Virtual Particles Again

[Hope1960]

Some people believe that the universe came into existence without God. Do virtual particles come into being out of nothing or do they come into being out of something?

 

[Vico]

Some people believe that the universe came into existence without God. Do virtual particles come into being out of nothing or do they come into being out of something?

The initial creation of matter is ex nihilo. Virtual particles have to be inferred because they cannot be measured, so in that sense they are not real.

 

[Hope1960]

I

The initial creation of matter is ex nihilo. Virtual particles have to be inferred because they cannot be measured, so in that sense they are not real.

Some people believe that something can come from nothing but what I’m trying to ask is, I think virtual partials pop in and out of existence in a vacuum in a sea of energy. Isn’t that vacuum and energy not nothing?

 

[Bradskii]

Some people believe that the universe came into existence without God. Do virtual particles come into being out of nothing or do they come into being out of something?

Some people believe that the universe came into existence without Brahma. You do realise that the answer to ‘where did the universe come from’ is a function of where and when you were born.

 

[Vico]

…
Some people believe that something can come from nothing but what I’m trying to ask is, I think virtual partials pop in and out of existence in a vacuum in a sea of energy. Isn’t that vacuum and energy not nothing?

[Edit: The energy is something.]

The virtual particle can actually have an uncertain energy but with the same energy as the initial and final states, so a system can pass through states without violating energy conservation.

 

[Hope1960]

The virtual particle can actually have an uncertain energy but with the same energy as the initial and final states, so a system can pass through states without violating energy conservation.

Huh? Can you pleas just answer my question?

 

[Vico]

Vico:

The virtual particle can actually have an uncertain energy but with the same energy as the initial and final states, so a system can pass through states without violating energy conservation.

Huh? Can you pleas just answer my question?

The energy is something. God created it from nothing however.

 

[Arkansan]

Virtual particles only exist in conjunction with real particles. they are not an example of something coming from nothing.

 

[Gorgias]

You do realise that the answer to ‘where did the universe come from’ is a function of where and when you were born.

So… the answer to the question “where did the universe come from” is really just a matter of opinion, and has multiple mutually-exclusive answers?!?!?!?

For shame, @Bradskii… you know better than that.

(p.s., what’s up with this @Bradski / @Bradskii thing? )

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

You do realise that the answer to ‘where did the universe come from’ is a function of where and when you were born.

So… the answer to the question “where did the universe come from” is really just a matter of opinion, and has multiple mutually-exclusive answers?!?!?!?

For shame, @Bradskii… you know better than that.

(p.s., what’s up with this @Bradski / @Bradskii thing? )

Yes. It’s opinion. Because nobody knows. So you take all the available information, you weigh that against any religious beliefs that you might have and you give your opinion as to which sounds most credible. Where and when you are born dictates what religious beliefs you are likely to have and so will have a major influence on your decision.

And the two ii’s on Bradski happened when they changed the forum. I had to re-register so I used the same name with an extra i.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes. It’s opinion. Because nobody knows. So you take all the available information, you weigh that against any religious beliefs that you might have and you give your opinion as to which sounds most credible.

OK. I’ll buy it if you’re approximating Newman’s “illative sense” argument. However, that doesn’t mean “opinion”; that means “each person examines the evidence and reaches a conclusion that they feel is sufficiently valid and explicative.”

However, although in a set of N persons, you’ll end of with M answers ( 1 < M <= N ), that doesn’t mean that all M answers are objectively correct. If many of these are mutually exclusive, then necessarily, some have to be false. It’s not a case of “nobody knows”, though: it’s a case of “some ‘know’ falsely” and “others ‘know’ truly”, no?

Where and when you are born dictates what religious beliefs you are likely to have and so will have a major influence on your decision.

OK – so it influences but is not determinative. Fair enough. The usual mantra, though, is that “your belief is dictated by the time/place/religion of your birth”, and that’s not strictly true. And, if we’re being honest, that’s exactly what you claimed, until I challenged your assertion and you clarified that what you really meant was “major influence”, right?

 

[Bradskii]

The usual mantra, though, is that “your belief is dictated by the time/place/religion of your birth”, and that’s not strictly true. And, if we’re being honest, that’s exactly what you claimed, until I challenged your assertion and you clarified that what you really meant was “major influence”, right?

If something cannot be proved one way or the other then you cannot give anything other than your personal opinion. For example: Does God exist? In my opinion, no.

If you are asked how the universe came into being and if, in your opinion, you believe that God/Brahma/deity-of-your-choice exists, then that opinion in itself will, as I said, be a function of your opinion as to the cause of the universe. Or, to put it another way, have a major influence as to your opinion.

So where and when you are born has a major influence on your answer to the question.

Incidentally, mine is: I don’t know (but in my opinion, it wasn’t Brahma or any other deity-of-your-choice).

 

[Gorgias]

If something cannot be proved one way or the other

Different contexts admit different methods and standards of proof. In a courtroom, do we ‘prove’ guilt, or merely reach a consensus of a jury of the accused’s peers? And, isn’t that mere consensus enough that we call it, by analogy more than anything else, “proof”?

