KAG:


Really? What causes virtual particles?

Before I respond to anything else that you have written, let me just express my shock that you could write this YET AGAIN.

You and I have been over the virtual particles argument very thoroughly and it was conclusively shown to you that virtual particles DO NOT arise from nothing - contrary to what you claimed. Indeed I recall showing you - and you agreed with apologies - that quantum vacuums within which virtual particles emerge ARE NOT nothing - and that indeed there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum that has ever been observed.

It is therefore beyond bizzare that you would yet revert with this argument.

@KAG. Your certitude that there's a space station somewhere in the universe, just existing makes me do a rethink. This singular reason makes almost all other questions irrelevant. You're succinct. I like that. Let me ask this though: do you think the universe is finite or infinite? Bear in mind the big bang theory when answering.

@Deep Sight. I don't really understand this vacuum thingie you guys are talking about. I don't understand why it is impossible for a perfect vacuum to exist. I'd say it is only a matter of scale. A hydrogen atom has its nucleus relatively very far from its electron. It is comparable to putting a baseball in the middle of a stadium, I think. What would you say occupies the space between an atom's nucleus and its electron. I dunno if I'm uneducated about this. So you guys better explain.

vescucci:


@Deep Sight. I don't really understand this vacuum thingie you guys are talking about. I don't understand why it is impossible for a perfect vacuum to exist. I'd say it is only a matter of scale. A hydrogen atom has its nucleus relatively very far from its electron. It is comparable to putting a baseball in the middle of a stadium, I think. What would you say occupies the space between an atom's nucleus and its electron. I dunno if I'm uneducated about this. So you guys better explain.

KAG was attempting in a previous discourse quite a while ago to prove to me that it is possible for something to emerge from nothing.

I sated to Kag -

Let me just assist you one last time to see the firm reason you are not to be taken seriously in this discussion.

The question was if it is possible for something to emerge from nothing. I stated that it is not possible: you claimed that it is possible. In defense of your claim you cited virtual particles in a quantum vacuum.

SHE THEN SAID -

KAG:

Virtual particles emerge from nothing into the universe.

I then informed her -

Thereafter I pointed out to you that quantum vacuums are not “nothing” and as such your claim that virtual particles arise from “nothing” could not be sustained. I did also point out to you that scientifically there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum – namely that it is only a philosophical precept. ONLY after I had pointed these out did you revert conceding –

And she retracted here -

KAG:

Vacuums have a specific place in physics and in this instance they indicate something

- - - thereby conceding that Vacuums are not nothing.

She then went on to say –

KAG:

What has been said also is that short of the probability of uncertainty, a vacuum possesses nothing.

To which I responded -

WHICH IS AN OUTRIGHT FALSITY BECAUSE THE TRUTH IS THAT – THE SAID VACUUMS HAVE GASEOUS PRESSURE – ONLY MUCH LOWER THAN NORMALLY OBSERVED ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE

She retracted -

KAG:

That was my fault. I should have been more specific. It was sloppy on my part.

KAG:

I apologised for being sloppy in my depiction of vacuums.

I had further stated that the fact of the matter is simple and clear for all to see: that KAG's claim that virtual particles EMERGE from “nothing” IS SCIENTIFICALY FALSE – AS THE VACUUM YOU REFER TO IS NOT NOTHING – AND THIS HAS BEEN CONCLUSIVELY PROVED

To regurgitate this point for you, Vesc, please note that quantuum vacuums -

1. Contain a time-energy uncertainty

2. Contain low gaseous pressure

And as such it is conclusive that they are not "nothing" and are not "perfect vacuums." In this regard please note the following -

Wikipedia -

In everyday usage, vacuum is a volume of space that is essentially empty of matter, such that its gaseous pressure is [size=16pt]much less than atmospheric pressure[/size].[1] The word comes from the Latin term for "empty". Even putting aside the complexities of the quantum vacuum, [size=16pt]the classical notion of a perfect vacuum with gaseous pressure of exactly zero is only a philosophical concept and never is observed in practice.[/size] Physicists often discuss ideal test results that would occur in a perfect vacuum, which they simply call "vacuum" or "free space", and [size=16pt]use the term partial vacuum to refer to real vacuum.[/size] The Latin term in vacuo is also used to describe an object as being in [size=16pt]what would otherwise be a vacuum.[/size]

So KAG's argument that virtual particles are uncaused simply cannot fly once it is shown that they do not emerge from nothingness, but from something.

