Is it true, that particles on their smallest level, seem to pop in and out of existence...?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is it true, that particles on their smallest level, that we can detect, seem to pop in and out of existence...?

That they disappear and reappear...?

Kind of. It's a bit complicated. They're called 'virtual particles'.

I'm no expert, but very roughly, quantum field theory tells us that fundamental particles are quantised excitations of their respective quantum fields, which means that if you put more than a certain minimum amount of energy (a quantum) into the field, you get an excitation that lasts (the particle).

The quantum fields are subject to constant fluctuations. These fluctuations have insufficient energy to manifest as 'real' particles, so they only exist for a fleeting period before disappearing. They come in what can be thought of as virtual particle-antiparticle pairs that appear, then annihilate and disappear; it might help to think of them a bit like waves at sea, where each wave is a positive peak and a corresponding negative trough, and they tend to cancel out. Put enough energy in, and you can make a 'real' particle. Interactions between real particles can be seen in terms of exchanges of virtual particles. They're really just one way of visualising how the math works out.

If so, where do they go when they do...? And/or where do they come back from...?

They cancel each other out; like waves at sea, new peaks and troughs are appearing and cancelling out all the time. In particle interactions, they're seen as being emitted and absorbed by the particles involved.

Someone who knows this stuff properly is welcome to correct me!

 

[Neogaia777]

Kind of. It's a bit complicated. They're called 'virtual particles'.

I'm no expert, but very roughly, quantum field theory tells us that fundamental particles are quantised excitations of their respective quantum fields, which means that if you put more than a certain minimum amount of energy (a quantum) into the field, you get an excitation that lasts (the particle). The quantum fields are subject to constant fluctuations. These fluctuations have insufficient energy to manifest as 'real' particles, so they only exist for a fleeting period before disappearing. They come in virtual particle-antiparticle pairs that appear, then annihilate and disappear; it might help to think of them a bit like waves at sea, where each wave is a positive peak and a corresponding negative trough, and they tend to cancel out. Put enough energy in, and you can make a 'real' particle. They're really just one way of visualising how the math works out.

They cancel each other out; like waves at sea, new peaks and troughs are appearing and cancelling out all the time.

So, do they die and then are re-born or are they the same particles, or what...? (wondering)...?

Where do they come from or how do they come about...?

Funny how particles and many other things seem to have a "thing" and an "anti-thing", (fill in the blank) and it usually ends with the two canceling each other out, but which we can derive energy from by manipulating... And do some pretty amazing things with that energy... Usually by unbalancing it...

(Thanks for the info BTW)...

God Bless!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The particles you're talking about originate from other particles, so they have always existed

Since Creation by Yahweh through Yahshua(Jesus), yes, as Scripture says clearly.

They haven't "always existed" or rather that is since they were created they have existed, and will exist until they are destroyed /melted/ with all the universe as God's Word Says.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So, do they die and then are re-born or are they the same particles, or what...? (wondering)...?

They're not really particles at all, they're more mathematical conveniences.

Where do they come from or how do they come about...?

I just 'explained' that. Alternatively, read the link - although I'm not sure you'll be any the wiser.

Funny how particles and many other things seem to have a "thing" and an "anti-thing", (fill in the blank) and it usually ends with the two canceling each other out, but which we can derive energy from by manipulating... And do some pretty amazing things with that energy... Usually by unbalancing it...

No; you can't derive energy from them.

 

[Neogaia777]

They're not really particles at all, they're more mathematical conveniences.

Why do those mathematical conveniences have to exist or be...? I mean if their "just math" why are they referred to as "particles"...? If their nothing essentially, then why are they not considered "nothing"...?

I just 'explained' that. Alternatively, read the link - although I'm not sure you'll be any the wiser.

Forgive me for this, but I really don't think you did... and no, the link does not really make that question very clear either, but, thanks anyway...

No; you can't derive energy from them.

Do we know that "for sure" (yet)...?

Either way, whether we can or can't, I thought it was very interesting, that nearly everything in the universe in the universe seems to have a "thing" and and "anti-thing" to it... The checks and balances of it, like clockwork perfection, like design...

God Bless!

