Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

# Virtual Particles and Uncertainty

 Posts: 4,062 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/18/2015 3:25:18 AMPosted: 1 year agoAn 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).Don't let this site's demise affect you: - Make an account on eDeb8 - Message Mikal to transfer your stats to eDeb8 (if you want them transferred) - Contact any friends on here you'd like to stay in contact with - Download any debates you'd like archived (go here: http://webpagetopdf.com...) - Download as many mafia games as you can to preserve stats and history
 Posts: 3,012 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/18/2015 4:23:39 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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*
 Posts: 6,744 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/18/2015 10:19:56 AMPosted: 1 year agoThis 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 http://gotejas.com...
 Posts: 1,386 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/18/2015 10:54:26 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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"loadverbformaladverb: ex nihiloout 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!
 Posts: 6,744 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/18/2015 10:59:40 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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"loadverbformaladverb: ex nihiloout 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 http://gotejas.com...
 Posts: 6,744 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/18/2015 11:00:42 AMPosted: 1 year ago@EvidenceAlso, 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 http://gotejas.com...
 Posts: 1,386 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/18/2015 11:13:11 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 12/18/2015 11:00:42 AM, tejretics wrote:@EvidenceAlso, 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.
 Posts: 1,386 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/18/2015 11:45:00 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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"loadverbformaladverb: ex nihiloout 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 stateYes, if you believe the universe is expanding(3) the universe is expandingWhich means the universe was once in a high-density stateDoesn'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.
 Posts: 6,744 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/18/2015 1:11:42 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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 http://gotejas.com...
 Posts: 4,062 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/18/2015 2:00:43 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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.Don't let this site's demise affect you: - Make an account on eDeb8 - Message Mikal to transfer your stats to eDeb8 (if you want them transferred) - Contact any friends on here you'd like to stay in contact with - Download any debates you'd like archived (go here: http://webpagetopdf.com...) - Download as many mafia games as you can to preserve stats and history
 Posts: 3,012 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/18/2015 2:03:14 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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.
 Posts: 1,465 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/19/2015 12:01:41 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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"loadverbformaladverb: ex nihiloout 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.
 Posts: 1,856 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/19/2015 12:24:44 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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.
 Posts: 1,386 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/19/2015 4:27:14 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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 116endless 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.
 Posts: 1,386 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/19/2015 4:57:30 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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?
 Posts: 2,919 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/19/2015 7:03:26 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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"loadverbformaladverb: ex nihiloout 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.
 Posts: 4,062 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/19/2015 9:02:49 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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.Don't let this site's demise affect you: - Make an account on eDeb8 - Message Mikal to transfer your stats to eDeb8 (if you want them transferred) - Contact any friends on here you'd like to stay in contact with - Download any debates you'd like archived (go here: http://webpagetopdf.com...) - Download as many mafia games as you can to preserve stats and history
 Posts: 945 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/20/2015 11:57:39 AMPosted: 1 year agoRoger 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.