Curiosity/ Create the universe Stephen Hawking

by jam 153 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  HBJ

  @JonathonH -

  The fact that einstein spoke poetically about the universe has given the religious a means of claiming that Einstein, one of the most important physicists of the modern age, actually believed similarly to them when nothing could be further from the truth.

  I liked your post. I'll do some reading regarding Einstein in that capacity. One might wonder why the religious, folks who are 100% rock solid in their religious beliefs, would care what Einstein, Hawkings, or any other intellectual has to say? That would indicate to me that they're not as religiously solid as they may claim. If they consider the opinions of physicists or any other outside influences to substantiate their beliefs, that would appear to equate to doubt?

  Thanks for the reply...
• 

  Caedes

  I was made to wonder, why is it that ‘static’ protons that remain static are considered real? Does not the evidence show that protons which “blink in and out of existence,” so to speak, are ALSOreal—just not static? I mean, the fact that some protons can be detected and/or seen to “blink in and out,” as shown in this program, give evidence that they are real? Now, one may wonder where “they go” when they ‘blink out’; however, even in their ‘blinking out,’ aren’t they real? Just because something isn’t “seen” doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist or ceases to exist because we suddenly can’t see it, does it? Is that what the scientists and you are concluding?

  As I understand it (which is a big qualifier I would say), real protons are static i.e. the protons that we have empirical evidence for (i.e. the ones that form part of every atom in the universe) do not blink in and out of existence. The virtual particle pairs are a prediction of the maths used in quantum mechanics, if we now have empirical evidence that virtual particles are real that is very exciting but isn't something I have read about so I couldn't comment in any meaningful way.

  If virtual particles are real they can only last for a tiny amount of time since if they continued to exist in any way they would break fundamental physical laws of our universe. i.e. conservation of energy/momentum. In short these predicted particles are not the same as real particles. As far as I am aware the only way we may get proof of the existence of virtual particles would be if we could measure hawking radiation from the event horizon of a black hole.

  Remember you are talking about protons something that measure less than 1 x 10- 15 Metres in diameter so even the real ones can't be 'seen' as such.

  Aguest seems strangely quiet on the actual discussion of one of her questions! hmmm
• 

  Caedes

  Still all quiet I see.
• 

  AGuest

  Aguest seems strangely quiet on the actual discussion of one of her questions!

  You mean the issue of the disappearing protons, dear Caedes (peace to you!)? My apologies, but I didn't really see any discussion. I saw an explanation of what science believes those particles to be, but... But, if that's what you believe took place (a discussion of one of my questions), let's continue, shall we?

  If virtual particles are real they can only last for a tiny amount of time since if they continued to exist in any way they would break fundamental physical laws of our universe. i.e. conservation of energy/momentum. In short these predicted particles are not the same as real particles.

  Unfortunately, that doesn't make sense to me. Let me explain: IF virtual particles are real. And, yet, IF they are real... they are NOT virtual, right? Which stands to reason that if they are virtual, they are not REAL. Yet, your comment states, "If virtual particles ARE real..." So that's confusing to me, especially since you go on to say that they "are NOT the same as real particles." Forgive me for saying so, but to ME, it sounds the same as when religion tries to "sell" its theories, too.

  But, okay... I'm more than willing to give the benefit of the doubt and consider that what you said DID make sense... and I just didn't get it. Moving on...

  You also state:

  The virtual particle pairs are a prediction of the maths used in quantum mechanics,

  Yet... are unaware of any empirical evidence that says they actually exist. Quantum mechanics predict that they SHOULD exist... but we don't know, for SURE. It's what SHOULD happen, but we often find out that what we believe SHOULD occur in this universe... based on math and other criteria... isn't what occurs at all. Right? And so math formulas/equations are often adjusted, restructured, even rewritten... right?

  Even so, none of this relates to MY question... which was, in relation to these "virtual" protons (I mean, I'm willing to buy the theory that they DO exist): how do we KNOW they don't exist prior to or after they appear/disappear HERE... or that the don't come "from"/go "to" somewhere? True, they may not exist HERE... but since we can't even verify that they exist AT ALL... let along measure their shadow/trace... how can we say that they don't exist elsewhere... and aren't simply "popping in and out" of HERE?

  We can because our math... THUS far... doesn't support that? Okay.

  What, though, if our math, in say, 20 years, DOES support that? Say, even a multiverse? And that they were in fact coming FROM somewhere and going TO somewhere? Indeed, that they ARE "real" elsewhere and only "virtual" here... or in fact real HERE and now empirically measurable... OR... in fact... not a proton at all, but some OTHER element we're not even aware of yet?

  That's pretty much what I would ask Dr. Hawking. But since that isn't likely to occur... and we are discussing matters HERE... my question goes further, to ask:

  Does our admittedly limited knowledge NOW negate the ultimate TRUTH that we may find out THEN? And if our understanding now is WRONG... is it still "truth" because we THINK it is true, now? If so, how does that differ from the way [a certain] religion sets forth IT'S understanding of things? Indeed, isn't this the SAME THING as "new" light?

