Virtual particles (split from Can we test for a singularity of a black hole using Hawking Radiation?)

[beecee]

57 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

The description of this effect in every one of those books describes the particle pairs as being the same particle pairs that randomly appear and annihilate each other all throughout space.  There is no explanation as to where they come from, and they seem to violate conservation of energy due to popping into existence out of nothing.

They don't violate anything because they are virtual particles and only exist for less then a Planck instant the way I understand it.

Quote

These particles would be no different than any other particle and anti particle, so basically it is like you are saying that antiparticles just have negative energy, now, but they can add to the total mass, which makes zero sense.

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/14/17119320/stephen-hawking-hawking-radiation-explained

Quote

Hawking Radiation was intended to use this aspect of quantum mechanics, which seems to violate conservation of energy, and black holes, which violate conservation of energy, in order to show that there is still conservation of energy.  It is a law of nature that it used to develop physics theories, because it acts like a balance that can't be broken.

Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion, but BH's for example, Bugger! this tells it far better then I here....https://www.google.com.au/search?q=do+black+holes+vilate+conservation+of+energy+laws%3F&oq=do+black+holes+vilate+conservation+of+energy+laws%3F&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64l2.16975j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

"Neither the existence nor the behavior of black holes violates conservation laws. ... The eventual 'evaporation' of black holes via the emission of so called Hawking radiation reverses the process, changing mass into energy, but the total mass andenergy of the system is still conserved".

and....

"In classical mechanics (in the sense of non-quantum) physics, there is no mechanism to allow for non-conservation for energy. ... In other words, violationof conservation of energy can occur if and only if the violation can not be observed due to the uncertainty principle".

Quote

I am sorry to say, but you guys seemed to be misinformed about things from the internet.

I for one, being only a retired maintenance Fitter/Machinist/Welder, generally take care in what I read and link to on the net....WIKI gives generally good accounts, but there are certainly more reputable outlets. Perhaps you yourself need to review what you think you have learnt....we all make errors.

Edited November 4, 2018 by beecee

[Conjurer]

14 minutes ago, beecee said:

They don't violate anything because they are virtual particles and only exist for less then a Planck instant the way I understand it.

I think that is very debatable, since the violation of any law of physics is met with a lot of controversy.  It is like trying to convince someone that a aspect of quantum mechanics breaks the light speed barrier.  People will say it is wrong, even if they haven't looked into it from the people that discovered it.  I know that a lot of particle physicist in America that work at the accelerator in Chicago believe that it may.

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

"Neither the existence nor the behavior of black holes violates conservation laws. ... The eventual 'evaporation' of black holes via the emission of so called Hawking radiation reverses the process, changing mass into energy, but the total mass andenergy of the system is still conserved".

and....

"In classical mechanics (in the sense of non-quantum) physics, there is no mechanism to allow for non-conservation for energy. ... In other words, violationof conservation of energy can occur if and only if the violation can not be observed due to the uncertainty principle".

It is thought that they violate conservation laws, because they remove something from a system that can no longer be retrieved.  Then something is lost from a system, and that system can no longer have the same values it use to have.  Then Hawking Radiation allows for stuff to be put back into that system and "escape" the black hole.  Then the net gain and loss of the system remains the same, even though it is still not the same stuff.  Then that is how the conservation of the system outside of the black hole is conserved.  

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I think that is very debatable

It is not in the least debatable. It is a well-understood aspect of quantum theory.

 

[Janus]

7 hours ago, Conjurer said:

It sounds like an argument against Hawking Radiation even working at all.  How could a black hole evaporate if the anti particle adds to the mass of a black hole?  According to what you are saying, the black hole should increase in mass due to Hawking Radiation.  I don't think Hawking radiation even considers the mass of the energy in a black hole.  

No.  A virtual particle pair forms outside the event horizon. One of them crosses the horizon, it doesn't matter which one.  So for example. if it is a electron positron pair, either the electron or positron can fall past the event horizon.  This leaves the over of one the pair without a partner to recombine with and you are now left with a real particle, either a electron or positron.  But the energy for the creation of this particle can't just come from nowhere, do it comes from a loss of mass in the black hole.  It is like the particle that falls in becomes a negative mass particle (not an antiparticle. Antimatter has positive mass just like regular mass does.)

