Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Virtual Particles and Uncertainty

Subutai
Posts: 3,187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 3:25:18 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
An argument a lot of people have used, including myself, with regards to the explanation of quantum fluctuations, is that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows for a certain amount of energy to be borrowed, such that the time in which it is borrowed is small enough such that the product of that energy and the borrowing time is less than h/(4*pi). However, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle never entails anything of this sort.

The most important thing to remember is that the conservation of energy is fundamental, even in quantum mechanics. This falls out directly from the fact that the laws of quantum mechanics are time-translation invariant (meaning that they remain the same at any time), and from Noether's theorem, about how the invariance of a variable implies the conservation of its corresponding conjugate variable (a pair of conjugate variables are such that one can be found by taking the Fourier transform (or inverse Fourier transform) of the other). In other words, there should never be any violation of the conservation of energy under any circumstances.

With that in mind, the energy-time uncertainty principle needs to be reconsidered. For one thing, it's fundamentally different from the other two physical ones (the other two relate position/momentum and angle/angular momentum) in that time is not observable. In other words, you can't measure time like you can position or angle. Now, conceptually, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle relates two variables, both of which are observable (but not simultaneously observable), in such a way such that the product of their uncertainties must be less than h/(4*pi). But, if time can't be observed, it can't have an uncertainty, and thus the energy-time uncertainty principle implies something entirely different.

However, the energy-time uncertainty principle is still valid. All that's different is that delta t means something very different from delta x or delta theta in the other uncertainty principles. Delta t is the amount of time is takes the average value of the energy to change by one standard deviation. In other words, what this is saying is that, to measure the energy to a certain precision, one needs to measure the particle over a certain length of time, and the more precise one wants the measurement to be, the longer one needs to spend measuring it. However, the position-momentum uncertainty principle relates two variables being measured. One doesn't measure the momentum over a certain period of distance, as that makes no sense. Thus, the interpretation of the energy-time uncertainty principle is entirely different from the other two.

Any interpretation that says that the energy-time uncertainty principle condones violating the conservation of energy relies on a false premise - that one can interpret the energy-time uncertainty principle in the same way as the other two, which I've shown to be false.

So why do quantum fluctuations really occur? They are a mathematical result of perturbation theory. Now, that's way too complicated for me to try to explain in clear, comprehensive detail. But you don't need to justify quantum fluctuations anyway. If you're ever using them to make a point, you don't need to explain why they occur (unless your opponent wants it, in which case you"ll need to do some research).
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 4:23:39 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 3:25:18 AM, Subutai wrote:

Now, conceptually, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle relates two variables, both of which are observable (but not simultaneously observable), in such a way such that the product of their uncertainties must be less than h/(4*pi).

Greater than or equal to*
tejretics
Posts: 6,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 10:19:56 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
This post is definitely true. A virtual particle is hardly an example of "ex nihilo."
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 10:54:26 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 10:19:56 AM, tejretics wrote:
This post is definitely true. A virtual particle is hardly an example of "ex nihilo." :

Do you mean ex nihilo as in the definition:

ex ni"hi"lo
adverb
formal
adverb: ex nihilo

out of nothing.
"the fashioning of life ex nihilo by God"


Because Dr. Lawrence Krauss claims he can create a universe out of nothing with no problems at all!? That's better than Georges Lemaitre hearing a Big-Bang at the moment of the universes creation!
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
tejretics
Posts: 6,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 10:59:40 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 10:54:26 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 12/18/2015 10:19:56 AM, tejretics wrote:
This post is definitely true. A virtual particle is hardly an example of "ex nihilo." :

Do you mean ex nihilo as in the definition:

ex ni"hi"lo
adverb
formal
adverb: ex nihilo

out of nothing.
"the fashioning of life ex nihilo by God"


Because Dr. Lawrence Krauss claims he can create a universe out of nothing with no problems at all!?

Yeah, Krauss' argument is nonsense -- which is the essence of the OP, anyhow.

That's better than Georges Lemaitre hearing a Big-Bang at the moment of the universes creation!

"Big Bang" wasn't named by Lemaitre. It was named by Fred Hoyle, a proponent of the Steady State model, in 1949. It's an inaccurate name, since all the Big Bang theory claims is that (1) the universe has a homogeneous background radiation, (2) the universe was once in a high-density state, and (3) the universe is expanding.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 11:00:42 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
@Evidence

Also, in case you misinterpreted my Post 3, I was saying quantum fluctuations are *not* ex nihilo.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 11:13:11 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 11:00:42 AM, tejretics wrote:
@Evidence

Also, in case you misinterpreted my Post 3, I was saying quantum fluctuations are *not* ex nihilo. :

Yes, I understand, which is why I mentioned Dr. Krauss.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 11:45:00 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 10:59:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/18/2015 10:54:26 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 12/18/2015 10:19:56 AM, tejretics wrote:
This post is definitely true. A virtual particle is hardly an example of "ex nihilo." :

Do you mean ex nihilo as in the definition:

ex ni"hi"lo
adverb
formal
adverb: ex nihilo

out of nothing.
"the fashioning of life ex nihilo by God"


Because Dr. Lawrence Krauss claims he can create a universe out of nothing with no problems at all!?

Yeah, Krauss' argument is nonsense -- which is the essence of the OP, anyhow.

That's better than Georges Lemaitre hearing a Big-Bang at the moment of the universes creation!

"Big Bang" wasn't named by Lemaitre. It was named by Fred Hoyle, a proponent of the Steady State model, in 1949. It's an inaccurate name, since all the Big Bang theory claims is that (1) the universe has a homogeneous background radiation, (2) the universe was once in a high-density state, and (3) the universe is expanding. :

(1) With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark. However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object.

I mean claiming this 'faint background' glow as proof of "looking 13.75 billion years back in time" is kind of far fetched don't you think?
Look, how big is our universe?
A. may be infinitely big.
Could that 'background glow' be "trillions upon trillions of stars at a distance that 'look' like a faint background glow? I mean we could generate that in a computer, have trillions of dots move away, which decreases sensitivity till it looks like a faint cloud, right? Just as we see the faint cloud of our galaxy with the naked eye. But once you become a Believer in the Big-bang story, you start interpreting things based on your belief, right? Before you know it, you are (general you) spending billions of dollars on LHC's believing you will create a Big-bang by reducing particles to their minutest size, .. or whatever other (back up) story they have on hand!?

(2) the universe was once in a high-density state

Yes, if you believe the universe is expanding

(3) the universe is expanding

Which means the universe was once in a high-density state

Doesn't it seem to you that this whole BB-story is based on circular reasoning? But then all religions are based on circular reasoning; it couldn't be trillions of stars at a distance, instead, it's left over gasses from the Big-bang.

Find an unusual dried up jaw-bone of a pig, .. hey, it's the missing-link. Before you know it, a book is out with full illustration on how this mutating chimp/human looked like, and full in-detail stories on what it ate, how it died, why it died, etc.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
tejretics
Posts: 6,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 1:11:42 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 11:45:00 AM, Evidence wrote:

It would only be circular if the first relied on the second for justification and vice versa. If one of them is scientifically justified, the other follows, and it's no longer circular.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Subutai
Posts: 3,187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 2:00:43 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 4:23:39 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/18/2015 3:25:18 AM, Subutai wrote:

Now, conceptually, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle relates two variables, both of which are observable (but not simultaneously observable), in such a way such that the product of their uncertainties must be less than h/(4*pi).