 

[essentialsaltes]

Is it true, that particles on their smallest level, that we can detect, seem to pop in and out of existence...?

Almost. Particles that make up stuff are relatively stable. They don't just disappear (and reappear). However, particles do come into existence and go out of existence all the time, all around us. Virtual pairs. Although we often talk about these as 'virtual particles' there is no question that they are real.

One of the laws of quantum mechanics is the energy-time uncertainty relationship.

In classical mechanics, we can know the energy of a system perfectly, with no uncertainty or error. In quantum mechanics this is not the case. The uncertainty in the energy of a system is related to a span of time. If the span of time is short, the uncertainty in the energy of a system can be large. Particles have mass and energy, so for short times, the uncertainty in the energy can be enough to 'pay for' the existence or creation of particles. But in most cases, that energy debt has to be paid back, and this happens when the particles pop back out of existence.

If so, where do they go when they do...? And/or where do they come back from...?

They don't go anywhere. They didn't exist before, and they didn't exist after, but for a short time, they existed.

The particles tend to come in pairs because of conservation laws. The total amount of charge in the universe is fixed. So if a negatively charged electron pops into existence, that charge has to be matched by a positively charged positron (as in the image above). The positron is the antiparticle of the electron. It is interesting that in the mathematics of it... a positron looks like an electron going backward in time. So one way to interpret this process is there being nothing, then an electron and positron appear out of nothing, live for a short time, and then run into each other, annihilating back to nothing. But another way to look at this is a single electron making a circular loop in time. it moves forward in time, and then suddenly changes direction in time to go backward, and then switches again. The part where the electron goes backward in time looks to us like a positron going forward in time. Since we, alas, only go one direction in time. In this way of looking at things, nothing is created or destroyed. It is one continuous loop of a single particle.

And, another question...?

Is it true that, particles on their smallest level only seem to exist (here) when we focus (our attention) on it them, and, without that, they don't seem to exist (without our input, so to speak) at all...?

Again, not quite. Particles don't stop existing when we don't look at them. But we only have a good idea where they are if we make a measurement of where they are (by looking at them). And if you assume (for instance) that the particle will be in the same place the next time you look... you will probably be disappointed. It will be found somewhere else. This is the idea that the probability of finding a particle in a particular place is governed by its wavefunction.

You can't leave a particle in the same place and expect it to be there later. But you can leave a particle in the same state (described by the wavefunction). A particle in the same state will be subject to the same probability of being found in any particular place.

 

[Neogaia777]

Almost. Particles that make up stuff are relatively stable. They don't just disappear (and reappear). However, particles do come into existence and go out of existence all the time, all around us. Virtual pairs. Although we often talk about these as 'virtual particles' there is no question that they are real.

One of the laws of quantum mechanics is the energy-time uncertainty relationship.

In classical mechanics, we can know the energy of a system perfectly, with no uncertainty or error. In quantum mechanics this is not the case. The uncertainty in the energy of a system is related to a span of time. If the span of time is short, the uncertainty in the energy of a system can be large. Particles have mass and energy, so for short times, the uncertainty in the energy can be enough to 'pay for' the existence or creation of particles. But in most cases, that energy debt has to be paid back, and this happens when the particles pop back out of existence.

Where do they go and where do they come from...?

And if there is no question they are real (virtual particles) but can currently only be known by the math, and cannot be actually "detected" by any means we currently have, the mass, energy, none of it, can actually be detected, but are only math, then how can we be so sure they are real, or a real thing...?

Are they just math or numbers? considering we have no way to actually detect them right now, other than they just have to be there because of the math, or to make the math work...?

They don't go anywhere. They didn't exist before, and they didn't exist after, but for a short time, they existed.

They have to be coming from somewhere, and go to somewhere, or otherwise, they died and what, came back into existence, or new one came back into existence, all by themselves, or what...?

If nothing that exists, or comes into existence, is responsible for it own existence, (or coming to be), then how do (or did) or do, they come to be, since they cannot by themselves alone...? who or what causes it/them then...?