[Conjurer]

6 hours ago, Strange said:

It is not in the least debatable. It is a well-understood aspect of quantum theory.

The old director of Fermilab (Leon Lederman; God Particle) and every other book written by someone affiliated with Fermilab or quantum physics in America would say otherwise.  Did you learn quantum physics in another country?  Some countries don't allow certain types of media from other countries and fit the facts to suite their needs. Was the LHC in Europe unable to confirm this?  Do you have any official reference of this being discovered?

17 minutes ago, Janus said:

But the energy for the creation of this particle can't just come from nowhere, do it comes from a loss of mass in the black hole.  It is like the particle that falls in becomes a negative mass particle (not an antiparticle. Antimatter has positive mass just like regular mass does.)

It is believed that space is a scaler, and it has a low energy level.  Then particle pairs were never confirmed to lower this energy level in the lab, since they result in a photon after the collision (which is how they are detected).  I never heard any news of this discovery being changed at some point in time. 

To me, it just sounds like that you guys have just gone out on your own to determine that certain aspect of the theory is incorrect and needs to be changed.  Then your viewpoint of the original theory has become distorted by the concept of energy having the potential to generate the same amount of mass. 

You can't just assume that one aspect of the theory is wrong and adapt every other aspect of the theory to fit it so that everything about it fits into your viewpoint of the laws of physics, unless you write a paper or something to prove it to science.  I don't know of any papers written that have changed all these aspects of the theory. 

I would have to ask if you had any proof in any of this, because for a couple of mods, you guys seem way off track in all of this stuff.  It is like you guys have been making into a completely different theory, since; 

1) you don't accept particle pairs violating conservation laws,

2) you don't accept that antiparticles will lower the mass of the black hole by converting the matter in it to energy.    

I don't even really accept the Theory of Hawking Radiation, but I do accept the Holographic Principle.  These two theories are in conflict with each other, so you cannot accept them both.  But, I do accept both the number 1 and 2 things I just mentioned, and those are not the reasons why I don't prefer Hawking Radiation instead. 

It does make think that it could be possible that Hawking Radiation is false, because the energy would most likely be converted into electrons where the mass would actually remain the same since the average density of a supper-massive black hole is one, and maybe it is wrong because of that.  A sea of electrons would have that approximate density.

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Conjurer said:

The old director of Fermilab (Leon Lederman; God Particle) and every other book written by someone affiliated with Fermilab or quantum physics in America would say otherwise.  Did you learn quantum physics in another country?  Some countries don't allow certain types of media from other countries and fit the facts to suite their needs. 

You don't provide any references to anyone saying that the existence of quantum fluctuations (or virtual particles) is "debatable", and I can't really comment un unnamed books written by unnamed people.

The idea that physics is different in different countries is just bizarre, especially given that most physics research takes place in multi-national teams.

Anyway, here is a good article on quantum fluctuations (by a physicist at CERN): https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/quantum-fluctuations-and-their-energy/

Quote

Was the LHC in Europe unable to confirm this?  Do you have any official reference of this being discovered?

What do you mean by "this"? I was questioning your claim that quantum fluctuations are "debatable". How could the fact they are not debatable be "discovered"? 

3 hours ago, Conjurer said:

1) you don't accept particle pairs violating conservation laws,

Because they don't. (See the article above)

3 hours ago, Conjurer said:

2) you don't accept that antiparticles will lower the mass of the black hole by converting the matter in it to energy.

They won't. Antiparticles have the same mass-energy as particles. 

 

3 hours ago, Conjurer said:

I don't even really accept the Theory of Hawking Radiation, but I do accept the Holographic Principle. 

Neither of these have been confirmed by experiment. They are both fairly speculative ideas at present.

3 hours ago, Conjurer said:

These two theories are in conflict with each other, so you cannot accept them both.

