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

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Janus said:

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

My apologies Janus if I have somehow screwed up with the quote function.

[Conjurer]

11 hours ago, Strange said:

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

You definitely sound like someone that believes this is true.  It makes you difficult for me to trust as a source of information, because it just seems like a personal attack of you picking apart everything I say from me talking about things you don't know that much about.  Then you will just take a position against me with sources of unreliable information, and you would prefer that instead my point that I am making.

You still haven't addressed the question of how this allows random particle pairs to have been discovered in the first place by being able to be detected by some fashion.  From what you have told me, I still got, OE=-0E+0E=0E.  You have obviously been misinformed somewhere, and you are not willing to accept it.  Some amount of energy would have had to have been detected at some point in order for it to have actually been seen to ever happen.

Am I making up that this was actually ever a discovery that was ever made by detecting "something"?

[beecee]

17 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

You definitely sound like someone that believes this is true.  It makes you difficult for me to trust as a source of information, because it just seems like a personal attack of you picking apart everything I say from me talking about things you don't know that much about.  Then you will just take a position against me with sources of unreliable information, and you would prefer that instead my point that I am making.

You still haven't addressed the question of how this allows random particle pairs to have been discovered in the first place by being able to be detected by some fashion.  From what you have told me, I still got, OE=-0E+0E=0E.  You have obviously been misinformed somewhere, and you are not willing to accept it.  Some amount of energy would have had to have been detected at some point in order for it to have actually been seen to ever happen.

Am I making up that this was actually ever a discovery that was ever made by detecting "something"?

You are being obtuse and pissing into the wind conjurer. How do you explain the general acceptance of mainstream quantum theory as against your own unsupported scenarios? The "discovery" as you put it was first theorised by Richard Feynman if I am not mistaken....and done to account for many other observations. There discovery has though been verified since then...the Casimir Effect being one. So apparently its about time you sit down and consider your own misinformation, and that of the many repuatble links I and others have given.

Edited November 6, 2018 by beecee

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

You still haven't addressed the question of how this allows random particle pairs to have been discovered in the first place by being able to be detected by some fashion. 

They were not "discovered". They are part of quantum theory. Quantum theory makes testable predictions. Those predictions are tested in experiments. The results are consistent with the predictions, thus confirming the theory. That is how science works.

Again, that recap of ways in which the effects of virtual particles have been confirmed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle#Manifestations

19 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Am I making up that this was actually ever a discovery that was ever made by detecting "something"?

You are certainly mistaken about it being a discovery (in the normal sense of that word - unless you mean "discovered in the theory").

[Conjurer]

Just now, Strange said:

They were not "discovered".

That is how science works.

Then it appears that I have backed you into a corner, and you are willing to make up your own science to just make yourself sound correct to everyone else in a science forum.

I really think it is a shame that online bullying is preventing any real work in modern science from being able to be done by this form of harassment.  I think you are really missing the point, and I am NOT trying to use this example as a tool to discredit quantum theory.  You may have encountered a lot of people like that before, but you need to learn to get over it.  

You are basically allowing me to bring this subject area into pseudoscience now by showing you how you are contradicting yourself and you not being able to identify an answer which assumes you were always correct.

[beecee]

55 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Then it appears that I have backed you into a corner, and you are willing to make up your own science to just make yourself sound correct to everyone else in a science forum.

Pretentious bravado? The facts re the quantum theory and discovery are history and correct...I suggest it is you in the corner.

https://www.quora.com/How-were-virtual-particles-discovered-Who-discovered-them-What-is-proof-that-they-exist-Is-the-proof-theory-or-can-the-effects-of-virtual-particles-be-observed-or-tested-on-Earth

Q: How were virtual particles discovered? Who discovered them? What is proof that they exist? Is the proof theory, or can the effects of virtual particles be observed or tested on Earth?

 

A; Eli Pasternak, MsEE BsEE, 28 patents, EM fields, comm theory, quantum mechanics, relativity

"Virtual particles have been introduced with the development of quantum field theories, especially Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) in the 50's which Richard Feynman was a main contributor. While several physicists worked on this theory it was Feynman who introduced the famous diagrams that show virtual particles in various modes of interaction. Those Feynman diagrams assign virtual particles (in QED these were electrons, positrons and photons) to what would otherwise be just abstract expressions of the first few terms from an infinite series that describe the interaction. By being virtual these particles cannot be observed directly and one can argue that they don't even exist, yet Feynman diagrams are a convenient way to predict the behavior of a quantum system accurately and their effects can be verified experimentally.

The first effect to be confirmed was the Lamb shift that predicted minute change in the electron's orbital energy in the hydrogen atom by interaction with virtual particles in the vacuum.

The electron magneton, i.e. its magnetic moment, could not be calculated precisely using older theories but these virtual particles predict this value very accurately.

