No proof virtual particles come from nothing

Image result for virtual particles and quantum fields


On March 30, 2016 I posted, on this blog,[1]  "Quantum Particles Do not Prove a universe from Nothing." The post was backed by sources such as Scientific American, David Albert, Even Hawking's Center for Theoretical Cosmology[2]Even so there are atheists telling me it's wrong. I dispute this. Rather than being wrong I think is couches it's terms in the parlance of an old theory. Because it doesn't explain things in the jargon of the newly accepted theory skeptics have an appropriate juncture at which they can charge it with being wrong because it appears out moded.

The major issue is that virtual particles (VPs) do not really emerge from nothing uncased at lest there's no proof that they do. This issue revolves around the emergence of VPs from true actual nothing, that is the lack of any thing at all. I will bracket discussion for this paper of why the scenario of origin must begin with this state of true nothing[3]

What is it about the parlance of that previous post that is outmoded? That article is based upon the Scientific American article that says VP's are produced when regular particles collide and thus while they do appear from no previous VP they are not appearing from a state of total true nothing.

Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.
But while the virtual particles are briefly part of our world they can interact with other particles, and that leads to a number of tests of the quantum-mechanical predictions about virtual particles[4]
This is what is now supposed to be wrong, it is said that particles don't collide, to from VP but they are formed by the uncertainty principle (Heisenberg). We know that particles are not really little balls. So the image conjured by talk of particles colliding, that of children playing marbles,is not really analogous. The actual process is very complex it really boils down to an exchange of mathematical equations. One problem that makes it more acute is that the notion of particles has been discorded. It is not  factually incorrect one metaphor replacing another and the new metaphor will someday be replaced in turn. At the moment it appears that talk of particles is old hat and misleading while the new  metaphor makes the illusion that VPs are coming out of nothing.In reality, however, the original expatiation I gave in the other article is as close to right.The fact that VPs are not coming from true nothing is not refuted by the new more hip field theory.

Quantum Field theory is Just the latest in a long line of attempts to replace God with the powers of God detached from God's consciousness. "since the scientific revolution of the 17th century, what physics has given us in the way of candidates for the fundamental laws of nature have as a general rule simply taken it for granted that there is, at the bottom of everything, some basic, elementary, eternally persisting, concrete, physical stuff."[5] Newton said it was Material particles (going back to the Greeks, smaller and smaller bits of matter) at the end of the 19th century they said material particles and electromagnetic fields. As Albert points all all physics is and has always been about how that elementary stuff is arranged.[6] In this latest turn they just do away with the bits of matter,they aren't really particles at all.


Let's choose a field theory image to replace the marbles. We might think of field as a kind background radiation. because it is throughout the entire universe, everywhere. Rather than balls particles are described as little bits of field, there are scientists and science reporters talking of it this way.[7][8These bits of field exchange values and thus identities with each other. This is what makes one speak of particles colliding. That is a metaphor as is exchanging values,All we really know is something is going on in mathematical equations.Field theorists write that into talk of exchange of identity of the "bits of field" they call particles.
Particle physics as we know it today began with the ideas of Hideki Yukawa in 1935. Physicists had long been concerned with how forces are transmitted, finding the concept of fields, such as electric and magnetic fields to be very useful. A field surrounds an object and carries the force exerted by the object through space. Yukawa was interested in the strong nuclear force in particular and found an ingenious way to explain its short range. His idea is a blend of particles, forces, relativity, and quantum mechanics that is applicable to all forces. Yukawa proposed that force is transmitted by the exchange of particles (called carrier particles). The field consists of these carrier particles.[9]
All of this is nice and cleansed and washed spotless by the good people who write text books and popular science style articles, but in reality where the people who really know what is what about field theory all the mathematically free popular layman-level talk about QM and God-free universe is bull shit. Not that field theory is BS no no,I do not say that but the idea that science magically proves that the universe did or could spring into existence out of actual true nothing with no external force or power helping it, is BS!