So, the challenge here is to ponder what we mean by ‘proof’ in this context, and not attempt to shoehorn one system’s methods of ‘proving’ into another system’s…

So where and when you are born has a major influence on your answer to the question.

Incidentally, mine is: I don’t know (but in my opinion, it wasn’t Brahma or any other deity-of-your-choice).

So… arguably, you were born into Christendom in the Western world in the 20th century. Did that provide a “major influence” in the answer you’ve reached?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

If something cannot be proved one way or the other

Different contexts admit different methods and standards of proof. In a courtroom, do we ‘prove’ guilt, or merely reach a consensus of a jury of the accused’s peers? And, isn’t that mere consensus enough that we call it, by analogy more than anything else, “proof”?

So, the challenge here is to ponder what we mean by ‘proof’ in this context, and not attempt to shoehorn one system’s methods of ‘proving’ into another system’s…

So where and when you are born has a major influence on your answer to the question.

Incidentally, mine is: I don’t know (but in my opinion, it wasn’t Brahma or any other deity-of-your-choice).

So… arguably, you were born into Christendom in the Western world in the 20th century. Did that provide a “major influence” in the answer you’ve reached?

Proof as in incontravertable evidence. That type of evidence doesn’t exist in regard to the creation of the universe. Of Brahma for that matter. Or any other deity-of-your-choice.

And yes, born into a western civilisation in the twentieth century has had a major influence on my opinions. And actually born into a Christian family had even more influence. But we don’t always fit the mould.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

This topic intrigues me.

Either the Universe came from nothing or it didn’t. I feel these two options are mutually exclusive.
Taking the first, which is a common enough idea, I think it’s important to find out quite how nothing-y nothing is. If it can be qualified in any way, then it isn’t really nothing. As far as I understand, physicists who concern themselves with these things consider that the spontaneous eruption of the Big Bang is contingent upon various mathematical laws which dictate that the state of ‘nothing’ has consequences. If these laws describe nothingness, then it is not nothing, it is a describable entity, and describable in some detail and with some precision.

Nothing, it seems to me, must not only lack matter, energy, space and time, it must also lack information and potentiality. I think that must mean that nothing cannot change into something.

That being so, it is impossible for the universe to have come from nothing.

However, we have not arrived at God, yet. If the universe has come from something, then that something must be eternal. It has been suggested that the universe fluctuates out of and back to a succession of singularities, which is not absurd, and also that it emerged from a state of ‘activatable information’, in other words the mathematical description of how no-energy-time-or-space behaves and the potentiality to derive the universe from it.

Although ''activatable information" is a less than flattering term for God, I think this would be a good basis from which to begin a characterisation of him.

 

[Gorgias]

Proof as in incontravertable evidence. That type of evidence doesn’t exist in regard to the creation of the universe.

Perfect answer. In other words, you’re demanding a standard of proof that, a priori, can never meet the challenge. Why is that reasonable, again, then?

And yes, born into a western civilisation in the twentieth century has had a major influence on my opinions. And actually born into a Christian family had even more influence.

So, either it didn’t influence you (and therefore, your claim fails), or you’re the “exception that proves the rule”?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

A vacuum and a sea of energy are not nothing.

A vacuum requires space, space is something, ergo a vacuum is not nothing.
A sea of energy is also not nothing, as energy is something.

When we say nothing, we’re not talking about a mere lack of matter, we’re talking about a lack of anything. No dimension, not even the concept of a dimension.

 

[Hope1960]

A vacuum and a sea of energy are not nothing.

A vacuum requires space, space is something, ergo a vacuum is not nothing.

A sea of energy is also not nothing, as energy is something.

When we say nothing, we’re not talking about a mere lack of matter, we’re talking about a lack of anything. No dimension, not even the concept of a dimension.

Am I correct that William Lane Craig said that virtual particles “come from a sea of energy and vacuum”?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I’m not disputing that, that is correct (I think). What I’m disputing is the notion that a sea of energy and a vacuum qualifies as nothing. It doesn’t. Both energy and a vacuum are something, and therefore not nothing.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Proof as in incontravertable evidence. That type of evidence doesn’t exist in regard to the creation of the universe.

Perfect answer. In other words, you’re demanding a standard of proof that, a priori, can never meet the challenge. Why is that reasonable, again, then?

And yes, born into a western civilisation in the twentieth century has had a major influence on my opinions. And actually born into a Christian family had even more influence.

So, either it didn’t influence you (and therefore, your claim fails), or you’re the “exception that proves the rule”?

Did I say I demanded a standard of proof? I’m not sure I did. I said that there can be no way to prove how the universe came into existence. There is no incontravertable proof available in this case. So it becomes a matter of opinion. Based on the evidence available that we are prepared to accept as valid.

And being born when and where I did, it did have an influence. Without any shadow of doubt. But we’re still free to make up our own minds. It’s not compulsory to believe in Brahma if you are born in Mumbai. But the chances that you will be a Christian are a hell of a lot smaller than you being a Hindu.

All this is pretty straightforward, isn’t it?