There is no high energy particle experiment today that can be explained without the standard model which involves virtual particles of all known elementary particles.

Do virtual particles exist? This a matter of interpretation. One can argue that these are just illustrations of a mathematical formalism, or one can take the other extreme, arguing that there are no real particles - each "real" particle is a quantum foam consisting of a sea of virtual particles whose average effect is what we physically call "an observable  particle".

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

Obviously once again, no matter who or what anyone will say to you, or link to, your ego will prevent you accepting any answer contrary to what you imagine.

Let's try and make this as simple as possible....

[1] Virtual particles were not discovered....as analogous to the discovery of gravitational waves for example. They are a prediction and tool of the quantum theory as first proposed by Richard Feynman. The experiments conducted so far, including the Casimir Effect, support their  application. Hawking Radiation is also an effect that requires virtual particle pairs, as do other areas of quantum theory.

 

Now are you going to accept that, or continue playing victim? If you disagree [and at this stage, I'm not really sure what you agree or disagree with, and are just being contrary to add some semblance of logic to the position you are in and the corner you have been backed into] then please add some authoritive link from a expert in the field of quantum theory, to support whatever it is you are trying to claim.

[Conjurer]

20 minutes ago, beecee said:

By being virtual these particles cannot be observed directly and one can argue that they don't even exist, yet Feynman diagrams are a convenient way to predict the behavior of a quantum system accurately and their effects can be verified experimentally.

Yes, virtual particles PREDICT the behavior of a quantum system, so that basically means that they have values that are imposed on other "real" particles.  They can combine into real particles.

I say "real", because the Standard Model doesn't even discern from which particles are actually real or physical.  For instance, a quark is only known by the quark-screw pattern light makes when one is broken apart.  Then they have never actually got anything to actually check if it is a physical object or not, even though it is often considered to be one.

One old rule of quantum mechanics is that photons can only come from two other charged particles, but this didn't happen when the Higgs Boson was discovered.  Then the particle pair would just be assumed to exist, even though it may be possible that they don't.  They could have just been put in to fit this rule using Feynman diagrams, which means it could be possible that just photons are coming into existence. 

That would be completely for another thread, but I don't think it matters to talk about it because no one even believes there was ever a photon to be detected in the first place.  Then it is a mute point.  According to Feynman, it would have been impossible for a photon to even come into existence from nowhere without coming from a pair of charged particles.  Like I said, this rule seemed to be broken by the Higgs Boson, and I am not sure how it has been resolved lately.    

Edited November 7, 2018 by Conjurer

[beecee]

4 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Yes, virtual particles PREDICT the behavior of a quantum system, so that basically means that they have values that are imposed on other "real" particles.  They can combine into real particles.

I say "real", because the Standard Model doesn't even discern from which particles are actually real or physical.  For instance, a quark is only known by the quark-screw pattern light makes when one is broken apart.  Then they have never actually got anything to actually check if it is a physical object or not, even though it is often considered to be one.

One old rule of quantum mechanics is that photons can only come from two other charged particles, but this didn't happen when the Higgs Boson was discovered.  Then the particle pair would just be assumed to exist, even though it may be possible that they don't.  They could have just been put in to fit this rule using Feynman diagrams, which means it could be possible that just photons are coming into existence. 

That would be completely for another thread, but I don't think it matters to talk about it because no one even believes there was ever a photon to be detected in the first place.  Then it is a mute point.  According to Feynman, it would have been impossible for a photon to even come into existence from nowhere without coming from a pair of charged particles.  Like I said, this rule seemed to be broken by the Higgs Boson, and I am not sure how it has been resolved lately.    

Again, 

Let's try and make this as simple as possible....

[1] Virtual particles were not discovered....as analogous to the discovery of gravitational waves for example. They are a prediction and tool of the quantum theory as first proposed by Richard Feynman. The experiments conducted so far, including the Casimir Effect, support their  application. Hawking Radiation is also an effect that requires virtual particle pairs, as do other areas of quantum theory.

If you have any evidence why any of that or the links I have given are wrong, then its about time you presented it.

Edited November 7, 2018 by beecee

[Conjurer]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

Let's try and make this as simple as possible....

[1] Virtual particles were not discovered....as analogous to the discovery of gravitational waves for example. 

If you have any evidence why any of that is wrong, then its about time you presented it.

I never said virtual particles were discovered, and gravitational waves have actually been discovered.  

The affects of them are only seen indirectly, and they are only theorized to exist to influence and create other real particles that are observed.

I don't see why you seem to have been under the impression that I have been saying otherwise.  

I just completely changed my position on it from what I said earlier.  It is just as possible for random particle pairs to actually be an undiscovered Higgs-like boson.  The ability of the Higgs boson, to emit photons, was not discovered yet at the time these virtual particles were even believed to exist. 