Greater than or equal to*

Thank you, I'm not sure how I messed that up. Twice.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 2:03:14 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 2:00:43 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 12/18/2015 4:23:39 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/18/2015 3:25:18 AM, Subutai wrote:

Now, conceptually, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle relates two variables, both of which are observable (but not simultaneously observable), in such a way such that the product of their uncertainties must be less than h/(4*pi).

Greater than or equal to*

Thank you, I'm not sure how I messed that up. Twice.

An upper limit on uncertainty would be something interesting.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 12:01:41 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 10:54:26 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 12/18/2015 10:19:56 AM, tejretics wrote:
This post is definitely true. A virtual particle is hardly an example of "ex nihilo." :

Do you mean ex nihilo as in the definition:

ex ni"hi"lo
adverb
formal
adverb: ex nihilo

out of nothing.
"the fashioning of life ex nihilo by God"


Because Dr. Lawrence Krauss claims he can create a universe out of nothing with no problems at all!? That's better than Georges Lemaitre hearing a Big-Bang at the moment of the universes creation!
Krauss defines nothing in terms of something (virtual particles). Tej is speaking of the common definition of nothing.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 12:24:44 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 3:25:18 AM, Subutai wrote:
An argument a lot of people have used, including myself, with regards to the explanation of quantum fluctuations, is that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows for a certain amount of energy to be borrowed, such that the time in which it is borrowed is small enough such that the product of that energy and the borrowing time is less than h/(4*pi). However, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle never entails anything of this sort.

The most important thing to remember is that the conservation of energy is fundamental, even in quantum mechanics. This falls out directly from the fact that the laws of quantum mechanics are time-translation invariant (meaning that they remain the same at any time), and from Noether's theorem, about how the invariance of a variable implies the conservation of its corresponding conjugate variable (a pair of conjugate variables are such that one can be found by taking the Fourier transform (or inverse Fourier transform) of the other). In other words, there should never be any violation of the conservation of energy under any circumstances.

With that in mind, the energy-time uncertainty principle needs to be reconsidered. For one thing, it's fundamentally different from the other two physical ones (the other two relate position/momentum and angle/angular momentum) in that time is not observable. In other words, you can't measure time like you can position or angle. Now, conceptually, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle relates two variables, both of which are observable (but not simultaneously observable), in such a way such that the product of their uncertainties must be less than h/(4*pi). But, if time can't be observed, it can't have an uncertainty, and thus the energy-time uncertainty principle implies something entirely different.

However, the energy-time uncertainty principle is still valid. All that's different is that delta t means something very different from delta x or delta theta in the other uncertainty principles. Delta t is the amount of time is takes the average value of the energy to change by one standard deviation. In other words, what this is saying is that, to measure the energy to a certain precision, one needs to measure the particle over a certain length of time, and the more precise one wants the measurement to be, the longer one needs to spend measuring it. However, the position-momentum uncertainty principle relates two variables being measured. One doesn't measure the momentum over a certain period of distance, as that makes no sense. Thus, the interpretation of the energy-time uncertainty principle is entirely different from the other two.

Any interpretation that says that the energy-time uncertainty principle condones violating the conservation of energy relies on a false premise - that one can interpret the energy-time uncertainty principle in the same way as the other two, which I've shown to be false.

So why do quantum fluctuations really occur? They are a mathematical result of perturbation theory. Now, that's way too complicated for me to try to explain in clear, comprehensive detail. But you don't need to justify quantum fluctuations anyway. If you're ever using them to make a point, you don't need to explain why they occur (unless your opponent wants it, in which case you"ll need to do some research).

Does Roger Penrose not cover this in his book The Road To Reality?

http://www.amazon.com...

Harry.
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 4:27:14 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 12:24:44 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/18/2015 3:25:18 AM, Subutai wrote:

So why do quantum fluctuations really occur? They are a mathematical result of perturbation theory. Now, that's way too complicated for me to try to explain in clear, comprehensive detail. But you don't need to justify quantum fluctuations anyway. If you're ever using them to make a point, you don't need to explain why they occur (unless your opponent wants it, in which case you"ll need to do some research).

Does Roger Penrose not cover this in his book The Road To Reality?

http://www.amazon.com...

Harry. :

Road to Reality - The Mandelbrot set was certainly no invention of any human mind. The set is just objectively there in the mathematics itself. If it has meaning to assign an actual existence to the Mandelbrot set, then that existence is not within our minds, for no one can fully comprehend the set"s
"1.3 CHAPTER 1
16
endless variety and unlimited complication.
:

Interesting book Harry, I downloaded it on PDF, free too, thanks. Man, have you read this book Harry?

Anyways, I have a question, and would like your (or anyone's) opinion about Roger Penrose comment above, (no, I did not read this book, lol .. I was just browsing through it) OK, he says:
"The Mandelbrot set was certainly no invention of any human mind. The set is just objectively there in the mathematics itself. If it has meaning to assign an actual existence to the Mandelbrot set, then that existence is not within our minds, for no one can fully comprehend the set"s endless variety and unlimited complication."

What does he mean by: "The set is just objectively there in the mathematics itself" ??

Does he mean like when they say "the universe is there, no will or plan of anyone, God or man"? Another words, having observed the existence of the incredible complexity of the Mandelbrot set/our universe, is this somehow proof that no one could have Intelligently Planned and Designed this, .. that it's just randomly there by chance?? Because I see nature itself is exactly like the Mandelbrot set, very complex, so complex it's beautiful. But when I look at the dirt outside, it too is randomly blown around by the wind, shaken by earthquakes, mixed together by floods, .. yet there is no beauty that I can see anyways!? Which makes me wonder how a 'mathematical expression' of the dirt outside would look like?

Anyone's comment will be greatly appreciated.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 4:57:30 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 1:11:42 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 12/18/2015 11:45:00 AM, Evidence wrote:

It would only be circular if the first relied on the second for justification and vice versa. If one of them is scientifically justified, the other follows, and it's no longer circular. :

Yes sir, that's exactly what I mean, based on the supernatural epiphany called the Big-bang Theory.
How can observing the existence of something explain where it came from unless you know where it came from and who made/designed it? Another words, we know where the Ford cars come from, .. designed by Ford, and from the Ford factory. But where do they make Big-bangs? Has anyone seen or witnessed things popping out of nothing?
To say "it always existed" would contradict this Big-bang and Evolution stories themselves. Why spend millions of man-hours and billions of $$$ to find out where it came from on something that you believe was always there? Isn't asking "who, what, how, why, from where" part of science? I mean the Big bang theory, or the Evolution theory breaks that rule, .. it tries to answer the "from where?" and "By whom, or by what?"
Or is anything, any idea acceptable except "God did it!" ?? Yet I can explain "God did it" as the only possibility, from observing the world around me including observing myself, but because of all the 'created' gods out there, the concept of an uncreated God, The Infinite and Eternal Mind, .. the Creator, not one of the tens of thousands of created creators, .. but the Creator Himself, not a being, but the Ground of Being is not to be even considered. Yet both the Big-bang and the Evolution creators were created by man. Go figure, where is the science in that?
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 7:03:26 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 12:01:41 AM, n7 wrote:
At 12/18/2015 10:54:26 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 12/18/2015 10:19:56 AM, tejretics wrote:
This post is definitely true. A virtual particle is hardly an example of "ex nihilo." :

Do you mean ex nihilo as in the definition:

ex ni"hi"lo
adverb
formal
adverb: ex nihilo

out of nothing.
"the fashioning of life ex nihilo by God"


Because Dr. Lawrence Krauss claims he can create a universe out of nothing with no problems at all!? That's better than Georges Lemaitre hearing a Big-Bang at the moment of the universes creation!
Krauss defines nothing in terms of something (virtual particles). Tej is speaking of the common definition of nothing.

