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

[Neogaia777]

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.

Would it have anything to do with the fact as @essentialsaltes suggested, that or with the limited understanding on how time operates, or maybe can be or is supposed to be measured (runs forward and backward maybe, and there is time and anti-time maybe)...

Is it maybe due to that maybe...?

Or, why can't we quantify time...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Can we actually "detect" virtual particles, or are they just math at this point...?

God Bless!

 

[essentialsaltes]

What caused the fire?

Anything you like. A volcano in Hawaii. A blacksmith's forge. The case of the white hot metal is just an example. The more interesting case of virtual particles, the source of the energy is the random quantum fluctuations inherent in a quantum world.

 

[Neogaia777]

Anything you like. A volcano in Hawaii. A blacksmith's forge. The case of the white hot metal is just an example. The more interesting case of virtual particles, the source of the energy is the random quantum fluctuations inherent in a quantum world.

I am of the belief that nothing is truly random, but, thanks...

God Bless!

 

[essentialsaltes]

Can we actually "detect" virtual particles, or are they just math at this point...?

We detect their effects, as in the Casimir Effect.

This is no different from lots of particles. I mean we don't directly experience a muon or an omega particle. We see funny shaped tracks in cloud chambers. Effects of the particle.

 

[Neogaia777]

We detect their effects, as in the Casimir Effect.

This is no different from lots of particles. I mean we don't directly experience a muon or an omega particle. We see funny shaped tracks in cloud chambers. Effects of the particle.

If you could see God's effects, (but not God himself) would you believe...? Cause we can you know...? And have, and do, (or can), (but we shut our eyes and stop up our ears) And deny our senses...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

We detect their effects, as in the Casimir Effect.

This is no different from lots of particles. I mean we don't directly experience a muon or an omega particle. We see funny shaped tracks in cloud chambers. Effects of the particle.

And by this alone we believe in these particles, but not God right...?

Thanks though, really, thank you...

God Bless!

 

[sjastro]

Would it have anything to do with the fact as @essentialsaltes suggested, that or with the limited understanding on how time operates, or maybe can be or is supposed to be measured (runs forward and backward maybe, and there is time and anti-time maybe)...

Is it maybe due to that maybe...?

Or, why can't we quantify time...?

God Bless!

The explanation I have given for virtual particles is based on Quantum Mechanics which is easier to explain mathematically and somewhat more “intuitive” than Quantum Field Theory which Essentialsaltes has touched on.

One area of confusion is on the concept of time.
In Quantum field theory mathematical symmetry plays an important role.
One such symmetry involves the CPT theorem which is composed of three mathematical operators:
The Charge Conjugation operator C when applied to a particle changes the charge on a particle to its negative sign.
For example the operator applied to the wavefunction of an election changes it to a positron and vice versa.
The Parity operator P is a spatial inversion when applied to a wavefunction can either remain unchanged or changes the sign of the wavefunction.
The Time reversal operator when applied to a wavefunction either remains unchanged or the sign of the wavefunction is changed.

The CPT theorem states the application of the three operators does not change the wavefunction of any particle and is therefore symmetrical.
When applied to antiparticles CPT symmetry is preserved by having the antiparticles move backwards in time.

This is a mathematical interpretation and does not reflect the physical reality.

Antiparticles do not move backwards in time.

 

[Neogaia777]

The explanation I have given for virtual particles is based on Quantum Mechanics which is easier to explain mathematically and somewhat more “intuitive” than Quantum Field Theory which Essentialsaltes has touched on.

One area of confusion is on the concept of time.
In Quantum field theory mathematical symmetry plays an important role.
One such symmetry involves the CPT theorem which is composed of three mathematical operators:
The Charge Conjugation operator C when applied to a particle changes the charge on a particle to its negative sign.
For example the operator applied to the wavefunction of an election changes it to a positron and vice versa.
The Parity operator P is a spatial inversion when applied to a wavefunction can either remain unchanged or changes the sign of the wavefunction.
The Time reversal operator when applied to a wavefunction either remains unchanged or the sign of the wavefunction is changed.

The CPT theorem states the application of the three operators does not change the wavefunction of any particle and is therefore symmetrical.
When applied to antiparticles CPT symmetry is preserved by having the antiparticles move backwards in time.

This is a mathematical interpretation and does not reflect the physical reality.

Antiparticles do not move backwards in time.

How/why does it not reflect physical reality...?

If it's a mathematical interpretation and or that does not reflect the physical reality, then is it (the math) wrong...? If it is wrong, then how do they otherwise make the math work...?

Does another interpretation (math or otherwise) reflect the physical reality (well or well enough) (or work) (or jive with thee, or the physical reality) (of, I'm assuming the particle(s) right)...? (or of what we know of the/this physical reality and how it works)...? Or what...?

(I'm no math expert by any means, but I can and do follow concepts put in other ways, pretty decently), (though not perfectly)...

God Bless!

 

[sjastro]

How/why does it not reflect physical reality...?