The best proof of this is a source called Physics Stack exchange This site is for serious researchers of all levels. They have high school kids to Professors who research discussing everything. Let's look at what some of the professors say. A poster who is apparently a layman asks about Krauss's book The Universe From Nothing, and his assertion that VP's pop out of nothing."I am reading the book of Lawrence Krauss "A universe out of nothing", where he explained that the vacuum is not empty. "
  1. Is the vacuum empty or is it not?
  2. Are there particles in the vacuum and can they create a universe?
  3. But when virtual particles are just a mathemacical "trick" to calculate something, what does Lawrence Krauss mean?
  4. What is the matter about the vacuum?[10]
The moderator, "a Curious Mind" answers:

The vacuum is "empty" in every precise sense of the word. What we call "particles" in quantum field theory are states created by so-called annihilation and creation operators, which represent "substracting" and "adding" a particle of a certain type to a state. The free vacuum is by definition precisely the state from which you cannnot substract anything, hence it is "empty". The interacting vacuum is by definition the lowest-lying energy state, but we can't talk about particles for interacting states, so it's meaningless to ask if it is "empty"....The "boiling brew of particles" is a misinterpretation of what so-called vacuum bubbles mean. They are the Feynman diagrams that contribute to the energy of the interacting vacuum state, and if internal lines of such diagrams described actual particles, then these diagrams would mean a continuous creation and annihilation of particles in the vacuum. But the internal lines of Feynman diagrams are not associated to actual particles states (i.e. no creation/annihilation operator of the free theory belongs to them), so this is nonsense. There are no particles in the vacuum and they don't create a universe....He is misinterpreting Feynman diagrams to give laymen reading the book a magical and mysterious, but math-free picture of what quantum field theory is about. This picture is almost completely wrong.It's the lowest-lying energy state of the theory, and the start for so-called perturbation theory. Not much more.[11]
Another poster, Arnold Neumaier:


The only way the usual dynamical language for virtual particles is justified by the theory is as purely figurative analogy in ”virtual reality”, useful for informal talk about complicated formulas and for superficial summaries in lectures capturing the imagination of the audience.This has to be kept in mind when reading in professional scientific publications statements involving virtual particles. Otherwise many statements become completely misleading, inviting a magical view of microphysics and weird speculation, without the slightest support in theory or experiment.[12]
Two things we need to know to make sense of what was just said. First, wen physicists speak of :"nothing" they don't mean  that in the sense most people use it.  They mean something very different, Understanding this will tell us what they mean by Qm vacuum. ohnRennie tells us:
In Physics "nothing" is generally taken to be the lowest energy state of a theory. We wouldn't normally use the word "nothing" but instead describe the lowest energy state as the "vacuum". I can't think of an intuitive way to describe the QM vacuum because all the obvious analogies have "something" instead of nothing "nothing", so I'll do my best but you may still find the idea hard to grasp. That's not just you - everybody finds it hard to grasp..[13]
Nothing is the lowest level energy state in a theory, so that would mean an individual particle is "nothing." Rennie goes on to talk about an analogy,if you could turn off the Qm field,there would still be fluctuation, This is vacuum flux, it is the Qm vacuum. it means there are still "particles" messing around.

....The key point is that when I say "turn the field down" I mean reduce the energy to the lowest it will go i.e. you can't make the energy of the electric field any lower. By definition this is what we call the "vacuum" even though it isn't empty (i.e. it contains the fluctuations). It isn't possible to make the vacuum any emptier because the fluctuations are always present and you can't remove them.[14]
The skeptic merely says there are particles they are popping out of nothing. The problem is the physicists include the particles as part of nothing, there's no empirical observations that they are coming out of real nothing not just coming from some primordial field; in other words a group of more particles,

That does not mean that Krauss doesn't understand or doesn't know what he's saying. He knows but what he is saying is really a faith statement. He wants us to think his statement is a precise factual understanding of the universe but it is actually nothing more than a faith statement based upon facts but those facts do not include empirical knowledge of the origin of the universe, he's really just discussing an educated guess.

Even if we assume field theory as a literally true statement of what happens with sub atomic particles it can't be the case that they actually do emerge from true nothing. The reason is very simple and it is assumed by the theory.The theory itself assumes that prior conditions exist, a framework in which the things emerge. They may not have direct causes in the conventional sense but they clearly do not just pop into existence out of actual noting. There are prior conditions without which the particles would not be possible. Those conditions have to be accounted for. The frame work consists mainly of Time, physical law, ad what they  now call field,or Vacuum flux which means more particles.