It is the same way they discover particles in the first place, in this type of situation.  They see light coming from something, and they make a framework to describe it as other particles, virtual or real.  Obviously, whatever they detected to be random particle pairs hasn't been completely explained yet, from the apparent violation of conservation of energy.  A Higgs-like boson could allow for conservation to be maintained.

[Strange]

7 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Yes, virtual particles PREDICT the behavior of a quantum system, so that basically means that they have values that are imposed on other "real" particles.  They can combine into real particles.

Virtual particles cannot combine to form real particles. 

7 hours ago, Conjurer said:

I say "real", because the Standard Model doesn't even discern from which particles are actually real or physical.  For instance, a quark is only known by the quark-screw pattern light makes when one is broken apart.  Then they have never actually got anything to actually check if it is a physical object or not, even though it is often considered to be one.

This is just nonsense. What is a “quark screw”? You can’t break quarks apart. Quarks are just as real and physical as any other fundamental particle. 

7 hours ago, Conjurer said:

One old rule of quantum mechanics is that photons can only come from two other charged particles, but this didn't happen when the Higgs Boson was discovered. 

Photons can come from many sources. And how is the Higgs boson relevant? (it isn’t a charged particle anyway)

2 hours ago, Conjurer said:

I never said virtual particles were discovered, and gravitational waves have actually been discovered.  

The affects of them are only seen indirectly, and they are only theorized to exist to influence and create other real particles that are observed.

I don't see why you seem to have been under the impression that I have been saying otherwise.  

Anyone can look back at your previous posts and see that you said otherwise. 

2 hours ago, Conjurer said:

It is the same way they discover particles in the first place, in this type of situation.  They see light coming from something

Not all particles are found because of light being emitted. 

2 hours ago, Conjurer said:

The ability of the Higgs boson, to emit photons, was not discovered yet at the time these virtual particles were even believed to exist. 

Look at the table at the start of this page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

It lists the particles that the Higgs decays into. It includes photons. And they have been detected. 

2 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Obviously, whatever they detected to be random particle pairs hasn't been completely explained yet, from the apparent violation of conservation of energy. 

No violation of energy conservation has been observed. 

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Conjurer said:

I never said virtual particles were discovered, and gravitational waves have actually been discovered.  

You said....."You still haven't addressed the question of how this allows random particle pairs to have been discovered in the first place by being able to be detected by some fashion."  Which was answered in the next two posts.....

 

9 hours ago, beecee said:

 How do you explain the general acceptance of mainstream quantum theory as against your own unsupported scenarios? The "discovery" as you put it was first theorised by Richard Feynman if I am not mistaken....and done to account for many other observations. There discovery has though been verified since then...the Casimir Effect being one. So apparently its about time you sit down and consider your own misinformation, and that of the many repuatble links I and others have given.

and even more precisely here in the next post.....

9 hours ago, Strange said:

They were not "discovered". They are part of quantum theory. Quantum theory makes testable predictions. Those predictions are tested in experiments. The results are consistent with the predictions, thus confirming the theory. That is how science works.

Quote

The affects of them are only seen indirectly, and they are only theorized to exist to influence and create other real particles that are observed.

They are as much part and parcel of quantum theory, as spacetime is part of GR.

Quote

I don't see why you seem to have been under the impression that I have been saying otherwise.  

See my above reply.....

Quote

I just completely changed my position on it from what I said earlier.  It is just as possible for random particle pairs to actually be an undiscovered Higgs-like boson.  The ability of the Higgs boson, to emit photons, was not discovered yet at the time these virtual particles were even believed to exist. 

I cannot really comment on that and I doubt you can either with any certainty or expertise.

Quote

It is the same way they discover particles in the first place, in this type of situation.  They see light coming from something, and they make a framework to describe it as other particles, virtual or real.  Obviously, whatever they detected to be random particle pairs hasn't been completely explained yet, from the apparent violation of conservation of energy.  A Higgs-like boson could allow for conservation to be maintained.

Such hypothesising is totally unsupported.

Edited November 7, 2018 by beecee

[swansont]

12 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Then it appears that I have backed you into a corner, and you are willing to make up your own science to just make yourself sound correct to everyone else in a science forum.

He's not making it up; it is actually part of physics, and you are merely unaware of it. 

12 hours ago, Conjurer said:

I really think it is a shame that online bullying is preventing any real work in modern science from being able to be done by this form of harassment.  I think you are really missing the point, and I am NOT trying to use this example as a tool to discredit quantum theory.  You may have encountered a lot of people like that before, but you need to learn to get over it.  

This is neither bullying nor harassment, and as you are obviously not a physicist, it is preventing nothing from being done.

12 hours ago, Conjurer said:

You are basically allowing me to bring this subject area into pseudoscience now by showing you how you are contradicting yourself and you not being able to identify an answer which assumes you were always correct.

If you weren't so confident about things you don't know, you might actually be learning something.

[Conjurer]

17 hours ago, Strange said:

Virtual particles cannot combine to form real particles. 

