This is an amazing exchange that came from out of the blue when someone who seems to know what he's talking about came into the discussion to set us both straight. I think what resulted is the truth that when Krauss says "nothing" he is being misleading because nothing does not mean the actual absence of anything the general public takes it to mean which has a;ways been my position. But we see out of the discussion the atheist doesn't even head that. He goes on conceited to misleading people. Not to say all atheists do this but this one does do it.
Joe Hinman "Cosmological Argument: from contingency," Comment section: https://www.blogger.com/comment.gblogID=6363362&postID=7186418592200543178&page=1&token=1536644224312&isPopup=true
[note on fn I am quoting extensively from my own maritime the numbers correspond to the notes in that article, see notes at of the page]
Joe Hinman said...
The skeptic merely says there are particles they are popping out of nothing. The problem is the physicists include the particles as part of nothing, there's no empirical observations that they are coming out of real nothing not just coming from some primordial field; in other words a group of more particles,
That does not mean that Krauss doesn't understand or doesn't know what he's saying. He knows but what he is saying is really a faith statement. He wants us to think his statement is a precise factual understanding of the universe but it is actually nothing more than a faith statement based upon facts but those facts do not include empirical knowledge of the origin of the universe, he's really just discussing an educated guess.
Even if we assume field theory as a literally true statement of what happens with sub atomic particles it can't be the case that they actually do emerge from true nothing. The reason is very simple and it is assumed by the theory.The theory itself assumes that prior conditions exist, a framework in which the things emerge. They may not have direct causes in the conventional sense but they clearly do not just pop into existence out of actual noting. There are prior conditions without which the particles would not be possible. Those conditions have to be accounted for. The frame work consists mainly of Time, physical law, ad what they now call field,or Vacuum flux which means more particles.
"He [Krauss] acknowledges (albeit in a parenthesis, and just a few pages before the end of the book) that everything he has been talking about simply takes the basic principles of quantum mechanics for granted."[15] The term"nothing" is erroneous since by that term physicists do not mean what regular people mean by the term.They do not mean the absence of anything at all. "For a half century, physicists have known that there is no such thing as absolute nothingness, and that the vacuum of empty space, devoid of even a single atom of matter, seethes with subtle activity. "[16] I have quoted at least three physicists saying Krauss is wrong his statements can't be taken literally. I think a good term for what they are saying is that his statements are faith based statements or atheist dogma based upon field theory. The three physicists are A Curious Mind, Arnold Neumaier,[Neumaier Lectures at the Institute of Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, University of Vienna.] and Paul Matt Sutter, I close with statement by David Albert the philosopher with Ph.d in physics (NYU), from his review of Krauss:
That does not mean that Krauss doesn't understand or doesn't know what he's saying. He knows but what he is saying is really a faith statement. He wants us to think his statement is a precise factual understanding of the universe but it is actually nothing more than a faith statement based upon facts but those facts do not include empirical knowledge of the origin of the universe, he's really just discussing an educated guess.
Even if we assume field theory as a literally true statement of what happens with sub atomic particles it can't be the case that they actually do emerge from true nothing. The reason is very simple and it is assumed by the theory.The theory itself assumes that prior conditions exist, a framework in which the things emerge. They may not have direct causes in the conventional sense but they clearly do not just pop into existence out of actual noting. There are prior conditions without which the particles would not be possible. Those conditions have to be accounted for. The frame work consists mainly of Time, physical law, ad what they now call field,or Vacuum flux which means more particles.
"He [Krauss] acknowledges (albeit in a parenthesis, and just a few pages before the end of the book) that everything he has been talking about simply takes the basic principles of quantum mechanics for granted."[15] The term"nothing" is erroneous since by that term physicists do not mean what regular people mean by the term.They do not mean the absence of anything at all. "For a half century, physicists have known that there is no such thing as absolute nothingness, and that the vacuum of empty space, devoid of even a single atom of matter, seethes with subtle activity. "[16] I have quoted at least three physicists saying Krauss is wrong his statements can't be taken literally. I think a good term for what they are saying is that his statements are faith based statements or atheist dogma based upon field theory. The three physicists are A Curious Mind, Arnold Neumaier,[Neumaier Lectures at the Institute of Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, University of Vienna.] and Paul Matt Sutter, I close with statement by David Albert the philosopher with Ph.d in physics (NYU), from his review of Krauss:
The fundamental physical laws that Krauss is talking about in “A Universe From Nothing” — the laws of relativistic quantum field theories — are no exception to this. The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren’t, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on — and they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.[17]
The statements Kraus makes are faith statements,they are not exactly wrong but they are not proven they are faith ,he has faith God did not create.
im-skeptical said...