Regardless, it's a swindlers attempt to cheat the masses and also gain book sales, Defining virtual particles as nothing, is ridiculous.

Hey look everybody, I discovered how the universe came from nothing, buy my book and then you'll discover that it's not actually nothing, but a scientific term to define something.

Completely bogus character who got a$$ whopped by Craig on numerous occasions, I am not sure which was more embarrassing.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 3:32:11 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 4:27:14 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 12/19/2015 12:24:44 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/18/2015 3:25:18 AM, Subutai wrote:

So why do quantum fluctuations really occur? They are a mathematical result of perturbation theory. Now, that's way too complicated for me to try to explain in clear, comprehensive detail. But you don't need to justify quantum fluctuations anyway. If you're ever using them to make a point, you don't need to explain why they occur (unless your opponent wants it, in which case you"ll need to do some research).

Does Roger Penrose not cover this in his book The Road To Reality?

http://www.amazon.com...

Harry. :

Road to Reality - The Mandelbrot set was certainly no invention of any human mind. The set is just objectively there in the mathematics itself. If it has meaning to assign an actual existence to the Mandelbrot set, then that existence is not within our minds, for no one can fully comprehend the set"s
"1.3 CHAPTER 1
16
endless variety and unlimited complication.
:

Interesting book Harry, I downloaded it on PDF, free too, thanks. Man, have you read this book Harry?
I bought it a couple of years back but was not expecting it to be as deep as it is, it truly grapples mathematically and unaplogetically with the real issues being dealt with by theoretical physicists, I do not have the expertise to follow all of the chapters easily, some would require lengthy side study into specialized branches of mathematics, it is perhaps the most mathematically rich book I have and I have a lot.

This is NO pop science book unless your a mathematician or PhD theoretical physicist.


Anyways, I have a question, and would like your (or anyone's) opinion about Roger Penrose comment above, (no, I did not read this book, lol .. I was just browsing through it) OK, he says:
"The Mandelbrot set was certainly no invention of any human mind. The set is just objectively there in the mathematics itself. If it has meaning to assign an actual existence to the Mandelbrot set, then that existence is not within our minds, for no one can fully comprehend the set"s endless variety and unlimited complication."

What does he mean by: "The set is just objectively there in the mathematics itself" ??

I'd like to hear Penrose asked that question (you can email Roger Penrose about the book). The set if course is the set of all points in the complex plane which when iterated never move outside the unit circle (centered at the origin), that's what the set is.

I don't think we can equate this with a no-designer argument though. After all the iterated equation itself was contrived by an intelligent mind as was the idea of the complex plane.

The Mandelbrot set is chaotic a particular kind of complexity, chaotic systems appear very complex but that;s due to the nature of chaos - very small changes in inputs can lead to huge changes in outputs.

Does he mean like when they say "the universe is there, no will or plan of anyone, God or man"? Another words, having observed the existence of the incredible complexity of the Mandelbrot set/our universe, is this somehow proof that no one could have Intelligently Planned and Designed this, .. that it's just randomly there by chance?? Because I see nature itself is exactly like the Mandelbrot set, very complex, so complex it's beautiful. But when I look at the dirt outside, it too is randomly blown around by the wind, shaken by earthquakes, mixed together by floods, .. yet there is no beauty that I can see anyways!? Which makes me wonder how a 'mathematical expression' of the dirt outside would look like?

Anyone's comment will be greatly appreciated.
Subutai
Posts: 3,187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 9:02:49 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 12:24:44 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/18/2015 3:25:18 AM, Subutai wrote:
An argument a lot of people have used, including myself, with regards to the explanation of quantum fluctuations, is that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows for a certain amount of energy to be borrowed, such that the time in which it is borrowed is small enough such that the product of that energy and the borrowing time is less than h/(4*pi). However, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle never entails anything of this sort.

The most important thing to remember is that the conservation of energy is fundamental, even in quantum mechanics. This falls out directly from the fact that the laws of quantum mechanics are time-translation invariant (meaning that they remain the same at any time), and from Noether's theorem, about how the invariance of a variable implies the conservation of its corresponding conjugate variable (a pair of conjugate variables are such that one can be found by taking the Fourier transform (or inverse Fourier transform) of the other). In other words, there should never be any violation of the conservation of energy under any circumstances.

With that in mind, the energy-time uncertainty principle needs to be reconsidered. For one thing, it's fundamentally different from the other two physical ones (the other two relate position/momentum and angle/angular momentum) in that time is not observable. In other words, you can't measure time like you can position or angle. Now, conceptually, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle relates two variables, both of which are observable (but not simultaneously observable), in such a way such that the product of their uncertainties must be less than h/(4*pi). But, if time can't be observed, it can't have an uncertainty, and thus the energy-time uncertainty principle implies something entirely different.

However, the energy-time uncertainty principle is still valid. All that's different is that delta t means something very different from delta x or delta theta in the other uncertainty principles. Delta t is the amount of time is takes the average value of the energy to change by one standard deviation. In other words, what this is saying is that, to measure the energy to a certain precision, one needs to measure the particle over a certain length of time, and the more precise one wants the measurement to be, the longer one needs to spend measuring it. However, the position-momentum uncertainty principle relates two variables being measured. One doesn't measure the momentum over a certain period of distance, as that makes no sense. Thus, the interpretation of the energy-time uncertainty principle is entirely different from the other two.

Any interpretation that says that the energy-time uncertainty principle condones violating the conservation of energy relies on a false premise - that one can interpret the energy-time uncertainty principle in the same way as the other two, which I've shown to be false.

So why do quantum fluctuations really occur? They are a mathematical result of perturbation theory. Now, that's way too complicated for me to try to explain in clear, comprehensive detail. But you don't need to justify quantum fluctuations anyway. If you're ever using them to make a point, you don't need to explain why they occur (unless your opponent wants it, in which case you"ll need to do some research).

Does Roger Penrose not cover this in his book The Road To Reality?

http://www.amazon.com...

Harry.

I'm not sure, I'm not familiar with the book.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 11:57:39 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Roger Penrose is just an old fuddy-duddy that believes in curved space and other redundant and dusty old ideas. Please refer to Robert Distinti for a more modern and up-to date version of reality.
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 6:12:17 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 3:32:11 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 12/19/2015 4:27:14 AM, Evidence wrote:

Interesting book Harry, I downloaded it on PDF, free too, thanks. Man, have you read this book Harry?
I bought it a couple of years back but was not expecting it to be as deep as it is, it truly grapples mathematically and unaplogetically with the real issues being dealt with by theoretical physicists, I do not have the expertise to follow all of the chapters easily, some would require lengthy side study into specialized branches of mathematics, it is perhaps the most mathematically rich book I have and I have a lot.

This is NO pop science book unless your a mathematician or PhD theoretical physicist.


Darn, .. well I have no PhD or a degree in theoretical physics, .. does about 2-4 years of elementary school count?

I don't understand it myself, but physics, especially quantum physics interests me, so does the theory of relativity!?!? I guess I depend more on my mind than what's stored in my brain, .. which means I'm still very dependent on my spelling checkerer lol.

Anyways, I have a question, and would like your (or anyone's) opinion about Roger Penrose comment above, (no, I did not read this book, lol .. I was just browsing through it) OK, he says:
"The Mandelbrot set was certainly no invention of any human mind. The set is just objectively there in the mathematics itself. If it has meaning to assign an actual existence to the Mandelbrot set, then that existence is not within our minds, for no one can fully comprehend the set"s endless variety and unlimited complication."