Why do you think that? I can't see any reason why they should be. They are both based on the same underlying theory.

3 hours ago, Conjurer said:

since the average density of a supper-massive black hole is one

I don't know what you mane by that. "One" what? The density of a black hole decreases with mass. (Not that density really means anything in this context.)

"First, the average density of a SMBH (defined as the mass of the black hole divided by the volume within its Schwarzschild radius) can be less than the density of water in the case of some SMBHs.^[6] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole

3 hours ago, Conjurer said:

A sea of electrons would have that approximate density.

Citation needed.

 

[Silvestru]

5 hours ago, Conjurer said:

The old director of Fermilab (Leon Lederman; God Particle) and every other book written by someone affiliated with Fermilab or quantum physics in America would say otherwise.  Did you learn quantum physics in another country?

The Irony...   You mentioned you are interested in theoretical physics. You could ask for some useful materials and books to start you off as I see you are hanging out with the wrong crowd. I mean ofc read what you like but don't cite things about virtual particles from these pseudoscience pop science books.  

Edit, I am not trying to diss Leon Lederman but the book you cited is co-written by pop-science Dick Teresi. My Observation is more directed to the latter.

Edit part 2: I take back my previous comment as I ask you where did you read from that book that 

Quote

(virtual particles)  seem to violate conservation of energy due to popping into existence out of nothing

 

Edited November 5, 2018 by Silvestru

[swansont]

19 hours ago, beecee said:

They don't violate anything because they are virtual particles and only exist for less then a Planck instant the way I understand it.

It's the uncertainty principle, with time and energy as the conjugate variables. ∆E∆t > hbar/2

11 hours ago, Conjurer said:

The old director of Fermilab (Leon Lederman; God Particle) and every other book written by someone affiliated with Fermilab or quantum physics in America would say otherwise.  Did you learn quantum physics in another country?  Some countries don't allow certain types of media from other countries and fit the facts to suite their needs. Was the LHC in Europe unable to confirm this?  Do you have any official reference of this being discovered?

On the contrary, they would know this as basic QM. Conservation of energy only applies on time scales long enough to satisfy the uncertainty relation. Since h is a small number, these excursions are generally very small, but the bigger they are, the shorter they have to be. If the energy and/or time uncertainty is small enough, you can't say that energy conservation has been violated.

[Conjurer]

10 hours ago, Silvestru said:

The Irony...   You mentioned you are interested in theoretical physics. You could ask for some useful materials and books to start you off as I see you are hanging out with the wrong crowd. I mean ofc read what you like but don't cite things about virtual particles from these pseudoscience pop science books.  

You could go into a library, and close your eyes.  Then turn around several times with your finger pointing out, and then come to a stop in the isle that has books written about physics.  You can then go to the index and look up either random particle pairs or Hawking Radiation.  Then every "pop" science book will tell you the exact same thing.  They are all in agreement with each other.  Then I end up hearing a much different story in online forums, so it really makes me wonder which one is "pop" science.  The cool kids seem to be handing out in the forums these days and not the library.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

On the contrary, they would know this as basic QM. Conservation of energy only applies on time scales long enough to satisfy the uncertainty relation. Since h is a small number, these excursions are generally very small, but the bigger they are, the shorter they have to be. If the energy and/or time uncertainty is small enough, you can't say that energy conservation has been violated.

Then I guess I will rephrase what I have said then to make it sound more accurate.  No one has yet proven by experiment or mathematically that random particle pairs obey conservation laws.  Since the Holographic Universe has replaced Hawking Radiation, the leading theory in this department no longer shows conservation of random particle pairs.  Then the Holographic Universe leaves it open as a possibility, since no one was ever able to do it.  

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Then I guess I will rephrase what I have said then to make it sound more accurate.  No one has yet proven by experiment or mathematically that random particle pairs obey conservation laws. Since the Holographic Universe has replaced Hawking Radiation, the leading theory in this department no longer shows conservation of random particle pairs.  