"He [Krauss] acknowledges (albeit in a parenthesis, and just a few pages before the end of the book) that everything he has been talking about simply takes the basic principles of quantum mechanics for granted."[15] The term"nothing" is erroneous since by that term physicists do not mean what regular people mean by the term.They do not mean the absence of anything at all. "For a half century, physicists have known that there is no such thing as absolute nothingness, and that the vacuum of empty space, devoid of even a single atom of matter, seethes with subtle activity. "[16] I have quoted at least three physicists saying Krauss is wrong his statements can't be taken literally. I think a good term for what they are saying is that his statements are faith based statements or atheist dogma based upon field theory. The  three physicists are A Curious Mind, Arnold Neumaier, and Paul Matt Sutter, I close with statement by David Albert the philosopher with Ph.d  in physics, from his review of Krauss:

The fundamental physical laws that Krauss is talking about in “A Universe From Nothing” — the laws of relativistic quantum field theories — are no exception to this. The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren’t, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on — and they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.[17]

Atheists are making a faith statement when they assert the particles come from actual nothing, There is no reason to assume that because there is no empirical scientific evidence to establish true actual nothing,nothing in that statement when spoken by physics does not mean absence of things. Things must be explained.

Be sure and read additional quotes in comment section.

watch the video which is a good (although very innovated) explanation of what all this means,


Sources

[1]
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2016/03/quantum-particles-do-not-prove-universe.html

[2] see FN 2 Paper cited,Center for Theoretical Cosmology, static website,  University of Cambridge (no date cited)
http://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/outreach/origins/quantum_cosmology_one.php
(accessed 3/8/18)
Stephan Hawking is associated with the CTC.This statement is more admission than documentation. It admits that quantum theory might not pertain to the universe as a whole. After all the theory has only been validated under normal conditions of space/time, temperature and the like. We have no idea if it still applies at the big bang expansion where the laws of physics seem to be suspended, temperature and time approach infinity.

[4] Gordon Kane, “Are Virtual Particles Really Constantly Popping In and Out of existence? Or Are They Merely a Mathematical Bookkeeping Device For Quantum Mechanics?” Scientific American, (Oct. 9, 2006) on line version URL: http://www.scientific american.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/ accessed 10/12/15

[5] David Albert, "On The Origin of Everything: A Universe from Nothing By Lawrence Krauss.." New York Times Sunday Book Review. (MARCH 23, 2012).
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html
(accessed 3/10/18)
[6] Ibid

[7] Paul Matt Sutter, "What Are Virtual Particles?" a video on you tube posted by and introduced by Fraser Cain (posted Jun 13, 2016 )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn5PMa5xRq4
(accessed 3/10/18)





[8] ________, "'virtual' partocles are just 'Wiggles' in the Electromagnetic field." Live Science (August 22, 2016)
https://www.livescience.com/55833-what-are-virtual-particles.html
(accessed 3/10/18)

teaches at Ohio state

[9] "The Yukawa Particle and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Revisited." BC Open Text book, produced by BC Campus.no date indicated
https://opentextbc.ca/physicstestbook2/chapter/the-yukawa-particle-and-the-heisenberg-uncertainty-principle-revisited/
(accessed 3/9/18)

[10] Qmechanic  "Virtual Particles Real? Virtual Particles Create a universe?"Physics Stack Exchange, blog  published Stack Exchange Inc. (Sept 7,2015)
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/205674/virtual-particles-real-virtual-particles-create-a-universe
(accessed 3/10/18)
"Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics."


Founded in 2008, Stack Overflow is the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers. More than 50 million professional and aspiring programmers visit Stack Overflow each month to help solve coding problems, develop new skills, and find job opportunities.Stack Overflow partners with businesses to help them understand, hire, engage, and enable the world's developers. Our products and services are focused on developer marketing, technical recruiting, market research, and enterprise knowledge sharing. Learn more about our business solutions here.
[11] A curious Mind (moderator of stack exchange) Ibid.

[12]Arnold Neumaier, Stack Exchange, Ibid.

Neumaier Lectures  at the Institute of Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, University of Vienna.