The particles tend to come in pairs because of conservation laws. The total amount of charge in the universe is fixed. So if a negatively charged electron pops into existence, that charge has to be matched by a positively charged positron (as in the image above). The positron is the antiparticle of the electron. It is interesting that in the mathematics of it... a positron looks like an electron going backward in time. So one way to interpret this process is there being nothing, then an electron and positron appear out of nothing, live for a short time, and then run into each other, annihilating back to nothing. But another way to look at this is a single electron making a circular loop in time. it moves forward in time, and then suddenly changes direction in time to go backward, and then switches again. The part where the electron goes backward in time looks to us like a positron going forward in time. Since we, alas, only go one direction in time. In this way of looking at things, nothing is created or destroyed. It is one continuous loop of a single particle.

Interesting, if it is not created or destroyed, then it seems to have some very good checks and balances to it/them, which suggests some very good (intelligent) design... Or some kind of intelligence behind it/them, that maybe we cannot detect right now either...

I mean going backwards and forwards in time, makes time itself seem like it has time and anti-time to it as well... And that time itself cancels itself out, and there may be something outside of time, or outside all the "things" and "anti-things"...

We existing in time, space, matter, ect, being "in the creation", and a part of that creation, probably cannot (right now), (maybe ever) know for sure if there is anything, or something and/or outside or beyond "cause" (or creator(s)) to this creation, or all that we know (of) and can see and or observe (or determine mathematically)...

How can there not be a "something" that is a "cause" for all of "this" we are in now...? The whole "how can something, or things come out of and from nothing", argument...? or an un-caused cause...?

Another way to look at it them, is they are a single entire creation (or life) themselves, if but for a moment... Being created, and then re-created... Dying and being re-born... A lot like this universe might be, or us, or "whatever"... Maybe time (and anti-time maybe) (or life, or lifespan (in time) as a thing) is relative to size...

Again, not quite. Particles don't stop existing when we don't look at them. But we only have a good idea where they are if we make a measurement of where they are (by looking at them). And if you assume (for instance) that the particle will be in the same place the next time you look... you will probably be disappointed. It will be found somewhere else. This is the idea that the probability of finding a particle in a particular place is governed by its wavefunction.

You can't leave a particle in the same place and expect it to be there later. But you can leave a particle in the same state (described by the wavefunction). A particle in the same state will be subject to the same probability of being found in any particular place.

How can we know if a thing does or does not exist independent of our input anyway...? Since it takes our input to "look", and if were not looking somehow, in some way, then, how would, or could, we really know or tell...? Where does that theory (that nothing exists or can exist independent of our input, or looking), where did that come from, or how did it/that, or how does it/that, or could or "can it" come about anyway... I mean how would or could we even "know" (that)...

Thanks for the info, it is very interesting...

What do you think further studies of quantum particles/mechanics/physics will reveal in the future...?

God Bless!

 

[essentialsaltes]

Where do they go and where do they come from...?

I guess my answer would be "no place". When they exist, you can locate them in space. When they don't exist, they aren't anywhere.

And if there is no question they are real (virtual particles) but can currently only be known by the math, and cannot be actually "detected" by any means we currently have

Actually, they can be detected. The Casimir Effect is explained by the effect of virtual particles in the quantum vacuum.

"Predicted in 1948 by Dutch physicist Hendrik B.G. Casimir, the Casimir Effect results from the fact that space is filled with vacuum fluctuations, virtual particle-antiparticle pairs that continually form out of nothing then quickly vanish. This effect is observable between two metallic parallel plates placed 100 nm apart. The gap between the plates restricts the range of wavelengths possible for these virtual particles. With fewer of them present within that space this results in a lower energy density between the two plates than is present in open space. This creates negative energy and pressure that pulls the plates together; the narrower the gap, the more restricted virtual particles' wavelength, the more negative the energy and pressure, the stronger the attractive force. At nanoscale, it becomes the dominant force between uncharged conductors. Depending on surface geometry and other factors, at separations of 10 nm the Casimir Effect can produce the equivalent of 1 atmosphere of pressure (101.3 kPa)."

They have to be coming from somewhere, and go to somewhere, or otherwise, they died and what, came back into existence, or new one came back into existence, all by themselves, or what...?