The mathematics says that energy is conserved. It is up to you, as the person making the claim that energy is not conserved, to provide evidence or a reference to that effect.

!

Moderator Note

No more "go to a library" or "I heard it on TV" or "watch this video".

Provide a link, now, to a written document that says energy is not conserved.

 

 

[Conjurer]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

The mathematics says that energy is conserved. It is up to you, as the person making the claim that energy is not conserved, to provide evidence or a reference to that effect.

!

Moderator Note

No more "go to a library" or "I heard it on TV" or "watch this video".

Provide a link, now, to a written document that says energy is not conserved.

 

 

I tried to look it up, but the local library took out all of its books it use to have on quantum mechanics.  In the book, the Hidden Reality (Brian Greene) in the section Hawking Radiation, it says that energy is conserved, because it would be impossible to even identify the particles from them not being in existence long enough.  Then every particle and antiparticle pair would emit a photon, and that would be one more photon that you had before.  Then space wouldn't even be able to be considered a scaler if it lost energy due to this process, because it would change its energy level.

Then how does the mathematics say that there is conservation with photons with no source that didn't exist before popping up?  How does any type of reasoning say this?  I am really not clear on how/why you believe there is\has to be conservation here.  I don't know the official reason why it should.  If you can't bother to look up to show me anything either on the contrary.  You could at least give me a better description than that. 

I have no other bases as to why you identify this as an outlandish claim other than we really think conservation should apply to everything we hear.   

Edited November 5, 2018 by Conjurer

[Strange]

42 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Then there are not any black holes at the LHC!  Then this is not even saying that there is conservation in the lab with the absence of black holes.  Random particle pairs were discovered in particle accelerators, not black holes.

I'm not sure how this is relevant, or even what you are saying.

There are no black holes at the LHC, obviously. So what?

Of course energy is conserved in the lab. Why do you think it isn't?

42 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Then it didn't explain how they account for the energy that would be created from the newly generated photon which allowed them to detect it in the first place in the lab.  Then I still don't understand that part, as to why there is conservation without black holes or Hawking Radiation.

This is to vague to answer, really. Virtual particles do not result in the creation of real photons.

A matter particle and an antimatter particle can annihilate to create two photons. In that case energy is conserved because the mass of the particles is the same as the energy of the photons. This has nothing to do with black holes.

42 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

That is a newer book, and apparently viewpoints have changed on this topic.  Random particle pairs use to be one of the leading candidates for the start of the Big Bang.  

Nothing has changed. This has been known for about 100 years. 

There is a suggestion (hypothesis) that a quantum fluctuation could have triggered the creation of the Big Bang. In that model, the energy of the universe comes from the collapse of a "false vacuum".

Quote

Then Hawking retracted his theory to the Holographic Principal, and the Holographic Principal doesn't even involve random particle pairs. Then conservation was found for black holes in a different way, but that doesn't explain how conservation with random particle pairs is made anymore.

Hawking radiation has never been "retracted". 

Hawking did not come up with the holographic principle.

There is no connection between Hawking radiation and the holographic principle (apart from the fact they both involve black holes).

 

[MigL]

I may be re-evaluating my 'fit' on this forum ( politics in particular ), but I still read occasionally, and can't stand lack of comprehension ( on both sides ).

The confusion arises because Conjurer hasn't bothered to look up the difference between virtual particles and 'random particle pairs'.
Virtual particles exist on 'borrowed' energy, in accordance with the Uncertainty Principle. As such, they are not like real particle pairs and when their time is up, they annihilate without  resultant photons. Real particle/anti-particle pairs require the emission of photons in accordance with momentum and energy conservation laws on annihilation.

When an event horizon removes one of the virtual particles from consideration, the other ( of the pair ) must by necessity, become real.
The 'borrowed' energy that created the virtual particles, must still be repaid back to the vacuum, by the mechanism which 'stole' the virtual particle, the Black Hole itself. If you do the energy 'accounting', the BH ends up losing exactly one virtual particle equivalent of mass-energy, and the universe outside the event horizon gains one real particle.
That is Hawking Radiation.