Indeed Beneli had also had the following to say -

@KAG,
Your understanding of the uncertainty principle, virtual particles etc is totally flawed. Virtual particles do NOT emerge from nothing. In my initial response to you i had contexualised their behaviour as being within 'a complex space-time continuum' because their unusual behaviour-the way they oscillate between a form of matter ('particles) and a form of energy (waves)-at the level of quantum physics makes some scientists to consider their relationship to the whole concept of parallel universes, extradimensional space etc. Some have even posited that they are the 'graviton's being postulated to be the means by which gravity 'seeps out of our space-time continuum'.

Which is why I am surprised that KAG will still revert months later deploying the same argument in proof of decontextualized existences - which are in themselves illogical and inconceivable within a finite universe.

Ok. I understand now. There's even the case for dark matter. Boy, you're one thorough dude. See evidence, lol. I didn't know KAG was a woman though.

Deep Sight:

Before I respond to anything else that you have written, let me just express my shock that you could write this YET AGAIN.

You shouldn't be.

You and I have been over the virtual particles argument very thoroughly and it was conclusively shown to you that virtual particles DO NOT arise from nothing - contrary to what you claimed. Indeed I recall showing you - and you agreed with apologies - that quantum vacuums within which virtual particles emerge ARE NOT nothing - and that indeed there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum that has ever been observed.

Actually, read the thread again (here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-445085.160.html), you'll see that nothing of the sort was shown. Instead, the discussion lead to a discussion on the Casimir effect, and laboratory experiments showing the reality of virtual particles.

Further, yes, I agreed that quantum vacuums are not "nothingness", to which I explained to you that they are not nothing because of quantum fluctuations - that is, the emergence of virtual particles into what would be a vacuum. Unfortunately, for some reason, you decided that saying something emerges from nothing (see: having no cause) into space was somehow the same as saying virtual particles had a cause or something.

By the way, my apology was for being sloppy in my definition  of a vacuum and presuming that they could be recreated on earth. Link: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-445085.128.html#msg6100059 Towards the end of the post. I have no problem admitting a mistake or conceding a point when it's shown to be wrong - it's not a character flaw nor grounds for what is starting to look like the onset of a fallacy. It has to be shown to be wrong or that I've made a mistake, first, though.

It is therefore beyond bizzare that you would yet revert with this argument.

When the evidence shows something . . . Feel free to address the rest of post in your time.

vescucci:

@KAG. Your certitude that there's a space station somewhere in the universe, just existing makes me do a rethink. This singular reason makes almost all other questions irrelevant. You're succinct. I like that. Let me ask this though: do you think the universe is finite or infinite? Bear in mind the big bang theory when answering.

When you asked about a space station somewhere in the universe, did you mean other than those made by humans? I thought you were being facetious. Hmm, if you weren't, that changes everything. Do I think the Universe is finite? Yes, personally I do.

Deep Sight:

(snip)
So KAG's argument that virtual particles are uncaused simply cannot fly once it is shown that they do not emerge from nothingness, but from something.

What causes virtual particles? As in what - physical something - causes them? By they way, virtual particles emerge into something from nothing.

Deep Sight:

Indeed Beneli had also had the following to say -

To which I responded with:

"I disagree. What part of my understanding of the uncertainty principle is flawed?


Yet again, findings show otherwise. This is your turn to show me a reliable source that shows that virtual particles don't emerge from nothing.