  I think so... and so I think that since science DOES use this tack... it's hypocritical for those who have all faith in science... to take issue with those who do it in religion.

  Not saying science is all wrong or religion is all right. Not by ANY stretch. Not even saying science is mostly wrong and religion mostly right. I would say exactly the opposite before I would say that. But not saying THAT, either. Just saying there are some similarities which BOTH camps utterly deny... but the TRUTH is that they are there.

  That's all I'm sayin'...

  Again, peace to you, thanks for continuing the "discussion"!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  bohm

  Caedes:

  If you just take grandpas QM from 1930, any system is defined as a wave equation which is a solution to a particular operator equation. In other words, there is no electron, only its wave.

  When we want to ask "where is the electron" or "what is its momentum", the only way to answer those questions is to study how the wave function behave with respect to the position/momentum operators. that is what position/momentum mean. Now, depending on the original wave function the position (for instance) may not have a singular well-defined value like we would expect, and since the position operator is fundamentally what it means the particle "is somewhere" it make no sence to further ask where it really is: we allready got the answer, we just dont like it!

  As it happends (and that is just how math works) we cant have wave functions with unique answers for position and momentum. They are smeared out, (and will allways be) and that is really heisenberger uncertainty principle.

  Now returning to the particles. If we ask grandpa "how many particles are there at point x" we would expect him to "count particles at point x". but this is an observation and therefore QM tell us the number is only defined through and operator, the particle-count operator, which we can use to prope any random wave-function and get the answer.

  Now here is the thing: The operator is easy to write down, but as it turns out exactly like it was the case with position/momentum, particle count/momentum is give smeared out (but perfectly well-defined!) results. That is particulary relevant since it mean empty space will not have a unique particle count, rather the number of particles will be "smeared out".

  So the particles are not virtual as in special particles, their number is just not zero even in empty space simply due to the fundamental nature of what "number of particles" and "empty space" mean in our most exact language, we just done like the answer! :-).

  This also mean they obey all conservation laws etc. It should be mentioned virtual particles can also be seen as a time/energy uncertainty relation, but i think this is more like dads QM and a bit above my paygrade :-).

  It is highly unfortunate that QM is being constructed as a theory where things are not well-defined, and where idiots like Dsuza speculate endlessly as long as appropriately misunderstood buzzwords are thrown around and allusions are made toward QM being subject to change. Its not. Grandpa got this one right (and its quite amazing virtual particles was observed and the predictions turned out true only in the past decades!) :-).

  in fact it is the opposite: What does it really mean to measure the number of particles in classical physics in empty space? sure we "count" particles, but what does that really mean?. (as seen, QM actually define this and derive the consequences).
• 

  Caedes

  You mean the issue of the disappearing protons, dear Caedes (peace to you!)? My apologies, but I didn't really see any discussion. I saw an explanation of what science believes those particles to be, but... But, if that's what you believe took place (a discussion of one of my questions)

  Aguest,

  Ooh sarcasm, now that is a language I can understand! A discussion in the context of an internet forum is where people write posts and other people write posts in reply as has been going on here. If you have a different definition and believe something else has been going on here I will leave you to worry about that.

  Unfortunately, that doesn't make sense to me. Let me explain: IF virtual particles are real. And, yet, IF they are real... they are NOT virtual, right? Which stands to reason that if they are virtual, they are not REAL. Yet, your comment states, "If virtual particles ARE real..." So that's confusing to me, especially since you go on to say that they "are NOT the same as real particles." Forgive me for saying so, but to ME, it sounds the same as when religion tries to "sell" its theories, too.

  The effects explained by virtual particles are real and measurable, virtual particles are not measurable themselves, they are a name given to the maths to try and explain the interactions betweeen real particles. As I understand it (perhaps bohm could answer this since I think he has a better grasp of the maths than I do) virtual particles can never be measured due to their definition. They are literally virtual.

  Since I am not trying to sell you anything, your comparison with religion doesn't work. I'm not promising you magic beans.

  Yet... are unaware of any empirical evidence that says they actually exist. Quantum mechanics predict that they SHOULD exist... but we don't know, for SURE. It's what SHOULD happen, but we often find out that what we believe SHOULD occur in this universe... based on math and other criteria... isn't what occurs at all. Right? And so math formulas/equations are often adjusted, restructured, even rewritten... right?

  I am unaware of any empirical evidence for virtual particles (but I don't read physics journals so that isn't saying anything) just for their effects. There may well be a another theory that explains those effects better. However just like Newtonian physics any new theory must be consistant with the theory we have now. Newtonian physics still apply even though Relativity supercedes it. Any new physics must be based on what we currently understand. It is best to think of change in formulas or equations as simply giving a more accurate or complete answer. If I told you I have a house or I told you I have a house with three bedrooms and a garage, which answer is correct? They both are, it is just that one is a more complete answer. Giving a more complete answer doesn't make the simpler answer wrong.

