Zero Energy

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth


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.

I don't care what you think of me.  God's judgement of me is what matters, not yours.  In fact, your blatant accusation and judgement will be reflected back upon you one day.

And yes, I will post the whole quote when I get a copy of the book back in my possession.

 

[Morat]

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

That is very simple. Where is it?  What lab is it in?

   Goodness, you really don't know anything about this subject, do you?

   Nowhere. No one bothered to try building that good a vacuum chamber. I'd make you guess why, but I'm feeling charitable.

   Virtual particles are called virtual particles because they cannot be directly detected, for obvious reasons.

    Your question alone indicates that your knowledge of basic quantum mechanics is slim.

   *shrug*. So what's your point? That no one bothered to build a hugely expensive vacuum chamber, as well as come up with some way to directly observe what cannot be directly observed, given that the Casimir and Lamb effects showed the existance of the quantum vacuum and virtual particles decades ago?

 

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

  D. Scarletti did.

It's on page 133 of the Bantam paperback edition, in the middle of Chapter 8 in a paragraph that begins "The idea of inflation could also explain why there is so much matter in the universe."

Hawking never says, as Souljah claims, "we don't have to explain where energy comes from." Hawking explains why the total energy of the universe is zero. Broadly speaking Hawking says that, according to quantum theory, the matter in the universe is positive energy, whereas the gravitational field is negative energy. Assuming an approximately uniform universe, negative gravitational energy, which increases dependent upon the distance between particles, "exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter."

But I don't see where Hawking claims "we don't have to explain where energy comes from." Maybe this statement was revealed by exegesis.

   So, here's that chapter online.

   Please point out where he makes the statement. Strangely enough, that entire section is devoted to explaining exactly where the energy came from, in direct opposition to your claim.

 

 

[D. Scarlatti]

And I quote:

Where did [all the particles in the observable universe] come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where did the energy come from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is zero.

Hmm. Sounds like an answer to me. I already summarized the bit that follows the above in a previous post, to which Souljah replied something about his original post not being an exact quote, but now Souljah is claiming Hawking did say what Souljah claimed in the original post.

In the meantime Morat has spent a considerable amount of time elucidating the additional details.

So what's your point again Souljah?

 

[Morat]

  I'm so thrilled I found that chapter online. Now Souljah can address this accusation now, and there will be no more attacks on his character. Such things should be resolved swiftly.

 

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by Morat
Here's that chapter online.

Bonus! I didn't know that was available.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

The answer is that the total energy of the universe is zero.

There it is, right there. The answer to where energy came from "is that there is zero total energy". *laugh* That is what I was refering to when I asked the question.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

So what's your point? That no one bothered to build a hugely expensive vacuum chamber, as well as come up with some way to directly observe what cannot be directly observed, given that the Casimir and Lamb effects showed the existance of the quantum vacuum and virtual particles decades ago?

My point is that it isn't possible to build an empty vacuum. Its pretty simple.  Your comments about the price, or the fact that virtual particles have to be indirectly observed if beside the fact.

The fact is that it can't be built, admit it.

 

[Morat]

  Let's play "Compare and Constrast!"

The answer is that the total energy of the universe is zero.


There it is, right there. The answer to where energy came from is that there is zero total energy. That is what I was refering to when I asked the question.

 and

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.

   Forget something? The bolded part above? Hawking said the total energy in the universe was zero. That is not stating "We don't have to explain where the energy came from".

   He, in fact, spent most of that chapter explaining where the energy came from and how it worked.

    I can't wrap my brain around how "Hawking says he doesn't have to explain X" matches a chapter Explaining X.

   Try again.

 

 

[Morat]

My point is that it isn't possible to build an <B>empty</B> vacuum. Its pretty simple.

&nbsp; Sure, if you try, you find it filled with virtual particles. Isn't that the point?

&nbsp; Your comments about the price, or the fact that virtual particles have to be indirectly observed if beside the fact.

The fact is that it can't be built, admit it.