Then why are there virtual particles?  Why do you think they are claimed to exist from scientific experimentation?  What possible use do you think they can have?  How do you think they could even be relevant to anything?  Do believe they all just sit together in their own separate system independent of everything and anything?  What possible influence do you think a virtual particle could ever have?

 

17 hours ago, Strange said:

This is just nonsense. What is a “quark screw”? You can’t break quarks apart. Quarks are just as real and physical as any other fundamental particle. 

 A quark screw is a device used to open a wine bottle.  How could we even know what is inside of a quark then or the fundamental forces that govern it then?  Quarks do not even remain stable once a baryon is broken apart...  How am I supposed to believe anything you say you know about quantum physics after this comment?

 

17 hours ago, Strange said:

Photons can come from many sources. And how is the Higgs boson relevant? (it isn’t a charged particle anyway)

It is explained in Sean Carroll's new book, Particle at the End of the Universe.

17 hours ago, Strange said:

Anyone can look back at your previous posts and see that you said otherwise. 

Is English not your first language?

17 hours ago, Strange said:

Not all particles are found because of light being emitted. 

Others are found indirectly, but the emission of light is the final outcome in which all particles are calculated to exist in the nuclear reaction.  Random particle pairs are not included in the calculations involved in the nuclear reaction, so their added energy is just ignored.  Then it can be ignored in all other parts of quantum physics.  It is like background noise that is filtered out.

17 hours ago, Strange said:

Look at the table at the start of this page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

It lists the particles that the Higgs decays into. It includes photons. And they have been detected. 

This was my point exactly!  It looks like we agreed on something.  Why are you even mentioning this?  Did you make the mistake of thinking I was wrong about this when you agree with it?

17 hours ago, Strange said:

No violation of energy conservation has been observed. 

Why do you think Stephan Hawking even used random particle pairs to show conservation of information for black holes even to begin with?

13 hours ago, swansont said:

He's not making it up; it is actually part of physics, and you are merely unaware of it. 

Then why would they think a random particle pair collision occurred to begin with, and it was not a unicorn and a faerie smashed together to make pixie dust?    

Edited November 8, 2018 by Conjurer

[beecee]

6 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Then why are there virtual particles?  Why do you think they are claimed to exist from scientific experimentation?  What possible use do you think they can have?  How do you think they could even be relevant to anything?  Do believe they all just sit together in their own separate system independent of everything and anything?  What possible influence do you think a virtual particle could ever have?

 

 A quark screw is a device used to open a wine bottle.  How could we even know what is inside of a quark then or the fundamental forces that govern it then?  Quarks do not even remain stable once a baryon is broken apart...  How am I supposed to believe anything you say you know about quantum physics after this comment?

 

It is explained in Sean Carroll's new book, Particle at the End of the Universe.

Is English not your first language?

Others are found indirectly, but the emission of light is the final outcome in which all particles are calculated to exist in the nuclear reaction.  Random particle pairs are not included in the calculations involved in the nuclear reaction, so their added energy is just ignored.  Then it can be ignored in all other parts of quantum physics.  It is like background noise that is filtered out.

This was my point exactly!  It looks like we agreed on something.  Why are you even mentioning this?  Did you make the mistake of thinking I was wrong about this when you agree with it?

Why do you think Stephan Hawking even used random particle pairs to show conservation of information for black holes even to begin with?

Then why would they think a random particle pair collision occurred to begin with, and it was not a unicorn and a faerie smashed together to make pixie dust?    

Reading your continued obtuseness, and denials and silly accusations, its rather obvious you are not here to learn. Everyone of your questions have been answered, and you will find all your answers also here.......https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

 

[Strange]

As you obviously don't consider me a reliable source of information, I will provide reliable references to answer your questions.

6 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Then why are there virtual particles?  

They are a result of the quantisation of wave functions and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle:

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

6 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Why do you think they are claimed to exist from scientific experimentation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle#Manifestations

6 hours ago, Conjurer said:

A quark screw is a device used to open a wine bottle.

That would be a corkscrew, I believe.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corkscrew

6 hours ago, Conjurer said:

How could we even know what is inside of a quark then or the fundamental forces that govern it then? 

There is nothing inside quarks (as far as we know) they are fundamental particles (along with electrons, photons, muons, etc):

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

We know about their behaviour from theory and the experiments that confirm that theory. (You know: science)

6 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Others are found indirectly, but the emission of light is the final outcome in which all particles are calculated to exist in the nuclear reaction. 

Not necessarily true. For example, neutrinos were first detected by radiochemical methods; the conversion fo chlorine atoms to argon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestake_experiment

Detectors around the LHC use a variety of detectors that measure the properties of particles. Not all them use light: https://home.cern/science/experiments/how-detector-works

Quote

Random particle pairs are not included in the calculations involved in the nuclear reaction, so their added energy is just ignored.  

