(March 6, 2016 at 9:06 am)Harris Wrote:

(March 4, 2016 at 5:15 am)Alex K Wrote: You claimed that virtual particles don't exist but real particles do, I disagree, and now you make excuses why it would be ludicrous to actually discuss this. Meh.

Conclusion
Can quantum mechanics create Universes from nothing? No!

So the best solution to this is to use your imagination and invent a character called god who can create a universe from nothing?

That's all it is.  You're just saying you don't understand how this thing has happened so there's this guy who can do anything anytime he wants who did it.

(March 6, 2016 at 9:16 am)paulpablo Wrote:

(March 6, 2016 at 9:06 am)Harris Wrote: Conclusion
Can quantum mechanics create Universes from nothing? No!

So the best solution to this is to use your imagination and invent a character called god who can create a universe from nothing?

That's all it is.  You're just saying you don't understand how this thing has happened so there's this guy who can do anything anytime he wants who did it.

Yes, exactly! That is what all major religions are teaching. God Created Everything Ex-nihilo.

(March 6, 2016 at 9:20 am)Harris Wrote:

(March 6, 2016 at 9:16 am)paulpablo Wrote: So the best solution to this is to use your imagination and invent a character called god who can create a universe from nothing?

That's all it is.  You're just saying you don't understand how this thing has happened so there's this guy who can do anything anytime he wants who did it.

Yes, exactly! That is what all major religions are teaching. God Created Everything Ex-nihilo.

This is why I love this forum, you never know what kind of reply you're going to get.  I did not expect this response.

(March 5, 2016 at 7:53 am)robvalue Wrote: Sure, reality as in what appears to be an objective "something". Of course we first have the problem of solipsism. But so do the people exploring their imaginations, they just end up back in unreality anyway.

I'm not claiming science can solve solipsism! Just talking in shorthand.

And you're right, more accurately it tells us about our experiences of the "something", not the something itself. (Sorry Einstein.)

Did he ever change his position on that?

Jesus Harris, did you write that novel yourself or paste it from somewhere? "people who are not trained in pQFT", who talks like that!

Maybe I can address this wall of text later. For now suffice it to say that indeed, what you call the first law (let's call it conservation of energy) is not so straightforward in curved spacetime. No, energy of particles in a curved spacetime is not preserved, that's an observational fact. Space can carry negative energy to compensate for the positive energy of its contents.

For the record: virtual particles are particles you can't see. Not that they are not real or some kind of illusion. They are real in the sense that these virtual particles are the particles involved in the interaction of other particles. When they escaped, they become detectable and so we can see them. Debating about whether they are real or not is like debating if a force is real or not.

(March 6, 2016 at 10:03 am)little_monkey Wrote: For the record: virtual particles are particles you can't see. Not that they are not real or some kind of illusion. They are real in the sense that these virtual particles are the particles involved in the interaction of other particles. When they escaped, they become detectable and so we can see them.  Debating about whether they are real or not is like debating if a force is real or not.

But - What does "seeing a particle" mean other than that it was involved in the interaction with other particles (e.g. in you eye). That's what I am trying to get across here - the distinction between virtual and real particles seems not so well defined as to justify such a kneejerk distinction of their ontological status.

What is a particle but a name for acollection of phenomena with typical properties. What is a virtual particle but a name for a collection of phenomena with typical slightly but not too different properties.

(March 6, 2016 at 10:07 am)Alex K Wrote:

(March 6, 2016 at 10:03 am)little_monkey Wrote: For the record: virtual particles are particles you can't see. Not that they are not real or some kind of illusion. They are real in the sense that these virtual particles are the particles involved in the interaction of other particles. When they escaped, they become detectable and so we can see them.  Debating about whether they are real or not is like debating if a force is real or not.

But - What does "seeing a particle" mean other than that it was involved in the interaction with other particles (e.g. in you eye). That's what I am trying to get across here - the distinction between virtual and real particles seems not so well defined as to justify such a kneejerk distinction of their ontological status.

What is a particle but a name for a collection of phenomena with typical properties. What is a virtual particle but a name for a collection of phenomena with typical slightly not too different properties.

No, you didn't understand my post. Seeing means detected by not only your eyes, but also by any detector that will indicated it has been hit by those particles, either by a flash or a jump in voltage. Virtual particles are exchanged between two other particles, so those particles are NOT going to hit your eyes or any other detector. It's that simple.

(March 6, 2016 at 10:15 am)little_monkey Wrote:

(March 6, 2016 at 10:07 am)Alex K Wrote: But - What does "seeing a particle" mean other than that it was involved in the interaction with other particles (e.g. in you eye). That's what I am trying to get across here - the distinction between virtual and real particles seems not so well defined as to justify such a kneejerk distinction of their ontological status.

What is a particle but a name for a collection of phenomena with typical properties. What is a virtual particle but a name for a collection of phenomena with typical slightly not too different properties.

No, you didn't understand my post. Seeing means detected by not only your eyes, but also by any detector that will indicated it has been hit by those particles, either by a flash or a jump in voltage. Virtual particles are exchanged between two other particles, so those particles are NOT going to hit your eyes or any other detector. It's that simple.

What's the conceptual difference between particles in a detector (which is made from particles) and "two other particles"?

Blah blah blah blah too complicated therefor god

Blah blah blah blah too complicated therefor magic pixies

Blah blah blah blah too complicated therefor inter dimensional rift

Blah blah blah blah too complicated therefor a popup book came to life