If it's a mathematical interpretation and or that does not reflect the physical reality, then is it (the math) wrong...? If it is wrong, then how do they otherwise make the math work...?

Does another interpretation (math or otherwise) reflect the physical reality (well or well enough) (or work) (or jive with thee, or the physical reality) (of, I'm assuming the particle(s) right)...? (or of what we know of the/this physical reality and how it works)...? Or what...?

(I'm no math expert by any means, but I can and do follow concepts put in other ways, pretty decently), (though not perfectly)...

God Bless!

The mathematical interpretation in this case is a pictorial representation of the mathematics in the form of Feynman diagrams.
The mathematics behind Quantum Field Theory is horrendously complicated and Feynman diagrams are a computation aid.
In Feymann diagrams antiparticles can move backwards in time in order to simplify the maths, in reality this does not occur.

A branch of Quantum Field theory, Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is by far the most accurate mathematical theory known in Physics and has made far ranging predictions such as the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron which has been confirmed by experiment.

The QED prediction agrees with the experimentally measured value to more than 10 significant figures, making the magnetic moment of the electron the most accurately verified prediction in the history of physics. (See precision tests of QED for details.)

In fact your computer is a technological outcome of Quantum Electrodynamics.

 

[Neogaia777]

The mathematical interpretation in this case is a pictorial representation of the mathematics in the form of Feynman diagrams.
The mathematics behind Quantum Field Theory is horrendously complicated and Feynman diagrams are a computation aid.
In Feymann diagrams antiparticles can move backwards in time in order to simplify the maths, in reality this does not occur.

A branch of Quantum Field theory, Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is by far the most accurate mathematical theory known in Physics and has made far ranging predictions such as the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron which has been confirmed by experiment.


In fact your computer is a technological outcome of Quantum Electrodynamics.

Thanks for the info man... While I don't claim to fully understand it by any means, I am going to look into it...

Is there such a thing as anti-time, or time moving or flowing backwards...?

God Bless!

 

[Petros2015]

Is there such a thing as anti-time, or time moving or flowing backwards...?

This is a pretty good vid on space-time and covers that a little. Take a look at 7:00 and the implications. Calvinists will love this btw.

 

[Neogaia777]

This is a pretty good vid on space-time and covers that a little. Take a look at 7:00 and the implications. Calvinists will love this btw.

Thanks man, kinda hard to conceive of, almost makes not only time, but space, distance, this entire physical reality seem like one big illusion (or delusion)...

Some may call this "woo" BTW, just so you know...

I've always wondered about the speed of light, if the light barrier could be reached, or broken, by speed through physical space, what would happen to time...?, what would happen to matter...?, or this reality as we know it...? And what happens to time say at a lesser but close to light speeds...? and time in relation to speed and distance between objects or places, or space...?

Interesting video though, but some may come on here to criticize it... Just so you know...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

This is a pretty good vid on space-time and covers that a little. Take a look at 7:00 and the implications. Calvinists will love this btw.

Also wonder if all possible happenings of everything that could possibly happen anywhere at any time, actually are all happening somewhere (in the universe) at the same time or right now in time, all the time, and at every moment in time...?

Also, how something 4 light years away, is seen at four years (old, I guess you could say, if that even applies now or anymore) and something 46 billion light years away, is being seen at 46 billion light years in the past, and how gravity bends light, and black holes bend it enough to suck it in and absorb light...

The universe is truly a marvelous and mysterious place isn't it...

God Bless!

 

[Petros2015]

Interesting video though, but some may come on here to criticize it... Just so you know...

Sure, I don't care about that. I'm just sharing a good video that gives an interesting viewpoint from physics and has some pretty fascinating implications.

I've always wondered about the speed of light, if the light barrier could be reached, or broken, by speed through physical space, what would happen to time...?, what would happen to matter...?

Well, I'm not a physicist, but here is how I see it. Einstein said as you approached the speed of light, you required more power to go faster, and the amount of power you needed increased exponentially. Why? Because as you approached the speed of light, you became more and more massive. The mass of a starship would increase as it approached lightspeed. Also time would effectively slow for those on the ship as it approached lightspeed.

HUH???

The way I think about it is this. Have you ever been standing in a swimming pool with a friend in about 4 feet of water? You can lift your friend out of the pool even if he is heavier than you. But the more you lift him out of the pool, the heavier and heavier he gets. Why does he get heavier and heavier the more you lift him out? Because while he is in the pool, the buoyancy of the water makes him lighter. His mass is relative to the mass of the water. As you lift him out, less and less of him is in the pool, so he gets heavier and heavier as he forsakes the buoyancy of the pool. He is not really getting more and more massive, but within the pool he is lighter.

So space-time is like the pool. As you approach light-speed you are starting to leave the pool. Getting more and more massive, being subject to less and less time. This is why time slows and you become more massive. You are forsaking the 'buoyancy' of space-time. A ship approaching light-speed would start to hydroplane out of space-time.

