Being!

[Alberti_Devoveo]

“for one thing, it has changed the definition of ‘nothing’ to the point where it is actually an extant something, but unstable”
Sair
“No quantum mechanics textbook I have ever read (and, being a physicist, that number is somewhat large) has suggested that the “definition of nothing” has changed due to its influence–this sounds more like New Age interpretations of quantum physics than actual science. Could you please provide a credible textbook (and not a New Age book) that states this? “
Alberti Devoveo ( post 25)
scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light
tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/the-physics-of-nothing/
nytimes.com/2012/02/21/science/space/cosmologists-try-to-explain-a-universe-springing-from-nothing.html?_r=0
thenational.ae/news/uae-news/science/something-from-nothing-is-a-quantum-possibility
newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/07/how-the-universe-appeared-from-nothing.html
"As Guth has remarked, “It is said that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch.”
Stephen Hawking

I hope you did not spend too much time on this (or scrolling through my posts to try ‘busting’ me on something). Also, this might have been a bit easier to follow the conversation had you used the little “Quote” button on the bottom right of the post.

First, are any of those textbooks?
Second, are any of those links citing that ‘nothing’ has changed its definition? Or are they doing the normal thing of assuming vacuum==nothing (which (a) is not true and (b) is often done by physicists)?
Third, virtual particles are not particles, they are disturbances in electric fields (which are definitely not nothing).
Fourth, several of these articles are saying that the pre-Big Bang was really ‘nothing’ but actually had enough stuff for the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to matter–last I checked, the HUP required not-nothing to even be valid.
Fifth, the vacuum energy these articles cite is one of the biggest blunders in modern physics. I do not trust any person who puts merit into vacuum energy being ‘the solution’ to the “universe from nothing” problem.
Sixth, a field is not nothing. Thus, the Casimir effect is nothing ‘particles from literally nowhere’ as one of the links suggest; the particles come from the field.

 

[Linux]

I hope you did not spend too much time on this (or scrolling through my posts to try ‘busting’ me on something). Also, this might have been a bit easier to follow the conversation had you used the little “Quote” button on the bottom right of the post.

First, are any of those textbooks?
Second, are any of those links citing that ‘nothing’ has changed its definition? Or are they doing the normal thing of assuming vacuum==nothing (which (a) is not true and (b) is often done by physicists)?
Third, virtual particles are not particles, they are disturbances in electric fields (which are definitely not nothing).
Fourth, several of these articles are saying that the pre-Big Bang was really ‘nothing’ but actually had enough stuff for the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to matter–last I checked, the HUP required not-nothing to even be valid.
Fifth, the vacuum energy these articles cite is one of the biggest blunders in modern physics. I do not trust any person who puts merit into vacuum energy being ‘the solution’ to the “universe from nothing” problem.
Sixth, a field is not nothing. Thus, the Casimir effect is nothing ‘particles from literally nowhere’ as one of the links suggest; the particles come from the field.

Even if there wasn’t a field, the best that a scientist could claim is that it comes from nothing-physical. To say that it comes from nothing at all by itself is a philosophical proposition that goes beyond the inferential capacity of the scientific method. You would have to lack a full understanding of the scientific method in-order to claim that science has reached such a conclusion.

 

[wittgenstein]

Response to post 259
As usual you begin with an ad hominum. I did not search for a way to bust you. I went to the thread “being” to review the insights of other posters. If you read the OP you will see that it is an interest of mine.
I only know what I read and was taught at university. I’m going to work now (and am reduced right now to using a tablet) but will post links when I return.
So,you disagree that because of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle virtual particles are able to borrow from nothing? Unless classical physics believes that one can borrow from nothing QM has drastically changed our understanding of nothing. Sair was right,nothingness is unstable.
Of course, I expect semantic games in reply. However, the quotes from respected physicists are clear, nothing can produce something. Or are you saying that they believe in an infinite past? I also disagree with that.

 

[wittgenstein]

One idea put forth by respected physicists is that nothingness is unstable. To use math as a metaphor. Zero=1-1. Since zero is unstable it can break apart into +1 and -1.

 

[wittgenstein]

" Nothing is unstable," Frank Wilczek, a physicist and Noble laureate from MIT finally said to a general murmur of agreement of his colleagues…
From
The Physics of nothing, NY times
Perhaps the fluxuation in fields is nothingness being unstable?

 

[WmJackP]

I am interested in Aquinas (and any other philosopher) that talks about Being. The idea that God is that whose essence is Being, fascinates me. However, I am weak when it comes to medieval philosophy ( I am not being derogatory, I have great respect for medieval philosophy and believe it has much to offer) and would be grateful for an explanation of topics such as hacceity.

