Jump to content

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


beecee

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Conjurer said:

That is the way it is described to happen in pop-physics. 

That is not a reference. I have never seen a pop-physics explanation that says that. So ...

Please provide a reference which says that virtual particles create a photon and violate energy conservation.

3 hours ago, Conjurer said:

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?

Sigh. This has been explained multiple times.

1. They were predicted by theory:

2. This was confirmed by experiment and observation:

If you are not prepared to read the explanations or say why they are unsatisfactory, then this is rather pointless.

3 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Electrodynamics had a rule that said that photons could only come from charged particles, and the Higgs is not a charged particle. 

Citation needed.

Once the mass of the Higss was known, the decay products were predicted:

"Calculations from well-established theory predicts thatHiggs bosonsdecay into pairs of the following particles in the following percentages: bottom quarks (58 percent), W bosons (21 percent), Z bosons (6 percent), tau leptons (2.6 percent) and photons (0.2 percent)."

https://www.livescience.com/63455-higgs-decays-to-bottom-quarks.html

3 hours ago, Conjurer said:

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.

1. Those are theories of gravity. The Higgs is not a theory of gravity.

2. The Higgs mechanism is and was the only accepted model for explaining the mass of (most) elementary particles

3. None of that has anything to do with pseudo-science

3 hours ago, Conjurer said:

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  They used plates that gave these same kinds of pictures unless it has been replaced by some newer technology.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.

What is wrong with you?

The caption for the picture you posted says: "Figure 4: Charmed baryon and neutrino-proton collision in bubble chamber [32]"

So there are no photons being emitted.

3 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Here they call them nuclear emulsion plates.

And that is yet another technique. Which, again, does not involve the emission of photons.

3 hours ago, Conjurer said:

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.

Please provide a reference to support this claim.

3 hours ago, Conjurer said:

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

Yes, but that is not the same thing. The energy of the two photons (not "a photon") produced equals the mass of the original particles.

That is not the case with virtual particles.

3 hours ago, Conjurer said:

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.

Citation needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Conjurer said:

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.

Oh, FFS. I didn't say they did.

I gave you a citation for the picture you used, and noted that it was a bubble chamber picture. And further, that it wasn't a photon but rather an electron that gave the "corkscrew"

Light doesn't leave the tracks. The track is an ionization trail, and is left by charged particles. The presence of a photon can only be found if it causes an ionization (or pair production) and then the charged particles leave tracks.

 

Quote

Here they call them nuclear emulsion plates.

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

Nuclear emulsion plates are yet another detection method. A method that, like the others mentioned, record ionization trails.

"Like bubble chambers,  cloud chambers, and wire chambers nuclear emulsion plates record the tracks of charged particles passing through"
(from the link you provided. Did you read it?)

Quote

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.

Pop-science books tell you about science. They don't teach much of the science itself. If you think you have expertise based on them, you are likely wrong.

Quote

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.

No, they would not. I just provided you with citations that confirm this. (you, OTOH, have provided no citations that back up your claims)

If you detected a photon, it would not be because of a quantum fluctuation.

Quote

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

Annihilation produces two or more photons. Never one. But those are not quantum fluctuations, which are from virtual particles. If they were not produced by anything, they do not collapse into anything.

 

Quote

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.  

Energy is conserved at vertices. Not the loops, which are virtual particles.

Quote

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.

Then by your own standard, there can be no photon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Then by your own standard, there can be no photon.

Then you just don't accept quantum theory in describing this situation.  That is one known problem with the theory is that there is no photon that creates the random particle pair.  The problem is there is not a deep enough explanation as to why any two particle pairs create a photon.  Then it is unknown if it is actually necessary in this situation.  The theory assumes that particle pairs can be created without them, since the virtual particles are the exact opposite of each other in positive and negative energy through some kind of means that is different than the normal generation of particle pairs.

It would be perfectly valid to say that a photon converts into two virtual particles that then annihilate to create another photon.  Energy would be conserved in this situation.  Then the original photon has not been able to have been discovered in this situation, so conservation doesn't exist in this one single particular instance of quantum theory. 

Then conservation of energy existed in science in general when Hawking described it being related to black holes...  These free energy particles allow for conservation to exist for a black hole, because he added energy that is popping into existence from out of nowhere.  That way physics, as a whole, obeys conservation of energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Then you just don't accept quantum theory in describing this situation. 

