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 < >>>>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bba04e73-1f37-43b9-9316-ce00bad9cba8%40googlegroups.com.