Hard to say. Let's take a simpler example that doesn't involve too much quantum weirdness. When you heat a metal rod, it gets red hot, and then maybe white hot. That glowing is made of light. That light is made of photons, the quantum particle of light. The more you heat the metal rod, the more photons come out of it. The bar is never going to run out of photons, so the photons don't come from some hidden storage area in the bar.

The heating transfers energy to the bar, and some of that energy takes the form of photons. But the photons don't seem to come from some other place... they are just created from the energy. Similarly, the virtual particles are created from the energy fluctuation inherent in the time/energy uncertainty relation.

If nothing that exists, or comes into existence, is responsible for it own existence, (or coming to be), then how do (or did) or do, they come to be, since they cannot by themselves alone...? who or what causes it/them then...?

The cause appears to be the energy borrowed from the energy/time relation of quantum mechanics. That's not a place where they come from, but it is an explanation of how they come to be.

What do you think further studies of quantum particles/mechanics/physics will reveal in the future...?

Something new! Hard to say what.

It would be nice to learn how quantum mechanics and gravity (general relativity) work together. Currently our theories don't seem to play well together. So we'll have to learn something new in order for the two theories to be reconciled. If and when we learn that, it might help to explain more about cosmology and the Big Bang.

 

[sjastro]

Kind of. It's a bit complicated. They're called 'virtual particles'.

I'm no expert, but very roughly, quantum field theory tells us that fundamental particles are quantised excitations of their respective quantum fields, which means that if you put more than a certain minimum amount of energy (a quantum) into the field, you get an excitation that lasts (the particle).

The quantum fields are subject to constant fluctuations. These fluctuations have insufficient energy to manifest as 'real' particles, so they only exist for a fleeting period before disappearing. They come in what can be thought of as virtual particle-antiparticle pairs that appear, then annihilate and disappear; it might help to think of them a bit like waves at sea, where each wave is a positive peak and a corresponding negative trough, and they tend to cancel out. Put enough energy in, and you can make a 'real' particle. Interactions between real particles can be seen in terms of exchanges of virtual particles. They're really just one way of visualising how the math works out.

They cancel each other out; like waves at sea, new peaks and troughs are appearing and cancelling out all the time. In particle interactions, they're seen as being emitted and absorbed by the particles involved.

Someone who knows this stuff properly is welcome to correct me!

No issues with your explanation but it’s easier to explain using the uncertainty principle equation.

Δx.Δp ≥ h/4π

Δx is the uncertainty in the measurement of the position of a particle.
Δp is the uncertainty in the measurement of the momentum of a particle.
h is Planck’s constant.

We can manipulate the equation using dimensional analysis (mass=M, position =L, time = T) to obtain an Energy-Time uncertainty equation.

Momentum p has the dimensions MLT ̄ ¹.
Energy E has the dimensions ML²T ̇̄ ².
Δx.Δp has the dimensions L. MLT ̄ ¹ = ML² T ̄ ¹ = ML² T ̄ ².T.
ΔE.Δt has the dimensions ML² T ̄ ².T hence the uncertainty equation can be expressed as:

ΔE.Δt ≥ h/4π.

In Quantum Mechanics there is no mathematical operator associated with time unlike the mathematical operators for position and momentum when applied to a quantum state produce the uncertainties for position and momentum of a particle.
In this case Δt is simply the time interval in which a particular state exists such as a virtual particle.

The equation ΔE.Δt ≥ h/4π tells us the smaller the time interval the larger the uncertainty in the energy measurement when the Hamiltonian operator H is applied to a quantum state.
In the interval Δt the conservation of energy is violated and a virtual particle can exist only when the conservation law is violated.

The possible existence of virtual particles is via the Casimir effect.

 

[Neogaia777]

I guess my answer would be "no place". When they exist, you can locate them in space. When they don't exist, they aren't anywhere.

That doesn't make a lot of logical sense...?

Actually, they can be detected. The Casimir Effect is explained by the effect of virtual particles in the quantum vacuum.

