On 2/2/2012 1:46 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/1/2012 9:46 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/2/2012 12:32 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/1/2012 8:34 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/1/2012 8:08 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/1/2012 12:35 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/1/2012 10:57 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:47 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 1/31/2012 8:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Regarding the "philosopher's nothing":
This present moment exists, and it has no cause since our
universe is a four dimensional structure (time is a
subjective phenomenon). This timeless existence of this
moment establishes that "nothingness" cannot exist. In
short: It is an impossible state. The question then
becomes: "Why should this present moment exist, and what
else might also exist?" So far, the answer suggested by
our latest discoveries and reasoning suggests: a lot.
Jason
Or to paraphrase Quine: What is there? Everything. So what
isn't there? Nothing.
Brent
I don't quite agree with that paraphrasing. My point was that
there is no such thing as a philosopher's nothing, not that
everything exists. Such a leap would require the additional
assumption that "Nothingness" is only thing that does not
exist. All I said was that "nothingness" is an impossible
state. This is the conclusion of accepting a
four-dimensional/atemporal existence, as suggested by relativity.
Jason
Hi Jason and Brent,
I hope that you both realize that the "four dimensional
structure" does not take QM into account as SR assumes that
observables all commute and there is no Plank's constant. Why
this is not more widely understood is mysterious to me! It is as
if a simple error keeps being repeated over and over and no one
has the temerity to point it out and offer a correction. Maybe
people want the idea to be true so they ignore the inconvenient
facts.
Onward!
Stephen
I'm not sure what your point is. QFT is done the "four dimensional
structure". Or are you complaining that we haven't considered the
yet-to-be-discovered quantum theory of gravity/spacetime?
Brent
--
Hi Brent,
Take a look at exactly what is going on in QFT. Yes, a *flat*
Minkowskian 3,1 space-time is used for the base space of the
fiber-bundle structure that is used in the QFT calculations, but
this is a small hypervolume. The QFT_does not work_ when it is
extended to large areas or situations where curvature is involved.
That's going to come as a shock to Robert Wald, author of "Quantum
Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics"
http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Spacetime-Thermodynamics-Chicago-Lectures/dp/0226870278/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1328160695&sr=8-5
wherein he derives Hawking radiation due to spacetime curvature and
Unruh radiation from the existence of a horizon.
Brent
Hi Brent,
Hey, I am fallible, I was getting my information from Sunny
Auyang's book "How is Quantum Field Theory Possible?
<http://www.amazon.com/How-Quantum-Field-Theory-Possible/dp/0195093453/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328161383&sr=1-1>",
but let me ask you a question. In the derivation of Hawking
Radiation, is it assumed that virtual particles "feel" gravity?
According to Wald particles are just solutions of the field equations
in flat spacetime and can only be considered approximations in curved
spacetime. So I'm not sure how to answer your question. His analysis
of Hawking radiation is built on his analysis of Unruh radiation which
depends on transformations of the vacuum state to an accelerated
frame. I'm not competent to explain it - but Wald is quite readable
($7.10 used).
Brent
Hi Brent,
I will add the book to my wish list. Thanks for the recommendation.
:-) I ask the question about Hawking radiation because there is a big
problem with the idea that virtual particles can "feel" gravity... It
creates a cosmological constant that literally explodes to a value about
10^120 greater than what we actually observe, so I worry a bit about how
Hawking radiation is considered.
My thought is that the effects that the Big Bang is proposed to
explain might follow from the finiteness of observers coupled with a
requirement that all observations that they obtain must be consistent
with their existence in the universe. The ratio of primordial Helium to
Hydrogen is mysterious though... The main idea that I am trying to argue
is that we must be careful to not assume that what we observe as our
universe of matter, etc. is the totality of what exists.
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