Joe, you still don't know what you're talking about.
The "lowest energy state" is what you have when you take away everything, including particles - leaving NOTHING. Your lack of understanding is clearly revealed when you say "Nothing is the lowest level energy state in a theory, so that would mean an individual particle is "nothing."" An individual particle is not nothing. It has energy. It is not the lowest energy state. Nothing is nothing. No particles, no charges, no energy. THAT's what we mean by the quantum vacuum. It is only a philosophical statement to say that nothing is really not nothing. It doesn't reflect reality. In fact, the vacuum really consists of nothing at all.
And you are still evading the central point here. Virtual particles come to exist without a cause.
The "lowest energy state" is what you have when you take away everything, including particles - leaving NOTHING. Your lack of understanding is clearly revealed when you say "Nothing is the lowest level energy state in a theory, so that would mean an individual particle is "nothing."" An individual particle is not nothing. It has energy. It is not the lowest energy state. Nothing is nothing. No particles, no charges, no energy. THAT's what we mean by the quantum vacuum. It is only a philosophical statement to say that nothing is really not nothing. It doesn't reflect reality. In fact, the vacuum really consists of nothing at all.
And you are still evading the central point here. Virtual particles come to exist without a cause.
Mark Tester said...
There is no location in the universe where the energy state is equal to zero. There is no location in the universe where a true "nothing" exists. Even a volume of space that has all "normal" mass and radiation removed still contains "something" and has a non-zero energy level for the following reasons:
1) Quantum Field Theory (QFT) asserts that particles are excitations of fields. For every fundamental kind of particle, there is an associated field permeating all of space (including regions of "empty" vacuum). There is only one electron field, for example, permeating the whole of the universe; and all electrons are local excitations of this one field. Where there are no excitations, the field remains at it's ground state energy level. If one field is excited enough, it will cause excitations in other fields.
2) Assuming QFT is an accurate description of our universe, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applied to quantum fields requires energy to fluctuate about the lowest state (when not perturbed by any external energy). In other words, the ground state of a QF cannot be determined to be zero at any given time. (It is impossible to say the field has no energy).
3) Dark energy (if it exists) also permeates all of space (and may be related to the ground-state QF energy in 2 above), regardless of the presence of matter or other energy (although the energy density is incredibly small, 7×10^−30 g/cm^3). This energy cannot be filtered out or shielded. Like QFs, dark energy is present everywhere as a property of space itself.
Additionally, there may also be dark matter that we haven't been able to observe except indirectly. It's true nature is unknown, but probably exists as some type of particle that, so far, is undetectable in a laboratory setting. Given its abundance (5 times more abundant than regular matter) it is likely that if you evacuated a volume of space of regular matter, you could still have particles of dark matter remaining.
So when you say "lowest energy state" you may mean there are no measurable particles present, but you certainly don't mean "nothing" in the common understanding of the word. Every point in space has a non-zero energy density and a fabric of fluctuating quantum fields. Also, any seemingly "empty" volume of space may also contain unknown amounts of dark matter. To say virtual particles come from "nothing" or that they are caused by "nothing" is a huge stretch to say the least. They are most likely caused by quantum mechanical energy fluctuations of the various quantum fields.
1) Quantum Field Theory (QFT) asserts that particles are excitations of fields. For every fundamental kind of particle, there is an associated field permeating all of space (including regions of "empty" vacuum). There is only one electron field, for example, permeating the whole of the universe; and all electrons are local excitations of this one field. Where there are no excitations, the field remains at it's ground state energy level. If one field is excited enough, it will cause excitations in other fields.
