Science, Free Will, & Virtual Particles

[Dream]

There is a huge debate abut Virtual Particles, whether they really exist or not. On the website for the magazine Scientific American, Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, provides an answer. He supports the real existence of Virtual Particles, which pop in and out of existence randomly affecting the charges upon items. Although, I only threw 'Free Will' in to get you to read the article, it nevertheless makes sense that if virtual particles affect charged items than they may also effect human decisions in a random fashion.

Unfortunately, Science is not giving us a clear answer to the question of free will; and there is a lot of debate as to whether virtual particles exist for 'Real' or whether they are merely an accounting system to help with the Standard Model of quantum particles. The majority stamp is that they are real or at least representative of real effects; but you should read the article. Mixing it all up is the contrary argument about whether or not 'Aether' is real. (Aether is an early 1900's argument to explain the wavelike behavior of light, but Aether has been rejected by the academic community for some time now.) Due to how things work, pro-aether people are automatically Anti-virtual-particle people; since with Aether there is no need for Virtual Particles and with Virtual Particles no need for Aether. Choose a side if you like or else make a Scientific Deduction.

The article is dated: October 9, 2006
Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?: Scientific American

The interesting comments and reactions to the article are further down the page. Just scroll down.

(attached photo is from http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/images/07PHY007sping_mtn_LR.jpg and is about electron spin)

 

[OAT]

If there are no virtual particles, another device will be needed to explain Hawkins radiation.

 

[Dream]

I do not know much about black body radiation; but I looked up the wikipedia article. So do you think virtual particles affect the thinking process?

 

[OAT]

I was referring to radiation near the event horizon of a black hole.

Stuart Hameroff MD believes that the consciousness penetrates the quantum level. I reckoned he would say "yes" to your question as to whether it could impact the thinking process.

As for myself, I am keeping an open mind.

 

[Dream]

As for myself, I am keeping an open mind.

I caught your pun. The doctor you mentioned theorizes consciousness could be linked to "the fundamental spacetime geometry." I'd never head of this before, and its not really anything like what I was thinking about. Actually I thought virtual particles simply came in and out of existence all of the time and was not considering them as part of a spacey connection like a global consciousness. That would be almost no difference from aether in the free will debate (although your post was helpful to me). Since you mentioned Dr. Hameroff, I was able to look up some critics of his theory. One Physicist, Max Tegmark stepped forward and calculated that the affects of Virtual Particles are too brief to affect thinking processes, which Dr. Hameroff denies. Now, I do not yet know how Dr. Tegmark calculated that; but it has led me to his paper called The Mathematical Universe. Its interesting and although its a little Math intensive, I've started reading it.

So I'm off on a tangent now, but its quite interesting and related to some of the things discussed in other threads. He's pretty much attempting to show that if there is an external physical reality completely independent of human beings, it then implies mathematically that our reality must be an abstract mathematical structure. Sounds like an odd Physics paper, but its interesting how he's going about with his proof and has a cool flowchart you should see. Tons of fun.

 

[OAT]

Dr Tegmark position is more mainstream compared to Dr Hameroff's.

ERH is more likely to be held by those who have no personal experience of mental phenomena, such as clairvoyance, that cannot be explained if the mind is merely an emergent property of the brain. I know from personal experience someone who is very clairvoyant and who has the ability to "influence" another mind.

Science is still in its infancy with respect to the explanation of certain mental phenomena. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Dream]

Its been a pleasure conversing with someone who knows something about it! I like the way you say Science is still in its infancy.