Virtual particles are involved in pretty much all calculations. You have mentioned Feynman diagrams a few times, so here:

" In QFT, rather than a Coulomb force described by a potential, the interaction corresponds to an exchange of virtual photons, which, in turn, propagate in space-time accompanied by virtual electron-positron pairs (figure 1(c))."

From: https://cerncourier.com/fifty-years-of-the-renormalization-group/

See the circular paths and the wiggly lines between the electrons? Virtual particles.

And they don't add any energy (because of energy conservation, remember)

7 hours ago, Conjurer said:

On 07/11/2018 at 8:50 AM, Strange said:

Look at the table at the start of this page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

It lists the particles that the Higgs decays into. It includes photons. And they have been detected. 

This was my point exactly!  It looks like we agreed on something.  Why are you even mentioning this?  Did you make the mistake of thinking I was wrong about this when you agree with it?

But you said:

On 07/11/2018 at 6:04 AM, Conjurer said:

The ability of the Higgs boson, to emit photons, was not discovered yet at the time these virtual particles were even believed to exist. 

Where you seem to be saying that there are no photons associated with the Higgs (there are: the decay products) and that the photons had not been detected (they have).

But maybe I misunderstood what you were saying.

7 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Why do you think Stephan Hawking even used random particle pairs to show conservation of information for black holes even to begin with?

Because he was concerned that black holes could violate conservation of information.

INFORMATION. Not energy. No one has ever said that black holes violate conservation of energy.

7 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Then why would they think a random particle pair collision occurred to begin with

Because quantum theory.

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Conjurer said:

 Then why would they think a random particle pair collision occurred to begin with, and it was not a unicorn and a faerie smashed together to make pixie dust?    

Because "they" understand a hell of a lot more about physics than you do, perhaps.

I don't understand the response of getting irked when people tell you some things about physics that you don't know, (and since it's advanced physics, probably have not been exposed to at all). Is this your reaction in class to new material? Getting steamed up at the teacher/professor? 

9 hours ago, Conjurer said:

How could we even know what is inside of a quark then or the fundamental forces that govern it then? 

We do experiments, and develop theories. As far as we can tell, there is nothing "inside" a quark. 

9 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Quarks do not even remain stable once a baryon is broken apart... 

This falls into the "not even wrong" category. Baryons don't get "broken apart" and the issue isn't the stability of the quarks. Quarks can't get separated — they are always combined with at least one other quark (unlike other particles, the binding gets stronger as you pull quarks apart. Eventually you add enough energy to form a quark/antiquark pair, which is known as a meson) Since you can't get a free quark, "not remain(ing) stable" is simply a non-issue.

 

 

[beecee]

18 hours ago, Conjurer said:

 A quark screw is a device used to open a wine bottle.

Whatever you meant by that silly phrase,  belies the fact that if you see the need to discuss/debate science, then the use of properly recognised scientific terminology and definitions is paramount.

Quote

 How could we even know what is inside of a quark then or the fundamental forces that govern it then?

A Quark is fundamental, much as is an Electron, according to our knowledge and observational data at this time.

Quote

Quarks do not even remain stable once a baryon is broken apart... 

 

9 hours ago, swansont said:

This falls into the "not even wrong" category. Baryons don't get "broken apart" and the issue isn't the stability of the quarks. Quarks can't get separated — they are always combined with at least one other quark (unlike other particles, the binding gets stronger as you pull quarks apart. Eventually you add enough energy to form a quark/antiquark pair, which is known as a meson) Since you can't get a free quark, "not remain(ing) stable" is simply a non-issue.

Hi swansont....I was going to answer that with the proviso, only inside a hypothetical Quark star. While I have heard about the issue re the binding energy of quarks getting stronger the further we pull them apart, how would this apply to the hypothetical existence of a quark star?

While "roughly" understanding why Quarks are never seen in isolation, again, how does this fit in with the possible existence of a Quark star?

And of course if we approach the time just after the BB, when our first fundamentals were created from the false vacuum and phase transitions, Quarks did presumably exist in isolation for at least a very short time...is that reasonable?

At this time, my aging befuddled mind is starting to boggle!  Any help appreciated!

 

 

 

 

 

[Conjurer]

17 hours ago, Strange said:

That would be a corkscrew, I believe.

It is a play on words, since they are pronounced the same.

17 hours ago, Strange said:

There is nothing inside quarks (as far as we know) they are fundamental particles (along with electrons, photons, muons, etc):

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

Do you see the spiral corkscrew line coming out of here?  That is a photographic trace of light or a photon coming from a quark that was converted into energy.

17 hours ago, Strange said:

Virtual particles are involved in pretty much all calculations. You have mentioned Feynman diagrams a few times, so here:

" In QFT, rather than a Coulomb force described by a potential, the interaction corresponds to an exchange of virtual photons, which, in turn, propagate in space-time accompanied by virtual electron-positron pairs (figure 1(c))."

