On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:49 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
*> How does QM tell us that conservation of energy can be violated for > brief durations? If you apply the time-energy form of the UP for your > proof, please state the context of your proof, that is, exactly what do E > and t stand for.* The shorter the time (t) a system is under observation the larger the amount of energy (E) could pop into existence from nothing without direct detection, enough energy to create virtual particles. And you can calculate how large the indirect effects these virtual particles would have on the system. > in your proof. This is physics not mathematic so there is no proof. However if you take the above as a working assumption and you use it to calculate the magnetic moment of an electron you get a value of 0.001,159,652,181. When you make no assumptions or theoretical calculations at all and just determine the value experimentally you get a value of 0.001,159,652,182. And you just don't get agreement between theory and experiment that is much better than that in science. So I'd say it's a pretty damn good assumption! John K Clark -- 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/CAJPayv3nWVGze3Sw7CO2DAV2Th%3DsxY4J6jpYgoC8y1a-3qBiGg%40mail.gmail.com.
