# Atheism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 4, 2013, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288 "2013-02-04T04:58:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/161 "2013-02-05T04:44:08Z")
> [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > The evidence? I’m not sure I need evidence when no-one (apart from you possibly) is claiming that particles in a ‘virtual state’ have been detected … except the team I just cited and quoted which found pairs of photons appearing from vacuum and… Nevermind. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/162 "2013-02-05T04:59:47Z")
> [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > The evidence? I’m not sure I need evidence when no-one (apart from you possibly) is claiming that particles in a ‘virtual state’ have been detected. > Like I said it all comes from QFT, nothing changes whether you view virtual particles as ‘real things’ or not. Here’s a 64 page review on the theory behind the dynamical Casimir effect, note the word “virtual” is not used once: > > [[quant-ph/0106081] Nonstationary Casimir Effect and analytical solutions for quantum fields in cavities with moving boundaries](http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0106081) Dodonov came later to report that virtual particles are not ignored by him. > **[Current status of the Dynamical Casimir Effect](http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3301)** > > This is a brief review of different aspects of the so-called Dynamical Casimir Effect and the proposals aimed at its possible experimental realizations. A rough classification of these proposals is given and important theoretical problems are pointed... > [@](#): > > This brief review of the most important results obtained by different groups of theoreticians and experimentalists for a few past years shows that experimental observations of different manifestations of the dynamical Casimir effect are quite possible and can be expected in the nearest future. Indeed: [http://www.technologyreview.com/view/424111/first-observation-of-the-dynamical-casimir-effect/](http://www.technologyreview.com/view/424111/first-observation-of-the-dynamical-casimir-effect/) > [@](#): > > A rapidly moving mirror that turns virtual photons into real ones is the first experimental evidence of the dynamical Casimir effect. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/163 "2013-02-05T05:12:19Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > … except the team I just cited and quoted which found pairs of photons appearing from vacuum and… > Nevermind. No they did not make such a claim, if so they would not be taken seriously. Whilst the team did claim they had turned virtual particles in to real particles (but see the quote below as to the problems with this point of view), it is clear they were detecting real particles. > [@Hrvoje Nikolic](#): > > The calculational tool represented by Feynman diagrams suggests an often abused picture according to which “real particles interact by exchanging virtual particles”. Many physicists, especially nonexperts, take this picture literally, as something that really and objectively happens in nature. In fact, I have never seen a popular text on particle physics in which this picture was not presented as something that really happens. Therefore, this picture of quantum interactions as processes in which virtual particles exchange is one of the most abused myths, not only in quantum physics, but in physics in general. Indeed, there is a consensus among experts for foundations of QFT that such a picture should not be taken literally. The fundamental principles of quantum theory do not even contain a notion of a “virtual” state. The notion of a “virtual particle” originates only from a specific mathematical method of calculation, called perturbative expansion. In fact, perturbative expansion represented by Feynman diagrams can be introduced even in classical physics, but nobody attempts to verbalize these classical Feynman diagrams in terms of classical “virtual” processes. So why such a verbalization is tolerated in quantum physics? The main reason is the fact that the standard interpretation of quantum theory does not offer a clear “canonical” ontological picture of the actual processes in nature, but only provides the probabilities for the final results of measurement outcomes. In the absence of such a “canonical” picture, physicists take the liberty to introduce various auxiliary intuitive pictures that sometimes help them think about otherwise abstract quantum formalism. Such auxiliary pictures, by themselves, are not a sin. However, a potential problem occurs when one forgets why such a picture has been introduced in the first place and starts to think on it too literally. > **[Quantum mechanics: Myths and facts](http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609163)** > > A common understanding of quantum mechanics (QM) among students and practical users is often plagued by a number of "myths", that is, widely accepted claims on which there is not really a general consensus among experts in foundations of QM. These... ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/164 "2013-02-05T05:23:35Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Isn’t that the agnostic position? No. There is no reason to postulate a deity; the default assumption is that one does not exist. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/165 "2013-02-05T05:27:20Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Dodonov came later to report that virtual particles are not ignored by him. > > [[1004.3301] Current status of the Dynamical Casimir Effect](http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3301) I’m not sure of the relevance of the quote, nobody is disputing the predictions of the dynamical Casimir effect. Again though he doesn’t reference virtual particles. He does reference “quantum fluctuations” which are not the same as virtual particles: > [@Arnold Neumaier](#): > > Fluctuations have a much better ontological status than virtual particles. Their properties are indeed computable nonperturbatively, hence are properties of the system under study and (unlike virtual particles) not only of the approximation method used. They are properties of the system, whether or not somebody measures it. In this sense they exist independent of measurement, like a tree exists no matter whether someone looks at it. [http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physfaq/topics/vacfluc](http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physfaq/topics/vacfluc) > [@](#): > > Indeed: > > [http://www.technologyreview.com/view/424111/first-observation-of-the-dynamical-casimir-effect/](http://www.technologyreview.com/view/424111/first-observation-of-the-dynamical-casimir-effect/) It’s a POV, but as I say there’s problems with it. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/166 "2013-02-05T05:32:56Z")
