2.3 Wiki rules discussion

[JonMiller]

Read any decent book on quantum mechanics. You might have heard of Hawking Radiation? That is that while nothing escapes a black hole, a virtual particle anti-particle pair created by the boundary might have one slip within the horizon, and the other boosted out to be observed as radiation.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_fluctuations for a (probably) decent description. Last paragraph gives a bit of information about current cosmological theory.

A link that is better presented then the wikipedia article (but doesn't contain as clear of reference to pair production http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_ques...004D0F8-772A-1526-B72A83414B7F0000&topicID=13 .

JM

 

[sentipente]

Read any decent book on quantum mechanics. You might have heard of Hawking Radiation? That is that while nothing escapes a black hole, a virtual particle anti-particle pair created by the boundary might have one slip within the horizon, and the other boosted out to be observed as radiation.

Was that a response to my question? I hope not because you have not addressed it.

 

[JonMiller]

Oh, I have alot of respect for those theoretical physicist and their work. I have read a bit of some of the literature, but my field is in the philosophical and religious side. I couldn't possibly claim to be able to have better scientific arguments than actual physicists.

There are many physicists who beleive in something called the anthropic (or anthropomorphic principle), including the particle theorist who taught me everything I know about particle physics (and the even greater amount that I have forgotten). Since I am on a wiki hunt tonight, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphic_Principle . Note that it isn't in any ways proof, some don't think that it points to God, and isn't scientific in any case.

Still, is interesting (And I of course beleive to be the case).

JM

 

[JonMiller]

Was that a response to my question? I hope not because you have not addressed it.

Did you read my links? I was starting to give examples, and realised it was already (likely) done by someone else.

JM

 

[sentipente]

Did you read my links? I was starting to give examples, and realised it was already (likely) done by someone else.

JM

If the boundary of a vacuum produces something you cannot claim that it was produced by the boundary. The boundary of a vacuum is something. My claim is that nothing does not produce something. You have not negated that. Ex nihilo nihil.

 

[JonMiller]

There is pair creation in the vacuum. We don't have anything, and can't conceive of anything, more nothing then the vacuum.. I don't know what you are talking about with this in reference to a boundary, I think you are misunderstanding something.

Additionally, if vacuum didn't have a boundary, none of us would exist, would we? Please think things through before responding that my points are wrong.

JM

 

[sentipente]

There is pair creation in the vacuum. We don't have anything, and can't conceive of anything, more nothing then the vacuum.. I don't know what you are talking about with this in reference to a boundary, I think you are misunderstanding something.

Additionally, if vacuum didn't have a boundary, none of us would exist, would we? Please think things through before responding that my points are wrong.

JM

So, how do you distinguish between the vacuum and its boundary?

BTW, your exact words were "That is that while nothing escapes a black hole, a virtual particle anti-particle pair created by the boundary might have one slip within the horizon, and the other boosted out to be observed as radiation." You are the one who said the pair was produced by the boundary. I am not an expert in your field, only in mine.

 

[JonMiller]

That by means near the boundary, not by (as in caused by) the boundary. Sorry for the poorly chosen word? Near seems like it would serve your purposes better.

JM

 

[sentipente]

That by means near the boundary, not by (as in caused by) the boundary. Sorry for the poorly chosen word? Near seems like it would serve your purposes better.

JM

But maybe you do mean that is produced by the boundary and now wish to back away from that position to claim that you have negated the established maxim "ex nihilo nihil." Just how near is near? As has been said, 2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2.

 

[JonMiller]

Stop being silly.

Read the wiki article. The boundary has nothing to do with pair production or virtual particles. It just provides a place where you might have heard of it's effects (Since people who don't konw physics always seem to know all about Hawking). It is just an example that you might have heard of. Other exampls, which I thought would be less likely to have been heard of by you exist.

For example, the Lamb Shift is another (you might have heard of it if you did a bit of atomic physics)... they list the better known ones in the wiki article, and I don't know why you refuse to read it (although as I said, it isn't perfect).

 

[sentipente]

JM, all I am asking you is whether you believe that the maxim ex nihilo nihil has been falsified. Nothing more.

 

[JonMiller]

I don't know latin.

JM

 

[sentipente]

I don't know latin.

JM

ex nihilo nihil = out of nothing nothing comes.

 

[JonMiller]

Well, you could counter the example I gave (virtual particles out of a vacuum) by saying that the vacuum exists in the universe, and so is still not nothing. (I referenced this point a few posts ago, but you might have missed that)

However, if it counts as nothing (and if it doesn't, we don't know anything that does), then yes.

I think that the vacuum being in the universe is a valid point, but still, from it a mechanism exists which could falsify it.

JM

 

[sentipente]

Well, you could counter the example I gave (virtual particles out of a vacuum) by saying that the vacuum exists in the universe, and so is still not nothing. (I referenced this point a few posts ago, but you might have missed that)

I did not miss it. That is why I focussed on your "boundary" comment. I did not wish to overplay the obvious.