From: https://cerncourier.com/fifty-years-of-the-renormalization-group/

See the circular paths and the wiggly lines between the electrons? Virtual particles.

And they don't add any energy (because of energy conservation, remember)

Correct, the virtual particles wouldn't add to the energy of the particles in these diagrams.  The problem is that random particle pairs have no input into their Feynman diagrams.  It would look like two squiggly lines coming out of each other and then coming back to each other, converting into a photon at the end.  Then the input doesn't equal the output of the diagram.  In all these diagrams, all of the inputs and outputs are the same.

17 hours ago, Strange said:

Where you seem to be saying that there are no photons associated with the Higgs (there are: the decay products) and that the photons had not been detected (they have).

But maybe I misunderstood what you were saying.

Photons coming from the Higgs was not associated with each other in HISTORY.  They are now, since the DISCOVERY of them.  Most of my knowledge of the subject comes from reading about the history and their interpretations of it.    

In the time of HISTORY they were discovered, the Higgs would have never been considered a candidate to replace random particle pairs, because the Higgs was thought to be more like pseudoscience by pseudo-scientist. 

17 hours ago, Strange said:

Because he was concerned that black holes could violate conservation of information.

INFORMATION. Not energy. No one has ever said that black holes violate conservation of energy.

I don't think there is no real big difference between conservation of information and conservation of energy, even mathematically.    

17 hours ago, Strange said:

Because quantum theory.

Is that as much as they allow you to get away with saying about it without someone saying it is wrong here?

15 hours ago, swansont said:

I don't understand the response of getting irked when people tell you some things about physics that you don't know, (and since it's advanced physics, probably have not been exposed to at all). Is this your reaction in class to new material? Getting steamed up at the teacher/professor? 

I was the one trying to answer questions and talk about stuff, so I feel more like the teacher that is getting this type of reaction by all these accusations that everything I say is wrong, not the other way around.  I have read some books that even talk about how physicist don't have much of a vocabulary when dealing with this kind of stuff, and that is something they needed.  After reading a bunch of different positions about it in order to gain a logical vocabulary for it myself, it makes them out to be a bunch of evil liars from responses I get on the internet.  It is like nobody just doesn't want that no-matter what is said or done.

I feel mostly distraught instead of angry about it, because it is like I just have to be forced to only be allowed to discuss the most rudimentary and basic concepts of everything.  Then I will never be able to talk about something that is actually interesting about it, since a majority of people can't all agree on the fundamentals.

 

[beecee]

29 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I feel mostly distraught instead of angry about it, because it is like I just have to be forced to only be allowed to discuss the most rudimentary and basic concepts of everything.  

Again excuses instead of confronting the possibility that you are wrong...Have you read any of the links given? Or are you above that? 

Quote

Then I will never be able to talk about something that is actually interesting about it, since a majority of people can't all agree on the fundamentals.

The majority of the people do agree, and there agreement aligns with the quantum knowledge we have at this time. It is you going against the grain and making up unscientific noise as well as definitions.

Reading is great and a good start...Listening is another great art form which you appear to totally lack.

[Conjurer]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Again excuses instead of confronting the possibility that you are wrong...Have you read any of the links given? Or are you above that? 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

The majority of the people do agree, and there agreement aligns with the quantum knowledge we have at this time. It is you going against the grain and making up unscientific noise as well as definitions.

It think it makes a lot more sense that you are going against the grain here, because you cannot accept one of the most written about aspects of quantum mechanics.  To put this in the most practical sense possible, photons are observed to come out of nowhere that are not involved in the particle collision.  The virtual particle pairs are just the best explanation for it so far.  If they are impossible to detect, then they could be coming from anything that particle physics just hasn't been able to explain yet.  You are just doing the world an injustice by trying to say that there has been a way discovered so far to show how these extra photons follow along with conservation.

The problem is that I think the particle physicist that discovered this are smart people, and no one believes them when it comes to this being an exception to the rule.  I don't even think anything else is to be discovered here.  That may be all there is too it, but it is very similar as the same situation every other discovery was made in particle physics. 

You are just preventing people from being able to work on that discovery.  In order to explain something new in quantum physics they have to explain how it allows conservation of energy.  If it was up to me, I would make it a law already that conservation has to be violated there just to screw with peoples heads.

Edited November 9, 2018 by Conjurer

[Strange]

6 hours ago, Conjurer said:

The problem is that random particle pairs have no input into their Feynman diagrams.  It would look like two squiggly lines coming out of each other and then coming back to each other, converting into a photon at the end.  Then the input doesn't equal the output of the diagram.

Please provide some evidence or a reference to show that this happens 

6 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Photons coming from the Higgs was not associated with each other in HISTORY.  They are now, since the DISCOVERY of them. 

