Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You should avoid post just to insult. Other people might be able to get away with it, but I don't think it will make you any points.
Oh come on! I throw a little heat towards someone, and I'm being made to look like the bad guy. I'm just having a little fun; if xmarksthespot can't handle it, he can go cry a river. Right X?
Originally posted by ushomefree
Oh come on! I throw a little heat towards someone, and I'm being made to look like the bad guy. I'm just having a little fun; if xmarksthespot can't handle it, he can go cry a river. Right X?
I'm sorry if what I said made you look like the bad guy. That was not my intent. I was just trying to help you. In other words, if everyone is getting on your case, don't give them full, is all I was saying. 😄
Originally posted by chickenlover98
in case u hadnt noticed, there are smily faces 🙁
Don't tell him about those. 😱
Before you know it his posts will be like...
smartassred_bandana 😆
...and no one will understand what he is talking about.
chickenlover98 "And how is that different from now?"
Shakyamunison "Good point!"
😆
Originally posted by ushomefreeSymmetry principles are fundamental to all physics. The success of quantum mechanics is a direct result of it's ability to predict and explain the experimental evidence. And as far as I'm aware there's yet to be any experiment performed with results violating the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics.
On what planet do you inhabit? Wowie... wow, wow, wow! You have my undivided attention; explain to myself (and members of the forum) what specific information you have to substantiate your claims. Please elaborate on all points. If not for me, elaborate for members of the forum.
The existence of virtual particle pairs arising spontaneously from vacuum was a hypothesis upon which predictions were made. These predictions were shown accurate by Willis Lamb over sixty years ago. Other experimental findings agree with the existence of virtual particle pairs. Virtual particle pairs are a vacuum fluctuation effect, other vacuum fluctuation effects have been or are being studied in the field of quantum electrodynamics.
The existence of vacuum fluctuations and virtual particle pairs is allowed by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is continually mathematically confirmed, as well as via thought experiments.
Bell's inequality experiments also demonstrated that deterministic "hidden local variables" do not comply with experimental data, and cannot explain the randomness observed in quantum systems. There is no hidden "cause."
The total energy of the universe mathematically equates to zero, when one takes into account cosmological principle.
And under the current inflationary model of the universe energy was generated before a friction effect converted some of it into matter.
That's about as much as I'm willing to spoonfeed someone who's not actually willing to learn, in no position to be using a condescending tone and essentially vindicating the comments he was complaining about beforehand.
You're still yet to offer an evidenced counter-argument to the physicists who proposed these hypotheses and/or verified them.
Besides "Magic man done it."
And I'm still waiting for you to select a peer-reviewed scientific article from a reputable journal from your oodles of literature supporting an intelligent intervention to show me. There must be too many to choose from, huh? So I don't see why I should have to explain anything I've posted to you anyway.
xmarksthespot-
I applaud your post; it contained more information than all former combined. I referenced key terms and principles presented, and I sense the depth of your argument. I must manage time and resources to address it properly; my knowledge concerning Quantum Mechanics is limited. To aid in my efforts, I have printed articles encompassing the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Cosmological Principle, and Vacuum Fluctuations. With no further ado, I'm signing off; I have much to study. thumbsup
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Symmetry principles are fundamental to all physics. The success of quantum mechanics is a direct result of it's ability to predict and explain the experimental evidence. And as far as I'm aware there's yet to be any experiment performed with results violating the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics.
Agreed; and quantum mechanics doesn't violate "classical" physics either.
The Heisenberg Uncertaintly Principle (HUP) deals specifically with measuring particles; within HUP, the momentum of the particles are uncertain, and measuring the momentum of particles equates to uncertainty as well. This is all find and good, but HUP has nothing to do with creation (or even evolution).
Needless to say, it has been argued that accurate measurments will be possible once technology advances. Which is a good thing!
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The existence of virtual particle pairs arising spontaneously from vacuum was a hypothesis upon which predictions were made. These predictions were shown accurate by Willis Lamb over sixty years ago. Other experimental findings agree with the existence of virtual particle pairs. Virtual particle pairs are a vacuum fluctuation effect, other vacuum fluctuation effects have been or are being studied in the field of quantum electrodynamics.
Agreed; but Vacuum Fluctuation are not void (empty) of mass--hence the creation of particles, and they are certainly not void of energy.
"In modern physics, there is no such thing as 'nothing.' Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy." --Richard Morris
"There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty-five zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero." --Stephen Hawking
The "total sum of energy equating to zero," is defined by--or the direct result of--postive and negative energy.
In how you imply this fact, can be viewed as misleading.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The existence of vacuum fluctuations and virtual particle pairs is allowed by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is continually mathematically confirmed, as well as via thought experiments.
Agreed; but you can't apply HUP and Vacuum Fluctuations to creation or evoution. The HUP deals with measuments, and Vacuum Fluctuations deal with the relationship between energy and mass, however out of focus they may be. Don't you agree with that?
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Bell's inequality experiments also demonstrated that deterministic "hidden local variables" do not comply with experimental data, and cannot explain the randomness observed in quantum systems. There is no hidden "cause."
Agreed; the cause is not "hidden." It simply cannot be quantified and measured accurately. Stay tuned as technology advances.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
And under the current inflationary model of the universe energy was generated before a friction effect converted some of it into matter.
I agree 100 percent! The Big Bang theory varifies universal inflation (expansion), but where did the "energy" come from. That is the fundamental question. I'm not trying to be saucy or arrogant with you, but that remains a mystery. In biology, the question is, "Where did the information come from"?
