Whooo…heavy! Virtual particles suck as they wave you goodbye? :-)
I was thinking more of Sartre's (for me) unsatisfactory attempts to reconcile
the fundamentally individualist nature of existentialism which he 'knew' was
right with his earlier and deep seated 'belief' in socialism. That got pretty
convoluted.
See, you don't even need a religion to find yourself in a mental cul de sac.
Don't get too close to the virtual plate under your virtual dinner - you'll
never escape.
Sausages tonight for me - I am particularly fond of the large curved ones and
can annihilate them relatively quickly, whoever made them and whatever they
used to be.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.soultheft.com
Author/Publisher:
The SLR Compendium:
revised edition -
http://blur.by/19Hb8or
The TLR Compendium
http://blur.by/1eDpqN7
On 11/03/2014, at 10:20 AM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Af writes:
>>> The problem is that they are usually trying to be mutually inclusive.
>>> I do enjoy watching the mental gymnastics of those who try and
> reconcile them
>>> into compatibility.
>
> Yes, many have tried over the ages to reconcile philosophy/science with
> religious beliefs.
> Maimonides comes to mind with the The Guide of the Perplexed, completed
> in 1190.
> It appears he favored the ex nihilo version for the cosmological
> argument and in turn for the existance for the something other than
> nature as the prime force, he but didn't appear totally convinced.
>
> Summarized from the GP he also said:
> "For all we know, the origin of a thing may be completely different
> from its development later on. Thus it is presumptuous to suppose that
> we can extrapolate from our experience of the world as it is at present
> to the moment of its creation.
>
> Perhaps he was prescient to the appearance of quantum electrodynamics,
> quantum mechanics and their implications for cosmology.
> Nature at the quantum and cosmoligical scales behave very differently
> from our limited scale experience.
> What does nature care if the behaviour is not intuitative to us?
>
> The ex nihilo argument may run into trouble with nature's spontaneous
> production of virtual particles. These particle produce the
> Casimir effect.
>
> Casimir imagined two metal plates so close together that the distance
> between them was comparable with the wavelengths of the virtual
> particles. (Another consequence of quantum theory is that all particles
> are simultaneously waves.) In these circumstances, he realized, the
> plates would be pushed together. That is because only particles with a
> wavelength smaller than the gap between the plates could appear in that
> gap, whereas particles of any wavelength could be present on the other
> sides of the plates. Though this was in the late '40's by 1997 this
> force could be rather precisely measured and in impressive agreement
> with predictions---U. C. Riverside:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9805038
>
> This non-zero vacuum energy is expected to contribute to the
> cosmological constant resulting in the acceleration of the expansion of
> the
> universe. A pure vacuum is thus a very very busy place. Why doesn't
> this violate the conservation of energy law??? Well the particles
> exist and anhililate each other in less than Planck time (about 10**-44
> sec) so it doesn't count. These virtual particles/quantum
> fluctuations have dramatic implications for cosmology. Nature
> doesn't seem to need much help creating things.
>
> Better finish up in office soon or else may end up with a virtual
> dinner, Mike
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|