Have you yet admitted to the fact that many times over more then one thread, that you have been shown to be wrong? Listening again does not seem to be a part of your make up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Strange said:

1. Those are theories of gravity. The Higgs is not a theory of gravity.

2. The Higgs mechanism is and was the only accepted model for explaining the mass of (most) elementary particles

3. None of that has anything to do with pseudo-science

In the theory of the Higgs Boson, all mass comes from particles traveling through a Higgs Field.  Two theories of quantum gravity really shouldn't even be necessary if one is capable of accurately describing it.

Edited by Conjurer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

In the theory of the Higgs Boson, all mass comes from particles traveling through a Higgs Field.

Roughly speaking, yes. And it has been the accepted explanation for particles having mass since the mid-60s. So not pseudo-science.

And it is still irrelevant to your comparison with gravitons (which are purely hypothetical and don't give things mass).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Roughly speaking, yes. And it has been the accepted explanation for particles having mass since the mid-60s. So not pseudo-science.

And it is still irrelevant to your comparison with gravitons (which are purely hypothetical and don't give things mass).

If there is one theory which has the potential to describe quantum gravity and it has been proven to exist by experiment, then why do we need other quantum theories of gravity that could never be proven to exist?  The reason why they developed them to begin with and they gained support was because there were never able to find the Higgs Boson at Fermilab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Then you just don't accept quantum theory in describing this situation. 

Do you realise that swansont is an actual working physicist who deals with this stuff every day?

39 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

That is one known problem with the theory is that there is no photon that creates the random particle pair. 

That is not a "known problem" at all. It is a problem you have invented to cover your ignorance.

40 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

The problem is there is not a deep enough explanation as to why any two particle pairs create a photon.

You seem to be projecting your ignorance on to scientists. The explanation is very well understood by other people.

2 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

If there is one theory which has the potential to describe quantum gravity and it has been proven to exist by experiment, then why do we need other quantum theories of gravity that could never be proven to exist? 

We don't have a theory of quantum gravity. What are you talking about?

2 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

The reason why they developed them to begin with and they gained support was because there were never able to find the Higgs Boson at Fermilab.

Nonsense. The Higgs is not a theory of gravity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

Nonsense. The Higgs is not a theory of gravity.

I don't see how this could be viewed as anything other than an intentional sabotage of science at this point.  The Higgs Field is supposed to give all the other particles mass by them traveling through it, so it needs to be started to be viewed as such.  It should be the leading theory of quantum gravity.

I have no problems admitting I am wrong when I know I am wrong.  I don't go around trying to act like I know everything when I don't.  I don't try to use some kind of job position to show that I am right about everything either.  You obviously are having some kind of boyfriend problems, and you just end up trolling me because he has horrible game.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

In the theory of the Higgs Boson, all mass comes from particles traveling through a Higgs Field.  Two theories of quantum gravity really shouldn't even be necessary if one is capable of accurately describing it.

The holy grail of physics is for one day to have a working validated QGT. 

You are indeed Nobel material if you have two! :rolleyes: Do you understand what a QGT entails?

3 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I don't see how this could be viewed as anything other than an intentional sabotage of science at this point.  The Higgs Field is supposed to give all the other particles mass by them traveling through it, so it needs to be started to be viewed as such.  It should be the leading theory of quantum gravity.

Except it doesn't quantise gravity. Again, forget your ego and listen. Stop telling qualified people what to do, when you absolutely misunderstand the whole aspect of a QGT and what it entails, as well as of course the subject of virtual particles in general and as distinct from real particles.

https://profmattstrassler.com/2012/10/15/why-the-higgs-and-gravity-are-unrelated/

Why the Higgs and Gravity are Unrelated

One of the questions I get most often from my readers is this:

  • Since gravity pulls on things proportional to their mass, and since the Higgs field is responsible for giving everything its mass, there obviously must be a deep connection between the Higgs and gravity… right?

It’s a very reasonable guess, but — it turns out to be completely wrong. The problem is that this statement combines a 17th century notion of gravity, long ago revised, with an overly simplified version of a late-20th century notion of where masses of various particles comes from.  I’ve finally produced the Higgs FAQ version 2.0, intended for non-experts with little background in the subject, and as part of that, I’ve answered this question.  But since the question is so common, I thought I’d also put the answer in a post of its own.

As preface, let me bring out my professorial training and correct the question above with a red pen:

  • Since gravity pulls on things proportional to their mass to a combination of their energy and momentum, and since the Higgs field is responsible of giving everything not everything, just the known elementary particles excepting the Higgs particle itself its mass, there obviously must be a deep connection between the Higgs and gravity… right? wrong.

Now let me explain these corrections one by one.

see link if you have decided to learn......https://profmattstrassler.com/2012/10/15/why-the-higgs-and-gravity-are-unrelated/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

The Higgs Field is supposed to give all the other particles mass by them traveling through it, so it needs to be started to be viewed as such.  It should be the leading theory of quantum gravity.

Read this: https://profmattstrassler.com/2012/10/15/why-the-higgs-and-gravity-are-unrelated/

[x-posted with beecee]

11 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I have no problems admitting I am wrong when I know I am wrong.  I don't go around trying to act like I know everything when I don't. 

Good. Perhaps you will now admit you are wrong.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Strange said:

Good. Perhaps you will now admit you are wrong.

Your link there claims that the Higgs Field is not universal, and I don't believe that is true.  

Do you guys even use peer-reviewed references?  I don't see how this all comes out to being proof when it is not peer-reviewed.  Then most papers on the subject that are peer-reviewed don't talk about any details, and they only try to avoid talking about anything in a manner that could be seen as wrong to anyone by using big words with no apparent real world logical connections.  Then it doesn't seem like any information about who is actually right or wrong could actually be proven by a reliable peer-reviewed reference. 

Then our only hope would be a moderator that actually read about Hawking Radiation in a pop science book that often includes an introduction about these random particle pairs, so the reader will know what they are talking about.  In other words, we are all doomed.

Edited by Conjurer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Your link there claims that the Higgs Field is not universal, and I don't believe that is true.  

It doesn't say that. It says:

"the Higgs field is not the universal giver of mass to elementary particles."

In other words, it does not give mass to all particles.

28 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Do you guys even use peer-reviewed references?

Says the guy who refuses to provide any support for his claims. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Conjurer said:

Your link there claims that the Higgs Field is not universal, and I don't believe that is true.  

You don't believe that is true? Do you have some logical reason why, or evidence to support your doubt?

Quote

Do you guys even use peer-reviewed references?  I don't see how this all comes out to being proof when it is not peer-reviewed. 

I recall in one thread giving you a peer review reference which you as usaul, when backed into a corner, ignored.

Quote

Then most papers on the subject that are peer-reviewed don't talk about any details, and they only try to avoid talking about anything in a manner that could be seen as wrong to anyone by using big words with no apparent real world logical connections.  Then it doesn't seem like any information about who is actually right or wrong could actually be proven by a reliable peer-reviewed reference. 

And now ladies and gentlemen the usual cop out, or back down. In other words no matter how many references anyone gives invalidating your unsupported stance, peer reviewed or not, it makes no difference. :rolleyes:

 

Quote

Then our only hope would be a moderator that actually read about Hawking Radiation in a pop science book that often includes an introduction about these random particle pairs, so the reader will know what they are talking about.  In other words, we are all doomed.

More rhetorical excuses instead of manning up and admitting you are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Then you just don't accept quantum theory in describing this situation.  That is one known problem with the theory is that there is no photon that creates the random particle pair.  The problem is there is not a deep enough explanation as to why any two particle pairs create a photon. 

They don't create a photon. There is no problem with the physics. Just with your understanding.

Quote

Then it is unknown if it is actually necessary in this situation.  The theory assumes that particle pairs can be created without them, since the virtual particles are the exact opposite of each other in positive and negative energy through some kind of means that is different than the normal generation of particle pairs.

Yes, it is different. It is known to be different.

Quote

It would be perfectly valid to say that a photon converts into two virtual particles that then annihilate to create another photon.  Energy would be conserved in this situation.

That also happens.

Quote

 Then the original photon has not been able to have been discovered in this situation, so conservation doesn't exist in this one single particular instance of quantum theory. 

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is satisfied.

Quote

Then conservation of energy existed in science in general when Hawking described it being related to black holes...  These free energy particles allow for conservation to exist for a black hole, because he added energy that is popping into existence from out of nowhere.  That way physics, as a whole, obeys conservation of energy.

Energy doesn't pop into existence, and virtual particles were not added to solve a conservation of energy issue with black holes.

2 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Do you guys even use peer-reviewed references? 

Do you?

You've mentioned books, which are not.

2 hours ago, Conjurer said:

I don't see how this all comes out to being proof when it is not peer-reviewed.  Then most papers on the subject that are peer-reviewed don't talk about any details, and they only try to avoid talking about anything in a manner that could be seen as wrong to anyone by using big words with no apparent real world logical connections.  Then it doesn't seem like any information about who is actually right or wrong could actually be proven by a reliable peer-reviewed reference. 

