On 2/1/2012 11:03 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
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.
There's an interesting solution due to Phil Mannheim based on a conformal invariant model:
arXiv:1005.5108v4 [hep-th]
Brent
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
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4780 - Release Date: 02/01/12
--
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.
--
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.
