You need to read A LITTLE BIT about quantum physics, Greg. Your stubborn insistence on talking about things you do not know about is not doing much for this conversation, nor is it of any use to your dignity.
Oxygen molecules are not self existent they exist if you believe Hawking, as a result of the Big Bang
I was talking about Hydrogen and Oxygen coming together BY THEMSELVES to form Water.
>>>Is there a cause when two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms make one water molecule?<<<
Message 18440060
If you cannot read and understand a simple sentence like this, don't even try Hawking, my friend.
The Big Bang had to have a cause, and chance BTW is not a cause.
Oh and you figured all that, hm?
I don't think you have the foggiest notion of what Hawking's book is about if you've even read it
What a sad little man you are. One of us doesn't know his quarks around here, and it ain't me <g>
You clearly believe in spontaneous generation of mater out of nothing without any cause.
Since you are too lazy to look it up yourself, I decided to give your education a boost:
Hawking Radiation:
The usual description states that in the quantum vacuum, virtual particle
pairs are created which borrow their energy from the vacuum. These particle
pairs normally recombine after delta t, [as determined by Heisenberg's
uncertainty relation] and repay this energy. However near the surface of a
Black Hole [Schwarzschild radius], before recombination can take place, the
extreme gravity [tidal forces] cause the particle pair to separate and
become unpaired real particles, whereupon one particle is drawn into the BH
while the other is ejected into the universe. It is assumed that this
ejected particle is the one we see as Hawking radiation. Now since the
energy borrowed from the vacuum is not repaid and energy conservation must
still hold, the BH must surrender this energy and evaporate to a small
degree. A simple mathematical treatment of this energy can be found at
library.thinkquest.org
lns.cornell.edu
The uncertainty principle also applies to fields, like the electro-magnetic field, or the gravitational field. It implies that these fields can't be exactly zeroed, even in what we think of as empty space. For if they were exactly zero, their values would have both a well-defined position at zero, and a well-defined speed, which was also zero. This would be a violation of the uncertainty principle. Instead, the fields would have to have a certain minimum amount of fluctuations. One can interpret these so called vacuum fluctuations, as pairs of particles and anti particles, that suddenly appear together, move apart, and then come back together again, and annihilate each other.
These particle anti particle pairs, are said to be virtual, because one can not measure them directly with a particle detector. However, one can observe their effects indirectly. One way of doing this, is by what is called the Casimir effect. One has two parallel metal plates, a short distance apart. The plates act like mirrors for the virtual particles and anti particles. This means that the region between the plates, is a bit like an organ pipe, and will only admit light waves of certain resonant frequencies. The result is that there are slightly fewer vacuum fluctuations, or virtual particles, between the plates, than outside them, where vacuum fluctuations can have any wavelength. The reduction in the number of virtual particles between the plates means that they don't hit the plates so often, and thus don't exert as much pressure on the plates, as the virtual particles outside. There is thus a slight force pushing the plates together. This force has been measured experimentally. So virtual particles actually exist, and produce real effects.
hawking.org.uk
Do you remember me asking you to look up the Casimir Effect, Greg? Why didn't you look it up yourself and save yourself this humiliation? Can't you read?
>>>And I repeat: You need to read a bit about the appearance of molecules in vacuum. Look into the Casimir Effect, for starters. Just because you have not kept up to date with modern science, it does not mean that it has not advanced.<<<
Message 18436974
That's not science that's delusion.
Sorry to point out the obvious, but you are woefully ignorant.
Good-bye, Greg. Try not to feel too humiliated. And do please read a bit of science in the future before you start insulting other people's intelligence and scientific knowledge. |