And you offer this observation from the vantage point of how many publications to your credit?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/11/2018 at 6:56 PM, swansont said:

They don't create a photon. There is no problem with the physics. Just with your understanding.

I didn't say there was a problem with physics.  You just assumed that I thought there was a problem with physics.  What I am saying doesn't cause any problems with the Standard Model.  It was already discovered before the Standard Model was completed.  The problem is that it seems like these forums have become pseudoscience, since the general public won't accept the apparent violation of conservation laws.  Then they just made up science to fit conservation laws where it shouldn't even exist in quantum theory.  Then classical laws do not apply to quantum physics, period! 

Even an electron seen in a bubble chamber has to produce electrons in order for it to be able to show up. Even that would be the trail of light an electron would leave behind.  There is no such thing as "electron vision goggles" or anything similar.  If the electron was absorbed to be detected directly, it wouldn't be able to leave a track.  Then that is the footprint it leaves behind, and the photon is supposed to be the force carrier of that footprint.   

On 11/11/2018 at 6:56 PM, swansont said:

Do you?

You've mentioned books, which are not.

And you offer this observation from the vantage point of how many publications to your credit?

 If every theoretical physics book off the shelf is considered pop-science and almost everyone of them talk about Hawking Radiation as one of the main subjects, then Hawking Radiation is pop-science.  Therefore, it would take an expertise in pop-science to know about Hawking Radiation from it being one of the main subjects of pop-science.  I probably read a good dozen or so that talk about Hawking Radiation in this similar fashion, and all of them describe it in exactly the same way.  I know of a different library I can try to check tomorrow to post the information on here if you guys are too lazy to go check yourselves.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Conjurer said:

The problem is that it seems like these forums have become pseudoscience, since the general public won't accept the apparent violation of conservation laws.

You have not yet provided any evidence (peer reviewed or otherwise) for this claimed violation of conservation.

Please provide this evidence.

7 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Even an electron seen in a bubble chamber has to produce electrons in order for it to be able to show up. Even that would be the trail of light an electron would leave behind.

It doesn't leave a trail of light. It leaves a trail of bubbles.

7 hours ago, Conjurer said:

If every theoretical physics book off the shelf is considered pop-science and almost everyone of them talk about Hawking Radiation as one of the main subjects, then Hawking Radiation is pop-science. 

Nonsense. Hawking radiation is science. It is discussed in both (peer reviewed) scientific papers and in popular science articles/books.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Conjurer said:

I didn't say there was a problem with physics.  You just assumed that I thought there was a problem with physics.  What I am saying doesn't cause any problems with the Standard Model.  It was already discovered before the Standard Model was completed. 

What you're saying contradicts the standard model, since virtual particles are part of the standard model.

Quote

The problem is that it seems like these forums have become pseudoscience, since the general public won't accept the apparent violation of conservation laws.  Then they just made up science to fit conservation laws where it shouldn't even exist in quantum theory. 

Quantum physics changed the game a bit.

Quote

Then classical laws do not apply to quantum physics, period! 

Bingo!

Quote

Even an electron seen in a bubble chamber has to produce electrons in order for it to be able to show up. 

Um, what?

Quote

Even that would be the trail of light an electron would leave behind. 

The only light involved is the light we use to see things. The interaction itself is not the source of that light.

Quote

 There is no such thing as "electron vision goggles" or anything similar.  If the electron was absorbed to be detected directly, it wouldn't be able to leave a track.  Then that is the footprint it leaves behind, and the photon is supposed to be the force carrier of that footprint. 

Wikipedia has a pretty good explanation of how cloud and bubble chambers work. Why don't you go argue with it, and tell it how it's wrong?

Quote

If every theoretical physics book off the shelf is considered pop-science and almost everyone of them talk about Hawking Radiation as one of the main subjects, then Hawking Radiation is pop-science. 

No, the explanation of Hawking radiation would be the pop science.

Quote

Therefore, it would take an expertise in pop-science to know about Hawking Radiation from it being one of the main subjects of pop-science.  I probably read a good dozen or so that talk about Hawking Radiation in this similar fashion, and all of them describe it in exactly the same way.  I know of a different library I can try to check tomorrow to post the information on here if you guys are too lazy to go check yourselves.    

Reading multiple sources that give the same pop-sci answer isn't the solution here. If you want to know the actual physics behind it, you need to go get your degree in physics, and then get your graduate degree in physics (probably a Masters degree will suffice, since this is not new physics), and study cosmology and quantum physics and thermodynamics. That's about 6 years of study.

Or do you think your dozen or so books matches up with 6 years of an academic program of studying physics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.