"Predicted in 1948 by Dutch physicist Hendrik B.G. Casimir, the Casimir Effect results from the fact that space is filled with vacuum fluctuations, virtual particle-antiparticle pairs that continually form out of nothing then quickly vanish. This effect is observable between two metallic parallel plates placed 100 nm apart. The gap between the plates restricts the range of wavelengths possible for these virtual particles. With fewer of them present within that space this results in a lower energy density between the two plates than is present in open space. This creates negative energy and pressure that pulls the plates together; the narrower the gap, the more restricted virtual particles' wavelength, the more negative the energy and pressure, the stronger the attractive force. At nanoscale, it becomes the dominant force between uncharged conductors. Depending on surface geometry and other factors, at separations of 10 nm the Casimir Effect can produce the equivalent of 1 atmosphere of pressure (101.3 kPa)."

virtual particle-antiparticle pairs that continually form out of nothing then quickly vanish.

Form out of, or from nothing, again, doesn't make a lot of logical sense...?

Hard to say. Let's take a simpler example that doesn't involve too much quantum weirdness. When you heat a metal rod, it gets red hot, and then maybe white hot. That glowing is made of light. That light is made of photons, the quantum particle of light. The more you heat the metal rod, the more photons come out of it. The bar is never going to run out of photons, so the photons don't come from some hidden storage area in the bar.

The heating transfers energy to the bar, and some of that energy takes the form of photons. But the photons don't seem to come from some other place... they are just created from the energy. Similarly, the virtual particles are created from the energy fluctuation inherent in the time/energy uncertainty relation.

Someone, or something "caused" the heating or the rod (the energy) though right...?

The cause appears to be the energy borrowed from the energy/time relation of quantum mechanics. That's not a place where they come from, but it is an explanation of how they come to be.

But, where did the energy come from, or how did it come about...?

Something new! Hard to say what.

It would be nice to learn how quantum mechanics and gravity (general relativity) work together. Currently our theories don't seem to play well together. So we'll have to learn something new in order for the two theories to be reconciled. If and when we learn that, it might help to explain more about cosmology and the Big Bang.

That would be cool...

Thanks,

God Bless!

Oh, I think I was in the middle of editing my last post while you were doing this, I added some more to it... (I'd like to know your thoughts on the time part)...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

No issues with your explanation but it’s easier to explain using the uncertainty principle equation.

Δx.Δp ≥ h/4π

Δx is the uncertainty in the measurement of the position of a particle.
Δp is the uncertainty in the measurement of the momentum of a particle.
h is Planck’s constant.

We can manipulate the equation using dimensional analysis (mass=M, position =L, time = T) to obtain an Energy-Time uncertainty equation.

Momentum p has the dimensions MLT ̄ ¹.
Energy E has the dimensions ML²T ̇̄ ².
Δx.Δp has the dimensions L. MLT ̄ ¹ = ML² T ̄ ¹ = ML² T ̄ ².T.
ΔE.Δt has the dimensions ML² T ̄ ².T hence the uncertainty equation can be expressed as:

ΔE.Δt ≥ h/4π.

In Quantum Mechanics there is no mathematical operator associated with time unlike the mathematical operators for position and momentum when applied to a quantum state produce the uncertainties for position and momentum of a particle.
In this case Δt is simply the time interval in which a particular state exists such as a virtual particle.

The equation ΔE.Δt ≥ h/4π tells us the smaller the time interval the larger the uncertainty in the energy measurement when the Hamiltonian operator H is applied to a quantum state.
In the interval Δt the conservation of energy is violated and a virtual particle can exist only when the conservation law is violated.

The possible existence of virtual particles is via the Casimir effect.

Much, or some of that, is beyond me, (I'm no good at math), but, thanks for the info...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

No issues with your explanation but it’s easier to explain using the uncertainty principle equation.

Δx.Δp ≥ h/4π

Δx is the uncertainty in the measurement of the position of a particle.
Δp is the uncertainty in the measurement of the momentum of a particle.
h is Planck’s constant.

We can manipulate the equation using dimensional analysis (mass=M, position =L, time = T) to obtain an Energy-Time uncertainty equation.

