Zero Energy

[Morat]

  If it's anything like your ability to understand basic quantum mechanics (using links that refute what you sourced them to prove) I suggest you rely less on your "ability to see their point" and more on just quoting them and asking people what they mean.

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Still relying on throwing insults, eh, Morat? You still haven't shown me anything to support your assertion that particles can come from nothing.

Again, if you think that my sources contradict me, then you either don't understand them, or my position.

 

[Morat]

  Souljah, we're discussing virtual particles. Virtual partcles are also called quantum energy, and their existance is what makes a quantum vacuum.

   You keep insisting, ultimately, that quantum energy borrows energy from quantum energy to exist. A somewhat ridiculous statement.

   I realize, initially, that you didn't realize that quantum energy (and a quantum vacuum) were the phenomenon (virtual particles) that we were originally discussing.

   That's fair enough. It's undoubtably new terminology to you. But it's been explained to you, and rather than admit your error, you start screaming about "show me the pure vacuum".

   I don't need to, Souljah. This stuff is basic. The Casimir effect wouldn't happen if it wasn't accurate. (Your little comment about electromagnetic fields is nothing more than a red herring. Many, many, many things are measured by their effects on other entities.). To show I'm wrong, you'll have to invalidate Heisenburg Uncertainty. And that one has been around and heavily tested since the 1920s or so.

    Virtual particle production has been well understood by physicists for a long time. It's not cutting edge. It's not brand new. It's a straightforward result of Heisenburg Uncertainity.

   Is it so hard to admit you're out of your depth? Is it so hard to acknowledge you might be in error? Every source, save ARN, you've given me supports my explanations, not yours.

   Here's a question for you: Do you think it's even possible that your preconceptions are blocking your understanding of what is, ultimately, straightforward quantum mechanics?

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Morat
    You keep insisting, ultimately, that quantum energy borrows energy from quantum energy to exist. A somewhat ridiculous statement.  

No, you insist that.  And the fact that it is ridiculous is what keeps me amused.  I say that in the first instance, there would be nothing to borrow from.  You invoke a mysterious time traveling particle to explain this problem.

Do you think it's even possible that your preconceptions are blocking your understanding of what is, ultimately, straightforward quantum mechanics?

Sure, I could be wrong.  Do you think your obvious and repeatedly displayed dislike for me keeps you from reading anything I write with an objective attitude?

 

[Morat]

No, you insist that.  And the fact that it is ridiculous is what keeps me amused.  I say that in the first instance, there would be nothing to borrow from.  You invoke a mysterious time traveling particle to explain this problem.

   Souljah, I quoted you saying that. You claimed, quite specifically, that virtual particles borrowed the energy for their creation from the quantum vacuum. Shall I quote you again?

   Given that the quantum vacuum is classic vacuum + tvirtual particle flux, you continue to claim, quite simply, that quantum energy borrows energy from quantum energy.

  

Sure, I could be wrong.  Do you think your obvious and repeatedly displayed dislike for me keeps you from reading anything I write with an objective attitude?

  I don't dislike you. And I've read what you write objectively. Which is how I noticed you keep supporting my statements.

   My irritation is with your continued refusal to actually learn this material. It is annoying in the extreme to find someone who has both an adamant position on a subject, but is also so ignorant of the subject that he cannot even understand his own objections.

    This conversation, Souljah, has been like arguing with someone who claims algrebra doesn't work, because 2x = 5 can't be true, and postiong x= 5/2, as proof of it.

 

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by s0uljah
He didnt say that in those words, as evident by the obvious lack of quotation marks that I would have used, if I wanted to use his exact wording.

See, I have the ability to see the point that he is making, and summarize it in a simple manner that is appropriate for asking the question.

This is what you said in the first post.

I was reading "A Brief History of Time" last week, and came across Hawking's statement that we don't have to explain where energy came from, because there is both negative energy and positive energy, that exist in equal amounts, and so the sum of energy is zero.

Saying you came across a statement is implying that he actualy said that.

Do you feel lying is a good way to witness Souljah?

Do you feel that lying about anothers position on the subject is the only way you can get support for your beliefs on it?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Given that the quantum vacuum is classic vacuum + tvirtual particle flux, you continue to claim, quite simply, that quantum energy borrows energy from quantum energy.

Ok, this is where the misunderstanding exists. Here is what I actually assert:

There is no Classical Vacuum in which you can observe only virtual particles.

