But is THIS possible? (trying to lighten up the subject a bit)
It’s actually more complicated than that, if you read the link you posted:
Virtual particles have a rather tenuous ontological existence anyway.
So, how do you define “atheism”?
Gentlemen,
All these mechanisms, ingenious as they are, about how the universe was created are irrelevant to atheism.
I think that an atheist can easily say “I don’t know how the universe was created. I’m as curious as anyone”.
I’m going to sleep now.
I was just thinking the other day about the fact that whereas I had a rudimentary understanding about how old cathode rate tube televisions worked, I really have no idea about how my current Sharp flatscreen tv works.
Yet it does, and I don’t personally know why, so therefore God. Flatscreen tvs are a matter of faith.
Ooh, you know what else I don’t personally know? How to speak any Slavic languages. I have to take it on faith that it can be translated into English. I wouldn’t have the first idea how to say, “Please fondle my buttocks” for instance. This is also just like faith in god, right?
You are a barbarian.
I read the link I posted, note its publication date.
It’s not really all that more complicated.
Google translate says: Пожалуйста, ласкать мои ягодицы
Virtual Particles are not at all shaky ontologically.
It is actually seriously complicated, the arguments for Hawking radiation are not easy to follow and don’t usually mention virtual particles, it’s only the heuristic explanations that do. Arguably it’s actually due to the ambiguity of definition of ‘particle’ more than anything else.
That article from Physicsworld is not so relevant to whether we really should see Hawking radiation as creation ex nihilo of particles.
There’s actually quite a lot of disagreement among physicists over the exact ontological status of virtual particles. Many, if not most, physicists would say they are just a calculational device if pushed and there’s good reasons for having this point of view.
Again the Sciencedaily article is not so relevant to the ontological existence of virtual particles as the issue is not whether we should be able to observe the Casimir effect.
Yes, and there is quite a lot of disagreement on whether the collapse of the state vector is an epiphenomenon.
But disagreement does not mean that one can’t, or shouldn’t, choose to accept a model as preferred.
What mechanism do you hypothesize is behind the Casamir Effect and Zero Point Energy?
The collapse of the state vector is a postulate of the original theory (QM) and if you don’t take it as a postulate of QM you have to make it a prediction that collapse or apparent collapse should occur. Virtual particles are neither a postulate of quantum field theory nor are they predictions (there’s no experiment you could perform to demonstrate that they exist). Virtual particles arise from a very useful calculational method and they have the added bonus that they can make simple (if arguably sometimes misleading) heuristic explanations.
Virtual particles are not a mechanism, whether you take them as ontologically real or not, the results are the same.
Pg 202: Page Not Found
Except, of course, for the Chalmers experiment that I already cited, which showed the actual existence of virtual photons, which you then handwaved.
But other than that, definitely, it’s impossible.
[
](News)
It’s a good thing you didn’t let them know it was impossible, they might have been discouraged.
Unless you’re using an idiosyncratic definition of “mechanism”, they are.
And what’s your alternate hypothesis to explain the Casamir Effect and Zero Point Energy? It’s well and good for you to claim that the evidence that shows the existence of VP’s should be ignored, or what have you, but here we have an experimentally verified phenomena which is consistent with the predictions of some of the greatest living physicists.
Again, imma go with Hawking and the actual data.
The particles they detected were real particles, not virtual particles.
I would say a ‘mechanism’ is something that can be tested and that is mostly independent of ontology. Admittedly that may not always be how the word is used. The predictions come from quantum field theory, so they’re independent of whether you view virtual particles as real or not. I believe you can do the same calculations without having to use the concept of virtual particles (or at least certainly in principle that is the case), even if you do use petrubation theory in your calculations, it doesn’t mean you have to assign an ontological existence to the terms in the petrubation series.
Sure, a god could exist. I’ll need evidence to believe that, though.
As for “force” or “power”, a deity would need to have a will and agency to be considered such. Gravity is a force, but not a deity. Power is measurable in watts, it’s not a deity. Atheism refers only to the lack of belief in a deity.
Eh, to some degree. Both involve the consultation of authorities for knowledge that is onerous to gain by oneself, but that’s the extent of the similarity, because science is concerned only with testable explanations, which means the tests can be done by others. Processes like peer review allow a layman to grasp the acceptance or rejection of scientific ideas.
Religion has no such processes. It cannot be tested by any means other than what feels right or wrong to the believer.
As an atheist, I can and do say that. We’re getting closer to an answer, though.
And you have evidence to back that up?
And an hypothesis to explain “That photons appeared in pairs from the vacuum" and “the radiation had precisely the same properties that quantum theory says it should have when photons appear in pairs in this way”?
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: