On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 6:18:39 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 6:12:21 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 1:30:59 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 5:49:15 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 3:51:03 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 5:18 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> *> 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. * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But they all involve violating the law of conservation of energy for >>>>> short amounts of time, and the shorter the time the larger the violation. >>>>> >>>>> John K Clark >>>>> >>>> >>>> I *might* be convinced, IF you understood the standard UP, involving >>>> position and momentum. But you don't. Do you know the definition of >>>> "standard deviation", aka "uncertainty"? Look it up; a well defined >>>> concept in statistics; always involving ensembles! AG >>>> >>> >>> I trust you can see the problem with your interpretation of virtual >>> particles. In effect you're putting the cart before the horse! Once you see >>> that the usual form of the UP is a *statistical* statement involving >>> *standard >>> deviations*, the time-energy form must have the same property. And no >>> one here, apparently, can state what the ensembles are for that form of the >>> UP! If you don't know what ensembles you're talking about, it is >>> egregiously premature, and prone to error, to make an interpretation of the >>> inequality. AG >>> >> >> Clark; have you confirmed that the standard form of the UP is a >> *statistical* statement implying an *ensemble*, and that the UP can be* >> mathematically proven* from the postulates of QM? Once we get past >> these elementary FACTS, we can discuss the meaning of the time-energy form >> of the UP. AG >> > > What I want to know is your justification for your prior statement about > virtual particles and borrowing of energy. You can't just pull it out of a > hat as call it Gospel. There must have some justification. What is it? AG >
Here's Baez's take on the time-energy form of the UP. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/535ddd66e4b0e268e3eae4cf/t/5695883740667a7eb9f5eb8b/1452640311781/Time-Energy_Uncertainty_Relation.pdf . Clearly T isn't an operator in QM. Rather, it's a parameter. Instead of deltaT, he replaces it with a form I don't understand, at bottom of page 2. AG -- 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/67bc45c9-c870-468f-8126-9f50cd337781%40googlegroups.com.
