On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 5:17:42 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 8:18 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > *> 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. * > > > I sure as hell *can* pull it out of a hat if it has been EXPERIMENTALLY > CONFIRMED TO A HIGHER DEGREE OF PRECISION than any other idea in, not just > physics, but in all of Science! And if that offends your Gospel or your > delicate physical "postulates" (whatever the hell that's suposed to mean) > then it's time for you to find a new Gospel. > > > *t**here must have some justification. * > > > There is. It works. > > John K Clark >
Firstly, concerning the postulates of QM and the UP, you don't understand my point, which is on solid ground. There's an axiomatic approach to QM which does NOT include the UP. This is what's presented in texts on QM. Those postulates include, for example, the operators for position and momentum, and so forth. The UP is definitely NOT one of these postulates, and the UP can be derived from them. It's done in any decent course in QM. Do you agree or not? AG Secondly, you don't seem to understand the difference between a mathematical technique which gives excellent predictions and the *interpretation* of variables in some equation. Once you acknowledge that the position-momentum form of the UP is a *statistical statement* involving *ensembles* (since, without doubt, deltaX and deltaP are the *standard deviations* of the X and P, and *defined* explicitly in any text on statistics), the question arises of how to interpret deltaT and deltaE in the time-energy form of the UP. Since T is a parameter and not an operator in QM (T doesn't operate on any domain and it doesn't have eigenvalues and eigenfunctions in its range), it seems that you have a burden to explain what deltaT and deltaE means in the context of the time-energy form of the UP. I don't think this form is used in the excellent predictions of QED, so your comment that QED "works" is without substance in answering my basic question. And FWIW, your virtual particles are just terms in a perturbation expansion which helps in a calculation. This doesn't mean they actually exist in violation of energy conservation. 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/0dbe8890-590f-4603-8818-2dd10c66536c%40googlegroups.com.
