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,