I suspect you've missed something while reading up on the function of virtual particles. I could be wrong, but it seems you've mistaken what can possibly happen to virtual particles with a statement on their emergence. The subject of parallel universes and virtual particles is an interesting one - and one I have considered myself a few years ago. However, so far there's simply no evidence for it, while there is evidence for what I have proposed otherwise. I wouldn't put much stock in virtual particles being gravitons. Then again, this is the first time I've seen the suggestion that virtual particles could be gravitons, so I could be biased against it."

Linky: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-445085.192.html#msg6148163

For whatever reason, there was no response from beneli nor provided with a reliable source that "shows that virtual particles don't emerge from nothing." Even after I posted one such source (NewScientist) showing exactly what I had stated.

So, back to the thread?

Which is why I am surprised that KAG will still revert months later deploying the same argument in proof of decontextualized existences - which are in themselves illogical and inconceivable within a finite universe.

Que?

Are you a woman or not? Dude is an asexual term nowadays though. I wasn't only not being facetious, I meant a space station that wasn't 'made' by anything. One that was just a results of random asteroids hitting each other or whatever. I'd surprised you think the universe is finite. I'm still undecided about this but if the big bang is to be thoroughly believed, I guess it has to be. Infinity cannot get bigger. This raises another question. I'm no scientist, bear with me. If space is increasing and matter with which it is contained doesn't, what fills the extra space? What do you think of dark matter?

vescucci:

Are you a woman or not?

Does it change anything?

Dude is an asexual term nowadays though. I wasn't only not being facetious, I meant a space station that wasn't 'made' by anything. One that was just a results of random asteroids hitting each other or whatever.

Oh, I see what you mean. That wasn't clear earlier. Perhaps I should have asked for clarification before answering the question. To answer the question again given the clarification, then, no, I don't believe that there is a space station that arose unmade, etc somewhere in the universe.

I'd surprised you think the universe is finite.

Why?

I'm still undecided about this but if the big bang is to be thoroughly believed, I guess it has to be. Infinity cannot get bigger.

Not necessarily right. While I never did understand the argument that infinity and the Big Bang are somehow exclusive, it's somewhat wrong to presume that infinity can't get bigger. This is particularly true in mathematics which deals with sets of infinity, including "infinite cardinals" and "large cardinals".

This raises another question. I'm no scientist, bear with me. If space is increasing and matter with which it is contained doesn't, what fills the extra space?

Particles: both real and virtual.

What do you think of dark matter?

I'm torn on it. On the one hand, to some extent, it makes sense. On the other, because of its conception, it needs more physical evidence to be convincing and topple competing theories and ideas.

Lol. You've answered in not answering. It is supposed to change nothing but I'll have to admit it makes you doubly fascinating. I won't refer to it again don't worry. Before I continue, let me say: I'm no scientist. I understand it so I will accept evidence if it is such. But theories are usually just explanations and not proof. So what follows is just my brain doing its thing and cannot be taken more seriously than a regular guy's rambling.

Ah, you don't believe that there's a space station somewhere that just sort of happened? Well, I'm unsure about the parallels but that is how spontaneous life sounds to me.

I'm surprised cuz I guess I just figured you for the type that'd think the universe is infinite hence all the "probability for life is 1". If the universe is not infinite, the probability cannot be one based on sheer amount of matter in existence. The only other way the probability could be one is if time was infinite i.e. has no beginning. And that is untrue (as far as matter is concerned) because the big bang happened some time. The universe is not infinite and the big bang happened at one time, so that means an unimaginable amount of matter has been raging around for a veeeeeeery long time but they're both still finite the same way there's an exact amount of atoms on earth at an instantaneous point in time. Do you get my reasoning?

