On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 3:43 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:21:12 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 3:14 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:12:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 10:01:19 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 5:55:36 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I came across a good article that is apposite to the discussion in >>>>>> this thread. Arnold Neumaier has an article on virtual particles at: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/vacuum-fluctuation-myth/ >>>>>> >>>>>> where he looks at the origin of much of the common mythology >>>>>> surrounding the idea of vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles. People >>>>>> should read this and take the lessons to heart -- all of this mythology >>>>>> arose from well-meaning, but ultimately mis-guided, attempts to explain >>>>>> the >>>>>> mysteries of quantum mechanics to lay people. The result was enduring >>>>>> confusion, that now affects even professional physicists. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bruce >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Very interesting fellow. Interesting article. I was intrigued reading >>>>> the link there to his biography of himself being math to applied math >>>>> ending up in computing and dabbling in physics. Sounded like me! >>>>> >>>>> Then >>>>> >>>>> Two years after my Ph.D., my formerly atheistic world view changed and >>>>> I became a Christian. I got convinced that there is a very powerful >>>>> God <http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/sciandf/eng/arms.html> who >>>>> created the Universe, who controls what appears to us as chance, and who >>>>> is >>>>> interested in each of us individually. I understood (with Galilei, and >>>>> later Newton and Maxwell) that God had written the book of nature in the >>>>> language of mathematics. As a result of these insights, one of my life >>>>> goals became to understand all the important applications of mathematics >>>>> in >>>>> other fields of science, engineering, and ordinary life. It is a challenge >>>>> that keeps me learning all my life. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/interview-mathematician-physicist-arnold-neumaier/ >>>>> >>>>> @philipthrift >>>>> >>>> >>>> Are you suggesting, maybe tongue in cheek, that his analysis of virtual >>>> particles is suspect because he believes in a very powerful God? Do you >>>> believe in such a God? AG >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I've always been an atheistic materialist. I don't know if his "denial" >>> of virtual particles is influenced by his theology or not, but this I know: >>> >> >> >> Maybe Neumaier is a good enough physicist not to let his theological >> beliefs influence his physics. Don Page is another such whose name springs >> to mind. Neumaier's rejection of the reality of virtual particles and >> quantum foam is soundly based on his good physics. >> >> >> *One physicist says there are Xs. Another physicist says there are no Xs. >>> One or both is BSing. Probably both.* >>> >> >> Maybe you are the one who is bull shitting? >> Bruce >> >> >> The luxury (or fun) of math and even applied math is it doesn't matter if >>> whether you think of the entities of a theory being fictional or not. It is >>> useful or it isn't. (In pure math, useful doesn't quite matter as in >>> applied math.) >>> >>> @philipthrift >>> >> > > > > BSing about what? > Bull shitting by bringing personal religious beliefs into the argument. That is argumentum ad hominem. > I'm not making any claims about whether virtual particles exist. > > Here are two statements: > > > "It's an experimentally well-confirmed fact that virtual particles exist." > - > http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/08/how-do-black-holes-destroy-information.html?showComment=1566705434388#c7842618397891133114 > > "Explanations in terms of virtual particles don't really work because > virtual particles do not exert any force on anything -- because they are > not real!!!!" > - https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/ixyC1nvZ3i8/NsBRnAvdBAAJ > > > Now it seems to me that these are contradictory. Are you saying one is > absolutely right and the other is absolutely wrong? Are you saying that > there is some sort of dialethic logic physicists operate with? > There can be differences of opinion......... Think about quantum interpretations for instance.... But I am quite sure that Sabine would agree with me about virtual particles if I sat her down and argued it out. Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLT0ZF3Skr5B4_-JxwLj0fZTnvMooD3wRYHoxnWCeBB%3D2w%40mail.gmail.com.
