If it exists, it has atoms

Willum · Post by **Willum** » Mon May 21, 2018 4:47 pm

So I am just putting this out there as a thought-provoker:

If something exists, it is composed of atoms or is an energy or force: Electromagnetic, Gravitational, Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force and Neutron Degeneracy.

Is there anything that is an exception to this conjecture?

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:14 am

William wrote: Preaching to the choir there Bust Nak. That is why I advise those who are looking for evidence to read what people share about their experiences and delve deeper into the history of human OOBEs and associated subjects.

Right, but all the data so far says there isn't anything beyond the brain.

I am not wanting to separate the two. Just acknowledge the differences. The one animates the other.

The same concept as radio waves animates a TV?

If you studied up on the subject then you will effectively be preparing for it, and getting insight which could prove valuable.

Are you referring to religion here or just OOBE's? With the latter at best you can come to the conclusion that whatever I am experiencing matches OOBE's. What good would that do me?

When going on a trip, do you just 'let it happen' or 'make preparations'?

Depends on what kinda trip it is.

But sure, if you are just going to let it happen, that is your choice. As long as you don't have a problem with the whole idea being possible. But if you are 'planning' that when your body dies, that will be the end of you and your experiences, and want to argue for that position, then you will meet with reasonable argument against that belief - at least from me, at present.

That's where the correlation between brain function and consciousness comes in.

Kenisaw · Post by **Kenisaw** » Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:44 pm

Willum wrote: So I am just putting this out there as a thought-provoker:

If something exists, it is composed of atoms or is an energy or force: Electromagnetic, Gravitational, Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force and Neutron Degeneracy.

Is there anything that is an exception to this conjecture?

No, there isn't.

The consciousness discussion is all very interesting, but the simple fact of the matter is that there is no evidence of consciousness without physical structures, chemical reactions, and energy present. There is no reason to think that consciousness exists as a separate thing. Take some part of a brain away, and part of a person disappears with it. Damage part of the brain, and the consciousness of a person (reduced memories for example) is reduced and changed.

Walterbl · Post by **Walterbl** » Sat Jul 21, 2018 3:41 pm

If something exists, it is composed of atoms or is an energy or force

Is there anything that is an exception to this conjecture?

Empty space??

Neatras · Post by **Neatras** » Sat Jul 21, 2018 3:55 pm

[Replying to post 101 by Walterbl]

Good luck finding actual empty space that doesn't have virtual particles.

William · Post by **William** » Sat Jul 21, 2018 7:34 pm

[Replying to post 102 by Neatras]

Virtual particles? Are those like 'magic beans'?

TSGracchus · Post by **TSGracchus** » Sat Jul 21, 2018 7:57 pm

[Replying to post 103 by William]

William: "Virtual particles? Are those like 'magic beans'?"

No, those are like particle/antiparticle pairs that spontaneously pop into existence and almost immediately annihilate each other. They make up most of the mass of the universe. That is why there is no such thing as "empty space". There is no such thing as "nothing".

Neatras · Post by **Neatras** » Sun Jul 22, 2018 1:54 am

[Replying to post 103 by William]

Might wanna look into the topic before immediately writing it off as a fairy tale equivalence. Virtual particles have more scientific basis than your incredulous tone suggests. It's an entire world of new information that, the way it sounds, you haven't incorporated into your worldview at all. Might wanna fix that.

Walterbl · Post by **Walterbl** » Sun Jul 22, 2018 4:06 am

Are these particles like dark matter/dark energy? Things that supposedly exist but have never really been observed, and in the end are little more than mathematical constructs to fix models that don't actualy work.

Neatras · Post by **Neatras** » Sun Jul 22, 2018 5:43 am

[Replying to post 106 by Walterbl]

We'll leave that poor detour aside for now.

Virtual particles are predicted, demonstrated, and explained by modern science.

Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?

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.

So with this alone you might jump to a hasty conclusion, declare the whole thing to be another act of science "making something up" to fix their model (since you've already gone this route, I have no doubt you'd do it again).

Fortunately:

But while the virtual particles are briefly part of our world they can interact with other particles, and that leads to a number of tests of the quantum-mechanical predictions about virtual particles. The first test was understood in the late 1940s. In a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton are bound together by photons (the quanta of the electromagnetic field). Every photon will spend some time as a virtual electron plus its antiparticle, the virtual positron, since this is allowed by quantum mechanics as described above. The hydrogen atom has two energy levels that coincidentally seem to have the same energy. But when the atom is in one of those levels it interacts differently with the virtual electron and positron than when it is in the other, so their energies are shifted a tiny bit because of those interactions. That shift was measured by Willis Lamb and the Lamb shift was born, for which a Nobel Prize was eventually awarded.

Another very good test some readers may want to look up, which we do not have space to describe here, is the Casimir effect, where forces between metal plates in empty space are modified by the presence of virtual particles.

Let's go on a field trip to the Casimir effect.

The typical example is of the two uncharged conductive plates in a vacuum, placed a few nanometers apart. In a classical description, the lack of an external field means that there is no field between the plates, and no force would be measured between them. When this field is instead studied using the quantum electrodynamic vacuum, it is seen that the plates do affect the virtual photons which constitute the field, and generate a net force â€“ either an attraction or a repulsion depending on the specific arrangement of the two plates. Although the Casimir effect can be expressed in terms of virtual particles interacting with the objects, it is best described and more easily calculated in terms of the zero-point energy of a quantized field in the intervening space between the objects. This force has been measured and is a striking example of an effect captured formally by second quantization.

The Casimir effect can also be computed using the mathematical mechanisms of functional integrals of quantum field theory, although such calculations are considerably more abstract, and thus difficult to comprehend. In addition, they can be carried out only for the simplest of geometries. However, the formalism of quantum field theory makes it clear that the vacuum expectation value summations are in a certain sense summations over so-called "virtual particles".

Swing your arguments my way, amigo. See if you can topple scientific experimentation. I often run into people who post something in opposition to quantum mechanics, get a rush of dopamine, and ride that high while ignoring counter-arguments. Maybe you'll be different, you could take this information, and dismiss this whole portion of the discussion as "irrelevant," citing some semantic script. Or maybe you'll learn from this, get a newfound interest in the lesser known physical sciences, and we all improve going forward. I look forward to seeing how you'll approach this subject that I actually thought was really easy to learn about.

William · Post by **William** » Sun Jul 22, 2018 12:59 pm

[Replying to post 104 by TSGracchus]

William: "Virtual particles? Are those like 'magic beans'?"

No, those are like particle/antiparticle pairs that spontaneously pop into existence and almost immediately annihilate each other. They make up most of the mass of the universe. That is why there is no such thing as "empty space". There is no such thing as "nothing".

Right - no time to plant and establish themselves yet
'pop into existence'
so not at all like real beans.

They are twins which are opposed to each others existence but not until they pop into existence from nothing, nowhere, and each immediately annihilates the other and as matter they make up most of the mass in the universe, because they are literally doing this activity all the time.

Does this happen simultaneously or in groups or waves of?

I have one hand facing the other, 10cm apart. Is this happening between the space between my hands?

Why are they called virtual particles if they actually exist as something which is most of the mass of the universe?

Debating Christianity and Religion

If it exists, it has atoms

If it exists, it has atoms

Re: If it exists, it has atoms