On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 8:57:19 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 7:55:15 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> 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 >> > > What the mainstream is affirming is that if you can't observe a violation > of conservation of energy, it's OK to assume it's being violated; another > bedrock principle! Where did this principle come from? The UP? Really? AG >
Physicists are like witch doctors. Ask *them*. @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/bd15babe-5c4e-4920-aa48-8c934c087659%40googlegroups.com.
