by jam 153 Replies latest jw friends
Eventually when he gave an answer he said that he believes in Spinoza's God, that is an intelligence to the universe but rejected the idea of a personal God that monitors and is concerned with the individual lives of people on Earth.
Interesting. I've often theorized that if there was a god, this would be the kind. More of a cosmic air controller than a social worker.
since my explanation was ignored and you ask for clarification, allow me to be more direct:
Now, though, I want to thank you for the link. Because I think it validates the validity of my question(s) regarding HOW Dr. Hawking can KNOW... so much as to SAY... that virtual particles don't come "from" or go "to" somewhere [else].
It dosnt. you dont understand quantum mechanics.
I get it, from you AND from the article, that scientifically the things don't really even exist but are only a... ummmmm... "place-holder" of sorts to explain something that IS measurable. I get that.
no they are not. They are a basic property of reality. You dont understand quantum mechanics.
But it was not presented that way.
I dont believe that.
Rather, it was presented that they DO exist...
...because they do in the sence things exist in quantum mechanics. And hawkins, being an expert, know they do. It is not safe to ignore what you dont like or do not understand and claim something else.
and in a manner that says scientists DO know that they don't come "from"/go "to" somewhere [else] (well, duh - something that doesn't exist CAN'T come from/go to somewhere else).
about as meaningfull as taking a walk to figure out where time goes. you dont understand quantum mechanics.
If they don't exist,
but they still do. they exist, dammit, no matter if you like it or not! And unlike the invisible thing you claim to talk to, their effects have been predicted and clearly detected.
though, why use them to support a theory that what HAPPENS with them... them, being something...
virtual particles is a fundamental consequence of the most successful theory we have. the above does not make sence.
as what occurred to literally start the "big bang"? When there is absolutely NO WAY that could have happened because they are nothing?
based on false premise
My questions, then, were based on Dr. Hawking's assertions that there is something that exists... but we can't see, prove, or even measure...
virtual particles is a direct consequence of quantum mechanics. we have measured their effect. without virtual particless all modern physics fall.
but only know that it appears and disappears...
false.
and that it doesn't do so "from" or "to" somewhere.
makes no sence.
Given the "revelations" of your linked article, it actually was only BS... for the layman.
hahahahahaha!
Truly, I think the author was actually stating that those who, like Hawking, try to use this example to support their theories ARE BS'ing folks.
lol!
And THAT is what I mean about scientists' PRESENTATION of science often being NO DIFFERENT than religionists PRESENTATION of religion. Smoke... and mirrors.
oh my god the irony!
Again, thank you for the link...and peace to you!
pease to you to!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
sound exactly like science!
P.S. Of course, if you or anyone else disagrees with my understanding of the article,
I cant believe anyone would agree.
you are more than free to help me understand why you think so.
I did in my previous post. Since you are still claiming virtual particles are undetected i take it you did not read it or just choose to ignore facts because it does not suit you.
But if you're only going to send me to another link and say, in essence, "Well, if you don't have enough intelligence to understand this stuff on your own, you're an idjit"...
I would recommend any elementary textbook on quantum mechanics. or simply accep that when a renowed professor in high-energy physics state a well known consequence of quantum mechanics, he properly mean what he says.
don't get YOUR chonies in a bunch when I stick to what I DO understand.
sure aint quantum mechanics, but i guess you will go down the "he is so mean for not explaining this to me". Guess what, i might be mean for pointing out you are in direct contradiction with well-known results in physics, but it sure dont make you right.
Ceades: finally a voice of reason!
Just my take on the detectability of virtual particles... i hope i dont sound like i am trying to give a lecture, i just think its a really interesting subject: When dealing with something like a photon, you cant really study anything other than its effect, for instance triggering an exitation of an atom in a photo-detector or something like that (indeed quantum mechanics inform us measuring the photon will alter it drastically!). in other words, we believe photons exist because we can see their effects and predict it at great accuracy.
It cannot be stressed enough how accurately we can predict and measure the effects of virtual particles. Virtual particles (photons for instance) fill all of vacuum. It is a consequence of quantum mechanics they can exert a force on eg. two plates (the casimir effect), and by using quantum mechanics we can directly calculate the magnitude of the force, its depenency on seperation and so no, all which have been measured and turned out right. Furthermore virtual particles are simply needed to make anything work that have to do with quantization of fields, in other words, the past 50 years of extremely accurate predictions and experiments would fall en masse.
We dont like virtual particles because they do not behave like elephants and we like to think everything behave like an elephant... but i think a person should go to a zoo if he like elephants that much!
Caedes: Just a final thing. Virtual particles do (as far as i understand) conserve energy/momentum/charge etc., but it is technical and relate to the dynamics (which i have avoided because i am not very informed).
Hand-weaving on: Basically to say something violate conservation of energy, we have to say energy at time T is X and at time T + dt it is something else. but now things get fuzzy: The current state of the universe will evolve in a probabilistic way. Which mean the past (future) is one of many. So in saying energy is not conserved, when viewing at time T+dt, we might be right if we look at just one particular past (and energy) at time T, but which is add-hoc, ie. undefined. In other words, we should average energy over the many potential pasts to get the energy "back then". According to such an average energy (charge, momentum...) is conserved.
That is at least how i recall it, but wikipedia is properly more exact.
Actually did read the article, dear Bohm (peace to you!)... and three times so that I could be sure that I understood what I thought I understood. Looked up terminonology as well, including "Feynman Diagrams." And you're right: I don't understand QM, QFT, or QED. Be that as it may, I think, even more than the article, my points in all of this is best shown on the forum that the article linked us to:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=75307
Please take note of the conclusion of Dr. Feynman's experience set forth on page 2 (Comment #28) and tell me how the discussion on that forum... is any different from what he observed with the philosphers... and what I said I observed with Dr. Hawking's presentation... and even some interchanges on the matter here.
You and some here/there say "tomato"... others there say "tomahtoe". Sounded to ME like Dr. Hawking was saying "potato". The article seemed to agree.
Again, peace to you... and stop cussing at me. No need for that. If you can't handle yourself during the discussion... bow out. It won't add or take away a single cubit from your lifespan not to be a part of this... or not to be able to convince me. I promise you.
Peace.
A slave of Christ,
SA
Aguest: problem is that all people on that forum agree on the same thing: QFT allow extremely exact computations of nature by taking into account a consequence of QM which we call "virtual particles". The discussion relate to technical aspects of feynman diagrams and the kind of analogies are usefull to draw.
That does not stop your post from being absolutely false. i delibrately went over it line by line because i have a feeling you feel i am trying to poke at a few technicalities while it is really the fundamental problem you are not speaking the same language as hawkins and think you do which is the issue.
I like the story about feynman. what bugs me is why you cant see that you are using words, exist, do, come from, go to, measurable, place-holder,something, which you have not defined at all. Hawkins use his words in a very carefull way because physics has informed us that only by using these words very carefully (and in fact not use a lot of them) we can get a vocabulary which, in particular aided with math, is extremely usefull in describing the world without becoming nonsence.
Moreover, our language is so much a product of our everyday experience (and QM is everything but) that we really need to formulate ourselves in math as to not get into problems. I think you completely avoid that and insist on using language (and a completely uninformed one is that!) as the primary tool for accessing and understanding QM. I can say it provocatively: Science got math. Religion dont. thats why they are not the same.
You happend to take the leap that step is not required, that you can just use and interpret these words any way you like and the result will not only be different form nonsence, it will be something which allow you to carry on with your puzzling sceptisism against hawkins.
Do you see how that relate to feynmans story?
(updated).
Awesome thread yo!
Here is how it comes across to ME, dear Bohm (again, peace to you!):
Camp A: "We have a language some of you don't understand. It includes terms like "QM", "QFT", "Feynman Diagrams," "Quarks", "Bosons", etc. You don't understand it because you're not as smart as we are... nor do you have all of the necessary information. If you were/had, you would understand. We can't break it down for you, though, because there really is no way to do that. For instance, we can talk to you about virtual particles, but really, why should we? We know, intuitively, that they're their because our math says they have to be. No, we've never seen them (no one has or can)... but we understand how it all works so you're just going to have to take our word for it that it is and means what we say it is and means. You could, if you have a mind to, read one the "Dummy" books (i.e., "Quantum Math for Dummies," "Virtual Particles for Dummies," "How Virtual Particles Don't Really Exist But Really Do")... but you probably won't understand those, either. So, again, you really just need to take our word for it."