2) Assuming QFT is an accurate description of our universe, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applied to quantum fields requires energy to fluctuate about the lowest state (when not perturbed by any external energy). In other words, the ground state of a QF cannot be determined to be zero at any given time. (It is impossible to say the field has no energy).
3) Dark energy (if it exists) also permeates all of space (and may be related to the ground-state QF energy in 2 above), regardless of the presence of matter or other energy (although the energy density is incredibly small, 7×10^−30 g/cm^3). This energy cannot be filtered out or shielded. Like QFs, dark energy is present everywhere as a property of space itself.
Additionally, there may also be dark matter that we haven't been able to observe except indirectly. It's true nature is unknown, but probably exists as some type of particle that, so far, is undetectable in a laboratory setting. Given its abundance (5 times more abundant than regular matter) it is likely that if you evacuated a volume of space of regular matter, you could still have particles of dark matter remaining.
So when you say "lowest energy state" you may mean there are no measurable particles present, but you certainly don't mean "nothing" in the common understanding of the word. Every point in space has a non-zero energy density and a fabric of fluctuating quantum fields. Also, any seemingly "empty" volume of space may also contain unknown amounts of dark matter. To say virtual particles come from "nothing" or that they are caused by "nothing" is a huge stretch to say the least. They are most likely caused by quantum mechanical energy fluctuations of the various quantum fields.
Joe Hinman said...
Thank you Mark I appreciate it. Please stick arouind, do you know Barry Graham?
im-skeptical said...
So when you say "lowest energy state" you may mean there are no measurable particles present, but you certainly don't mean "nothing" in the common understanding of the word.
- I mean "nothing" in the sense that people (other than philosophers) have always understood the word. It's what is left when you take every detectable thing away. I think you mean something different by the word. But that's why I say this is a philosophical question. And you're definitely not saying the same thing that Joe is. He insists that this low energy state contains non-virtual particles.
- I mean "nothing" in the sense that people (other than philosophers) have always understood the word. It's what is left when you take every detectable thing away. I think you mean something different by the word. But that's why I say this is a philosophical question. And you're definitely not saying the same thing that Joe is. He insists that this low energy state contains non-virtual particles.
[Yes he is saying exactly what I said, Skep has a problem with refusing to admit that I can know anything scientifically, That would destroy his ideological understanding of the world,]
Mark Tester said...
The way that you mean nothing, as in completely devoid of everything, is meaningful only in conversational language, not in describing any real property of any portion of this universe. If you take a region of space and evacuate all detectable particles and shield it from all external energy sources, it will still have a fundamental level of energy that is not equal to zero at all times. [Holy clarity Batman can he get any cleaner? but Skep will twist it about]
Energy and mass are interchangeable (E~mc^2). If a peak in the fluctuations of the quantum field energy get close enough to a certain level, this energy can precipitate into mass (virtual particles). The virtual particles are NOT there at all times (they come and go), but regardless of their presence, the energy density that gives rise to them is always present.
Historically (as in before the early 1900s), a complete vacuum meant nothing as you now mean it - no energy and no matter. In common vernacular that is how it is still used. However, a vacuum like that cannot be created in this universe because you cannot evacuate all of the energy from any given volume. The energy is nested inside the very fabric of space itself. The name "nothing" seems to stick around, but it is not nothing in the classical sense. There is "stuff" there.
And it's not philosophical. It results in real, measurable effects. The acceleration of the expansion of the universe is likely a result, as is the Casmir effect.
Energy and mass are interchangeable (E~mc^2). If a peak in the fluctuations of the quantum field energy get close enough to a certain level, this energy can precipitate into mass (virtual particles). The virtual particles are NOT there at all times (they come and go), but regardless of their presence, the energy density that gives rise to them is always present.
Historically (as in before the early 1900s), a complete vacuum meant nothing as you now mean it - no energy and no matter. In common vernacular that is how it is still used. However, a vacuum like that cannot be created in this universe because you cannot evacuate all of the energy from any given volume. The energy is nested inside the very fabric of space itself. The name "nothing" seems to stick around, but it is not nothing in the classical sense. There is "stuff" there.