[13] John Rennie, ''What is meant by Nothing in Physics./ Quatum Physics?" Physics Stack Exchange (June 29, 2012)
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30973/what-is-meant-by-nothing-in-physics-quantum-physics
(accessed 3/29/2012)

Rennie, undergrad degree Cambridge in Qm Chemistry, PhD, also at Cambridge, in solid state photo chemistry. After finishing my PhD I worked as a colloid scientist for Unilever Research

[14] Ibid.

[15] Albert, op. cit.

[16] Malcolm W. Brown, Physicists Comfirm Powerof Nothing, Measuring Force or universla Flux."  New York Times (Jan 21,1997)
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/21/science/physicists-confirm-power-of-nothing-measuring-force-of-universal-flux.html
(accessed 3/10/18)

[17] Albert op cit

Comments

Joe Hinman said…
Additional quotes

David Albert's review:

quoteit happens that ever since the scientific revolution of the 17th century, what physics has given us in the way of candidates for the fundamental laws of nature have as a general rule simply taken it for granted that there is, at the bottom of everything, some basic, elementary, eternally persisting, concrete, physical stuff. Newton, for example, took that elementary stuff to consist of material particles. And physicists at the end of the 19th century took that elementary stuff to consist of both material particles and electro­magnetic fields. And so on. And what the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all there is for the fundamental laws of nature to be about, insofar as physics has ever been able to imagine, is how that elementary stuff is arranged. The fundamental laws of nature generally take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of that stuff are physically possible and which aren’t, or rules connecting the arrangements of that elementary stuff at later times to its arrangement at earlier times, or something like that. But the laws have no bearing whatsoever on questions of where the elementary stuff came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular elementary stuff it does, as opposed to something else, or to nothing at all.



The fundamental physical laws that Krauss is talking about in “A Universe From Nothing” — the laws of relativistic quantum field theories — are no exception to this. The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren’t, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on — and they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.close quote



https://phys.org/news/2014-08-what-is-nothing.html


"Philosophers, and some physicists, argue that *that* nothing isn't the same as "real" nothing. Different physicists see as nothing, from nothing is classical vacuum, to the idea of nothing as undifferentiated potential."



Joe Hinman said…
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2014-08-what-is-nothing.html#jCp

acuum, to the idea of nothing as undifferentiated potential.

QuoteEven if you could remove all the particles, shield against all electric and magnetic fields, your box would still contain gravity, because gravity can never be shielded or cancelled out. Gravity doesn't go away, and it's always attractive, so you can't do anything to block it. In Newton's physics that's because it is a force, but in general relativity space and time *are* gravity.

So, imagine if you could remove all particles, energy, gravity… everything from a system. You'd be left with a true vacuum. Even at its lowest energy level, there are fluctuations in the quantum vacuum of the Universe. There are quantum particles popping into and out of existence throughout the Universe. There's nothing, then pop, something, and then the particles collide and you're left with nothing again. And so, even if you could remove everything from the Universe, you'd still be left with these quantum fluctuations embedded in space/time.Close Quote



https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/22/what-is-the-physics-of-nothing/#104d73775f83



QuoteThis was the topic of a recent discussion at the Institute of Art and Ideas, whose panels represent the closest European analogy to the TED series of talks given in the United States. Each panelist -- physicists Laura Mersini-Houghton and John Ellis, as well as philosopher James Ladyman -- give their take, above. The problem is that although it isn'tan illusion, we don't agree on what we mean about "nothingness." Do you mean:

This ground-state energy, which may have been different (and much larger) in the past? (For example, during cosmic inflation.)
A state outside of space and time, where you have the emergence of spacetime from a true "nothing" state? (Does such a state even exist, or would its existence even be meaningful?)
Do you mean the nothingness of our Universe, which may be different from what nothingness is in other pockets of the Multiverse?
Or do you mean the cosmic vacuum, with all of its virtual energy and which may change depending what's in it?
It's an odd thought that what we think of as "our nothingness" may not be the same as "nothingness" elsewhere, at other times or at other locations.Close Quote



https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30973/what-is-meant-by-nothing-in-physics-quantum-physics