> [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > No they did not make such a claim, if so they would not be taken seriously. Whilst the team did claim they had turned virtual particles in to real particles (but see the quote below as to the problems with this point of view), it is clear they were detecting real particles. Just to be clear, what i mean by this is that they did not claim they had detected virtual particles as such a thing would be impossible even if you take them as being ontologically real. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/167 "2013-02-05T06:00:51Z")
> [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > It’s a POV, but as I say there’s problems with it. Of course there are, and in Quantum mechanics my head just explodes, however I do think that experimental results are more interesting regarding this issue, more research is needed as usual, but so far, what was reported is very interesting. > **[Observation of the Dynamical Casimir Effect in a Superconducting Circuit](http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4714)** > > One of the most surprising predictions of modern quantum theory is that the vacuum of space is not empty. In fact, quantum theory predicts that it teems with virtual particles flitting in and out of existence. While initially a curiosity, it was... > [@](#): > > One of the most surprising predictions of modern quantum theory is that the vacuum of space is not empty. In fact, quantum theory predicts that it teems with virtual particles flitting in and out of existence. While initially a curiosity, it was quickly realized that these vacuum fluctuations had measurable consequences, for instance producing the Lamb shift of atomic spectra and modifying the magnetic moment for the electron. This type of renormalization due to vacuum fluctuations is now central to our understanding of nature. However, these effects provide indirect evidence for the existence of vacuum fluctuations. > > From early on, it was discussed if it might instead be possible to more directly observe the virtual particles that compose the quantum vacuum. 40 years ago, Moore suggested that a mirror undergoing relativistic motion could convert virtual photons into directly observable real photons. This effect was later named the dynamical Casimir effect (DCE). Using a superconducting circuit, we have observed the DCE for the first time. ---
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/168 "2013-02-05T06:10:06Z")
> [@koufax](#): > > OP here. When you write that atheism is the lack of belief in “gods”, does this mean a complete lack of belief in some “force” or “power” that caused matter to come into existence? > > Forget “gods”, forget “religion” > > Do you atheists believe that matter just happened completely on it’s own out of nothing? (and for that matter (no pun intended) is “nothing” “something”? > > Damn, I’m confused. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/YUe0_4rdj0U/maxresdefault.jpg "SOMETHING FROM NOTHING ? [OFFICIAL] Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss [HD] 02-04-12") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U) Seriously stop asking for videos and stating your confusion. Learn something. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/169 "2013-02-05T06:16:13Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Of course there are, and in Quantum mechanics my head just explodes, however I do think that experimental results are more interesting regarding this issue, more research is needed as usual, but so far, what was reported is very interesting. > > [[1105.4714] Observation of the Dynamical Casimir Effect in a Superconducting Circuit](http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4714) I think what we are seeing is the difference between the experimentalists, who may or may not be so aware of the problems associated with this point of view, and the theoreticians, who should be acutely aware of the problems. There’s no dispute as to the predictions or the experimental results in this case. What you don’t see very often is someone come out actively against the arguments for virtual particles not having a firm ontological existence. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/170 "2013-02-05T06:16:27Z")
> [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > Google translate says: Пожалуйста, ласкать мои ягодицы Really? The infinitive? Is that how they do that? I would have thought «ласкай» would be the appropriate form. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/171 "2013-02-05T06:20:47Z")
> [@For You](#): > > Really? The infinitive? Is that how they do that? I would have thought «ласкай» would be the appropriate form. The polyglot Google translate disagrees with you ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/172 "2013-02-05T06:49:48Z")
> [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > I think what we are seeing is the difference between the experimentalists, who may or may not be so aware of the problems associated with this point of view, and the theoreticians, who should be acutely aware of the problems. There’s no dispute as to the predictions or the experimental results in this case. What you don’t see very often is someone come out actively against the arguments for virtual particles not having a firm ontological existence. Yes, but I look at history on this, this reply looks to me like the reproach made to Galileo on the advise of many that recommended him to leave those light balls and the heavy balls just resting there because Aristotle told us all that there was to be known about what falls faster, but then eventually we have to find what happens actually when we drop the balls. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/173 "2013-02-05T06:57:43Z")