And it's not philosophical. It results in real, measurable effects. The acceleration of the expansion of the universe is likely a result, as is the Casmir effect.
im-skeptical said...
Mark,
Thank you for the lesson, but I didn't learn anything from it. [understatement]I don't think we disagree about how things work in nature. That's something you should take up with Joe, because he's the one who argues against reality. What we disagree about is usage of the term "nothing". There are different schools of thought. I described my usage as being consistent with the "common vernacular" that you refer to. I'm not alone in that. Plenty of physicists agree with me. Your usage is consistent with the philosophical definition (let's call it "p-nothing"). It is the kind of "nothing" from which nothing can come. The problem with that is there is no such thing. It is a fantasy, just like p-zombies. I am of the opinion that physics deals with reality - not with fantasy. So I must disagree with your closing remark. "P-nothing" is indeed philosophical, but that's how you (apparently) define it, not how I do. I'm perfectly fine with saying that stuff does come from nothing.
Thank you for the lesson, but I didn't learn anything from it. [understatement]I don't think we disagree about how things work in nature. That's something you should take up with Joe, because he's the one who argues against reality. What we disagree about is usage of the term "nothing". There are different schools of thought. I described my usage as being consistent with the "common vernacular" that you refer to. I'm not alone in that. Plenty of physicists agree with me. Your usage is consistent with the philosophical definition (let's call it "p-nothing"). It is the kind of "nothing" from which nothing can come. The problem with that is there is no such thing. It is a fantasy, just like p-zombies. I am of the opinion that physics deals with reality - not with fantasy. So I must disagree with your closing remark. "P-nothing" is indeed philosophical, but that's how you (apparently) define it, not how I do. I'm perfectly fine with saying that stuff does come from nothing.
[I said before he talks like Richard Nixon but really he talks like Trump. He just claimed Tester is setting me straight because i can';t mean what Tester said,so I;m wrong and he is right and they agree of course even though he just said the exact opposite of what Tester said. But it;s ok because (especially that last statement in shade which seems to say whatever he wants something to mean is fine because anything for the cause, what he calls being philosophical]
Joe Hinman said...
Mark are you the Mark Tester at King Abdullah University? I soI really need to talk to you.
Joe Hinman said...
Thank you for the lesson, but I didn't learn anything from it. I don't think we disagree about how things work in nature. That's something you should take up with Joe, because he's the one who argues against reality.
What he said is what i was trying to say in a general way he was able to put the factual content into it,I had the basic concept right. When you call it "reality" that is another statement of faith.When you say "reality" you mean the world of your ideology. You are really saying you have faith that there's no God.
What his testament said is that something is in the fabric of the universe and it is undeniable.What that means for our topic we still have to discuss.
Obviously it means that statement "a universe from nothing" is loaded and misleading. The idea that the universe sprang up out of nothing for no reason is wrong. What we make of that is faith base on both sides.
What we disagree about is usage of the term "nothing". There are different schools of thought. I described my usage as being consistent with the "common vernacular" that you refer to.
That is what is misleading. The vernacular implies there is true absolute nothing and it's not true. There is energy that must be accounted for,where did it come from?
I'm not alone in that. Plenty of physicists agree with me.
No they don't they don't believe there is true absolute nothing and that is what calling it noting impieties,
Your usage is consistent with the philosophical definition (let's call it "p-nothing"). It is the kind of "nothing" from which nothing can come.
You just reshaped what he said,
The problem with that is there is no such thing. It is a fantasy, just like p-zombies. I am of the opinion that physics deals with reality - not with fantasy. So I must disagree with your closing remark. "P-nothing" is indeed philosophical, but that's how you (apparently) define it, not how I do. I'm perfectly fine with saying that stuff does come from nothing.
My God! you reason about yow actions like Nixon did! (Nixon voice:)ultimately we know we are right so if some people get confused by things we say it's ok as long as they stick with us, (flashes double peace sign)
You are saying the word "nothing" is an empty place holder and you can fill it with whatever works for the cause. It is not empty it contaminant a connotation that is totally false. There is no nothing, therefore, no universe from nothing,
What he said is what i was trying to say in a general way he was able to put the factual content into it,I had the basic concept right. When you call it "reality" that is another statement of faith.When you say "reality" you mean the world of your ideology. You are really saying you have faith that there's no God.