Momentum p has the dimensions MLT ̄ ¹.
Energy E has the dimensions ML²T ̇̄ ².
Δx.Δp has the dimensions L. MLT ̄ ¹ = ML² T ̄ ¹ = ML² T ̄ ².T.
ΔE.Δt has the dimensions ML² T ̄ ².T hence the uncertainty equation can be expressed as:

ΔE.Δt ≥ h/4π.

In Quantum Mechanics there is no mathematical operator associated with time unlike the mathematical operators for position and momentum when applied to a quantum state produce the uncertainties for position and momentum of a particle.
In this case Δt is simply the time interval in which a particular state exists such as a virtual particle.

The equation ΔE.Δt ≥ h/4π tells us the smaller the time interval the larger the uncertainty in the energy measurement when the Hamiltonian operator H is applied to a quantum state.
In the interval Δt the conservation of energy is violated and a virtual particle can exist only when the conservation law is violated.

The possible existence of virtual particles is via the Casimir effect.

Why is there no mathematical operator associated with time...?

God Bless!

 

[Zoii]

You are asking about virtual particles. They do not “disappear and then reappear”, it is just the opposite: they appear out of nowhere, usually from some real particle, go an ambiguous distance and are reabsorbed, usually by yet another real particle. When they are reabsorbed, nothing of them remains except whatever momentum and kinetic energy (and sometimes other quantum numbers) they withdrew from the first particle and deposited with the second.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Someone, or something "caused" the heating or the rod (the energy) though right...?

Yes.

But, where did the energy come from, or how did it come about...?

One conclusion we can draw from the quantum uncertainty principle is that the amount of energy in the universe is not constant. It fluctuates. Randomly, so far as we can tell. When a particular area of space has an amount of energy that fluctuates upwards, it can add enough energy to allow for the creation of particles, just like using a fire to add energy to a bar can add enough energy to allow for the creation of particles.

I added some more to it... (I'd like to know your thoughts on the time part)...

Time might be even harder than virtual particles!

 

[Neogaia777]

You are asking about virtual particles. They do not “disappear and then reappear”, it is just the opposite: they appear out of nowhere, usually from some real particle, go an ambiguous distance and are reabsorbed, usually by yet another real particle. When they are reabsorbed, nothing of them remains except whatever momentum and kinetic energy (and sometimes other quantum numbers) they withdrew from the first particle and deposited with the second.

There is no such place as nowhere and nothing, unless your suggesting there is, then it is called something or somewhere...?

 

[Neogaia777]

Yes.



One conclusion we can draw from the quantum uncertainty principle is that the amount of energy in the universe is not constant. It fluctuates. Randomly, so far as we can tell. When a particular area of space has an amount of energy that fluctuates upwards, it can add enough energy to allow for the creation of particles, just like using a fire to add energy to a bar can add enough energy to allow for the creation of particles.

What caused the fire? (Sorry in motion on my.phone right now, can't make long replies or cut parts)...(don't know how on my phone yet)...

 

[Zoii]

There is no such place as nowhere and nothing, unless your suggesting there is, then it is called something or somewhere...?

Thats what I just explained - they do not come from nothing and nor do they disappear to nothing

 

[Radagast]

Is it true, that particles on their smallest level, that we can detect, seem to pop in and out of existence...?

This is a hypothesis, yes. For example, electromagnetic fields can be explained by virtual photons popping in and out of existence.

Why are their different interpretations...?

Because we have the math, and experiments prove the math correct, but there are still debates about what the math means.

I've even heard that some say, "nothing really exists" (not here anyway) independent or separate from our input...?

God created the universe. It certainly exists.

 

[sjastro]

Why is there no mathematical operator associated with time...?

God Bless!

The mathematical argument as to why time is not a quantum mechanical operator is quite involved but the simplest answer there is no evidence to show that time exists in discrete or quantized units.
At quantum mechanical scales properties such as energy, position, momentum and spin possess discrete values and can therefore be modelled as mathematical operators acting on a quantum state resulting in the observable values.

 

[Neogaia777]

Thats what I just explained - they do not come from nothing and nor do they disappear to nothing

Sorry...

Is there proof that they come from other particles, and go to other particles, or are there differing theories on this, and that is only a theory, or what...?

And then, what other particles would be my next question...? And then, where do those particles come from or go to...?

God Bless!