**GIGObuster** : what you said made me think of the following from Alexei Panshin: “. . . The peripatetic stars relieve unknown urges by moving in nine directions at the same time. (It may be ten: the theories of V. H. Rainbird [1293-1447] concerning the movement of the metagalaxy through the universal amnion, unfortunately left incomplete at the time of his death at the hands of Nominalist critics who objected to his experiments on the grounds that the universe might not survive them . . . )” ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/174 "2013-02-05T07:26:59Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Yes, but I look at history on this, this reply looks to me like the reproach made to Galileo on the advise of many that recommended him to leave those light balls and the heavy balls just resting there because Aristotle told us all that there was to be known about what falls faster, but then eventually we have to find what happens actually when we drop the balls. I would not say that at all, the actual predictions or results are not in dispute. This kind of issue would be of more concern to a theoretician, because if you were to try to formulate a theory involving virtual particles, without being aware of their theoretical basis, it may tumble down like a house of cards. A lot of the time asserting the firm ontological existence of virtual particles is simply done out of confusion or ignorance. It’s one thing to assert their ontological existence, it’s another thing to come up with an argument against those that are counter to their ontological existence. For example calculations in the quantum field theory of the strong force, QCD, are rarely done using peturbative methods because peturbation theory only has a limited use when applied to the strong force. Consequently virtual gluons are rarely even useful in calculations AFAIK. ---
**Author:** ![26charlie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/9d8465/32.png) [@26charlie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/26charlie)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/175 "2013-02-05T08:56:10Z")
> [@koufax](#): > > I am trying to find videos on you tube or anywhere for that matter that can explain how someone can actually be a REAL atheist. > > All I can seem to find is “atheists” who point out how ridiculous most religious teachings are (which I completely agree with) but they don’t seem to explain how they believe that matter just came out of nothing with no cause. You dont need to explain something like that to be a real atheist. Its like saying you cant be a deist unless you can explain which came first - the chicken or the egg? Or, how far is infinity? Who was your deist’s mother, or was it’s existence accidental?? How can someone be a REAL deist when they cant explain this? The burden to produce explanations is on the deist. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/176 "2013-02-05T10:22:41Z")
Science in general, and physics in particular, long ago distanced itself from ontological claims. Scientists create models, those models are used to make predictions, and we gain confidence in a model as it makes more correct predictions (and still has made no incorrect predictions). While we have confidence in a model it is incorporated into our description of the universe. It’s beside the point, and indeed unknowable, what’s “really” happening. In the case of virtual particles, this model has been used to make many correct predictions so it makes sense to include it in our description of the universe. Whether they are real or just a mathematical abstraction is, again, beside the point and unknowable until there is some concrete predictive difference between “real” and “mathematical abstraction”. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/177 "2013-02-05T12:36:16Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > It looks like scientists are running into a problem similar to what religions are experiencing. People with a general science background are unable to personally confirm or deny the findings of a specialist. > > I for one would be unable to confirm or deny the findings of a cosmologist, so basically I have to have faith in his findings. I certainly don’t have the laboratory or the funds to re-create the experiments a cosmologist conducts. I believe there is a city called Ulan Bator in a mountainous place called Mongolia. I have no personal evidence of this, other than satellite photos, but can I even trust that? And in the end, does the belief or skepticism about the existence of that city make any difference to me? Similarly, does belief or disbelief in a deity offer anything of value to me? The real question is _why_ should _I believe in a god?_ What difference could it possibly make? ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/178 "2013-02-05T13:03:46Z")
> [@koufax](#): > > OP here. When you write that atheism is the lack of belief in “gods”, does this mean a complete lack of belief in some “force” or “power” that caused matter to come into existence? > > Forget “gods”, forget “religion” > > Do you atheists believe that matter just happened completely on it’s own out of nothing? (and for that matter (no pun intended) is “nothing” “something”? > > Damn, I’m confused. Various atheists have various opinions on this. Personally I don’t think there ever was a moment when the universe wasn’t. So the whole notion of matter coming out of nothing is inapplicable to my view. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/179 "2013-02-05T13:34:17Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > It looks like scientists are running into a problem similar to what religions are experiencing. People with a general science background are unable to personally confirm or deny the findings of a specialist. > > I for one would be unable to confirm or deny the findings of a cosmologist, so basically I have to have faith in his findings. I certainly don’t have the laboratory or the funds to re-create the experiments a cosmologist conducts. I wouldn’t call it “faith”, and I don’t see it as a problem. I was educated in one branch of science, so I know how people go about becoming experts and specialists. I know that there are a lot of checks on the quality of one’s work before your peers will accept it. Cosmologists go through the same process. I can therefore take their word on their specialty, and they can safely take the word of experts in my field. Their peers will check up on them, and mine\* will check up on me. \*disclaimer: I didn’t get an advanced degree. I’m not really an expert in my field. But I do _know_ who the experts in my field are, how they got to _be_ experts, and therefore, why they can be trusted to turn out good science results. ---
**Author:** ![shiftless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@shiftless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shiftless)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/180 "2013-02-05T13:36:49Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > I for one would be unable to confirm or deny the findings of a cosmologist, so basically I have to have faith in his findings. This is a tired old refrain from the religious and it simple is not true. You or I may not have the education and brains to make advances in cosmology or any other area of science but the work of those men and woman is very, very well documented and checked and double checked by thousands of scientists eager to find the tiniest mistake. Yes, it would take some effort to understand that body of work but there are plenty of sources of information and plenty of people willing to explain if one is interested enough to make the effort. That’s the thing, you do not have to take the word of a scientist on faith and you shouldn’t. Only religious leaders ask you to never question them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288.md?page=10)