QuoteIn Physics "nothing" is generally taken to be the lowest energy state of a theory. We wouldn't normally use the word "nothing" but instead describe the lowest energy state as the "vacuum". I can't think of an intuitive way to describe the QM vacuum because all the obvious analogies have "something" instead of nothing "nothing", so I'll do my best but you may still find the idea hard to grasp. That's not just you - everybody finds it hard to grasp.....The key point is that when I say "turn the field down" I mean reduce the energy to the lowest it will go i.e. you can't make the energy of the electric field any lower. By definition this is what we call the "vacuum" even though it isn't empty (i.e. it contains the fluctuations). It isn't possible to make the vacuum any emptier because the fluctuations are always present and you can't remove them.
cose Quote
im-skeptical said…
A few comments:

First, there are two camps among physicists regarding the question of whether particles emerge from "nothing". One side says it is literally nothing. The other side says it is something. They're both talking about the same thing, but they use different words to describe it. It is pointless to quote from Albert, who is in the "something" camp, when I can just as easily quote from others in the "nothing" camp. Albert has his own ideological agenda. You're not proving anything by presenting only one side of the story. Those in the "something" camp base their belief on a philosophical principle. Those in the "nothing" camp merely observe that there's nothing there that is physically detectable or observable. It is a void. So go ahead and stick to your philosophical principle, but don't pretend that you have the final word, because you don't. You have completely ignored the other camp, or simply dismissed them on your own ideological grounds.

Second, there is the issue of whether virtual particles are produced by other particles. I know you produced a quote from a Scientific American article that says they are. And I cited another article that says they aren't. So we must ask, What constitutes a particle? In your article, the physicist used it in a technical sense that refers to theoretical waves in the quantum field. In my article, the physicist explains that those aren't really particles in the sense that most of understand. They have no real physical existence. They aren't electrons, or photons, or quarks, or any other kind of particle that we call real particles. But if you think they are, please tell me exactly what kind of particles they are.

Finally, when you refer to "people who really know what is what about field theory", please don't try to tell us that you are among them or that you even know who is and who isn't. To you, the ones who know what they're talking about are the ones who espouse ideas that (seem to) agree with with what you believe. Anybody can use the Google machine and find quotes that apparently support your beliefs. Not everybody understands the material they cite. And you clearly don't.
Joe Hinman said…
First, there are two camps among physicists regarding the question of whether particles emerge from "nothing". One side says it is literally nothing. The other side says it is something. They're both talking about the same thing, but they use different words to describe it.

that does not answer it I quote four physicists on stack exchange who say any talk about it not mathematical is is misleading. then those you say claim nothing are talking about something they using misleading terms. Sutter says some of the terms are really lies.


It is pointless to quote from Albert, who is in the "something" camp, when I can just as easily quote from others in the "nothing" camp.


It's dishonest to quote the nothing: camp as though really mean nothing when they don't they say they don't, they say do not take literally. Fundamentalists like you can't bear metaphor,


Albert has his own ideological agenda. You're not proving anything by presenting only one side of the story. Those in the "something" camp base their belief on a philosophical principle. Those in the "nothing" camp merely observe that there's nothing there that is physically detectable or observable. It is a void. So go ahead and stick to your philosophical principle, but don't pretend that you have the final word, because you don't. You have completely ignored the other camp, or simply dismissed them on your own ideological grounds.

You think Albert is a Christian don't you? you have no proof he even believes in God I don't think he does you have no idea what his agenda is other than not being a fundamentalist like you. You are the one we can't trust Billy, you are the Billy Graham of atheism.



Joe Hinman said…
Second, there is the issue of whether virtual particles are produced by other particles. I know you produced a quote from a Scientific American article that says they are. And I cited another article that says they aren't. So we must ask, What constitutes a particle? In your article, the physicist used it in a technical sense that refers to theoretical waves in the quantum field. In my article, the physicist explains that those aren't really particles in the sense that most of understand. They have no real physical existence. They aren't electrons, or photons, or quarks, or any other kind of particle that we call real particles. But if you think they are, please tell me exactly what kind of particles they are.


You are totally ignoring the teeth of the article.

(1) "nothing" does not mean nothing it means the lower level of energy in the stem which includes parties so they are part of nothing.