Camp R: "We have a language some of you don't understand. It includes terms like "Pope", "Holy See," "Theocratic Warfare", "Armageddon", "Faithful and Discreet Slave," "Trinity", "The Holy Spirit," etc. You don't understand it because you're not as smart as we are... nor do you have all of the necessary information. If you were.had, you would understand. We can't break it down for you, though, because there really is no way to do that. For instance, we can talk to you about the Holy Spirit, but really, why should we? We just know, intuitively, that He exists, as the third person of the Godhead, because the Bible says He is and people have testified to His miracles. No, we've never seen Him (no one has or can)... but we understand how it all works so you're just going to have to take our word for it that He is who and what we say He is. You could, if you have a mind to, read one the "Dummy" books (i.e., "The Bible for Dummies," "Understanding the Holy Spirit for Dummies," "How the Holy Spirit Really Is A Third Person, Although the Bible Only Indicates Two")... but you probably won't understand those, either. So, again, you really just need to take our word for it."
I TRULY cannot "hear" the difference. Which is why I must put and keep MY faith in the One who represents Camp J. THAT One said to me:
"My voice is to the sons of man. I speak in a manner and of things that ALL can understand. I don't use terms that I can't explain to you. You don't need to be smart to understand what I say - even a child can understand. And I will give you everything you need TO understand. I can... and will... break it down for you; it's no problem. In my language and yours. I can explain to you things such as the origin of your world, holy spirit, the Holy Spirit... and more. I can and will... because you ask... and I want to. I can tell you because I know. Not intuitively, but because I was there. People claim that no one has seen me - you can and will see me. You don't have to take my word for things; you can test them out to see if they are so... but I will show you that I am who I say I am. You don't need to read any book... ncluding the Bible. You probably won't understand most of them anyway. But if you put your faith in me, I WILL lead you... into ALL truth. About YOUR world... and mine."
Thus far, it is the Camp J guy who has held true to his word. He has never changed what he told me - it has all be constant. Nor has he ever told me one thing... because he thought I was too "stoopid" to understand that truth. Yes, sometimes he has told me part of a thing... in preparation for the rest of it. But he has always treated me with intellectual "respect." Unlike the folks in both Camp A and Camp R.
I believe, with all of my heart, based on the show I saw, based on his comments IN the show, and based on Dr. Hawking's quoted statement... that he stated the "virtual protons" (particles) came in and went but "from" and to "nowhere." Out of the many questions I asked, this was the only one you seem to have some input on. My question... again... what how does he KNOW... they don't come "from" or go "to" somewhere. He only knows what occurs in THIS universe. I submit, as some of HIS colleagues also do, that this is not the only verse. And, IMHO, unless and until other verses are absolutely ruled out... he cannot say, with certainty... that they come "from" and go "to"... nowhere.
Bottom line (for me)? I think another statement by Dr. Hawking in the closing of his book, "The Illustrated Theory of Everything" better explains my feelings on the matter and in this I am in full agreement with him:
"If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principal, and not just [to] a few scientists. Then we can all be able to take part in the discussion of WHY the universe exists. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason. For then we would know the mind of God."
So, now, I think you and I are going to have to part ways. I don't "see" what you wish me to, I am sorry... nor will you even entertain the possibily of what I "see". I am speaking of the SIMILARITIES at how Camps A and C often present their "beliefs."
Again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ, since everyone alive IS a slave of something... even if it's the physical air you must breathe...
SA
AGuest - sometimes it's ok to admit you learnt something even if you have to give ground to do so.
The argument that science can sound like religion due to it's inaccessibility ( and the need for a class of special people to explain it ) is valid. It was more valid when we talk about the religions of the past where prophets , shamans and priests had to mediate and interpret , for a price , between scripture / magic world and 'us'. Nowadays however, we have incredible attempts by the media to bridge the gap by computer animation of concepts , popular science writings and celebrity scientists like Hawkins who want to make science accessible.
The difference is that religion is inaccessible because it's a complete social fabrication which requires lots of people to pretend experiences ( and before you get smart remember I come from a Mormon background where the men claim direct revelation from god - so that's a million or so pretenders) while science is a methodology to identify reality , a reality that's very hard to comprehend, and since our vocabulary and perceptions are shifted far from reality ( we don't watch quantum froth or gravity, we can't observe more dimensions than 3 etc. ) it is difficult , without maths , to explain what is happening - we aren't evolved to comprehend advanced maths, we just happen to be lucky to have some willing to train themselves to do so.
