What are Virtual Photons

[Johnny5]

This started off in another thread, but was inappropriate there, so I will post it here.

 

The question began from considering that the inertial mass of an object is due to some electromagnetic interaction of the object with the quantum vacuum. Haish, Rueda, Puthoff ZPF Theory

 

So the question is, what is a virtual photon?

 

The question originated from a paper with this in the abstract:

 

Two Scientists Alfonso Rueda and Bernard Haisch have worked on a paper titled; Gravity and The Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis, where they suggest that virtual photons, there as a result of Heisenberg’s, uncertainty principle, are turned into real particles by an accelerating object. The pressure caused by the particles hitting the object (and the resonance) causes inertia.

[Johnny5]

Well like you have a virtual particle, you know them? You'd have a virtual photon.

 

Do virtual particles obey conservation of energy?

[ed84c]

Im aware that this may be constrived as diverting the Thread somewhat' date=' So in this post and in yours, any further questions can be edited in, rather than posting again, is that OK?

 

Well a virtual photon is where as Heisenberg stated, the less time looked at a system the more unpredictable it is, and photons pop in and out of existance, borrowing and returning energy. This is also incidently how a black hole evaporates.

 

If your wondering HOW i know this, i read a book a couple of years back, called 'In Search of Shrodinger's Cat'. Seriously good read. [/quote']

 

Is it not an adequate explanation?

[Johnny5]

Is it not an adequate explanation?

 

Wholly inadequate. What would Feynman say?

[J.C.MacSwell]

Do virtual particles obey conservation of energy?

 

Temporarily.

[swansont]

Temporarily.

 

It's the other way around. It's OK to violate conservation of energy, as long as you do it for a short enough time to keep from violating the HUP.

[ed84c]

Hup?

[J.C.MacSwell]

It's the other way around. It's OK to violate conservation of energy, as long as you do it for a short enough time to keep from violating the HUP.

 

I loaned Heisenburg $5 years ago and he still hasn't paid me back!

 

You're right I got it backwords. I meant you could violate conservation of energy temporarily.

[5614]

Hup?

 

QM's Heisenburg uncertainty principle

 

wonder where my post went which johnny5 quoted in his 2nd post, i thought whilst obvious it was a relavant post, they're not like anything special, just another virtual 'thing' (to be technical!)

[Johnny5]

I have problems with the mathematics on which the uncertainty principle is based, namely the mathematical theory of probability. More specifically it's the Born Interpretation that I have problems with. If the discussion goes in that direction, we will stray from "what are virtual photons?" But perhaps this is where the discussion should go.

The Born Interpretation, applied to a single hydrogen atom, leads to the conclusion that there are multiple possible places that an electron can be at the next moment in time, and that is false. In any given reference frame, there is only one possible location that an electron can be at the very next moment in time. The universe is deterministic, and this fact is deducible.

 

Uncertainty Principle:

 

[math] \Delta P \Delta X > \frac{\hbar}{2} [/math]

 

Greater than or equal to, but I don't know how to make > in Latex.

 

Delta P is the uncertainty in particle momentum, Delta X is uncertainty in position of particle center of inertia in IRF.

 

If you use energy/time uncertainty relation, I ask that you derive it.

 

Regards

[J.C.MacSwell]

. The universe is deterministic' date=' and this fact is deducible.

 

[s[/quote']

 

You may be right. If you are and you can prove it you have a Nobel Prize in your future.

[Johnny5]

I already proved it, and there's no nobel prize in my past, how do you explain that one?

 

Regards

[J.C.MacSwell]

I already proved it' date=' and there's no nobel prize in my past, how do you explain that one?

 

Regards [/quote']

 

You were supposed to get one but a quantum fluctuation overrided it!

[Tom Mattson]

So the question is' date=' what is a virtual photon?

[/quote']

 

It's the mediator of the EM interaction. But I think it would be a mistake to grant them a lofty ontological status, in view of the fact that they correspond to a perturbation expansion in QED. Nature doesn't know about perturbation theory, and it may well be that virtual photons are simply an artifact of perturbation theory.