*2) I disprove your augment even without particles.This is how I know you did not read the article. I made a big thing out of saying let's assume there are no particles. I quoted a physicist saying the term particle is a lie. They are not really particles. But they are exchanges of energy. that makes no difference because it's still something that you have to account for and you can't,

(3) there is no empirical proof that bits of wildlife are coming from true actual noting,

(4)I quote physicists saying you can't take speculation like Krauss;s literally,he is makimng a faith statement

(5) you have not answered the argument about the frame work it all happens in frame work that must be exploited a framework that produces field, Time, physical law,and field not nothing,


Finally, when you refer to "people who really know what is what about field theory", please don't try to tell us that you are among them or that you even know who is and who isn't. To you, the ones who know what they're talking about are the ones who espouse ideas that (seem to) agree with with what you believe. Anybody can use the Google machine and find quotes that apparently support your beliefs. Not everybody understands the material they cite. And you clearly don't.


you really have not figured out academia ye. it's not hard to know who the top-headteachers are and who has the credentials, all teh guys i quote have major credentials and none of them christians,

3/12/2018 10:25:00 AM Delete
Joe Hinman said…

[10] Qmechanic "Virtual Particles Real? Virtual Particles Create a universe?"Physics Stack Exchange, blog published Stack Exchange Inc. (Sept 7,2015)

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/205674/virtual-particles-real-virtual-particles-create-a-universe

(accessed 3/10/18)

"Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics."

Quote(Moderator)The vacuum is "empty" in every precise sense of the word. What we call "particles" in quantum field theory are states created by so-called annihilation and creation operators, which represent "substracting" and "adding" a particle of a certain type to a state. The free vacuum is by definition precisely the state from which you cannnot substract anything, hence it is "empty". The interacting vacuum is by definition the lowest-lying energy state, but we can't talk about particles for interacting states, so it's meaningless to ask if it is "empty"....The "boiling brew of particles" is a misinterpretation of what so-called vacuum bubbles mean. They are the Feynman diagrams that contribute to the energy of the interacting vacuum state, and if internal lines of such diagrams described actual particles, then these diagrams would mean a continuous creation and annihilation of particles in the vacuum. But the internal lines of Feynman diagrams are not associated to actual particles states (i.e. no creation/annihilation operator of the free theory belongs to them), so this is nonsense. There are no particles in the vacuum and they don't create a universe....He[Krauss] is misinterpreting Feynman diagrams to give laymen reading the book a magical and mysterious, but math-free picture of what quantum field theory is about. This picture is almost completely wrong.It's the lowest-lying energy state of the theory, and the start for so-called perturbation theory. Not much more.[11]Cose Quote



Arnold Neumaier:(Ibid)
Neumaier Lectures at the Institute of Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, University of Vienna.


QUOTREThe only way the usual dynamical language for virtual particles is justified by the theory is as purely figurative analogy in ”virtual reality”, useful for informal talk about complicated formulas and for superficial summaries in lectures capturing the imagination of the audience.This has to be kept in mind when reading in professional scientific publications statements involving virtual particles. Otherwise many statements become completely misleading, inviting a magical view of microphysics and weird speculation, without the slightest support in theory or experiment.Close Quote




John Rennie (Stack Exchange)

Rennie, undergrad degree Cambridge in Qm Chemistry, PhD, also at Cambridge, in solid state photo chemistry. After finishing my PhD I worked as a colloid scientist for Unilever Research.

QUOTREIn Physics "nothing" is generally taken to be the lowest energy state of a theory. We wouldn't normally use the word "nothing" but instead describe the lowest energy state as the "vacuum". I can't think of an intuitive way to describe the QM vacuum because all the obvious analogies have "something" instead of nothing "nothing", so I'll do my best but you may still find the idea hard to grasp. That's not just you - everybody finds it hard to grasp......The key point is that when I say "turn the field down" I mean reduce the energy to the lowest it will go i.e. you can't make the energy of the electric field any lower. By definition this is what we call the "vacuum" even though it isn't empty (i.e. it contains the fluctuations). It isn't possible to make the vacuum any emptier because the fluctuations are always present and you can't remove them.[14]Close QUOTE







im-skeptical said…
that does not answer it I quote four physicists
- You quote the ones who agree with your ideological agenda.

It's dishonest to quote the nothing: camp as though really mean nothing when they don't they say they don't, they say do not take literally. Fundamentalists like you can't bear metaphor
- It's dishonest for you to ignore what the others are saying. Yes, they take it literally. The question is: What is nothing?

