.
Good. It will make life interesting. It would be a dull life, if there is nothing more to know.
W are yet to understand 'nothing'.
I understand that it is very uncomfortable for human ego to accept that we are here for no reason, just as it would have been for Homo erectus or Homo neanderthalensis. Were they created only to be extinct! Is a deer created just to be eaten by other animals at some point in its life!
I understand that it is very uncomfortable for some human egos to accept there is a greater power than silly human pride.
Back to the semantics. There's nothing to understand about nothing. If you wait forever you still can't add or divide or multiply by nothing.
It is spirit. A lot to be revealed. But this sort of discussion becomes circular at this point.
Are you suggesting now that life is just our imagination?
You seem very interested in "knowing all about it" .. so why?
Just curiousity, or are you looking for power?
It just makes no sense .. intelligent beings with no purpose .. pfff!
With what we do to eaxh other, to our environment, to the animals, wxtincting species, destroying the earth with wars and greed....our solutions cause more problems...
The whole concept that man is G!D's ultimate creation I believe is ego based by the authors... We ain't we are destroying our own home.
The pride of any human science not just proposing but insisting that human intelligence has to be the highest consciousness in the universe -- unless some smarter aliens turn up -- just boggles my own little human brain, lol.
I don't believe we are the highest consciousness on this planet...
Dolphins, whales, ants,.trees, and bacteria may have more on us...we are just the vocal minority bragging about our opposable thumbs.
Separate names with a comma.