Notice that there is no link to the Holographic Principle, other than the fact that the entropy of the BH is encoded on the surface of the event horizon, and this entropy is linked to temperature of the BH, and the resultant Hawking Radiation.

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

Virtual particles exist on 'borrowed' energy, in accordance with the Uncertainty Principle. As such, they are not like real particle pairs and when their time is up, they annihilate without  resultant photons. Real particle/anti-particle pairs require the emission of photons in accordance with momentum and energy conservation laws on annihilation.

A good clarification. 

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

the entropy of the BH is encoded on the surface of the event horizon, and this entropy is linked to temperature of the BH, and the resultant Hawking Radiation.

Also a good point

[Conjurer]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

I'm not sure how this is relevant, or even what you are saying.

The reason you gave me as to why energy is conserved was, "Energy conservation is not violated because the mass lost by the black holes is the same as the energy radiated away."

I am not trying to say there is a lack of conservation of energy in Hawking Radiation.  I am saying there is a lack of conservation from random particle pairs, and there is a lack of conservation for black holes.  Then you put them together in the Hawking Radiation theory, and it shows that there is conservation between these two separate instances for the universe as whole.  Then the law of conservation was saved by putting these two things together into one theory and the total system, of everything in the universe, then obeyed conservation laws.

Then there is no reason why anyone should think that conservation is violated on the surface of a black hole, because he took these two things that didn't add up right to show it in order to keep conservation as a law of physics which remains true even in quantum physics.  The black holes allowed a situation for it to be possible.

Then vice versa if you separate these two concepts and they are not a part of the same system, then that system will "violate conservation".  Then you would only be working with half the system of the total energy involved.

24 minutes ago, Strange said:

This is to vague to answer, really. Virtual particles do not result in the creation of real photons.

Then they should have never been detected, and we shouldn't be here talking about them.  Virtual particles just have different values for their mass, and they are theorized particles used to explain interactions that can't be observed with other interactions.  They still can form "real particles".  It just means that it is part of the explanation as to why they see the behavior in other particles that are detected.

 

30 minutes ago, Strange said:

A matter particle and an antimatter particle can annihilate to create two photons. In that case energy is conserved because the mass of the particles is the same as the energy of the photons. This has nothing to do with black holes.

Yes, it would be conserved after their creation, but the two particles come from nothing, nowhere, period.  Those particles coming from nothing and it has nothing to do with the development of the theories on black holes.  These particles coming out of nowhere was completely discovered by particle accelerators.  

Basically, you just said something similar to having two coins pop into existence out of nowhere, then conservation laws hold true, because they obey the laws of physics perfectly after that event occurs.

35 minutes ago, Strange said:

There is a suggestion (hypothesis) that a quantum fluctuation could have triggered the creation of the Big Bang. In that model, the energy of the universe comes from the collapse of a "false vacuum".

  A quantum fluctuation is a loose term to describe random particle pair creation.  It is the only thing discovered in physics where stuff comes from nowhere, so people tried to pin it on starting the Big Bang.  In order for the Big Bang to start, something would have had to have popped out of nowhere into existence.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I am saying there is a lack of conservation from random particle pairs, and there is a lack of conservation for black holes. 

Neither of these is true. 

And, given MigL’s post, can you explain what exactly you mean by “random particle pairs”?

6 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Then they should have never been detected, and we shouldn't be here talking about them. 

Virtual particles are part of quantum theory and have various measurable effects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle#Manifestations

9 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Yes, it would be conserved after their creation, but the two particles come from nothing, nowhere, period. 

I was not talking about particles coming from nothing, that is why I said “real particles”. Real particles annihilate to create photons. Virtual particles do not. 

 

[Conjurer]

 

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Neither of these is true. 

That was taken completely out of context.  Did you even bother reading my whole explanation?

 

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

And, given MigL’s post, can you explain what exactly you mean by “random particle pairs”?

I am talking about the instance two charged particles pop into existence as a particle and antiparticle that then soon annihilate each other which is detectable as seen as a photon. 

