On Thursday, April 30, 2020 at 9:51:38 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > 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 >
Correction; bottom of page *3*. 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/bba04e73-1f37-43b9-9316-ce00bad9cba8%40googlegroups.com.