You think Albert is a Christian don't you?
- I don't care what Albert is. His position is based on his an ideological agenda.

(1) "nothing" does not mean nothing it means the lower level of energy in the stem which includes parties so they are part of nothing.
- Nothing means no detectable matter or energy. There is nothing there. Still, particles (with energy) comes from it.

*2) I disprove your augment ... They are not really particles. But they are exchanges of energy.
- The true nature of particles has nothing to do with the topic. Whether they are little solid things or packets of energy, or something different is completely irrelevant to where they come from. This only proves you have no idea what you're talking about.

(3) there is no empirical proof that bits of wildlife are coming from true actual noting
- Except that's exactly what we observe.

(4)I quote physicists saying you can't take speculation like Krauss;s literally,he is making a faith statement
- You think you aren't making a faith statement, with your insistence on GOD DID IT?

(5) you have not answered the argument about the frame work it all happens in frame work that must be exploited a framework that produces field, Time, physical law,and field not nothing
- We know what your framework is. Mine is simple reality.

you really have not figured out academia ye
- We're not schoolboys, Joe. We're talking about the real world. And besides, I have more degrees than you do. And mine are in science.

He[Krauss] is misinterpreting Feynman diagrams ...
- You are quoting someone on the internet (who is a business software developer) who tells us that Lawrence Krauss doesn't understand physics. HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!
JBsptfn said…
Oh, Skep. You're unbelievable.

Anyway, I found an interesting article that's related to the subject matter:

CNN: A Stunning Discovery About the Start of the Universe

Joe Hinman said…

Blogger im-skeptical said...
that does not answer it I quote four physicists
- You quote the ones who agree with your ideological agenda.


so' you have not quoted any. A debate judge would l say I do not know anything from outside the debate, at this point this is the only opinion from physicists we know exists,when you do quote then you will just be quoting the one;s that agree with you,'You are making a faith statement not a factual statement,

It's dishonest to quote the nothing: camp as though really mean nothing when they don't they say they don't, they say do not take literally. Fundamentalists like you can't bear metaphor

- It's dishonest for you to ignore what the others are saying. Yes, they take it literally. The question is: What is nothing?

your guys, the one's you quote do not mean real nothing,they say nothing they mean vaccuum flux

You think Albert is a Christian don't you?
- I don't care what Albert is. His position is based on his an ideological agenda.

NO IT IS NOT YOU ARROGANT LITTLE CRACKPOT, YOUR's IS!!!!!!!!!!!

He gives a cogent historical analysis you have not began to even comprehend,Until you deal with at you have totally lost that issue. You have no basis fr your rejection of Albert other than knee jerk reaction to his refusal to accept your guy Krauss,




Joe Hinman said…
(1) "nothing" does not mean nothing it means the lower level of energy in the stem which includes parties so they are part of nothing.
- Nothing means no detectable matter or energy. There is nothing there. Still, particles (with energy) comes from it.

*2) I disprove your augment ... They are not really particles. But they are exchanges of energy.
- The true nature of particles has nothing to do with the topic. Whether they are little solid things or packets of energy, or something different is completely irrelevant to where they come from. This only proves you have no idea what you're talking about.

(3) there is no empirical proof that bits of wildlife are coming from true actual noting
- Except that's exactly what we observe.

(4)I quote physicists saying you can't take speculation like Krauss;s literally,he is making a faith statement
- You think you aren't making a faith statement, with your insistence on GOD DID IT?

(5) you have not answered the argument about the frame work it all happens in frame work that must be exploited a framework that produces field, Time, physical law,and field not nothing
- We know what your framework is. Mine is simple reality.

are you denying the existence of Time an physical law? those are not real?you are unable to answer that argument you are trying to bluff me into droppimg it but I wont,

you really have not figured out academia ye

- We're not schoolboys, Joe. We're talking about the real world. And besides, I have more degrees than you do. And mine are in science.

are you admitting that you are unable to participate in rational debate? Any kind of rational debate has rules.One rule common to most forms of debate is the use of credible sources for documentation,you have none,

He[Krauss] is misinterpreting Feynman diagrams ...
- You are quoting someone on the internet (who is a business software deve

so being a software developer makes the knowledge he revived from his Ph,D,.in physics from Cambridge go away? I bet you respect Jeff Lowder,I bet you would not hesitate to quote Lowder as a authority, Lowder does not have a PhD,I'm not saying anything agaisnt Jeff but you are being super hypocritical,