What does he mean by: "The set is just objectively there in the mathematics itself" ??

I'd like to hear Penrose asked that question (you can email Roger Penrose about the book). The set if course is the set of all points in the complex plane which when iterated never move outside the unit circle (centered at the origin), that's what the set is.

I don't think we can equate this with a no-designer argument though. After all the iterated equation itself was contrived by an intelligent mind as was the idea of the complex plane.


Yea, you're right .. so I guess I don't need a PhD to understand that "Complete guide to the Laws of the Universe" right? All I need is a good dictionary, and I have Google of info right at my fingertips.

The Mandelbrot set is chaotic a particular kind of complexity, chaotic systems appear very complex but that's due to the nature of chaos - very small changes in inputs can lead to huge changes in outputs.


Wait, you said "huge changes", .. it sounds Evolution-nish. You don't mean like tat small chaotic changes over very long time can produce a product of unimaginable complexity which actually works, .. like a human body do you?

Does he mean like when they say "the universe is there, no will or plan of anyone, God or man"? Another words, having observed the existence of the incredible complexity of the Mandelbrot set/our universe, is this somehow proof that no one could have Intelligently Planned and Designed this, .. that it's just randomly there by chance?? Because I see nature itself is exactly like the Mandelbrot set, very complex, so complex it's beautiful. But when I look at the dirt outside, it too is randomly blown around by the wind, shaken by earthquakes, mixed together by floods, .. yet there is no beauty that I can see anyways!? Which makes me wonder how a 'mathematical expression' of the dirt outside would look like?

Anyone's comment will be greatly appreciated. :

Ahh, never mind about the above comment, I was referring to the coloring of the pattern of the Mandelbrot set, looked pretty cool. I guess even chaos can be made to look artistic. But again, just about any scribble can be considered artistic because it doesn't have to actually represent anything in real life, or anything that works, right?
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2015 12:11:00 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 11:45:00 AM, Evidence wrote:


(1) With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark. However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope
Microwave not radio.
shows a faint background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object.
..and the frequencies found in the spectrum of the light are not the same as a distance star or galaxy

I mean claiming this 'faint background' glow as proof of "looking 13.75 billion years back in time" is kind of far fetched don't you think?
Not when you understand how to measure the distance to galaxies, how to measure a spectrum of frequencies, how black body radiation is produced, what happens when matter cools...When you put all the science together it makes sense.

Look, how big is our universe?
A. may be infinitely big.

But the furthest distances we have measured are just over 10 billion light years. Why would that be?

Could that 'background glow' be "trillions upon trillions of stars at a distance that 'look' like a faint background glow?

No the spectrum of the radiation does not match that of any other star or galaxy.

I mean we could generate that in a computer, have trillions of dots move away, which decreases sensitivity till it looks like a faint cloud, right? Just as we see the faint cloud of our galaxy with the naked eye.

No it would not give the same type of glow. Distant galaxies show up mostly as infra red light but the background radiation is all the same frequency and is in the microwave region of em radiation.

But once you become a Believer in the Big-bang story,

Because of the evidence..

you start interpreting things based on your belief, right? Before you know it, you are (general you) spending billions of dollars on LHC's

There is only one LHC funded by UK, Germany, France and Italy mainly and has already paid back the investment in spin off technology.

believing you will create a Big-bang by reducing particles to their minutest size, .. or whatever other (back up) story they have on hand!?

You truly are anti science. The Internet was invented at CERN by the way. So were touch screens and computer mice.


(2) the universe was once in a high-density state

Yes, if you believe the universe is expanding

(3) the universe is expanding

Which means the universe was once in a high-density state

The first indication of the expansion of the universe came from direct observations the speed of galaxies. All galaxies move away from us. How do you explain that?


Doesn't it seem to you that this whole BB-story is based on circular reasoning? But then all religions are based on circular reasoning; it couldn't be trillions of stars at a distance, instead, it's left over gasses from the Big-bang.

The glow is from when the universe cooled enough to allow atoms to form.


Find an unusual dried up jaw-bone of a pig, .. hey, it's the missing-link. Before you know it, a book is out with full illustration on how this mutating chimp/human looked like, and full in-detail stories on what it ate, how it died, why it died, etc.

So you think all scientists are stupid and jump to whatever conclusion they like. How is it possible that these same people can invent useful technology?
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2015 9:21:19 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 3:25:18 AM, Subutai wrote:
An argument a lot of people have used, including myself, with regards to the explanation of quantum fluctuations, is that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows for a certain amount of energy to be borrowed, such that the time in which it is borrowed is small enough such that the product of that energy and the borrowing time is less than h/(4*pi). However, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle never entails anything of this sort.

The most important thing to remember is that the conservation of energy is fundamental, even in quantum mechanics. This falls out directly from the fact that the laws of quantum mechanics are time-translation invariant (meaning that they remain the same at any time), and from Noether's theorem, about how the invariance of a variable implies the conservation of its corresponding conjugate variable (a pair of conjugate variables are such that one can be found by taking the Fourier transform (or inverse Fourier transform) of the other). In other words, there should never be any violation of the conservation of energy under any circumstances.

With that in mind, the energy-time uncertainty principle needs to be reconsidered. For one thing, it's fundamentally different from the other two physical ones (the other two relate position/momentum and angle/angular momentum) in that time is not observable. In other words, you can't measure time like you can position or angle. Now, conceptually, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle relates two variables, both of which are observable (but not simultaneously observable), in such a way such that the product of their uncertainties must be less than h/(4*pi). But, if time can't be observed, it can't have an uncertainty, and thus the energy-time uncertainty principle implies something entirely different.

However, the energy-time uncertainty principle is still valid. All that's different is that delta t means something very different from delta x or delta theta in the other uncertainty principles. Delta t is the amount of time is takes the average value of the energy to change by one standard deviation. In other words, what this is saying is that, to measure the energy to a certain precision, one needs to measure the particle over a certain length of time, and the more precise one wants the measurement to be, the longer one needs to spend measuring it. However, the position-momentum uncertainty principle relates two variables being measured. One doesn't measure the momentum over a certain period of distance, as that makes no sense. Thus, the interpretation of the energy-time uncertainty principle is entirely different from the other two.

Any interpretation that says that the energy-time uncertainty principle condones violating the conservation of energy relies on a false premise - that one can interpret the energy-time uncertainty principle in the same way as the other two, which I've shown to be false.

So why do quantum fluctuations really occur? They are a mathematical result of perturbation theory. Now, that's way too complicated for me to try to explain in clear, comprehensive detail. But you don't need to justify quantum fluctuations anyway. If you're ever using them to make a point, you don't need to explain why they occur (unless your opponent wants it, in which case you"ll need to do some research).

I would add that there is direct empirical evidence that they exist. Anyone who denies quantum fluctuations aka "virtual particles" is past skepticism and in the realm of willful ignorance.
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2015 9:29:11 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/24/2015 12:11:00 PM, chui wrote:
At 12/18/2015 11:45:00 AM, Evidence wrote:

(1) With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark. However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope : :

Microwave not radio. :

The above states that with a traditional telescope, the space between galaxies is completely dark, but with a sensitive radio telescope they can sense those very sensitive microwave background radiations left over by the Big-bang, or so I understood. Here is an article:
http://www.skyandtelescope.com...

- "After 17 years, researchers using the Parkes radio telescope in Australia have identified the culprit behind a mysterious type of radio signal: two on-site microwave ovens."