And... there's nothing outside of space-time. Within the pool your mass is relative to the rest of the universe. But if I start to forsake the buoyancy of all of space-time, my mass is becoming relative to NOTHING - I'm becoming infinitely massive. This is why Einstein said the mass would approach infinity as the speed approached light-speed.

Things that become infinitely massive tend to collapse in on themselves into black holes. So if you had any mass at all, I think that's what would happen if you really forced it with an infinite amount of power to try and approach and break the light speed barrier, the result would be the ship collapsing into a black hole. If you had ANY MASS AT ALL to start with, that would be the result. You would have to be pure light or pure spirit to approach or exceed light speed and not be destroyed in the black-hole trap.

Pretty interesting setup. To me it seems like God really doesn't like universe-hackers

Anyway, that's the way I think of it.

 

[Neogaia777]

Sure, I don't care about that. I'm just sharing a good video that gives an interesting viewpoint from physics and has some pretty fascinating implications.



Well, I'm not a physicist, but here is how I see it. Einstein said as you approached the speed of light, you required more power to go faster, and the amount of power you needed increased exponentially. Why? Because as you approached the speed of light, you became more and more massive. The mass of a starship would increase as it approached lightspeed. Also time would effectively slow for those on the ship as it approached lightspeed.

HUH???

The way I think about it is this. Have you ever been standing in a swimming pool with a friend in about 4 feet of water? You can lift your friend out of the pool even if he is heavier than you. But the more you lift him out of the pool, the heavier and heavier he gets. Why does he get heavier and heavier the more you lift him out? Because while he is in the pool, the buoyancy of the water makes him lighter. His mass is relative to the mass of the water. As you lift him out, less and less of him is in the pool, so he gets heavier and heavier as he forsakes the buoyancy of the pool. He is not really getting more and more massive, but within the pool he is lighter.

So space-time is like the pool. As you approach light-speed you are starting to leave the pool. Getting more and more massive, being subject to less and less time. This is why time slows and you become more massive. You are forsaking the 'buoyancy' of space-time. A ship approaching light-speed would start to hydroplane out of space-time.

And... there's nothing outside of space-time. Within the pool your mass is relative to the rest of the universe. But if I start to forsake the buoyancy of all of space-time, my mass is becoming relative to NOTHING - I'm becoming infinitely massive. This is why Einstein said the mass would approach infinity as the speed approached light-speed.

Things that become infinitely massive tend to collapse in on themselves into black holes. So if you had any mass at all, I think that's what would happen if you really forced it with an infinite amout of power to try and approach and break the light speed barrier, the result would be the ship collapsing into a black hole. If you had ANY MASS AT ALL to start with, that would be the result. You would have to be pure light or pure spirit to approach or exceed light speed and not be destroyed in the black-hole trap.

Pretty interesting setup. To me it seems like God really doesn't like universe-hackers

Anyway, that's the way I think of it.

Awesome, thanks for that description...

About the video again... everything is in motion... so, if we are proceeding away from say another galaxy, or "whatever" would our view of it in time be much, much further back in the past, (if that term, or those terms, even applies now that is), or if were moving toward it would we be looking at it far, far in the future, or what...? (again if we can even use those terms, and not just call it all "now")...

And that would need to be calculated in with somehow, along with the thing at say a hundred thousand light years away being a hundred thousand years old, or in the "past" would need to figured in and calculated somehow, with what was just mentioned prior to this... How can we even begin to calculate it/that with those two combined, with any accuracy, then...

Then/and, since everything is in motion and moving all kinds of different directions at different speeds, all that, in relation to each other...? Well, it gets kind of complicated then, doesn't it...?

Thanks man!

God Bless!

 

[Petros2015]

The universe is truly a marvelous and mysterious place isn't it...

Yes, it definitely is. And it is interesting how it has been built. You might enjoy this book, it is a little old (1984) but it is easy to read, one of my favorites and it walks though the different ways physics has thought about the universe from the atom through to quantum physics. It is one of my favorites.

In Search of Schrödinger's Cat by John Gribbin

 

[Petros2015]

Well, it gets kind of complicated then, doesn't it...?

Yes it does lol.

 

[Neogaia777]

Yes, it definitely is. And it is interesting how it has been built. You might enjoy this book, it is a little old (1984) but it is easy to read, one of my favorites and it walks though the different ways physics has thought about the universe from the atom through to quantum physics. It is one of my favorites.

In Search of Schrödinger's Cat by John Gribbin

Thanks man, I'll try to find it and look into it...

God Bless!

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't think people like looking at the quantum level cause it causes us to question, not only nearly everything we think we know about reality, but about our other oh so reliable laws (that then become theories again), about physics in general...?

I just thought I'ld point out, science doesn't work that way.

Laws were never theories and theories never become laws.

They are different things.

Theories explain sets of facts and laws.
Facts and laws support theories.

What a law is, kind of also depends on the discipline involved.
In general, for the most part, I guess you could say that a law is a generalisation / abstraction of a set of facts.