  If you talk to any physicist they will usually talk with a lot of caveats, it's just a nod to what they don't know, if you want absolutes and black and white there are plenty of preachers who can give you that.

  Even so, none of this relates to MY question... which was, in relation to these "virtual" protons (I mean, I'm willing to buy the theory that they DO exist): how do we KNOW they don't exist prior to or after they appear/disappear HERE... or that the don't come "from"/go "to" somewhere? True, they may not exist HERE... but since we can't even verify that they exist AT ALL... let along measure their shadow/trace... how can we say that they don't exist elsewhere... and aren't simply "popping in and out" of HERE?

  We can because our math... THUS far... doesn't support that? Okay.

  What, though, if our math, in say, 20 years, DOES support that? Say, even a multiverse? And that they were in fact coming FROM somewhere and going TO somewhere? Indeed, that they ARE "real" elsewhere and only "virtual" here... or in fact real HERE and now empirically measurable... OR... in fact... not a proton at all, but some OTHER element we're not even aware of yet?

  We can only say they don't exist in reality in this universe, due to their definition and the fact that conservation of energy/momentum is a fundamental physical law.

  Even if we managed to come up with new physics and maths they will always have to be compatible with the physical laws of this universe. If this hypothetical new maths can describe new universes the effect of these new universes on this universe must be compatible with our empirical evidence and thus our existing physics for this universe.

  If you want further info the following may help, http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physfaq/topics/virtual

  Bohm,

  I'm afraid you obviously have a better understanding of QM and the maths involved than I do, I suppose as an engineer my understanding will always be a bit newtonian since that was the focus of my studies. I could understand bits of your explanation, but perhaps some of it lost something in translation. Feel free to correct any glaring errors or omissions in my reply to Aguest.
• 

  AGuest

  First, I truly did not intend to communicate sarcasm, dear Caedes (peace to you!). I meant to communicate surprise... which is what I experienced. I truly did not discern that your comments reciprocally invited further comment/discussion - I thought you were merely stating an explanation of virtual particles and couldn't what there was to comment ON. I took it at face value. Your subsequent comment, however, compelled me to go back and re-read your post... which subquently sent off bells in MY mind ("Huh, but...?"). So, I commented.

  Now, though, I want to thank you for the link. Because I think it validates the validity of my question(s) regarding HOW Dr. Hawking can KNOW... so much as to SAY... that virtual particles don't come "from" or go "to" somewhere [else]. I get it, from you AND from the article, that scientifically the things don't really even exist but are only a... ummmmm... "place-holder" of sorts to explain something that IS measurable. I get that.

  But it was not presented that way. Rather, it was presented that they DO exist... and in a manner that says scientists DO know that they don't come "from"/go "to" somewhere [else] (well, duh - something that doesn't exist CAN'T come from/go to somewhere else). If they don't exist, though, why use them to support a theory that what HAPPENS with them... them, being something... as what occurred to literally start the "big bang"? When there is absolutely NO WAY that could have happened because they are nothing?

  My questions, then, were based on Dr. Hawking's assertions that there is something that exists... but we can't see, prove, or even measure... but only know that it appears and disappears... and that it doesn't do so "from" or "to" somewhere. Given the "revelations" of your linked article, it actually was only BS... for the layman. Truly, I think the author was actually stating that those who, like Hawking, try to use this example to support their theories ARE BS'ing folks.

  And THAT is what I mean about scientists' PRESENTATION of science often being NO DIFFERENT than religionists PRESENTATION of religion. Smoke... and mirrors.

  Again, thank you for the link...and peace to you!

  YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA

  P.S. Of course, if you or anyone else disagrees with my understanding of the article, you are more than free to help me understand why you think so. But if you're only going to send me to another link and say, in essence, "Well, if you don't have enough intelligence to understand this stuff on your own, you're an idjit"... don't get YOUR chonies in a bunch when I stick to what I DO understand.
• 

  Bella15

  Hawkins missed the fact of the SPIRITUAL REALM ... many religions/people may not believe in a GOD but believe in the spiritual realm.

  You should watch the movie "EXPELLED"

  I am also very sorry for him and his illness, I think this plays a factor in the way he thinks. Others CHOOSE to think different:

  http://www.lifewithoutlimbs.org/
• 

  AGuest

  You tell 'em, dear Bella (peace to you!)! My Lord knows I've been trying to...

  Peace!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  Paralipomenon

  Einstein was very hesitant to discuss his religious beliefs. Eventually when he gave an answer he said that he believes in Spinoza's God, that is an intelligence to the universe but rejected the idea of a personal God that monitors and is concerned with the individual lives of people on Earth.

  He felt this way because everything he saw in the universe seemed to follow a set of laws and knowing the variables, you could predict anything with math.

  The emergance of Quantim Physics was a massive blow to his whole belief and he fought it and tried his hardest to disprove it since it didn't follow conventional laws of physics. His efforts to disprove it actually were a great help in advancing the field.