Now you correct me that it is a microwave telescope that senses microwave background radiation!?

shows a faint background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. : :
..and the frequencies found in the spectrum of the light are not the same as a distance star or galaxy


What I understand is that there is a difference between looking at an object (like a star) directly, and looking at the empty space perpendicular to the source, .. like if we were to look perpendicular into the light coming from the sun, is this correct?

OK, can you please explain the following;
1. Do stars, .. like our sun for instance, contain microwaves within the range that was observed right after the BB? You know, before any stars this MBR??

2. What telescope or instrument do they use to pick up these microwaves?

3. OK, so I'm learning about light, right? Or The electromagnetic spectrum of light, .. which is the range of all possible frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. In this spectrum (within the NUV and NIR) there is the what they call the 'visible light', which we can pick up with our eyes. Now here is my question; In space, .. looking perpendicular to the sun, would I see this 'visible light' with my naked eyes??

4. If what they claim is true that light travels and is limited to 186,282 m/p/s, which means that from our sun it would take 8 minutes for 'light' to reach us here on earth, does that mean ALL light spectrum, or just the visible light? (I ask because I read somewhere that some spectrums of light can exceed C, .. is this correct?

I mean claiming this 'faint background' glow as proof of "looking 13.75 billion years back in time" is kind of far fetched don't you think?
Not when you understand how to measure the distance to galaxies, how to measure a spectrum of frequencies, how black body radiation is produced, what happens when matter cools...When you put all the science together it makes sense.


OK, am I asked here to assume that when they look into a dark (starless) portion of space with their super telescopes, that there is no possible chance that there may be millions and billions of stars actually there, only it's so far that they can't pick up the light emanating from them because it's so dim?

B. that this Microwave spectrum of light is not coming from stars? I mean they say our sun alone has been burning for millions and billions of years 24/7, there should be a lot of this stuff traveling all around us, .. no?

Look, how big is our universe?
A. may be infinitely big.

But the furthest distances we have measured are just over 10 billion light years. Why would that be? :

See, there is that wrench again! So what is this claim: "It is estimated that the diameter of the observable universe is about 28.5 gigaparsecs (93 billion light-years, 8.8"1026 metres or 5.5"1023 miles), putting the edge of the observable universe at about 46.5 billion light-years away." ??

Could that 'background glow' be "trillions upon trillions of stars at a distance that 'look' like a faint background glow?

No the spectrum of the radiation does not match that of any other star or galaxy.


Oh come on, here they are looking into a dark spot in space between trillions of galaxies full of stars: "Oh look, see that background glow, that's not coming from any stars in galaxies, .. that there is PROOF of the Big Bang!" Pleeeaasseee?

I mean we could generate that in a computer, have trillions of dots move away, which decreases sensitivity till it looks like a faint cloud, right? Just as we see the faint cloud of our galaxy with the naked eye.

No it would not give the same type of glow. Distant galaxies show up mostly as infra red light but the background radiation is all the same frequency and is in the microwave region of em radiation.

Which they absolutely KNOW, without any doubt is NOT produced by our sun, or by anything else out there in the universe, correct? Like; 'they know what would be there without any star or galaxies', .. got it.

But once you become a Believer in the Big-bang story,

Because of the evidence..


Please, .. there are tens of thousands of gods out there, and billions of people who would die worshipping them, and the evidence is a meteorite, or just a story, an idea, like the BB-Evolution stories. Does 666 CERN and the LUCIFER telescope hint anything to you? How about the Jesuit who invented the Big bang story?

you start interpreting things based on your belief, right? Before you know it, you are (general you) spending billions of dollars on LHC's

There is only one LHC funded by UK, Germany, France and Italy mainly and has already paid back the investment in spin off technology.


Yep, and that's what the Pope, and Benny Hinn and the others say too; "it paid off". The spin off technology is science, it's the religious BS that I question. Now imagine where we could be without that huge overhead like the Vatican, the Benny Hinn's!? The money would be funding science alone, oh man, that would be something!

believing you will create a Big-bang by reducing particles to their minutest size, .. or whatever other (back up) story they have on hand!?

You truly are anti science. The Internet was invented at CERN by the way. So were touch screens and computer mice.


Yes, I like the science part, but can we remove the 666 religious part, .. please?

(2) the universe was once in a high-density state

Yes, if you believe the universe is expanding

(3) the universe is expanding

Which means the universe was once in a high-density state

The first indication of the expansion of the universe came from direct observations the speed of galaxies. All galaxies move away from us. How do you explain that?


Yeah, .. I'm still waiting for them to explain that?

Doesn't it seem to you that this whole BB-story is based on circular reasoning? But then all religions are based on circular reasoning; it couldn't be trillions of stars at a distance, instead, it's left over gasses from the Big-bang.

The glow is from when the universe cooled enough to allow atoms to form.


Claim from indoctrination.

Find an unusual dried up jaw-bone of a pig, .. hey, it's the missing-link. Before you know it, a book is out with full illustration on how this mutating chimp/human looked like, and full in-detail stories on what it ate, how it died, why it died, etc.

So you think all scientists are stupid and jump to whatever conclusion they like. How is it possible that these same people can invent useful technology? :

You keep mixing science with religion. You should know by now that religion rules over science, so science has to support the religion with b.s. or else they would stop funding all scientific/technological advancement.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2015 1:22:26 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 3:25:18 AM, Subutai wrote:
An argument a lot of people have used, including myself, with regards to the explanation of quantum fluctuations, is that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows for a certain amount of energy to be borrowed, such that the time in which it is borrowed is small enough such that the product of that energy and the borrowing time is less than h/(4*pi). However, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle never entails anything of this sort.

The most important thing to remember is that the conservation of energy is fundamental, even in quantum mechanics. This falls out directly from the fact that the laws of quantum mechanics are time-translation invariant (meaning that they remain the same at any time), and from Noether's theorem, about how the invariance of a variable implies the conservation of its corresponding conjugate variable (a pair of conjugate variables are such that one can be found by taking the Fourier transform (or inverse Fourier transform) of the other). In other words, there should never be any violation of the conservation of energy under any circumstances.

With that in mind, the energy-time uncertainty principle needs to be reconsidered. For one thing, it's fundamentally different from the other two physical ones (the other two relate position/momentum and angle/angular momentum) in that time is not observable. In other words, you can't measure time like you can position or angle. Now, conceptually, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle relates two variables, both of which are observable (but not simultaneously observable), in such a way such that the product of their uncertainties must be less than h/(4*pi). But, if time can't be observed, it can't have an uncertainty, and thus the energy-time uncertainty principle implies something entirely different.

However, the energy-time uncertainty principle is still valid. All that's different is that delta t means something very different from delta x or delta theta in the other uncertainty principles. Delta t is the amount of time is takes the average value of the energy to change by one standard deviation. In other words, what this is saying is that, to measure the energy to a certain precision, one needs to measure the particle over a certain length of time, and the more precise one wants the measurement to be, the longer one needs to spend measuring it. However, the position-momentum uncertainty principle relates two variables being measured. One doesn't measure the momentum over a certain period of distance, as that makes no sense. Thus, the interpretation of the energy-time uncertainty principle is entirely different from the other two.

Any interpretation that says that the energy-time uncertainty principle condones violating the conservation of energy relies on a false premise - that one can interpret the energy-time uncertainty principle in the same way as the other two, which I've shown to be false.

So why do quantum fluctuations really occur? They are a mathematical result of perturbation theory. Now, that's way too complicated for me to try to explain in clear, comprehensive detail. But you don't need to justify quantum fluctuations anyway. If you're ever using them to make a point, you don't need to explain why they occur (unless your opponent wants it, in which case you"ll need to do some research).