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Virtual particles are part of quantum theory and have various measurable effects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle#Manifestations

One person just said that they cannot be detected directly from not lasting long enough, and another person just said that they cannot create a particle that can be detected.  If I were to assume both of these statements are true, then they wouldn't be able to be detected by any means whatsoever.  We should not even know they exist.  How could both of these statements possibly be true?  They would have had to have been detected in some sort of fashion.

 

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

I was not talking about particles coming from nothing, that is why I said “real particles”. Real particles annihilate to create photons. Virtual particles do not. 

That would explain a lot about why you don't think talking about conservation is correct when dealing with these kinds of particles.  If they can't be detected directly, then their existence would have just been assumed by using Funnymen Diagrams.  They wouldn't just say that a photon just pops into existence by itself.  I think it is questionable that they are even virtual particles, although; I have heard other people mention this in different forums.

Then is conservation laws not violated, because two particles that don't exist that don't create anything was discovered somehow?  How was that discovery made?

[iNow]

58 minutes ago, MigL said:

 

I may be re-evaluating my 'fit' on this forum ( politics in particular ),

 

[Off-topic] I very much welcome and appreciate views contrary to my own, with the caveat that they be well supported and don’t suffer from fallacies. Hope you’ll stay and help reduce any potential echo in our rhetorical chamber. [/off topic ]

[beecee]

10 hours ago, Janus said:

Then they should have never been detected, and we shouldn't be here talking about them.  Virtual particles just have different values for their mass, and they are theorized particles used to explain interactions that can't be observed with other interactions.  They still can form "real particles".  It just means that it is part of the explanation as to why they see the behavior in other particles that are detected.

I'm sure we do have experiments that detect them...The Casimir effect? 

Quote

A quantum fluctuation is a loose term to describe random particle pair creation.  It is the only thing discovered in physics where stuff comes from nowhere, so people tried to pin it on starting the Big Bang.  In order for the Big Bang to start, something would have had to have popped out of nowhere into existence.

While certainly speculative, it is reasonable to contemplate and can explain a lot....see...https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

In the meantime, I for one am learning from this thread, despite your apparent confusion and denial......

I also found the following interesting and you may also......

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-proof-that-virtual-particles-actually-exist

Those “ripples” in a quantum field that are not considered particles…and are very complex objects. Understanding them requires some study and a lot of quantum math. Mostly, however (to answer your question ) their presence is required by quantum theory. Quantum theory has proven to be astonishingly correct and extremely valuable. Proof?? Without them, particles and fields would not operate in the manner that we observe.

The “momentary’ existence of particle pairs (of opposite energy) that “pop-up” from quantum space. This is allowed by quantum theory; they pop into existence, and vanish very quickly by canceling out each other’s energy. While this sounds more outlandish than Nr. 1, above…we actually have experiments that show the fleeting effect of these ‘below the threshold’ particles. These particles are a lot easier to understand by lay persons.

The “Casimir” effect will show the presence of these virtual particles (nr. 2, above). Hendrik Casimir (a Dutch Physicist), in 1948 predicted that forces deriving from a local area of quantum space should be observable. In 1997 the effect was tested in a lab, using two neutral metal plates, situated only nanometres from each other.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

again from Quora.....

They are quantum vacuum fluctuations. There is an energy-time uncertainty relation that allows energy to vary for short times. The shorter the time the bigger the energy fluctuation can be. Since they go away again before there has been time to directly observe them, they are referred to as virtual.