Bohm - thank you.excellent break down.
AGuest - a challenge I give you is to scientifically produce some actual verifiable proof that the god you have conceived in your mind is real. If you are stuck with personal impressions and unrepeatable coincidences, emotion and feelings ( however, lovely ) then you are no different and no less sincere than every true believer who mistook imagination for god.
Aguest:
Camp A: "We have a language some of you don't understand. It includes terms like "QM", "QFT", "Feynman Diagrams," "Quarks", "Bosons", etc.
true.
You don't understand it because you're not as smart as we are...
No, you dont understand it for the same reason you or I dont understand chinese: you or I have not made the faintest attempt to learn it.
Math is difficult. you cant learn quantum mechanics without the math. Even if you know the sufficient amount of math (and i dont mean highschool math) you still need to learn the physics, of which the math is an integral part. You have attempted neither and thus do not understand quantum mechanics.
Its not nice of you to presume scientists think you are not smart because you do not intuitively understand what took them many years of hard training to learn yourself. That is stupid, and i suppose the only way you would write something like that is to portray science as mean to allow you to dismiss science at large later on and make the comparison to religion easier.
MEH!
nor do you have all of the necessary information. If you were/had, you would understand. We can't break it down for you, though, because there really is no way to do that.
false. the books are all there. lectures is being given. experimental data is avaliable. it has been broken down for you, it just havent been broken down in small snack-sized pieces because reality is not that simple, and you need to apply your ass to a chair in order to digest it.
well, chinese is hard to learn too, and a person who has not made any substantial effort to learn it simply wont understand it. That is not because chinese is a religion, it is because it take an effort.
For instance, we can talk to you about virtual particles, but really, why should we?
because its so interesting. which is why you can find thousands of articles talking about the subject written by scientists who is trying nothing but explaining and understanding the subject. you are just making shit up because you want an easier comparison to religion later on, buuuuh!
We know, intuitively, that they're their because our math says they have to be.
quantum mechanics is build on observations made around the turn of last century. when describing those observations exactly one get an extremely consistent framework called quantum mechanics. it has been the most successfull theory to day, much more successfull in accuracy than newtonian mechanics. you are again just making stuff up because you want to make the comparison to religion seem less interlectual bancrupt, but you are really grasping straws.
No, we've never seen them (no one has or can)...
Nor have we seen a photon but they make photo-detectors click from time to time. we have seen their effect and do so again and again, which i write again and again and you just ignore it because it does not suit your science=religion agenda.
but we who understand how it all works so you're just going to have to take our word for it that it is and means what we say it is and means.
if you cant be arsed to learn chinese because you are to lazy, then yah, you pretty much have to take the word of people who know chinese as to what a given word mean. Again you are making stuff up to make your own comparison easier: The experiments are there. the books are there. the articles are there, heck, there are video lectures on youtube you can watch. You are just to uninterested to take the effort (which go beyond randomly reading stuff on wikipedia, sorry), yet insist on telling the people who are less lazy than you how it "really" is. It does not work with chinese and it does not work with physics.
You could, if you have a mind to, read one the "Dummy" books (i.e., "Quantum Math for Dummies," "Virtual Particles for Dummies," "How Virtual Particles Don't Really Exist But Really Do")... but you probably won't understand those, either.
again you are making up a persieved personal attack from scientists on you to make scientists sound more mean. That is extremely whiny, and it is also false: If you spend, say, a decade on reading physics and math, i would say you would have a pretty good grasp on quantum field theory, and i think any professor with any kind of self-confidence in his abilities to teach would agree. That you are not interested in making the effort (which i understand, it is your personal choise what you spend time on) does not make quantum field theory wrong, suspect, or turn it into a religion any less than chinese, for which something similar holds.
So, again, you really just need to take our word for it."
no, take the experimental evidence as evidence.
As for the religion=science. Well its just wrong, and i think you have just demonstrated how many corners one has to cut with respect to interlectual integrity and reality in order to make it even look like it works. What remains of what you wrote --when we remove all the clearly not made up stuff, the implied arrogance and the parts where you ignore experimental evidence which i have written about 3 times allready-- is that science is hard, and if one cant be arsed to learn it one has to rely on those who have, and that sortof sound like religion, well duh.
Naturally I think its very silly you use such an analogy to accept the idea what would otherwise be bone-fida evidence of a neural disorder is anything but.