I actually had the advantages of a fine Jesuit university, and, quite an exposure to Thomistic philosophy. However, I never found Aquinas to be that profound or persuasive, at least, not by modern 21st century standards. His arguments for the existence of God, for instance, basically reduce to the proposition that in every chain there is a beginning link. His arguments, in their most pristine form, are rather simplistic. Anselm’s argument is even less profound. To be as kind as possible, it is really no more than a tautological exercise. I am certain it would have greatly amused Wittgenstein (whose work I assume you are familiar).

Personally, I think the question of "being"has moved from a philosophical construct to one of science. The development of quantum physics is producing interesting perspectives. How it is that that there is “something” rather than “nothing” is a question better explored by gifted writers as Lawrence Krauss or Bede Rundle. If you’re interested in medievel ontological philosopical aspects, I wouldn’t knock myself out by attempting to read the oblique writings of Aquinas or others of his era. If you are simply academically curious then Wikepedia has greater clarity, and, cuts to the chase.

 

[Linux]

I actually had the advantages of a fine Jesuit university, and, quite an exposure to Thomistic philosophy. However, I never found Aquinas to be that profound or persuasive, at least, not by modern 21st century standards. His arguments for the existence of God, for instance, basically reduce to the proposition that in every chain there is a beginning link.

Wrong. All potential-possibility needs an intrinsically real being to make it actual, since out of nothing comes nothing. That is the basis of Aquinas’ argument. You evidently didn’t make much use of your university experience. Which is a bit of an embarrassment on your part since I didn’t go to university and I know this fact very well.

 

[WmJackP]

 out of nothing comes nothing. That is the basis of Aquinas' argument..

Not necessarily, I’m afraid.

You evidently didn’t make much use of your university experience. Which is a bit of an embarrassment on your part since I didn’t go to university and I know this fact very well.

I regret you feel that way.

 

[Linux]

Not necessarily, I’m afraid.

Yes it is necessary, and if you had any real understanding about the limits of the scientific method or quantum physics, you would not use that as a basis to imply that it is possible.

I regret you feel that way.

You should only regret that you’re wrong; and therefore wasted your education.

 

[WmJackP]

You should only regret that you’re wrong; and therefore wasted your education.

But for that to happen you would have to start making sense.

 

[Linux]

But for that to happen you would have to start making sense.

I am making sense. However a person who claims that Quantum physics is evidence that something can pop out of absolute nothingness by itself is either delusional, dishonest, or doesn’t understand what they are talking about.

 

[WmJackP]

I am making sense. However a person who claims that Quantum physics is evidence that something can pop out of absolute nothingness by itself is either delusional, dishonest, or doesn’t understand what they are talking about.

Do you believe that all people who disagree with you on certain aspects of your faith are delusional, dishonest, or fail to understand the subject?

 

[Linux]

Do you believe that all people who disagree with you on certain aspects of your faith are delusional, dishonest, or fail to understand the subject?

Its not a matter of faith. Its a matter of knowing what you are talking about. i could not care less what you think about God. However a person claiming that a thing can pop into existence by itself is either delusional, dishonest, or don’t know what they are talking about; and I would say the same thing if I was an atheist.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Response to post 259
As usual you begin with an ad hominum.

Ad hominEm or not, you are trying your best to incite an argument with me in every thread you can find.

I did not search for a way to bust you. I went to the thread “being” to review the insights of other posters. If you read the OP you will see that it is an interest of mine.

You are the OP on this thread…

I only know what I read and was taught at university. I’m going to work now (and am reduced right now to using a tablet) but will post links when I return.

Okay.

So,you disagree that because of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle virtual particles are able to borrow from nothing?

What sort of conclusion is this? I mean, how did you draw that from what I stated?

What I said was that in order for the HUP to be applicable, something must be there (that is, the HUP cannot be applied to nothing). I separately said that virtual particles are not particles but disturbances in fields (even providing a link), and fields are most certainly not nothing.

Unless classical physics believes that one can borrow from nothing QM has drastically changed our understanding of nothing. Sair was right,nothingness is unstable.

Except virtual particles are not borrowing from nothing, as stated several times now, they are borrowing energy from perturbed fields. Nothingness cannot exist because if nothingness exists then it is not nothing because it is something, an obvious contradiction. So nothingness cannot be unstable (or stable for that matter, because stability in itself implies that it exists and nothingness cannot exist)

Of course, I expect semantic games in reply. However, the quotes from respected physicists are clear, nothing can produce something. Or are you saying that they believe in an infinite past? I also disagree with that.

I, at this point, and am going to assume that you did not really read my responses (because you are at work) and just skimmed them. Respected or not, when a physicist says that virtual particles come from nothing, they have no clue what they are saying and should be kicked in the shin as hard as possible. The link I provided in the third item clearly shows that virtual particles are the result of a perturbation (disturbance) in a field. Since a field is obviously not nothing, then virtual particles are not actually coming from nothing.