But their effects can be indirectly observed. Quantum field calculations of interactions do not get the right values without including contributions from virtual particles. The Casimir effect is an experiment that reduces the allowed spectrum of field modes in a region of space, reducing the vacuum energy relative to the exterior, and that makes a measurable force. A background field can polarize the vacuum due to the presence of things like electron-positron pairs and the back reaction on the background field can be measured. The Lamb Shift in the spectrum of the hydrogen atom is due to the interaction between the electron of that atom and virtual electron-positron pairs. To get the correct value of the van der Waals force, you need to include the Casimir effect between two atoms. Much of the near field of radio antennas is due to virtual photons. And finally, if you create a big enough voltage in empty space, you can promote virtual particles to reality, sometimes called electric breakdown of the vacuum.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

and this answer 

Allan Steinhardt, PhD, Author "Radar in the Quantum Limit",Formerly DARPA's Chief Scientist,Fellow

Updated Feb 22, 2017

Their existence is mandated by logic once (or if) you accept the uncertainty principle. Why?

Right! If you declare with certainty that a portion ( closed volume ) of space is free of thingies you have violated uncertainty. Likewise insisting that “free” energy cannot appear out of the void (momentarily) is a violation of the uncertainty principle.

Of course (Heisenburg) uncertainty is an immediate consequence of Shroedinger’s equation.

No other mathematical physical law has been tested and verified as much as his.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

and this for your perusal.....

https://www.quora.com/If-electrons-protons-and-atoms-as-a-whole-can-pop-in-and-out-of-existence-why-cant-molecules-and-living-things-do-the-same-since-they-are-made-of-these-particles/answer/Allan-Steinhardt

Another.......

https://www.quora.com/Are-quantum-fluctuations-inherently-random-Wouldnt-that-imply-that-the-amount-of-information-in-a-closed-region-of-space-is-always-increasing/answer/Allan-Steinhardt

 

I hope that alleviates some confusion. It has certainly boosted my knowledge of this fascinating aspect of quantum mechanics.

[Conjurer]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Those “ripples” in a quantum field that are not considered particles…and are very complex objects. Understanding them requires some study and a lot of quantum math. Mostly, however (to answer your question ) their presence is required by quantum theory. Quantum theory has proven to be astonishingly correct and extremely valuable. Proof?? Without them, particles and fields would not operate in the manner that we observe.

The “momentary’ existence of particle pairs (of opposite energy) that “pop-up” from quantum space. This is allowed by quantum theory; they pop into existence, and vanish very quickly by canceling out each other’s energy. While this sounds more outlandish than Nr. 1, above…we actually have experiments that show the fleeting effect of these ‘below the threshold’ particles. These particles are a lot easier to understand by lay persons.

The momentary particle pairs really are not necessary in quantum field theory.  They are not part of the collision produced in a particle accelerator.  They are more like background noise, and they can be detected even when there is no collision going on, so there energy isn't even really considered as part of the reaction.  Those momentary particles are the ones that are considered in Hawking Radiation.  I think you guys are confusing that with virtual particles that are actually involved in the interaction of the collision.

I just understood it as being a part of the quantum weirdness in quantum mechanics, and someone would have to accept that as such.  No other classical physical law can apply to the quantum world, and I don't see why it is necessary to claim a classic law holds in this regime when there is evidence to the contrary.

Who knows really?  Light could just be leaking in or light could just be tunneling into the reactor after all...  Everything a particle reactor detects is just an interpretation of the light produced in the collision.  It is the only object we have technology for to interact with to show us that something is there.  If it doesn't make light, then the particle detector will never see it.  It would never have to be even considered.

 

Edited November 6, 2018 by Conjurer

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Who knows really? 

You have been given many answers so far, along with reputable opinions, and in return have offered only, "could" "perhaps", "maybe" "but ifs" etc etc.

I suggest you approach the answers already given and the explanations and links more even handed, and apply them to your errors in thinking. 

[Conjurer]

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

You have been given many answers so far, along with reputable opinions, and in return have offered only, "could" "perhaps", "maybe" "but ifs" etc etc.

I suggest you approach the answers already given and the explanations and links more even handed, and apply them to your errors in thinking. 

So when the questions start getting difficult, science has to just come to a halt then?  I considered what you guys said.  Then it wasn't able to register into my brain correctly, since no one seemed to want to answer my questions from assuming you are correct.  

All I got was, undetectable particles annihilate into nothing.  Then how did this even come to be a thing to begin with?  How does this situation even contain energy which has to be conserved when nothing produces nothing? 

