belorg - one of your previous posts quoted hereunder and my response follows thereafter.
:
Belorg, my response.
I am not aware that such experiments have proved anything or has led to
a valid prediction by the vast majority of scientists. If this were
otherwise we would all know about it and the world would undoubtedly be
different.
The following article debunks the whole concept.
Perhaps you could provide scientific proof/evidence the popping out/disappearance of
particles from and into nothing resolves all the conflicting positions on
the origin of motion.
lynnemctaggart.com/blog/165-making-something-out-of-nothing
MAKING SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING
I¹m continuing to follow the ongoing and now very heated debate about
religion and atheism, and was shocked to hear that in a debate last week
Richard Dawkins defended his views against those of Dr. Rowan Williams,
the Archbishop of Canterbury, by maintaining that what all religious
people have the most trouble accepting is the idea that the universe –
and therefore all of life – came from nothing.
This argument is simply scientific illiteracy. As any high school student
of physics is taught, nothing comes from nothing.
Ever-present energy
There are several reasons for this. The first, accepted as a basic tenet
of physics, has to do with the laws of conservation of mass and energy:
that the universe is made of energy and that energy can get neither
created or destroyed: it simply changes form.
The only universe that could come out of nothing is a universe without
any energy at all.
The second point is that there is no nothing. Quantum mechanics has long
demonstrated that there is no such thing as a vacuum, or nothing. What we
tend to think of as a sheer void if all of space were tipped out and
emptied of matter and energy, and you examined even the space between the
stars is, in subatomic terms, a hive of activity.
Fleeting presence
What we believe to be our stable, static universe is in fact a seething
maelstrom of subatomic particles fleetingly popping in and out of
existence. The uncertainty principle developed by Werner Heisenberg, one
of the chief architects of quantum theory, implies that no particle ever
stays completely at rest but is constantly in motion due to a ground
state field of energy constantly interacting with all subatomic matter
It means that the basic substructure of the universe is a sea of quantum
fields that cannot be eliminated by any known laws of physics.
Again, we know because of Einstein¹s famous equation E=mc2 that all
elementary particles interact with each other by exchanging energy
through other quantum particles, which are believed to appear out of
nowhere, combining and annihilating each other in less than an instant,
causing random fluctuations of energy without any apparent cause.
The fleeting particles generated during this brief moment, known as
Œvirtual particles,¹ differ from real particles because they only exist
during that exchange – the time of Œuncertainty.¹
Even in temperatures of absolute zero, the lowest possible energy state,
where all matter has been removed and nothing is supposed left to make
motion.
This ŒZero Point¹ energy is the energy present in the emptiest state of
space at the lowest possible energy, out of which no more energy could be
removed – the closest that motion of subatomic matter ever gets to zero.
Because of the uncertainty principle, there will always be some residual
jiggling due to this virtual particle exchange.
Subtracting God
This movement has always been largely discounted because it is ever
present. In physics equations, most physicists subtract troublesome
Zero-Point energy away – a process called Œrenormalization¹ – because it
messes up their equations. Once you get rid of the mathematical
representation of this residual jigging, you tidy up your equation.
As I have always maintained, subtracting out the Zero Point Field is a
little like subtracting out God. It isn¹t the annoying leftover, like
some endless remainder in long division – it¹s the entire point of the
story.
Ironically, the only universe that came completely out of nothing would
have to be completely flat. And indeed there is a hypothesis about a
zero-energy universe.
I chuckle at this and am reminded of British Dr. Stephen Davies, one of
the early nutritional medical pioneer, who in the 1980s proposed that
bodies were biochemically individual and that individual deficiencies in
certain nutrients led to illness.
Naturally, he was attacked as a heretic. He liked to refer to his more
orthodox opponents, in their stubborn belief that nutritional status had
nothing to do with illness, as Œflat earthers.¹ They, too, believed that
something came out of nothing.
The ancient Greek cosmologists and philosophers understood that nothing
comes from nothing – as did Rodgers and Hammerstein. As Captain Von Trapp
reminds Maria in The Sound of Music, ŒNothing comes from nothing, nothing
ever could."
Belorg, may i have your reasoned, logical response?
