gib65

I can't get level 7 - anybody solve this one?

It's a stim?

So are we talking about non-volitional actions?

I will agree that we want to avoid messy explanations, but about Occam's razor - that the simplest explanation is usually the best one - I wouldn't call getting something from nothing an explanation at all, let alone a simple one. It's a more a concession that there is no explanation. One just has to resign to the fact that we can't explain how we got something from nothing. So I don't think the Occam's razor card can be played here. And about internal sources - I've often wondered if our models of fundamental particles are too simple. I mean, we shouldn't make them complicated if we don't have to. That's why the early models depicted them as points or even tiny billiard balls, and now we think of them as smeared out objects (so to speak) in order to be consistent with QM. But what if all this virtual chaos that the quantum world seems to be serving up is due to the fact that fundamental particles are actually extremely complex systems that have got a lot of internal structure and internal sources of energy (like a fuel tank to a car). Maybe I'm not understanding your concept of "internal sources" but I've often wondered if QM is an indication that we aught to be sceptical about our simple billiard ball models (or whatever the model is today).

Yup Oh, come on. Don't let a little fword scare you off? Tell you what. If you catch people using naughty words, let me know and I'll give them an ear full

Well Edtharan, I was pretty sure Bell's Non-Locality Theorem stated that you could have instant effects across vast distances, but I'm not a physicist and you probably are, so I won't argue with you on this front. But I still stand behind my more general point which is that it just takes a bit more creativity in thinking of possible scenarios to refute the idea of something coming from nothing. I think the experiment you're siting closes off any possibility of something physical giving these electrons the extra boost they need to make it through the hole, so if I was to maintain that the energy still came from something, I'd have to go into metaphysics. I personally wouldn't hesitate to do this, but I have a feeling others on this forum would roll their eyes at me, and this is quite appreciable being a science forum and all. So I won't go there. Nevertheless, my point is a purely logical one, not a scientific one. That is, I'm saying that one cannot prove logically that something comes from nothing and visa-versa. Keeping that in mind, I don't think it matters whether we use scientific examples or metaphysical ones or whatever. BTW, can you answer another question for me? Could we say that the electron gained extra energy from a local electron in the room? Say, from the walls, or the air, or the equipment, etc.? Quantum entanglement doesn't have to be set by an experimenter, does it?

Look forward to seeing you there. Are you under the same name?

Hey, those are cool!!! Thanks ecoli; now I'm going to be hooked for the next few days

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb

Edtharan, The experiment you sited definitely limits the range of possible explanation, but it does not extinguish it completely. This is the point I'm trying to make. I don't think you can extinguish it complete. The closer you come to doing so, the more creative one has to be in order to think of alternate explanations. For example, what if the extra energy those electrons were getting came from elsewhere in the universe - let's suppose an electron 10 billion light years away spontaneously lost exactly the amount of energy that the electron in the experiment gained. In other words, perhaps (and I don't have any proof of this, but there is no reason why this could not be possible) energy was taken from the electron 10 billion years away and instantly was given to the electron in the experiment (and then given back). Wouldn't this mean the energy didn't come from nothing? I know nothing can travel faster than light, but doesn't particle entanglement prove Bell's Theorem which states that objects can interact over huge distances at FTL speeds?

And you made a trailor too. How industrious.

So what happened to the little guy? Did he just die?

BURN!!!

Herme, In the log you posted, it shows that the hacker attempted to reset your password at least 13 times in 1 minute. That's an attempt every 4.6 seconds. That's got to be a program, not a person. There are people who make programs like this and deploy them into the internet. They can be programmed to seek out any accounts they can find, and it can be done for any number of reasons. Some try to hack into email accounts and take them hostage in order to send out spam. Others might want to hack into your machine and plant viruses. Whatever their reason, they don't need to know who you are or even pick you out of a number of other targets. For the most part, these programs are built to attack people at random and at such high rates that they can target thousands of accounts in a matter of seconds. For all you know, this might just be a random attack from a random source.

I don't see how this is proof. You're just stating that it doesn't come from something. I don't see why there couldn't be a something that caused and sustained it (Doesn't this energy originate from the Big Bang?)

This is what the theory says, and I have no reason to doubt it. But I don't have a reason to accept it either. I've always wondered how one could be absolutely sure that there is "nothing" there. It's one thing to say you've detected nothing with your measuring instruments, and it's another to say there is nothing.

I actually started a thread on this very topic not too long ago: http://www.scienceforums.net/showthread.php?t=23424

I'm embarassed to say, but no I don't . Nor am I familiar with Tayler expansions. I'm so out of the loop. Are you saying that virtual particles are real in the same sense that mathematical formulas are real?

How often do you get this? Are these guys "running rampant" in our society - like every second middle aged man is one of these creeps? Geez

Are "virtual particles" a fact? I mean, from what I understand, virtual particles exist for such a short period of time, their existence cannot be tested. So as scientists, what's our reason for believing in them? Is it because they are theoretically necessary in order to explain certain phenomena, and if so, are they really necessary or just the best explanation we've come up with?

I'm not so sure I follow. Wouldn't the existence of the universe from the time of the Big Bang to the time of the "big mass of everything", as you call it, account for the "something" that needs to coexist with the eternal span of nothingness? Not necessarily. I can imagine a universe whose existence stretches all the way back in time eternally. At some point, the Big Bang must have occurred creating all matter and energy, and if you'd like, space as well. What existed before the big bang? I don't know. Non-spatial/non-material stuff? An explosion under those conditions would require some kind of force that's more powerful than the black hole's gravity. This actually brings up a question (anybody can answer it). Aren't the other 3 forces of nature (or 2 if you count the electro-weak force as one force) stronger than gravity? Is it possible that something occurs under gravitational pressures of that magnitude such that some of the other forces get relinquished - giving us Choix's Second Big Bang? You know, Choix, I don't know about your theory. I think it needs to be fleshed out somewhat, but you just brought a whole slew of questions to my mind, and I think I'm going to have to start a few threads now. Thanks for getting me interested .

...and issues.

Ah yes - there it is. I agree with this one, as well as your last one ("Any faith in the words of a given individual, without critical reasoning as to their authority"). I don't think I can agree or disagree with the other three as they seem to depend on too much IMO.

How 'bout this: any religion that equates disbelief with moral wrongness is dangerous.

Wow, if that's true, I must be right about a whole slew of crackpot ideas I've expressed.