How coincidental ... i was curious about this very thing. I posted in the forum then saw yours... cool.
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2015 3:28:57 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/24/2015 9:21:19 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/18/2015 3:25:18 AM, Subutai wrote:
An argument a lot of people have used, including myself, with regards to the explanation of quantum fluctuations, is that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows for a certain amount of energy to be borrowed, such that the time in which it is borrowed is small enough such that the product of that energy and the borrowing time is less than h/(4*pi). However, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle never entails anything of this sort.

The most important thing to remember is that the conservation of energy is fundamental, even in quantum mechanics. This falls out directly from the fact that the laws of quantum mechanics are time-translation invariant (meaning that they remain the same at any time), and from Noether's theorem, about how the invariance of a variable implies the conservation of its corresponding conjugate variable (a pair of conjugate variables are such that one can be found by taking the Fourier transform (or inverse Fourier transform) of the other). In other words, there should never be any violation of the conservation of energy under any circumstances.

With that in mind, the energy-time uncertainty principle needs to be reconsidered. For one thing, it's fundamentally different from the other two physical ones (the other two relate position/momentum and angle/angular momentum) in that time is not observable. In other words, you can't measure time like you can position or angle. Now, conceptually, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle relates two variables, both of which are observable (but not simultaneously observable), in such a way such that the product of their uncertainties must be less than h/(4*pi). But, if time can't be observed, it can't have an uncertainty, and thus the energy-time uncertainty principle implies something entirely different.

However, the energy-time uncertainty principle is still valid. All that's different is that delta t means something very different from delta x or delta theta in the other uncertainty principles. Delta t is the amount of time is takes the average value of the energy to change by one standard deviation. In other words, what this is saying is that, to measure the energy to a certain precision, one needs to measure the particle over a certain length of time, and the more precise one wants the measurement to be, the longer one needs to spend measuring it. However, the position-momentum uncertainty principle relates two variables being measured. One doesn't measure the momentum over a certain period of distance, as that makes no sense. Thus, the interpretation of the energy-time uncertainty principle is entirely different from the other two.

Any interpretation that says that the energy-time uncertainty principle condones violating the conservation of energy relies on a false premise - that one can interpret the energy-time uncertainty principle in the same way as the other two, which I've shown to be false.

So why do quantum fluctuations really occur? They are a mathematical result of perturbation theory. Now, that's way too complicated for me to try to explain in clear, comprehensive detail. But you don't need to justify quantum fluctuations anyway. If you're ever using them to make a point, you don't need to explain why they occur (unless your opponent wants it, in which case you"ll need to do some research).

I would add that there is direct empirical evidence that they exist. Anyone who denies quantum fluctuations aka "virtual particles" is past skepticism and in the realm of willful ignorance. :

I agree, matter of fact over the years I noticed another form of quantum fluctuations, when a bunch of us (at my old church 30 + years ago) were gathered around for singing, everyone just sitting, whispering to each other waiting for everyone to show up, then a certain person shows up, and everyone stops, and turns to look at him/her. And I have observed this carefully, because this does not happen with everyone who enters the room, but there is that ONE that really sticks out.

oops, sorry, .. am I off topic again?
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2015 7:43:41 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/28/2015 3:28:57 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 12/24/2015 9:21:19 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/18/2015 3:25:18 AM, Subutai wrote:
An argument a lot of people have used, including myself, with regards to the explanation of quantum fluctuations, is that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows for a certain amount of energy to be borrowed, such that the time in which it is borrowed is small enough such that the product of that energy and the borrowing time is less than h/(4*pi). However, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle never entails anything of this sort.

The most important thing to remember is that the conservation of energy is fundamental, even in quantum mechanics. This falls out directly from the fact that the laws of quantum mechanics are time-translation invariant (meaning that they remain the same at any time), and from Noether's theorem, about how the invariance of a variable implies the conservation of its corresponding conjugate variable (a pair of conjugate variables are such that one can be found by taking the Fourier transform (or inverse Fourier transform) of the other). In other words, there should never be any violation of the conservation of energy under any circumstances.

With that in mind, the energy-time uncertainty principle needs to be reconsidered. For one thing, it's fundamentally different from the other two physical ones (the other two relate position/momentum and angle/angular momentum) in that time is not observable. In other words, you can't measure time like you can position or angle. Now, conceptually, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle relates two variables, both of which are observable (but not simultaneously observable), in such a way such that the product of their uncertainties must be less than h/(4*pi). But, if time can't be observed, it can't have an uncertainty, and thus the energy-time uncertainty principle implies something entirely different.

However, the energy-time uncertainty principle is still valid. All that's different is that delta t means something very different from delta x or delta theta in the other uncertainty principles. Delta t is the amount of time is takes the average value of the energy to change by one standard deviation. In other words, what this is saying is that, to measure the energy to a certain precision, one needs to measure the particle over a certain length of time, and the more precise one wants the measurement to be, the longer one needs to spend measuring it. However, the position-momentum uncertainty principle relates two variables being measured. One doesn't measure the momentum over a certain period of distance, as that makes no sense. Thus, the interpretation of the energy-time uncertainty principle is entirely different from the other two.

Any interpretation that says that the energy-time uncertainty principle condones violating the conservation of energy relies on a false premise - that one can interpret the energy-time uncertainty principle in the same way as the other two, which I've shown to be false.

So why do quantum fluctuations really occur? They are a mathematical result of perturbation theory. Now, that's way too complicated for me to try to explain in clear, comprehensive detail. But you don't need to justify quantum fluctuations anyway. If you're ever using them to make a point, you don't need to explain why they occur (unless your opponent wants it, in which case you"ll need to do some research).

I would add that there is direct empirical evidence that they exist. Anyone who denies quantum fluctuations aka "virtual particles" is past skepticism and in the realm of willful ignorance. :

I agree, matter of fact over the years I noticed another form of quantum fluctuations, when a bunch of us (at my old church 30 + years ago) were gathered around for singing, everyone just sitting, whispering to each other waiting for everyone to show up, then a certain person shows up, and everyone stops, and turns to look at him/her. And I have observed this carefully, because this does not happen with everyone who enters the room, but there is that ONE that really sticks out.

oops, sorry, .. am I off topic again?

It seems you are talking about quantum flatulence, which of course would cause everyone to turn when in a quiet solemn place such as church.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 7:41:49 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/25/2015 9:29:11 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 12/24/2015 12:11:00 PM, chui wrote:
At 12/18/2015 11:45:00 AM, Evidence wrote:

(1) With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark. However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope : :

Microwave not radio. :

The above states that with a traditional telescope, the space between galaxies is completely dark, but with a sensitive radio telescope they can sense those very sensitive microwave background radiations left over by the Big-bang, or so I understood. Here is an article:
http://www.skyandtelescope.com...

- "After 17 years, researchers using the Parkes radio telescope in Australia have identified the culprit behind a mysterious type of radio signal: two on-site microwave ovens."

Now you correct me that it is a microwave telescope that senses microwave background radiation!?

I was just making sure we were talking about the microwave background. We do not share a common understanding of science so it is important to establish precisely what you are talking about.


shows a faint background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. : :
..and the frequencies found in the spectrum of the light are not the same as a distance star or galaxy


What I understand is that there is a difference between looking at an object (like a star) directly, and looking at the empty space perpendicular to the source, .. like if we were to look perpendicular into the light coming from the sun, is this correct?

Light travels in straight lines so any light coming from what you call perpendicular to the source must have changed direction for a reason. Empty space will not change the direction of light, the light has to scatter off of something such as the Sun's corona. The process of scattering can change the spectrum of the light. The empty space between galaxies where we see the MBR is not going to change the direction of light.


OK, can you please explain the following;
1. Do stars, .. like our sun for instance, contain microwaves within the range that was observed right after the BB? You know, before any stars this MBR??

A sun produces a wide range of frequencies including those that are detected in the MBR now.


2. What telescope or instrument do they use to pick up these microwaves?

Lots of different ones covering wavelengths from x-ray to radio.


3. OK, so I'm learning about light, right? Or The electromagnetic spectrum of light, .. which is the range of all possible frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. In this spectrum (within the NUV and NIR) there is the what they call the 'visible light', which we can pick up with our eyes. Now here is my question; In space, .. looking perpendicular to the sun, would I see this 'visible light' with my naked eyes??

Not sure what you mean. I assume we are above the atmosphere and not looking directly at the sun. Light from the sun would reach my eyes only if it has interacted with some matter and scattered off in my direction. The corona will do this and is detectable during an eclipse. Of course the corona is very low in density and the majority (99.99%) of the sun's light goes straight past it and is never seen since it does not travel to us.


4. If what they claim is true that light travels and is limited to 186,282 m/p/s, which means that from our sun it would take 8 minutes for 'light' to reach us here on earth, does that mean ALL light spectrum, or just the visible light? (I ask because I read somewhere that some spectrums of light can exceed C, .. is this correct?

In the vacuum the (group) velocity of light is the same for any frequency. You were probably reading about phase velocity, which is very different and not relevant.


I mean claiming this 'faint background' glow as proof of "looking 13.75 billion years back in time" is kind of far fetched don't you think?
Not when you understand how to measure the distance to galaxies, how to measure a spectrum of frequencies, how black body radiation is produced, what happens when matter cools...When you put all the science together it makes sense.


OK, am I asked here to assume that when they look into a dark (starless) portion of space with their super telescopes, that there is no possible chance that there may be millions and billions of stars actually there, only it's so far that they can't pick up the light emanating from them because it's so dim?


There could be anything there but if no light reaches us either directly or indirectly we cannot see it. The light that does reach us from those starless spaces is not the light from stars because it is not the same as the light from any star we have seen. In simple terms it is the wrong colour to be starlight. Yes stars do produce microwave but they also produce lots of other frequencies that are not in the MBR. The MBR is just microwaves of wavelength 20mm to 0.5mm and nothing else.

If your hypothesis that MBR is the indirect light of stars is to be credible then you need to explain why the light changes direction and where the rest of the light from the stars goes. Then you need to explain why the MBR matches exactly the expected black body radiation of an object at 2.7K.

B. that this Microwave spectrum of light is not coming from stars? I mean they say our sun alone has been burning for millions and billions of years 24/7, there should be a lot of this stuff traveling all around us, .. no?

If it comes from a star it arrives with a whole load of other frequencies.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 8:13:05 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 3:25:18 AM, Subutai wrote:
An argument a lot of people have used, including myself, with regards to the explanation of quantum fluctuations, is that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows for a certain amount of energy to be borrowed, such that the time in which it is borrowed is small enough such that the product of that energy and the borrowing time is less than h/(4*pi). However, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle never entails anything of this sort.

The most important thing to remember is that the conservation of energy is fundamental, even in quantum mechanics. This falls out directly from the fact that the laws of quantum mechanics are time-translation invariant (meaning that they remain the same at any time), and from Noether's theorem, about how the invariance of a variable implies the conservation of its corresponding conjugate variable (a pair of conjugate variables are such that one can be found by taking the Fourier transform (or inverse Fourier transform) of the other). In other words, there should never be any violation of the conservation of energy under any circumstances.

The solutions to quantum equations are not time invariant.

With that in mind, the energy-time uncertainty principle needs to be reconsidered. For one thing, it's fundamentally different from the other two physical ones (the other two relate position/momentum and angle/angular momentum) in that time is not observable. In other words, you can't measure time like you can position or angle. Now, conceptually, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle relates two variables, both of which are observable (but not simultaneously observable), in such a way such that the product of their uncertainties must be less than h/(4*pi). But, if time can't be observed, it can't have an uncertainty, and thus the energy-time uncertainty principle implies something entirely different.

You are suggesting that time cannot be measured?

However, the energy-time uncertainty principle is still valid. All that's different is that delta t means something very different from delta x or delta theta in the other uncertainty principles. Delta t is the amount of time is takes the average value of the energy to change by one standard deviation. In other words, what this is saying is that, to measure the energy to a certain precision, one needs to measure the particle over a certain length of time, and the more precise one wants the measurement to be, the longer one needs to spend measuring it. However, the position-momentum uncertainty principle relates two variables being measured.

One doesn't measure the momentum over a certain period of distance, as that makes no sense.

Momentum is a vector so cannot be measured at a point because you cannot determine its direction with any accuracy at all.

Thus, the interpretation of the energy-time uncertainty principle is entirely different from the other two.

It is identical. The mathematics is all about using operators on harmonic series to get one variable eg momentum or energy which will be in the form of a frequency range and then transforming that series using Fourier theory to get the complementary variable also as a spectrum. Restricting the spectrum in one variable inevitably causes the spectrum of the other to spread. Taking a measurement automatically restricts the spectrum of a variable and causes the increase in spread and hence uncertainty in the other.

Any interpretation that says that the energy-time uncertainty principle condones violating the conservation of energy relies on a false premise - that one can interpret the energy-time uncertainty principle in the same way as the other two, which I've shown to be false.

The uncertainty principle puts a limit on how accurately energy conservation can be observed. So yes it can be violated by a small amount for a small duration because there are limits on how accurately the universe can be observed.

So why do quantum fluctuations really occur? They are a mathematical result of perturbation theory.

Perturbation theory is used when a system is too complicated to get an exact analytical solution, it is an approximate technique used mainly to determine hyper-fine detail in atomic energy levels.

Now, that's way too complicated for me to try to explain in clear, comprehensive detail. But you don't need to justify quantum fluctuations anyway. If you're ever using them to make a point, you don't need to explain why they occur (unless your opponent wants it, in which case you"ll need to do some research).

During beta decay a W- boson pops into existence before decaying into an electron and antineutrino. This requires 80GeV of energy. Where does this come from? Beta decay releases about 2Mev at most.
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 5:27:09 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/28/2015 7:43:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/28/2015 3:28:57 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 12/24/2015 9:21:19 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/18/2015 3:25:18 AM, Subutai wrote:
An argument a lot of people have used, including myself, with regards to the explanation of quantum fluctuations, is that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows for a certain amount of energy to be borrowed, such that the time in which it is borrowed is small enough such that the product of that energy and the borrowing time is less than h/(4*pi). However, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle never entails anything of this sort.

The most important thing to remember is that the conservation of energy is fundamental, even in quantum mechanics. This falls out directly from the fact that the laws of quantum mechanics are time-translation invariant (meaning that they remain the same at any time), and from Noether's theorem, about how the invariance of a variable implies the conservation of its corresponding conjugate variable (a pair of conjugate variables are such that one can be found by taking the Fourier transform (or inverse Fourier transform) of the other). In other words, there should never be any violation of the conservation of energy under any circumstances.

