It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by rickyrrr
reply to post by Amaterasu
So, if you know that energy can be extracted from zero point by means of virtual particles, how do you know that this energy is not subtracted from elsewhere?
It is not a science question but a philosophical one: One cannot assert an unrestricted negative. So, yes, maybe energy can be extracted from the zero point field, but this energy might have come from somewhere you are, as of yet, unaware of.
It's a bit like that CD club I was briefly a member of. I kept getting free CD's from them until one day they sent a bill
Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.
Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.
If one grants the reality of quantum vacuum energy one must also assume an intertheoretical link between QFT and GR, speciﬁcally that quantum vacuum energy is a source of curvature in GR, in order to establish the cosmological constant problem. But, as we have seen, it can be doubted whether the cosmological constant problem is well-deﬁned – given our insuﬃcient understanding of this link between GR and QF
One must be convinced that the various QFT contributions to the vacuum energy density indeed result in a physically real energy density of empty space. While this conviction appears natural, at least in the context of QED and QCD, due to the apparent experimental demonstrations of the reality of various vacuum eﬀects, we have hinted that this conclusion could be ambiguous. In particular, we indicated that the QED vacuum energy concept might be an artefact of the formalism with no physical existence independent of material systems. One possible way to maintain such a viewpoint would be to replace QED with Schwinger’s source theory, insofar as this theory can explain QED experiments without recourse to vacuum energy. But, regardless of the merits of source theory, the fact that all QED (and QCD) ‘vacuum’ experiments involve material systems makes it reasonable to question whether such experiments are useful for predicting how empty space ‘in itself’ will curve spacetime
Originally posted by filosophia
#3. Movement is impossible.
If you attempt to go from point A to point B, you must first travel from point A to point A(1)
In order to travel from A to A(1), you must travel from A to A(2),
and to travel from A to A(2), you must travel from A to A(3,4,5,6,7...infinity). Thus, you must travel an infinite distance to travel a finite distance. Since this is impossible, movement is impossible. (This is known as Zeno's tortoise paradox).
Originally posted by Amaterasu
Or it may be that the universe creates it ex nihilo. But it IS a science question, because science is the art of explaining things in demonstrable and repeatable ways. (And why can One not assert an unrestricted negative? Come to think of it... What do You mean by that to begin with?)
Originally posted by magicrat
reply to post by filosophia
I have vivid memories of #3 blowing my mind when I was about eight years old. There's no way to shake the logic of that (and you explained that logic really clearly), and no way to shake the fact that movement is possible, so the only conclusion I could make was that reality can't possibly be real. Thirty or so years later, here I am...
Originally posted by CharterZZ
reply to post by filosophia
It just goes to show that the human language we have made up just isnt good enough to describe the universe.
Or alot of other things for that matter.
Interesting read anyhow.edit on 18-9-2011 by CharterZZ because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Julie Washington
...and it still doesn't answer what came first...
the chicken or the egg?
and thus it's impossible for you to die in the sense of becoming nothing.
The universe must be two things, infinitely small and infinitely large.
Since this is impossible, movement is impossible.
Since it is impossible to age an infinite amount of finite seconds, age is impossible.
Thus, there is no logical reason to call a particular horse a 'horse.'
Originally posted by knowonder
reply to post by Akasirus
it seems the OP is trying to dazzle readers with simple calculus... lol sorry for the pun. but infinitley small distances can be traversed rather fast when you think about it. just because i have to traverse and infinite amounts spacial divisions to travel a length means nothing because those infinite amount of divisions have infinitely simile distance.
Originally posted by Freedom_is_Slavery
Here is an interesting one
If there was an omnipotent god,
would he be able to create a stone that he couldn't lift