&nbsp;&nbsp; *snort*. "I don't care what you say. Addition is immaterial in a discussion of algebra."

&nbsp;&nbsp; Admit your error, or drop the subjet, Souljah. You're fooling no one, except possibly yourself.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Is this the same Souljah that started a thread called "Is Stephen Hawking Really This Stupid" accompanied by a "thumbs down" icon?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

From the book...here I will bold for you:

"But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero."

Simply what I said. That is his answer. He apparently doesn't think that any further explanation is required.

Who is a liar Lewis?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by D. Scarlatti
Is this the same Souljah that started a thread called "Is Stephen Hawking Really This Stupid" accompanied by a "thumbs down" icon?

Yeah, for which I apologized and retracted.&nbsp; Why don't you stick to the subject?&nbsp; Or can't you?

 

[Morat]

Simply what I said. That is his answer. He apparently doesn't think that any further explanation is required.

&nbsp; Did you stop reading the chapter at the line, or something? The rest of the chapter is further explanation.

&nbsp;

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Morat
&nbsp;

&nbsp; Sure, if you try, you find it filled with virtual particles. Isn't that the point?

&nbsp;

Which are the result of energy in the vacuum.&nbsp; You think that a third particle time travels to give the first virtual particle pair its energy.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by s0uljah
From the book...here I will bold for you:

"But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero."

Simply what I said. That is his answer. He apparently doesn't think that any further explanation is required.

Who is a liar Lewis?

And where in that sentance did you find that no further explanation was needed?

So far you seem to be the liar.

As a Christian I have more of a right to call you to the carpet on these issues than any non-Christian here. Or did you forget about correction as so often mentioned in the new testament?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth


And where in that sentance did you find that no further explanation was needed?

So far you seem to be the liar.&nbsp;

Um, from the lack of any other explanation.&nbsp;

I provided what you asked for, once the chapter was provided, and you still say I am a liar.&nbsp; Nice.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Did you stop reading the chapter at the line, or something? The rest of the chapter is further explanation

No it isn't, it is simply more speculation.

 

[Morat]

Which are the result of energy in the vacuum.&nbsp; You think that a third particle time travels to give the first virtual particle pair its energy.

&nbsp; Wahoo! Circle points! Souljah's gone in a circle again. 10 points for me.

&nbsp; Soujah: "Virtual particles borrow energy from the quantum vacuum to exist".

&nbsp; Me: "Um, no, they borrow the energy from "themselves", so to speak."

&nbsp; Souljah: "No, these sources all use the word "borrow" in quotes, and talk about how they borrow from the 'quantum vacuum'".

&nbsp; Me: "A quantum vacuum is a classic vacuum (empty of anything) in a quantum world. Specfically, you can't get a classic vacuum, because of all&nbsp;the virtual particle creation/destruction."

&nbsp;Souljah: "Which are borrowing energy to be created"

&nbsp;Me: "From what? We just established that the only thing there are the virtual particles"

&nbsp;Souljah: "Which are borrowing energy from the quantum vacuum".

&nbsp; Me: "The only energy there is the virtual particles themselves".

&nbsp; Souljah: "No, because you can't show me a classic vacuum"

&nbsp; Me: "Because if you try to get one, you find it full of virtual particles"

&nbsp;Souljah: "Ha! I knew it!"

&nbsp; Me: "Souljah, the Casimir effect is proof enough".

&nbsp; Souljah: "I will ignore that, because I can't address it. Virtual particles borrow energy from the quantum vacuum".

&nbsp; Me: "Does this sound familiar to anyone else?"

&nbsp; How can you not see how circular your arguments are?

&nbsp;

 

[Morat]

No it isn't, it is simply more speculation.

&nbsp; Oh, so it's not speculation explaining how his previous speculation, it's totally unrelated speculation?

&nbsp; Desperate, huh? Never figured anyone would check, huh?

&nbsp;&nbsp;Or are you truly that bad with reading comp?

&nbsp;

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Souljah, have you even read this book? Did you read Chapters 1-7 prior to reading Chapter 8?

Be honest.