I think if you believe that the big bang happened then it presupposes that the universe is finite. All it is is extremely unfathomably big and often this is treated as infinity because we are not equipped to even begin to imagine to measure it. Just like a lightyear is virtually infinite compared to a cubit but it is not infinite. I do not know or remember what infinite cardinals are in relations to large ones but mathematics deal with assumptions and abstracts that give us relatively accurate results. For instance when you say something tends towards infinity you treat it as if it was infinity but it is not. It only forever and ever tends towards it. Complex numbers are another example. There's no such thing that will be squared to give a negative but we use these numbers in mathematics and get outta trouble so to speak. They are just concepts, abstractions. So I agree that infinity can get bigger but only in theory. I'll have to go educate myself on this virtual particle thingie. Or can you please put it in layman terms for me here?

The dark matter thing to me is just an explanation for the theory of relativity to be coped with. I liken it to the concentric circles astrologists of old used to put on their planetary systems to account for varying positions. I think there's something to it sha. Don't know what. What about black holes? Do you think they are caused? Do you think they are like miniuniverses? Do you even think they exist?

KAG:

What causes virtual particles? As in what - physical something - causes them? By they way, virtual particles emerge into something from nothing.

Que?

Oh Kag! Are you not tired of missing the mark on this subject?

You say that "virtual particles emerge into something from nothing." - CAN YOU PLEASE SHOW US WHERE THIS MYSTERIOUS "NOTHING" FROM WHICH THEY EMERGE IS? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Because the science of the matter shows that they emerge in a quantuum vacuum - and it has conclusively been proved that a quantuum vacuum is NOT nothing. It is something. So I may advance to you a more scientific surmise that they emerge from the quantuum vacuum - which is NOT nothing - as proven - and as already accepted by you -

Quote from: KAG on May 27, 2010, 12:18 AM

Vacuums have a specific place in physics and in this instance they indicate something

You thus have NO BASIS for your statement that they emerge "from nothing."

This is just a matter of mistranslation jare. It ought not be an issue

Back to the topic. . .does the universe have any need for the development of sentient beings within it?

If it doesn't, why does the evolutionary process tend to have produced sentient beings.

What is the use of sentient beings.

KAG just fall my hand run away. I like the questions. My two or three kobo will come soon

g

Here's a good "creation" experiment.

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

Deep Sight: At this stage i must introduce a question on the subject that i think is pertinent -

When supposed mutations occur that enhance the ability of a creature to competitively survive -

1. Does the creature consciously "think" that it requires the mutation and therby begins to stimulate its brain to derive the mutation over generations or -

2. Does the supposed mutation occur over generations unconsciously, without the awareness of the creature.

The first supposition is eminently false and a farce - just a joke really.

The second supposition is the correct supposition and shows that biological elements are at work improving "survivability" even when the creature is totally unaware of the activity of such elements.

What are these elements?

What actuates the elements to derive developments in the biological make-up of the creature which further its survivability and thereby furthers life?

Random changes in DNA due to abiotic factors or errors in genetic processes supposedly create these traits.

Deep Sight: The fundamental principle of evolution is development of species through natural selection.

Natural Selection is based on the notion that favours survival of the fittest.

Creatures supposedly develop features over time that enable them to survive competitively within the natural world.

Thus Evolution and natural selection tend firmly towards life and survival.

This in itself clearly presupposes that nature is life-driven - as it continuously hones its creatures towards life.

Perhaps the question should be asked: why is this? Why is nature interested in the furtherance of life?

It is paradoxical as a strictly material universe surely could not be bothered about furthering life.

It thus emerges that the very principle of natural selection which operates to further life is compelling evidence that the entire system we live in is life-driven and grows towars the furtherance of life.

Why is this?

A good answer to my mind would be the existence of God - Ultimate Life, as it were.

Because it is glaring that if LIFE by itself were not a living pulsating reality, nature could just as easily have tended towards death or annihilation.

Evolution proves the existence of God!

Anybody that keeps arguing about LIFE is seriously under delusion because scientists themselves don't know how life start on earth. Natural selection is just a mere assumption about life.