 

Do virtual particles obey conservation of energy?

 

No' date=' they don't, but the violations cannot be observed. The virtual particles don't live long enough.

 

I have problems with the mathematics on which the uncertainty principle is based, namely the mathematical theory of probability. More specifically it's the Born Interpretation that I have problems with.

 

The mathematics from which HUP is derived is quite independent of any interpretation of the result. A straightforward derivation is here:

 

http://www.cbloom.com/physics/heisenberg.html

 

Where is the problem?

 

The universe is deterministic' date=' and this fact is deducible.

[/quote']

 

That's the easy part. I can construct a deductively valid argument for any false conclusion. The hard part is answering the question: Deducible from what premises, and how do I know that those premises are true?

[Johnny5]

 

That's the easy part. I can construct a deductively valid argument for any false conclusion. The hard part is answering the question: Deducible from what premises' date=' and how do I know that those premises are [b']true[/b]?

 

 

Tom you may have me beat in QED (which needs SR so probably not), and you do have me beat in GR, but as for binary logic...

 

I already know that the universe is deterministic.

[Tom Mattson]

Tom you may have me beat in QED (which needs SR so probably not)' date=' and you do have me beat in GR, but as for binary logic...

[/quote']

 

Son, I've got you beat in all those areas.

 

You said that determinism is deducible. What I am telling you is that being deducible doesn't say anything one way or the other about the truth value of the statement, "The universe is deterministic". Deductive logic does not have a decision procedure to assign truth values to a posteriori statements about the non-analytic world.

 

I already know that the universe is deterministic.

 

How?

[J.C.MacSwell]

Excuse my ignorance, but what is binary logic?

[swansont]

Tom you may have me beat in QED (which needs SR so probably not)' date=' and you do have me beat in GR, but as for binary logic...

 

I already [i']know[/i] that the universe is deterministic.

 

To paraphrase Josh Billings, the problem isn't what you don't know. It's what you know that just ain't so.

[Johnny5]

Son' date=' I've got you beat in all those areas.

 

You said that determinism is [i']deducible[/i]. What I am telling you is that being deducible doesn't say anything one way or the other about the truth value of the statement, "The universe is deterministic". Deductive logic does not have a decision procedure to assign truth values to a posteriori statements about the non-analytic world.

 

 

 

How?

 

I extended the kolmogorov axioms to statements, so that I could reason about the probability a statement is true, and then operationally defined the binary relation 'before' on the set of moments in time, and then focused on statements of the form X before Y, using the extension. So that I had something like this...

 

let X denote the current moment in time. Suppose that W, Y,Z are possible next moments in time, and that not (Y=Z), and not (Y=W), and not (W=Z)

 

P(X before W) + P(X before Y) + P(X before Z) = 1

 

And then I just reasoned properly, using the extension of the Kolmogorov axioms to statements (instead of events).

 

By the way the only way I can be wrong, is if there are multiple current moments in time.

[Tom Mattson]

Excuse my ignorance, but what is binary logic?

 

Binary logic is a logic in which all operators are binary. That is, the operators accept two arguments. And example is the "AND" operator. It takes two statements p,q to form the compound statement "p AND q". Compound statements in binary logic are truth-functional, which means that the truth value of the compound statement depends entirely on the truth values of the more fundamental statements (called "atoms" in some of the literature) and the meaning of the operator.

 

It most certainly can not tell you whether the universe is deterministic, though.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Binary logic is a logic in which all operators are binary. That is' date=' the operators accept two arguments. And example is the "AND" operator. It takes two statements p,q to form the compound statement "p AND q". Compound statements in binary logic are truth-functional, which means that the truth value of the compound statement depends entirely on the truth values of the more fundamental statements (called "atoms" in some of the literature) and the meaning of the operator.

 

It most certainly can not tell you whether the universe is deterministic, though.[/quote']

 

Thanks Tom

[Tom Mattson]

i extended the kolmogorov axioms to statements and then operationally defined the binary relation 'before' on the set of moments in time.

