On 2/2/2012 2:35 AM, meekerdb wrote:
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
<meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 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
Hi Brent,
Very interesting!!!! Thanks!
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