Do you disagree with that?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Do you feel lying is a good way to witness Souljah?

Lying? How am I lying? You are accusing me falsly. What did I lie about? Hawking's statements or my reading of them? This is not cool man...accusing me of lying. You say you are a Christian?

Saying you came across a statement is implying that he actualy said that

He did say that.  Period.  That's what the whole summary of his statements showed.  It is pretty clear cut.

 

[Morat]

  Souljah's been trying for some time to make Stephen Hawking the prophet of the Religion of Science.

   He seems to get quite annoyed when people refuse to bite. 

   I think his goal is to catch us worshipping science (Hawking just seems to be convienent. I'd imagine if he owned The Panda's Thumb it'd be Gould), so he can claim science is a religion, evolution is a faith, and retire triumphant.

  

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Morat
  Souljah's been trying for some time to make Stephen Hawking the prophet of the Religion of Science. 
   

Why don't you stick to the scientific facts, instead of trying to paint me as the Crusader Against Hawking.

Unbelievable.

You say I am the annoyed one?  How many insults have you hurled at me in this thread.  I have stuck to science, you have stuck to insults.

&nbsp;&nbsp; I think his goal is to catch us worshipping science (Hawking just seems to be convienent. I'd imagine if he owned <I>The Panda's Thumb</I> it'd be Gould), so he can claim science is a religion, evolution is a faith, and retire triumphant.

And you say you read me objectively? HAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Morat]

Ok, this is where the misunderstanding exists. Here is what I actually assert:

There is no Classical Vacuum in which you can observe only virtual particles.

Do you disagree with that?

&nbsp; Sure there is. It's called a quantum vacuum.

&nbsp; Of course, when I mentioned that, you said "But the quantum vacuum isn't a classic vacuum". And then I said "No, a quantum vacuum is what you get instead of a classic vacuum, because of virtual particles".

&nbsp; And then we went in circles some more.

&nbsp; And then I pointed out that I didn't even need to show you either, that Heisenburg Uncertainty in general, and the Casimir effect in particular, are perfectly strong enough evidence on their own. You wouldn't get the Casimir effect if the quantum vacuum didn't work exactly as described.

&nbsp;&nbsp; But you don't want to accept that, because you don't want to admit your error. So you keep ignoring it, and keep repeating your errors. And thus leading to inanities like "Show me a pure vacuum!". To which I respond "Show me the interior of a star, before I can accept nuclear fusion".

&nbsp;&nbsp; Insisting on such ludicrous "proofs" for quantum mechanics, while ignoring the far more powerful and predictive evidence is to bury your head in the sand.

&nbsp;

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Sure there is. It's called a quantum vacuum.

Where is this vacuum that starts off completely empty and is later observed to contain virtual particles?

That is very simple. Where is it?&nbsp; What lab is it in?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

If he did say it then give us the quote Souljah.

Since much of his work after that book was writen is in the area of trying to explain were the energy came from and what it is, I donot think that he feels that it needs no explanation.

So again if he said it give us the quote. Not that it even matters to most of us, we do not worship him as a god, he has been wrong before and admited it. You seem to be the only one who equates Hawkings as being a minor diety.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
If he did say it then give us the quote Souljah.

Didn't I say I don't have the book in front of me?

 

[D. Scarlatti]

He doesn't say it. Souljah says he says it. Or does he.

What is Souljah's point, btw. I seem to have missed it.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Hawking also says, in the same chapter, that the universe is believed to have had zero size (and infinite temperature) at the moment of the Big Bang. Does this mean Hawking doesn't think he needs to answer the question, "Where did size come from?"

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by D. Scarlatti
He doesn't say it. Souljah says he says it. Or does he.

What is Souljah's point, btw. I seem to have missed it.

Yes, I say he says what I originally posted.&nbsp; I have always stood behind that, and it is a fact.&nbsp; Look it up for yourselves.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Yes, I say he says what I originally posted.

Yet you claim not to have the book in front of you.

I have always stood behind that, and it is a fact. Look it up for yourselves.

I do.
I did.
He doesn't.

What else do you need.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by s0uljah


Didn't I say I don't have the book in front of me?

I'm willing to wait.

Now get the book, show me the quote, prove to me and all the others here that you are not a liar.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by D. Scarlatti


Yet you claim not to have the book in front of you.

That's right, I have the use of this thing called memory.