Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
On: "answer To Question Number 1"

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on September 27, 2001 19:59:40 UTC

Thanks, Mark; now consider:

Quoting: "To answer your first question, the vacuum is teeming with tiny little "virtual particle pairs", which are allowed to "come from nothingness" and return to "nothingness" so long as they don't exist long enough to be noticed".

What is needed then is an understanding of what exactly happens when an object is 'noticed' (attempted below).

Quoting: "Anyway, physicists like to refer to this phenomenon as "borrowing" energy from the vacuum, which has to be paid back in an amount of time small enough that conservation of energy is not violated."

This statement means that 'conservation of energy' refers to a minimum time unit, hence an option:
option 1: equal or exceed the time unit: energy conserved
option 2: less than the time unit: energy borrowed/repaid

Quoting: "The shorter the time span, the more energy that's allowed to exist because of our inability to measure it, (nature isn't able to notice that the energy existed). This causes the vacuum to be full of tiny particles that erupt into existence, only to annihilate before they could have been said to "exist"."

Just because we are unable to measure something doesn't make it exist surely- a non-sequitur here?
Just means it could exist but we don't know (measure) if it does.

If the particles 'erupt into existence'; they exist; as existence is an absolute quality.
If they "annihilate before they could have been SAID to exist"; that means that the 'perception' of those particles must require a certain quanta to be exceeded. So 'existence' and 'perception of existence' have been distinguished here.

But the particles do in fact exist; or you would have a contradictory statement.

Quoting: "It is surprising, that due to the odd nature of quantum activities, that these little particles can actually effect the momenta of other matter that "actually do exist". This is one of the aspects of the standard model, (the model that explains the interactions of particles), which includes virtual particles as the "force carriers"."

Now there appears to be a contradiction here. If these little particles can actually effect the momenta of other matter that "actually do exist"; you've now implied that these little particles 'actually do not exist'. Otherwise why say of the other particles: "actually do" exist?

One couldn't even talk of 'these little particles' unless they actually did exist. They DO ACTUALLY EXIST. What possibly was meant was "these little particles can actually effect the momenta of other matter that "actually can be PERCEIVED to exist".

But another apparant contradiction: because if they can EFFECT the momenta of other matter; via that very EFFECT the other matter IS also PERCEIVING (noticing) the virtual particles.

However, if the virtual particles "are the force carriers" between other particles; that means that they are "the standard of reference" by which other particles compare each other, that is; the means-of-perception itself that other particles perceive each other by.

So the question is; do the other particles perceive their own mode of perception? That is, are they self-conscious?

If they only are indirectly affected by the virtual particles; in that they use the virtual particles to notice (and affect/ be affected by) other particles; then ordinary particles are only self-conscious when they interact with other ordinary particles.

In other words; do the virtual particles not directly effect the other particles at all; but just provide the means-of-perception (communication) that allow the other particles to effect each other's momenta?

Quoting: "Here are a couple of technical pieces of information... The lower bound to uncertainty is reliant upon: 1/2 h-bar (h-bar is Planck's Constant divided by 2), which is h/4.
And also, if you believe uncertainty to be an intrinsic property of matter and reality ... there is a name for this. It's called the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics."

The ideas below may explain why there is a '4' in the lower bound to uncertainty. The '4 forces'; of nature may be logically just what you would expect to PERCEIVE; and your "perception" comprises two more 'forces of nature" (Paul Davies' speculated "information forces").

The following may also explain 'gravity', as the 'perception' of space and time. It may explain 'light', as the 'perception' of position and momentum. It may explain 'vacuum' as the 'perception' of positive and negative energy.
The following was a response at a different forum to Harv, that appears to explain the logic behind 'virtual particle pairs'.

Perhaps one can say this: the "perception" of the existence of a phenomenon requires freedom.

How do I know a cup is on the table? I perceive a boundary that distinguishes 'cup' from 'table'. I know it isn't just some bit of 'table' 'on' the table; by refering to a standard of comparison (shape, colour, texture, etc.).
Am I not exercising a free option in choosing which reference standard I use to distinguish 'cup' from 'table'?

Suppose though, that only one reference standard is available. If only one point of difference was available between cup and table; you have a situation like one dot against a background. How do you detect the existence of the dot? You must jump from the dot to the background and compare, with respect to colour, shade, space, time, or some other reference.

Suppose only one reference is available, say time. There was no dot, now there is a dot. Effectively the 'dot' is now an 'event'. The reference "time" is a dimension of freedom as there were two options: dot then, and dot now.

Same with the other possibilities. Always two options occuring with the reference used: this colour, now that colour. This shade, now that shade. This space, now that space. To perceive the simplest pattern's existence required a dimension of freedom in the reference standard.

To perceive the existence of the cup required me to compare two patterns against a third pattern. The "perception" of the cup's existence is based on options in so far as the means by which I know the difference between cup and table- this means involves a standard containing two options.

(I was discovering more as I went along here) (philosophical jazz?!)

Now this is curious (still just talking about "perception" of existence of something). Because 'cup' and 'table' are two options; and apparantly the standard of comparison of them must involve two options. It appears that those standard, two options, must require a new standard of comparison- use 'cup' and 'table' again?

So for example: I perceive the cup exists; because compared to the standard 'then' and 'now'; table only was 'then'; 'cup plus table' is now.

I perceive the existence of 'then' and 'now'; because 'then only' was 'table', and 'now' was table + cup.

(then = 'table' when compared to 'now'
which is 'table + cup', the difference between those (subtract 'table' from each) gives you '+cup'.

If I write down in a left column "table", and below this the word "cup";
and in a right column I write 'then' and below this the word "now":
I can represent this comparison arrangement by drawing one line from "table" to "then"; and two lines from "now" back to "table" and "cup".

So a third two options have emerged: "one line" and "two lines". Abstractly, you could regard all three sets of two options as interdependent. Now suddenly are we just talking about "perceiving existence"? This arrangement appears to contain within it "perception of existence" (The drawing of the connections was done by me, by including that, I've represented my consciousness in the diagram).

The patterns in this diagram are interesting: one word above and one word below; one column to the left and one to the right; one line forwards and two lines backwards (or two lines converging forewards/ or diverging backwards; the single line going either way).

A lot of symmetries here that seem to relate to modern physics and maths.

If perceiving the existence of something requires freedom; does the existence itself of the object require freedom?
And consciousness?

At least, it seems to be demonstrated that humans are free because they perceive their own existence (And one may add that the more of their existence they perceive (past recall), the freer they are.)

One might suggest that to 'exist' requires a 'boundary'; and 'boundary' implies self-awareness; so 'exstence' may require self-awareness, thus perception, thus freedom.

Quoting: "However, if you accept the program as an independent decision algorithm, then the program is fully deterministic even if the complexity of the 'decisions' are too complicated to follow and predict. The point is that in principle we can follow each input and output with a 100% deterministic consequence for every computer decision":

First- I didn't have in mind to consider the programmer's thoughts. I think if you can follow each input and output with a 100% deterministic consequence; that does not give you determinism if there are options (as in Chess) over which way you go. Options are options; never predictable; only describable by probability math sometimes.

Considering " However, if old non-creative objects exist, then existence doesn't imply freedom"- but those 'old objects' were once new objects?

I don't think I said that existence is all there is; only I suggest that "Existence is the Ultimate explanation of things that exist".

For something to exist means just that it exists- you get into having to exit the circularity of dictionaries and use 'ostensive definition' (how we learn words from self-referent experience as children).

Deterministic objects may appear to exist; but maybe determinism can be shown to be an illusion?



Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins