On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 8:34:00 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 1:12:09 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 5:32:23 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Phil, how about your considered opinion of his analysis of virtual >>> particles? As Bruce indicated, some scientists are able to put aside their >>> religious beliefs in analyzing physical theories. TIA, AG >>> >> >> >> >> I suppose if particles aren't real in one's scheme of things, then any >> kind of temporary particles aren't either. >> >> https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physfaq/therm/ >> >> For microscopic experiments, the thermal interpretation claims that >> particles (photons, electrons, alpha particles, etc.) are fiction, >> simplifications appropriate under special circumstances only. *In >> reality one has instead beams (states of the electron field, an effective >> alpha particle field, etc., concentrated along a small neighborhood of a >> mathematical curve) with approximately known properties (charge densities, >> spin densities, energy densities, etc.) *If one places a detector into >> the path of a beam one measures some of these densities - accurately if the >> densities are high, erratically and inaccurately when they are very low. >> >> It is a historical accident that one continues to use the name particle >> in the many microscopic situations where it is grossly inappropriate to >> think of it in terms of a tiny bullet moving through space. If one >> restricts the use of the particle concept to situations where it is >> appropriate, or if one does not think of particles as ''objects'' - in both >> cases all mystery is gone, and the foundations become fully rational and >> intelligible. >> >> >> >> I doubt anyone is going to find his "physics" useful for anything. >> >> *He should just stick to doing numerical analysis and scientific >> computing, an important area in applied mathematics and computer science.* >> >> @philipthrift >> > > Generally, if we want to be absolutely strict, particles are idealizations > which don't exist, since one cannot contain finite mass or energy in zero > volume. However, the point you seem to be missing is that virtual particles > are not like the idealizations we're familiar with. They are off-shell, > which I think means they don't obey the total energy formula of SR. AG >
One can adopt any catechism/denomination of physics one wants to. It's a free country. But this seems to be the mainstream view: from Particle Data Group / Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory https://particleadventure.org/virtual.html *Virtual particles* Particles decay via force carrier particles. But in some cases a particle may decay via a force-carrier particle with more mass then the initial particle. The intermediate particle is immediately transformed into lower-mass particles. These short-lived high-mass force-carrier particles seem to violate the laws of conservation of energy and mass -- their mass just can't come out of nowhere! A result of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is that these high-mass particles may come into being if they are incredibly short-lived. In a sense, they escape reality's notice. Such particles are called virtual particles. Virtual particles do not violate the conservation of energy. The kinetic energy plus mass of the initial decaying particle and the final decay products is equal. The virtual particles exist for such a short time that they can never be observed. Most particle processes are mediated by virtual-carrier particles. Examples include neutron beta decay, the production of charm particles, and the decay of an eta-c particle, all of which we will explore in depth soon. @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/21571451-7533-4ab5-b0d1-f652b5aa0273%40googlegroups.com.