3/12/2018 02:39:00 PM Delete
im-skeptical said…
the one's you quote do not mean real nothing,they say nothing they mean vaccuum flux
- I told you before - call it whatever you like. Call it vacuum flux, it it makes you feel good. If your philosophical dogma tells you it's God, then call it God. I don't care. There's still nothing there. Nothing you can see, feel, measure, detect. Nothing that has any kind of substance. It is nothing. I'm not calling it philosophical nothingness. That is just a fantasy. I'm calling it the REAL nothing.


NO IT IS NOT YOU ARROGANT LITTLE CRACKPOT, YOUR's IS!!!!!!!!!!!
- Call me whatever you like. I'm just trying to explain something to you. My position is pragmatic. You're so stuck on your dogma, you refuse to listen to what I;m saying.


are you denying the existence of Time an physical law?
- What I deny is that you know what you're talking about.


are you admitting that you are unable to participate in rational debate?
- If you refuse to listen to the other side, then you are unable to participate in a debate.


... Ph,D,.in physics from Cambridge ...
- His profile does not provide information on education. I have no doubt that he has studied physics. So has Lawrence Krauss. But you haven't.


I bet you respect Jeff Lowder
- Why, because he's an atheist. Sorry, Joe, but that's not what earns my respect.
Joe Hinman said…
sorry about the crackpot thing,I really didn't mean it the way it came out, you are not a crack pot.
Joe Hinman said…
are you denying the existence of Time an physical law?

- What I deny is that you know what you're talking about.

I know your ego is on the line a christian can't be right if you are wrong,that is not a valid argument,


are you admitting that you are unable to participate in rational debate?
- If you refuse to listen to the other side, then you are unable to participate in a debate.

you have not made an argument. You are whining you have to be right I have to be wrong you have to know more than me for you are confronted with counter evidence you fold and start making emotive comets about how you know more.


... Ph,D,.in physics from Cambridge ...
- His profile does not provide information on education. I have no doubt that he has studied physics. So has Lawrence Krauss. But you haven't.

Obviously it does I copied it. I copied and pasted,what i wrote in the foot note about studying physics at Cambridge is what it says. See why you should read the whole thing?


I bet you respect Jeff Lowder
- Why, because he's an atheist. Sorry, Joe, but that's not what earns my respect.

everyone I quoted has a PhD in physics,

3/13/2018 08:30:00 AM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
you just got your ass kicked,
im-skeptical said…
I know your ego is on the line a christian can't be right if you are wrong,that is not a valid argument
- Joe, this isn't about religion. I am well aware that there are atheists who hold the same philosophical view about nothing being something. You don't need to turn everything into a battle between atheist and Christian. Nor am I even saying I'm right and you're wrong. Listen very carefully: There are different views in this issue, as I said in the first place. It's a question of what we call "nothing". We're both talking about the same thing. If it makes you comfortable to call it "something", then go ahead. By the same token, please don't be so brazen as to call me wrong when I refer to the absence of any substance as "nothing".


you have not made an argument.
- You have not listened.


everyone I quoted has a PhD in physics
- So what? People with PhDs disagree. If that's what matters to you, then why don't you listen to what cosmologists like Vilenkin, Krauss and Hawking say? And furthermore, if it's impossible (as you seem to be saying) then how could God have done it?
Joe Hinman said…
you have argued nothing, you are acting like my use of experts is somehow a violation of some code,the truth you can't do the res arch. you have not answered my arguments, you have nothing new to say

topic closed!
monarchshorestz said…
Scientists will continue to debate the different ideas that make up the scientific community.
Anonymous said…
....does 'Im Skeptical' ever actually form an argument here, or is it simply denial and labeling the entire time? I see a pattern.

Oh wait. Patterns and design would be part of my ideological agenda. lol

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

Dr. John Lennox: Video - Christmas for Doubters

William Lane Craig on "If Mind is Reducible to Brain Function, Why Trust Thought?"

The Meaning of the Manger

Responding to the “Crimes of Christianity”; The Inquisition

Is Science one Gene away From Defeating Religion?