When were photons seen from Higgs bosons before the Higgs boson was discovered?

Please provide a reference to support your claim.

6 hours ago, Conjurer said:

In the time of HISTORY they were discovered, the Higgs would have never been considered a candidate to replace random particle pairs, because the Higgs was thought to be more like pseudoscience by pseudo-scientist. 

Pleaser provide some evidence that the Higgs boson has ever been considered to be pseudo science. 

(It has been part of the standard model for more than 40 years)

6 hours ago, Conjurer said:

I don't think there is no real big difference between conservation of information and conservation of energy, even mathematically.  

They are completely different. But feel free to provide a reference that says they are the same thing. 

6 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Is that as much as they allow you to get away with saying about it without someone saying it is wrong here?

I have provided multiple source that explain this. It would be a better use of your time to actually read them instead of making stuff up. 

 

3 hours ago, Conjurer said:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

 

That confirms what we have been telling you. It doesn't support anything you say, such a photons appearing from nowhere and violating energy conservation. 

3 hours ago, Conjurer said:

To put this in the most practical sense possible, photons are observed to come out of nowhere that are not involved in the particle collision. 

Please provide some evidence to support this claim. 

3 hours ago, Conjurer said:

You are just preventing people from being able to work on that discovery. 

This is just a discussion forum. We have no power over the work people do. 

[swansont]

7 hours ago, Conjurer said:

 

Do you see the spiral corkscrew line coming out of here?  That is a photographic trace of light or a photon coming from a quark that was converted into energy.

No. That's a bubble chamber picture. Charged particles have a curved path because there is a magnetic field. The corkscrew is from an electron, which spirals the most because of its low mass. Photons don't leave tracks, as they have no charge.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/History-of-Astroparticle-Physics-and-its-Components-Cirkel-Bartelt/4c33001f78a9c9bc7292b54df6e45416b309fda5/figure/4

7 hours ago, Conjurer said:

I was the one trying to answer questions and talk about stuff, so I feel more like the teacher that is getting this type of reaction by all these accusations that everything I say is wrong, not the other way around.  I have read some books that even talk about how physicist don't have much of a vocabulary when dealing with this kind of stuff, and that is something they needed.  After reading a bunch of different positions about it in order to gain a logical vocabulary for it myself, it makes them out to be a bunch of evil liars from responses I get on the internet.  It is like nobody just doesn't want that no-matter what is said or done.

You have been wrong. The people here who have been answering your questions know what they're talking about. So instead of getting indignant at being corrected, maybe take it as a learning experience. You've (potentially) cleared up some of your misconceptions. Most people in science feel good when that happens. The ones who don't probably don't have the temperament to study science.

(Incidentally, I have a PhD in physics, and I have to think that my degree > your pop-sci books)

7 hours ago, Conjurer said:

I feel mostly distraught instead of angry about it, because it is like I just have to be forced to only be allowed to discuss the most rudimentary and basic concepts of everything.  Then I will never be able to talk about something that is actually interesting about it, since a majority of people can't all agree on the fundamentals.

You need to get a good handle on the basic concepts if you are going to have any hope of understanding advanced topics. 

Such as understanding that a photon is not a charged particle and will not leave a track in a bubble or cloud chamber, to name one recent example.

14 hours ago, beecee said:

 While "roughly" understanding why Quarks are never seen in isolation, again, how does this fit in with the possible existence of a Quark star?

And of course if we approach the time just after the BB, when our first fundamentals were created from the false vacuum and phase transitions, Quarks did presumably exist in isolation for at least a very short time...is that reasonable?

At this time, my aging befuddled mind is starting to boggle!  Any help appreciated!

Any discussion of quark stars should be in a new thread, but the reason quarks are not seen in isolation is color confinement (I think I said asymptotic freedom earlier; that's a different phenomenon) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_confinement

9 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Correct, the virtual particles wouldn't add to the energy of the particles in these diagrams.  The problem is that random particle pairs have no input into their Feynman diagrams.  It would look like two squiggly lines coming out of each other and then coming back to each other, converting into a photon at the end.  Then the input doesn't equal the output of the diagram.  In all these diagrams, all of the inputs and outputs are the same.

You just agreed that they have no net energy. Why would there be a photon at the end?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram#Vacuum_bubbles

"consider the diagram formed by joining all the half-lines of one X to all the half-lines of another X. This diagram is called a vacuum bubble, because it does not link up to any external lines."

(emphasis added)

here's what a one-loop vacuum bubble looks like (it's just a circle)

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Feynman-diagram-representing-the-one-loop-vacuum-bubble-contribution-to-the-effective_fig4_242423238

 

[beecee]

13 hours ago, Conjurer said:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

From your link.......[Q] Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?

Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, provides this answer.

Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.

Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

13 hours ago, Conjurer said:

 The virtual particle pairs are just the best explanation for it so far.  If they are impossible to detect, then they could be coming from anything that particle physics just hasn't been able to explain yet. 