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Conjurer said:

So when the questions start getting difficult, science has to just come to a halt then? 

Science does not know everything, and of course the other side of the coin, is that certain individuals are not interested in certain answers, that may deflate their prior agenda.

Quote

 

I considered what you guys said.  Then it wasn't able to register into my brain correctly, since no one seemed to want to answer my questions from assuming you are correct.  

All I got was, undetectable particles annihilate into nothing.  Then how did this even come to be a thing to begin with?  How does this situation even contain energy which has to be conserved when nothing produces nothing? 

 

[1]Virtual particles are not real...for the many reasons already stated. [2] Still we do have evidence for their fleeting appearances, the Casimir Effect for one. [3] What makes a quantum fluctuation possibly grow in volume and bring forth the universe we are familiar with is as yet unknown. Other then the universe being possibly infinite with no beginning, they really are the only two answers available to us.

 

Edited November 6, 2018 by beecee

[Strange]

9 hours ago, Conjurer said:

am talking about the instance two charged particles pop into existence as a particle and antiparticle that then soon annihilate each other which is detectable as seen as a photon. 

Virtual particle pairs do not result in the emission of a photon. They appear and just disappear - no net change in energy.

9 hours ago, Conjurer said:

One person just said that they cannot be detected directly from not lasting long enough, and another person just said that they cannot create a particle that can be detected.  If I were to assume both of these statements are true, then they wouldn't be able to be detected by any means whatsoever.  We should not even know they exist.  How could both of these statements possibly be true?  They would have had to have been detected in some sort of fashion.

Did you even read the linked explanation of the effects that virtual particles cause? None of them are the direct observation of virtual particles. None of them involve the emission of photons.

9 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Then is conservation laws not violated, because two particles that don't exist that don't create anything was discovered somehow?  How was that discovery made?

Read the articles provided.

8 hours ago, Conjurer said:

The momentary particle pairs really are not necessary in quantum field theory. 

Yes they are. They are an essential consequence of the quantisation of fields.

8 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Those momentary particles are the ones that are considered in Hawking Radiation.  I think you guys are confusing that with virtual particles that are actually involved in the interaction of the collision.

These are two different examples of virtual particles.

8 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Who knows really?

Science know a lot. Based on theory and evidence. Not just making stuff up as you seem to do.

8 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Everything a particle reactor detects is just an interpretation of the light produced in the collision.  It is the only object we have technology for to interact with to show us that something is there.  If it doesn't make light, then the particle detector will never see it.  It would never have to be even considered.

This is not true. There are many ways of detecting particles. Very few of them depend on detecting light.

5 hours ago, Conjurer said:

All I got was, undetectable particles annihilate into nothing.  Then how did this even come to be a thing to begin with?

It came to be a thing because, firstly, it is what is predicted by theory. And, secondly, the predictions of theory have been tested by experiment and confirmed. 

That is how science works.

5 hours ago, Conjurer said:

How does this situation even contain energy which has to be conserved when nothing produces nothing? 

Because, in quantised systems, the lowest possible energy (when there is nothing there; called the "vacuum energy") is not quite zero. So there is always a small amount of energy which can be "borrowed" for a short time to create virtual particle pairs. The more massive the particles, the less time they are allowed exist for (because of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle).

[Janus]

14 hours ago, beecee said:

On 11/5/2018 at 7:33 AM, Janus said:

Then they should have never been detected, and we shouldn't be here talking about them.  Virtual particles just have different values for their mass, and they are theorized particles used to explain interactions that can't be observed with other interactions.  They still can form "real particles".  It just means that it is part of the explanation as to why they see the behavior in other particles that are detected.

 

Quote

A quantum fluctuation is a loose term to describe random particle pair creation.  It is the only thing discovered in physics where stuff comes from nowhere, so people tried to pin it on starting the Big Bang.  In order for the Big Bang to start, something would have had to have popped out of nowhere into existence.

 

Probably just a screw-up using the quote system, but neither of these are quotes of statements made by me.