Thanks to you, I have developed interest in Quantum Mechanics. I'm going to contiune studying and--at minimum--become knowledgeable enough to engage in conversation without reading 3 articles and referencing about 15 various websites! I have a DVD movie called, "The Elegant Universe," I purchased from Nova. It's a great movie, and I think you would get a kick out of it. The DVD is primarily about Quantum Mechanics and "String theory," not to mention "classical" physics. The entire video used to be posted to the Nova wesbite--in the educational section (I think?)--you may want to check it out. Take care.
Under current models the initial positive energy that caused inflation of spacetime was due to spontaneous vacuum fluctuations. Energy conservation principles are not violated as the positive energy produced would be balanced by the negative energy curvature in spacetime.
I wasn't applying uncertainty principle or vacuum fluctuations to evolution. I was stating the mechanisms by which the universe as we know it can arise without cause or intervention. The matter derives from energy, the energy derives from spacetime curvature, spacetime curvature is an uncaused phenomenon.
If you're asking how spacetime arose, then you're making the assumption that spacetime had to arise. A concept of "time" and "space" outside of known spacetime can't yet be modeled. So whether the initial spacetime singularity always existed, or didn't always exist has yet to be confirmed. You're also making the assumption that if it did arise it could only arise via a "cause." Which is untrue under modern physics, considering there are uncaused spontaneous phenomena. And if you're assuming it arose from "void" then you're making the assumption that outside of known spacetime, there is "void."
xmarksthespot-
With all due respect, with what information I have read regarding Quantum Mechanics, it seems to me, that you are extrapolating on areas of Quantum Mechanics that remain mysterious (or dubious). As to your intent, I think you are sincere, but facts surrounding Quantum Mechanics are not black and white--a matter of fact--as you present them. I ask that you read the article, "Quantum Mechanics, the Modern Goliath," authored by Astronomer Hugh Ross, Ph. D. When reading the article, the terms, "God," "Bible," "Transcendent Creator," etc., are apparent; I ask that you ignore the terms, and focus on the material being presented. In other words, I ask that you read the article openly. And the top of the article provides other articles that have relation--directly or indirectly--to the topic. I encourage you to read them; take care.
X, you just gave him a new (and even more obtuse) scientific field to butcher with creationist propoganda.
😛
I'd lol, but it's probably getting close to a lot of our limits when it comes to debating about this stuff (or caring, frankly, especially with ushome).
Though I'd really like to point out a macroscopic perspective on this to ushome: X (and others...anyone who knows evolution, in fact) can and has been able to refute you or provide all the evidence you continuously demand. And now you're looking for creationism loopholes in....quantum physics? Just look at it all. You're becoming the very definition of the "god of the gaps" theory that is both infuriating and unscientific. If X can keep up with all this (by all accounts, he can) you'll have to retreat to...i dunno...dualistic theories of consciousness next, which may or may not exist but hardly endorse anything resembling evidence for your Creator....just like quantum physics never will.
Quantum physics is strange and incomprehensible to a huge number of people, so it's easy to draw false analogies to the fields of religion and philosophy without fear of being debunked by too many people. But the leap from one field to the other is so vast that it makes any attempt ridiculous unless it's empirical and scientific in its methods and conclusions. The theories that are accepted within the scientific community match our observations and tests, so there is little reason to doubt them...just as there is little (if any) reason to try to find religious solace in the seemingly counter-intuitive nature of quantum physics with our normal understanding of mechanistic forces of nature.
DigiMark007-
The reason I asked whether or not you read the article, is because of your attitude and choice of words. As with other conversations we have had in the past, you've claimed that I base arguments on "Creationist propaganda." This simply isn't true; if you read the article, you simply skimmed through it, and that is not reading, let alone understanding the author's arguments (or questions). Point being, if you had taken the time to read the article (and perhaps reference other sources in conjunction with) you wouldn't have labeled the article "Creationist propaganda." At minimum, whether you disagreed (or agreed), you'd realize that the article is based on science. I highly recommend you print and read the the article entitled, "Astronomical Evidences for the God of the Bible." The article is easy to read; it's not a book, but it delivers the basics. It is a great source of information, since the bibliography contains 141 references. Give it a fair read. Sheesh....
Don't accuse me of skimming. I'm insulted...
...in fact, I didn't read it at all. Or even consider reading it.
31
I've gotten into with you before, and you know my stance. For me, it's not nearly worth it when all you do is find loopholes (either with your threads or your arguments themselves) to push your agenda.
If someone wants to discuss the nuances of quantum physics, I'm all for it. But I'll enter the talk when it's a scientific discussion, not a fault-finding mission for which to bolster a religious agenda that is far removed from anything having to do with legitimate science.
I know this because I know your intents and methods. I couldn't care less if it's you posting it. But if someone else were to post the same thing with legit scientific questions about quantum physics, not in an attempt to use it toward a religious end that has nothing to do with it, but in curious scientific (empirical) inquiry, and that focused on what we can and do know rather than demanding answers of theories, I'd be all for it. But I doubt you can lay claim to any of it. Every other post you've ever made speaks otherwise, so don't bother taking the high road. All you've ever done is use perceived flaws in whatever theory of the day you've targeted to try and work in your baseless unscientific religious claims.
So no, you c'mon. I really don't think you've grasped my point ever, and you continue with the same tactics that got you on so many unofficial ignore lists in this forum.