On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 4:18:14 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/26/2020 12:04 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 12:24 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > *> As I understand the UP, it's a statistical statement * > > > No. It says the more exactly you specify the position of a particle the > less exactly you can specify the velocity of the particle; or stated in a > alternativ form, the shorter the time duration the more energy a particle > (or even empty space) can have without detecting any violation of the law > of conservation of energy. > > *> The UP follows from the postulates of QM. So if one assume these >> postulates, there is indeed a proof of the UP.* > > > I repeat, this is physics not mathematics, if an experiment violates > somebody's postulates then that's just too bad for the postulates because > experiment and observation is the ultimate authority in science. And, given > that it can make predictions to 12 significant digits, experiment and > observation tells us that virtual particles exist as unequivocally as > science can tell us anything. > > > I think you are to readily reifying the mathematics. Virtual particles > are just Feynman's invention to keep track of consistent expansions of the > Green's function. There are other mathematical techniques for calculating > the same number. So what it means for virtual particles to exist not > really so unequivocal. > > Brent >
The Green's function is merely *a mathematical expression*. It has no physical status except as a model. Virtual particles are at least hypothetical physical entities. Green's function don't even have that status. @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/0aaad9d4-a1d9-4da7-b1cf-ae650215c061%40googlegroups.com.