 

LOL

 

OK, how?

[Johnny5]

Binary logic is a logic in which all operators are binary.

 

It most certainly can not tell you whether the universe is deterministic' date=' though.[/quote']

 

That first sentence is untrue. There is a unary operator... NOT, which operates on one statement at a time.

 

AND operates upon two statements at a time.

 

As for what is binary logic... any logic in which an arbitrary statement must take on one of exactly two truth values, is binary. They are usually referred to as 'true' 'false'.

 

Binary logic alone cannot tell you anything, you have to reason to the conclusion. That requires something a bit more sophisticated than binary logic. It requires reasoning using binary logic.

 

There is a definite difference between truth tables, with the simple-minded T,F, and actually being a real reasoning agent, and reasoning in real time.

 

I am familiar with some of the work of Jaako Hintikka, but generally I do things my own simpler way.

 

X knows Y.

 

He was interested in binary relations of that form. I didn't go too deep into his work, but epistemology (how do you know?) does take one beyond truth table analysis to actual knowing of something you didn't know previously, by using the process of deduction correctly.

 

Have a look at this...

 

Undefined term: Statement

 

Any statement is either true or false, and no statement is true and false simultaneously.

 

Only statements can have truth value.

 

Tomorrow I am getting my haircut.

[Tom Mattson]

That first sentence is untrue. There is a unary operator... NOT' date=' which operates on one statement at a time.

 

AND operates upon two statements at a time.

 

As for what is binary logic... any logic in which an arbitrary statement must take on one of exactly two truth values, is binary. They are usually referred to as 'true' 'false'.

[/quote']

 

I've seen both interpretations of "binary logic" in the literature. In some places the "binary" refers to the operators and in others it refers to the 2-valuedness. Personally, I don't use the term. I just say, "first order logic", which contains all of this.

[Johnny5]

 

Originally Posted by Johnny5

i extended the kolmogorov axioms to statements and then operationally defined the binary relation 'before' on the set of moments in time.

 

LOL

 

OK' date=' how?[/quote']

 

Well anyone who uses the Kolmogorov axioms already has them as true, so don't change that.

 

The axioms are for 'events.'

 

But what is an event?

 

I treated that term as undefined.

 

So I can apply the true Kolmogorov axioms to statements, and think about the meaning of statements of the following form:

 

The probability that statement X is true is equal to Z.

 

Where Z is greater than or equal to zero, but less than or equal to one (since the Kolmogorov axioms have been stipulated to be true).

 

So...

 

Suppose that fractional truth values are possible.

 

Consider the following statements:

 

The probability that I am alive is 1/3.

The probability the Lorentz contraction formula is a true statement about length is .99

 

The probability I exist is .99999999998

 

The point is, the very notion of a statement with a fractional probability of being true is absurd, to any reasoning agent who uses binary logic to reason.

 

Binary logic permits one of only two truth values, for any statement to take on, and at any moment in time any given statement must have one of these two truth values (true, false), which leads to the extension of the Kolmogorov axioms, which I was speaking about:

 

Let P(X) denote the probability that statement X is true.

Since any statement is either true or false, it follows that either P(X)=1, in which case statement X is true, or P(X)=0, in which case statement X is false. There are no other possible assignments.

 

Let X denote the current moment in time.

Suppose there are six possible next moments in time.

 

Y1,Y2,Y3,Y4,Y5,Y6 ... all different (each Y_n represents a different configuration of material in the universe)

 

By one of the Kolmogorov axioms, the sum of all possibilities is one. That means this:

 

P(X before y1)+ P(X before Y2) + P(X before Y3) + P(X before Y4) + P(X before y5) + P(X before Y6) = 1

 

By the extension of the Kolmogorov axioms to statements (instead of events) it follows that each of the probabilities above must either be equal to zero, or equal to one, from which it follows that one and only one of them is equal to 1, and the rest are equal to zero, which means that there cannot be six possible next moments in time. There can only be one.

 

QED