Mordred

Whoever claimed I invented the theory involving particle production ? Don't confuse someone describing mainstream physics as the inventor. You really need to study mainstream physics would you like a few YouTube videos as the math isn't something you understand ? If you prefer I can give you the formulas under QFT for particle number densities to energy density relations and give you the mean lifetime formula for particles. Unlike you I can provide the math under mainstream physics for every statement I ever make in any post I ever do on any forum This is QFT textbook introduction level material. See my first post

I have no issue with VP or particles popping in and out of existence as a result of field densities. The term is inaccurate under physics definitions so shouldn't be used. If you want the quantum vacuum that term would also work Field or vacuum of ordinary particles. The term void isn't accurate use proper terminology at the very least.

I told you. You haven't defined a premise to your model. Not one that can possibly work in the quantum regime. Classical only physics are useless in the quantum world of particles. QM didn't get created just for the sheer fun of it. It got created to explain those situations that COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED using classical physics.

Perhaps you should study physics terminology then. You can google my responses

The uncertainty problem applies to the uncertainty of position and momentum. In field treatments the position is defined by the field coordinate and the momentum is the four momentum. If your uncertain of the momentum then obviously there is an issue with conservation of energy/momentum. If your uncertain about the position then your uncertain of the location of the scattering. So it definitely applies.

A void is a region devoid of all matter and energy. Hence it doesn't exist in our universe as the HUP applies via zero point energy. The Higgs field exists at 246 GeV/m^3. It is not applicable to describe an EM field nor a gravitational field.

Nope your trying to avoid the issue with classical objects and classical physics which don't apply in the QM regime. Define void for me. Your definition must be different than mine.

Told you the void should be replaced with field a void is too subjective to vacuum energy levels. Is it a void with 246 GeV/m^3 just with the Higgs field ?

What your stating makes no sense when it comes to particle production. Where you must apply QM not classical physics. The very attraction repulsion nature of quantum particles is part of the problem

That's not the only reason behind wavefuctions in QM or QFT. In the macro world you wouldn't even bother applying it as it's negligible. In the quantum world is the only regime it applies and like it or not experiment evidence proves it's a fundamental property of our universe. Heck there was a Nobel prize to a team that was able to only minimize the effect.

Are you talking to the right person because I didn't state that this thread not once did I discuss the HUP

How does that possibly relate to quantum voids and VP and particles hrmmm ?

You haven't established a premise. Your opening post involves three theories that apply to QFT. Feymann path integrals is QFT or QM. It is not classical

Ah that's why I have two physics degrees one in particle physics and posted that complex math for you which you could have used to describe a void by taking the next step to propogators instead of operators

Funny nothing you described has anything to do with Feymann path integrals. Those paths are simply probability functions using calculus of variations. The path chosen is the one with the least action. You should really learn a model before stating what it says

I don't have a theory mainstream physics has several to which one specifically are you referring to ?

Well considering I could model the ball under Lattice gauge of solids and then apply the uncertainty principle to that lattice gauge under field treatments. It is possible to describe any macro object under QFT if its practical to do so.

Quantum Darwism has that but it involves wave functions which the OP objects to. He also objected to the mathematics I posted on QFT on the same basis but later claims he doesn't need the mathematics because it is just the same. So your guess is as good as mine. I can model a quantum void/vacuum or an Einstein vacuum which would be a true void as it wouldn't have VP either. Words don't make a model.

Can I do a single calculation that is specific to your model. No I cannot. You state your math is the same as mainstream. Fine then it's the same as String theory or Lattice gauge or QM or classical Which one ? If I present some random formula you can just claim no that's not my model.

You know the biggest problem is that everyone thinks a physics model is complex and can be simplified. When they don't take the time to understand a mainstream model they think it's wrong and try to simplify it Physics doesn't make a model complex without good reason. The complexity comes with the flexibility of its predictive nature. When is it going to occur to you that mere words isn't a model ? You can shout words and explanations till your blue in the face It cannot make testable predictions to check it's accuracy

Good guess and you are correct there have been boundary studies on how much quantum information a finite space can hold Funny the math I posted provides that already at least once you measure a fields energy level the number density will follow

That's funny since I have no problem with the particles are field excitations interpretation for me that is the easiest to understand. It also covers nearly every particle phenomena including a vast majority of the supposed quantum weirdness that troubled others.

Then if there is no distinction we don't need your interpretation do we ?

What is called virtual photons are represented by the internal lines on a Feymann diagram. While real particles are the external lines. Now the main difference is their mass/energy. A real particle has enough mass/energy to be observable this requires a quanta of action. Action equates the potential and kinetic energy terms and the amount of displacement. Individual VP cannot cause action their mass/energy levels are insufficient no matter how perfect a detector is you will not detect an individual VP. This doesn't mean an ensemble of VP cannot cause action. Now as Prof Strauss mentions the term VP is rather a misnomer. VP in QFT represent the field propogators while particles are the field operators. The distinction is that quanta of action I mentioned above.

Do you want me to give you the math behind each diagram ? Trust me the math comes first not the diagrams