The above is a great example of science...It is indeed about asking questions, as exampled in your link. It is also about recognising the evidence at any one time that validates a particular reasoning and solution...Virtual particles are just that. The best by far solution to quantum theory and convincingly evidenced in many forms, some of which have already been listed. If you doubt the accepted solution, then you need to provide a better one that invalidates the incumbent model or makes predictions over and above that of the incumbent. As I said previously, reading is great and a good start...Listening is then required particularly in a subject in which you [like me] are not essentially fully qualified in. 

As I said previously, I myself, am learning some of the finer points in this rather advanced subject, and I chose to listen as well as asking questions.

[Conjurer]

On 11/9/2018 at 2:25 AM, Strange said:

Please provide some evidence or a reference to show that this happens 

That is the way it is described to happen in pop-physics.  Are you saying that random particle pairs are just two squiggly lines that circle each other with no other particles involved?  How were such particles that can never be detected ever have been seen to exist in order for us to be talking about them now?

On 11/9/2018 at 2:25 AM, Strange said:

When were photons seen from Higgs bosons before the Higgs boson was discovered?

Please provide a reference to support your claim.

I was saying that they were NOT PREDICTED TO BE ABLE TOO come from a Higgs before it was discovered.  Electrodynamics had a rule that said that photons could only come from charged particles, and the Higgs is not a charged particle. 

On 11/9/2018 at 2:25 AM, Strange said:

Pleaser provide some evidence that the Higgs boson has ever been considered to be pseudo science. 

(It has been part of the standard model for more than 40 years)

Let's see, there was quantum loop gravity, the graviton, and many more theories of gravity made up as competitors to the theory that got a lot of attention.  The Higgs Mechanism was one of the most least favored theories to explain this in pop-science.

On 11/9/2018 at 3:57 AM, swansont said:

No. That's a bubble chamber picture. Charged particles have a curved path because there is a magnetic field. The corkscrew is from an electron, which spirals the most because of its low mass. Photons don't leave tracks, as they have no charge.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/History-of-Astroparticle-Physics-and-its-Components-Cirkel-Bartelt/4c33001f78a9c9bc7292b54df6e45416b309fda5/figure/4

Particle accelerators don't even use bubble chambers.  They used plates that gave these same kinds of pictures unless it has been replaced by some newer technology.  I see the e- on the picture now, so they are electrons.  Then the electrons are able to emit light which then leaves the tracks.

Here they call them nuclear emulsion plates.

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

 

On 11/9/2018 at 3:57 AM, swansont said:

(Incidentally, I have a PhD in physics, and I have to think that my degree > your pop-sci books)

Anyone who writes any books has to look into the names and dates of people that actually discovered it, and they have to get their references first hand. I think you would actually be disappointing if you ever read one.  Most of all they talk about ends up being more like a history lesson of strange things discovered.  The pop-science part is just the amazingly unbelievable science that was discovered.  I think it is a shame this kind of information is only published in these books, and the information isn't put on the internet from them.

 

On 11/9/2018 at 3:57 AM, swansont said:

You just agreed that they have no net energy. Why would there be a photon at the end?

There would be a photon on the end, because that is the entire reason why they thought there were random particle pairs even to begin with.  A particle accelerator can have everything turned off but the detector, and they will see about one photon appear every cubic meter a second.

Also, any particle/anti-particle collision produces a photon...  

If you did a vertical line test across those Feynman Diagrams, the total energy of each line should be the same.  It should be the same when they are real particles, and then it should be the same when they are virtual particles (I am not even sure if I fully agree with my reference of Gordon Kane on this point).  Then random particle pairs would not pass this vertical line test.  

A vertical line before the random particle pairs would have no energy, because there is nothing there.  Then a vertical line after that would show energy, since there are virtual particles and then a photon.

 

Edited November 11, 2018 by Conjurer

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Conjurer said:

That is the way it is described to happen in pop-physics.  Are you saying that random particle pairs are just two squiggly lines that circle each other with no other particles involved?  How were such particles that can never be detected ever have been seen to exist in order for us to be talking about them now?

The squiggly lines are simply representations....The virtual particles are evidenced through experiments and observation, as you have been told numerous times....the Casimir effect for one. Do you doubt a magnetic field exists? All you can see as with virtual particles is the effects it causes. Or getting back to one of your own links which tells you the way it probably is......https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

2 hours ago, Conjurer said:

 The pop-science part is just the amazingly unbelievable science that was discovered.  I think it is a shame this kind of information is only published in these books, and the information isn't put on the internet from them.

Sometimes people that are searching for more in depth information on a subject, need to read more reputable research and listen to more reputable people. The Higgs mechanism was also hypothesised in the early sixties and fairly well publicised as well. I remember a book called "The God Particle" by Leon Lederman.