And I have no idea how you can come to the conclusion that I might be implying that these physicists believe in an infinite past. I do not see the connection in any way, shape, or form.

 

[wittgenstein]

Actually, pointing out your constant use of ad hominums is not an ad hominum.
Yes, the OP was written by me. That proved my point that the subject of “being” interests me. Why did that confuse you. Anyway with your constant ad hominums , and huge colored letters you are obviously a troll.

“Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles”
scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea
“The meaning of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is that “something” can arise from “nothing” if the “something” returns to the “nothing” after a very short time—an interval too short in which to be observed. These micro-violations of energy conservation are not only allowed to happen, they do, and so “empty” space is seething with particle-antiparticle pairs that come into being and then annihilate each other again after a very short interval. Although these particles cannot be observed individually, their existence can be demonstrated.”
science.jrank.org/pages/7195/Virtual-Particles.html
“our discoveries over the past 30 years have completely changed what we mean by nothing.In particular, nothing is unstable. Nothing can create something all the time due to the laws of quantum mechanics, and it’s - it’s fascinatingly interesting.”
npr.org/2012/01/13/145175263/lawrence-krauss-on-a-universe-from-nothing
In case you want to accuse Krauss of being a new age weirdo, like you did to me and sair,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss

 

[wittgenstein]

“Respected or not, when a physicist says that virtual particles come from nothing, they have no clue what they are saying and should be kicked in the shin as hard as possible.”
OK so you know more then respected physicists

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

“Respected or not, when a physicist says that virtual particles come from nothing, they have no clue what they are saying and should be kicked in the shin as hard as possible.”
OK so you know more then respected physicists

I did not realize the Krauss and others were the smartest people in the universe and no one could possibly be smarter than him.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Actually, pointing out your constant use of ad hominums is not an ad hominum.

Wow, really? Did you not notice that I was trying to correct your spelling (it has been driving me a bit loopy). It is spelled hominEm, not hominUm. My intent of biggie-sizing it and coloring the red was to highlight the spelling of the word, not that you were using an ad hominem (and, to be perfectly honest, I was actually referring to my ad hominems).

Yes, the OP was written by me. That proved my point that the subject of “being” interests me. Why did that confuse you. Anyway with your constant ad hominums , and huge colored letters you are obviously a troll.

Um, what? It did not confuse me, I was merely pointing out that it was obvious that this thread was of importance to you since you are the OP.

“Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles”
scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea
“The meaning of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is that “something” can arise from “nothing” if the “something” returns to the “nothing” after a very short time—an interval too short in which to be observed. These micro-violations of energy conservation are not only allowed to happen, they do, and so “empty” space is seething with particle-antiparticle pairs that come into being and then annihilate each other again after a very short interval. Although these particles cannot be observed individually, their existence can be demonstrated.”
science.jrank.org/pages/7195/Virtual-Particles.html
“our discoveries over the past 30 years have completely changed what we mean by nothing.In particular, nothing is unstable. Nothing can create something all the time due to the laws of quantum mechanics, and it’s - it’s fascinatingly interesting.”
npr.org/2012/01/13/145175263/lawrence-krauss-on-a-universe-from-nothing
In case you want to accuse Krauss of being a new age weirdo, like you did to me and sair,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss

Since you appear to have ignored the link I provided about why virtual particles are (a) not particles and (b) not coming from nothing, I am going to repost it, hoping that you might change your mind and actually read something that will elucidate you on a subject that you are apparently ignorant about.
profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

 

[wittgenstein]

I never claimed that Krauss and respected physicists are the smartist people on earth. We can debate,and perhaps you are right. However, to dismiss my quotes from respected physicists as those physicists deserving to be kicked in the pants, is I hope beneath you and only caused by excessive emotion.
So by using bright colors and huge font was not meant as an insult to emphasize my lapse in spelling? Remember that occasionally I use a tablet.
You also accused me of getting my information about semiotics from “semiotics for beginners” until I proved you wrong.
Also, accusing Sair of getting his info from new age nonsense is also an ad hominem. Which I once again proved to be silly. Nothingness is unstable,is something many physicists say.
I can post more of your ad hominems,but that woild be pointless. If you do not recognize your behaviour by now, you never will.

 

[wittgenstein]

OK,you claim that virtual particles are not particles. That in itself is contentious,most physicists would disagree but also say that they are ephemeral. (they don’t last long). However, I never said they were particles. However, they are real. If you disagree with that yhen you really are on the fringe. Actually, I admire speculation but only if done without the boring and superfluous ad hominems.