What his testament said is that something is in the fabric of the universe and it is undeniable.What that means for our topic we still have to discuss.
Obviously it means that statement "a universe from nothing" is loaded and misleading. The idea that the universe sprang up out of nothing for no reason is wrong. What we make of that is faith base on both sides.
What we disagree about is usage of the term "nothing". There are different schools of thought. I described my usage as being consistent with the "common vernacular" that you refer to.
That is what is misleading. The vernacular implies there is true absolute nothing and it's not true. There is energy that must be accounted for,where did it come from?
I'm not alone in that. Plenty of physicists agree with me.
No they don't they don't believe there is true absolute nothing and that is what calling it noting impieties,
Your usage is consistent with the philosophical definition (let's call it "p-nothing"). It is the kind of "nothing" from which nothing can come.
You just reshaped what he said,
The problem with that is there is no such thing. It is a fantasy, just like p-zombies. I am of the opinion that physics deals with reality - not with fantasy. So I must disagree with your closing remark. "P-nothing" is indeed philosophical, but that's how you (apparently) define it, not how I do. I'm perfectly fine with saying that stuff does come from nothing.
My God! you reason about yow actions like Nixon did! (Nixon voice:)ultimately we know we are right so if some people get confused by things we say it's ok as long as they stick with us, (flashes double peace sign)
You are saying the word "nothing" is an empty place holder and you can fill it with whatever works for the cause. It is not empty it contaminant a connotation that is totally false. There is no nothing, therefore, no universe from nothing,
Tester and the atheist continued in a dialogue for some time here is a sample (see link above). The whole exchange is worth reading because Tester had totally trashed the idea that Quantum theory disproves
God or even that it proves we don't need God and the atheist can;t accept even though he knows the guy knows more about it than he does,
"Joe, your last statement is absolutely correct. No physics based model of the universe can ever prove or disprove God. It's very hard to prove or disprove anything outside of mathematics."
God or even that it proves we don't need God and the atheist can;t accept even though he knows the guy knows more about it than he does,
"- It seems we disagree. Since virtual particles are detectable, they are "things". "
From the wiki page on virtual particles, "Virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations of interactions, but never as asymptotic states or indices to the scattering matrix. The accuracy and use of virtual particles in calculations is firmly established, but as they cannot be detected in experiments, deciding how to precisely describe them is a topic of debate."
You can disagree with me all you want, but you are also disagreeing with QFT, which is the basis of virtual particles in the first place.
But even if they could be detected, they are not un-caused. They come about via 1 of 2 ways: 1) caused by particle interactions, 2) caused by perturbations in an existing quantum field in which the energy of the quantum field is momentarily converted to mass via the famous equation E=mc^2.
"Joe, your last statement is absolutely correct. No physics based model of the universe can ever prove or disprove God. It's very hard to prove or disprove anything outside of mathematics."
Notes:
From Joseph Hinman, "Quantum Field theory: No Proof of Something from Nothing," The religious a proiori (no date given) (accessed 3/8/18) http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2018/04/quantum-field-theory-no-proof-of.html
[13] John Rennie, ''What is meant by Nothing in Physics./ Quatum Physics?" Physics Stack Exchange (June 29, 2012)
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30973/what-is-meant-by-nothing-in-physics-quantum-physics
(accessed 3/29/2012)
Rennie, undergrad degree Cambridge in Qm Chemistry, PhD, also at Cambridge, in solid state photo chemistry. After finishing my PhD I worked as a colloid scientist for Unilever Research.
Neumaier Lectures at the Institute of Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, University of Vienna.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Albert, op. cit.
[16] Malcolm W. Brown, Physicists Comfirm Powerof Nothing, Measuring Force or universla Flux." New York Times (Jan 21,1997)
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/21/science/physicists-confirm-power-of-nothing-measuring-force-of-universal-flux.html
(accessed 3/10/18)
[17] Albert op cit
