I too had the same impression -- that you were saying that Stern-Gerlach experiment supported "Waves of nothing."
Must have been the way things flowed in the conversation or the way you worded things.
It might have been because I was asking about what things you took as faith and what you knew to be fact.
So "waves of nothing" -- is that a matter of faith for you, or how can I demonstrate it for myself? You seem to be using as a foundation for many of your arguments this idea that all matter is waves of nothing, if I understand correctly. (Or at least that's what it always seems to boil down to.)
Thanks,
-Jesse
Just like the 83,000 links story (remember that?), I bet we have both been through this before. I have, many times. Sometimes I go along with it. A science-talker puts out some strange assertion like "matter is made of nothing". I ask, whatever are you on about? He says "go look up quantum mechanics" or whatever. Go look up this, go look up that. In pursuing this to the end, though, we discover that none of the things we are to look up lend any credence to "matter is made of nothing." It turns out, invariably, that this conclusion "matter is made of nothing" follows from an unfathomable chain of misconceptions, erroneous reasoning and scientific word-salad emerging from the science-talker's head.
What is the reason for this? Why saddle physics with a metaphysical absurdity like "matter is made of nothing"? There must be a pressing need to kick science in the nuts this way. What is it? Since I had this same sort of conversation many times before in other forums, I'll tell you what I learned from that.
For some people who happen to be atheists, a notion like "matter is made of nothing" is a brick in their mental framework. Perhaps even a necessary brick, depending on what other notions they have. Now, an atheist isn't going to merely come up to you and say point-blank "matter is made of nothing" in the middle of a theological dispute about God and creation and such. It is necessary to couch this in a way that is easier on your ears, otherwise you wouldn't give it any consideration at all. So, the best delivery for an absurdity like "matter is made of nothing" is to bury it with a lot of talk about quantum mechanics, waves, and space-time and such. This is necessary for the atheist's sanity as well. After all, who can really believe that things are made of nothing?
If a lawyer, politician, or man in the street -- anyone but a science-talker -- emphatically insisted that things are made of "waves of nothing", we would shrug our shoulders and move on. But when a science-talker says exactly the same thing, we stop and listen for a while. I wonder why? Maybe it is like the morbid fascination we have with train-wrecks and auto-accidents -- we must slow down the car, roll down the window, and have a better look as we drive by.
No, I was just putting in another concept to think about, with regards to the claim that something can't come from nothing. I also at the time made the pair anti pair creation and destruction comment. It was merely tangential to the mention of the experiments.
So "waves of nothing" -- is that a matter of faith for you, or how can I demonstrate it for myself? You seem to be using as a foundation for many of your arguments this idea that all matter is waves of nothing, if I understand correctly. (Or at least that's what it always seems to boil down to.)
It boils down to what is a field. Just what is a gravitational field composed of? What is an electrical field composed of? What is a magnetic field composed of?