With that in mind, the energy-time uncertainty principle needs to be reconsidered. For one thing, it's fundamentally different from the other two physical ones (the other two relate position/momentum and angle/angular momentum) in that time is not observable. In other words, you can't measure time like you can position or angle. Now, conceptually, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle relates two variables, both of which are observable (but not simultaneously observable), in such a way such that the product of their uncertainties must be less than h/(4*pi). But, if time can't be observed, it can't have an uncertainty, and thus the energy-time uncertainty principle implies something entirely different.

However, the energy-time uncertainty principle is still valid. All that's different is that delta t means something very different from delta x or delta theta in the other uncertainty principles. Delta t is the amount of time is takes the average value of the energy to change by one standard deviation. In other words, what this is saying is that, to measure the energy to a certain precision, one needs to measure the particle over a certain length of time, and the more precise one wants the measurement to be, the longer one needs to spend measuring it. However, the position-momentum uncertainty principle relates two variables being measured. One doesn't measure the momentum over a certain period of distance, as that makes no sense. Thus, the interpretation of the energy-time uncertainty principle is entirely different from the other two.

Any interpretation that says that the energy-time uncertainty principle condones violating the conservation of energy relies on a false premise - that one can interpret the energy-time uncertainty principle in the same way as the other two, which I've shown to be false.

So why do quantum fluctuations really occur? They are a mathematical result of perturbation theory. Now, that's way too complicated for me to try to explain in clear, comprehensive detail. But you don't need to justify quantum fluctuations anyway. If you're ever using them to make a point, you don't need to explain why they occur (unless your opponent wants it, in which case you"ll need to do some research).

I would add that there is direct empirical evidence that they exist. Anyone who denies quantum fluctuations aka "virtual particles" is past skepticism and in the realm of willful ignorance. :

I agree, matter of fact over the years I noticed another form of quantum fluctuations, when a bunch of us (at my old church 30 + years ago) were gathered around for singing, everyone just sitting, whispering to each other waiting for everyone to show up, then a certain person shows up, and everyone stops, and turns to look at him/her. And I have observed this carefully, because this does not happen with everyone who enters the room, but there is that ONE that really sticks out.

oops, sorry, .. am I off topic again?

It seems you are talking about quantum flatulence, which of course would cause everyone to turn when in a quiet solemn place such as church. :

That would be sensing the obvious with a nose-detector, much like detecting a wall with ones face. A no-brainer, right?
No, but seriously, I was just contemplating on the "Which Way" Thought Experiment, but I guess just mentioning church was like putting ones head behind the double-slit plate to see which slit the photon passes through?

Another words, it seems that science in the quantum field can only be discussed within a narrow religious discipline (even though Big-bangers/atheists refuse to admit they are religious), or tunnel vision. Soon as I mention 'church' (which is associated with God) it blocks that narrow view that religious scientists (not open minded scientists where the possibility God, Creator is always there) look through.

I guess that explains why they would spend billions of $$$ on the LHC, .. they actually believe the universe popped out of nothing as the simplest basic particle that can be found within the already existing complete universe, and Big-Banged (OK, quickly expanded) from a very dense and hot state. I mean really, why would the already most-basic particle have to be dense'd down? And how do they get the already most basic particle to get hotter and hotter? Through tunnel vision, abandoning reason that's how.

where is the "thought experiment" in that? Oh yea, you can think Ev, just don't go beyond that narrow scope!"

It seems to me that the first thing you have to do when dealing with or in the quantum realm is give up reason, you are not to rationalize outside the narrow scope, like all religions, the first thing required is tunnel vision, or blind-faith.

Anyways, that was funny slo1, and science should be fun, right?
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
Subutai
Posts: 3,187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 5:53:41 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 8:13:05 AM, chui wrote:
At 12/18/2015 3:25:18 AM, Subutai wrote:
An argument a lot of people have used, including myself, with regards to the explanation of quantum fluctuations, is that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows for a certain amount of energy to be borrowed, such that the time in which it is borrowed is small enough such that the product of that energy and the borrowing time is less than h/(4*pi). However, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle never entails anything of this sort.

The most important thing to remember is that the conservation of energy is fundamental, even in quantum mechanics. This falls out directly from the fact that the laws of quantum mechanics are time-translation invariant (meaning that they remain the same at any time), and from Noether's theorem, about how the invariance of a variable implies the conservation of its corresponding conjugate variable (a pair of conjugate variables are such that one can be found by taking the Fourier transfnorm (or inverse Fourier transform) of the other). In other words, there should never be any violation of the conservation of energy under any circumstances.

The solutions to quantum equations are not time invariant.


That's not what I said. I said that the laws of quantum mechanics are time invariant. That's all that's important here.
With that in mind, the energy-time uncertainty principle needs to be reconsidered. For one thing, it's fundamentally different from the other two physical ones (the other two relate position/momentum and angle/angular momentum) in that time is not observable. In other words, you can't measure time like you can position or angle. Now, conceptually, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle relates two variables, both of which are observable (but not simultaneously observable), in such a way such that the product of their uncertainties must be less than h/(4*pi). But, if time can't be observed, it can't have an uncertainty, and thus the energy-time uncertainty principle implies something entirely different.

You are suggesting that time cannot be measured?


Yes, at least in quantum mechanics, because it is not an observable.
However, the energy-time uncertainty principle is still valid. All that's different is that delta t means something very different from delta x or delta theta in the other uncertainty principles. Delta t is the amount of time is takes the average value of the energy to change by one standard deviation. In other words, what this is saying is that, to measure the energy to a certain precision, one needs to measure the particle over a certain length of time, and the more precise one wants the measurement to be, the longer one needs to spend measuring it. However, the position-momentum uncertainty principle relates two variables being measured.

One doesn't measure the momentum over a certain period of distance, as that makes no sense.

Momentum is a vector so cannot be measured at a point because you cannot determine its direction with any accuracy at all.


You're only helping make my point here.
Thus, the interpretation of the energy-time uncertainty principle is entirely different from the other two.

It is identical. The mathematics is all about using operators on harmonic series to get one variable eg momentum or energy which will be in the form of a frequency range and then transforming that series using Fourier theory to get the complementary variable also as a spectrum. Restricting the spectrum in one variable inevitably causes the spectrum of the other to spread. Taking a measurement automatically restricts the spectrum of a variable and causes the increase in spread and hence uncertainty in the other.


But this automatically assumes that time can be treated in the same way as position and angle are. And it can't. That's because time is not an observable, whereas position and angle are. This changes how we can interpret the energy-time uncertainty principle.
Any interpretation that says that the energy-time uncertainty principle condones violating the conservation of energy relies on a false premise - that one can interpret the energy-time uncertainty principle in the same way as the other two, which I've shown to be false.

The uncertainty principle puts a limit on how accurately energy conservation can be observed. So yes it can be violated by a small amount for a small duration because there are limits on how accurately the universe can be observed.


You clearly haven't read what I wrote in the beginning. You can't interpret the energy-time uncertainty principle the same way.
So why do quantum fluctuations really occur? They are a mathematical result of perturbation theory.

Perturbation theory is used when a system is too complicated to get an exact analytical solution, it is an approximate technique used mainly to determine hyper-fine detail in atomic energy levels.


This has no bearing on my point.
Now, that's way too complicated for me to try to explain in clear, comprehensive detail. But you don't need to justify quantum fluctuations anyway. If you're ever using them to make a point, you don't need to explain why they occur (unless your opponent wants it, in which case you"ll need to do some research).

During beta decay a W- boson pops into existence before decaying into an electron and antineutrino. This requires 80GeV of energy. Where does this come from? Beta decay releases about 2Mev at most.

This is where perturbation theory is useful. It turns out that the discrepancy you mention is a result of perturbation theory.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.