Morat - VPP - Round 3?

[Chris†opher Paul]

Is it your assertion that virtual particles come into existence from nothing?

Is it your assertion that they get the energy to exist temporarily from themselves, and from nothing else?

If so, could you please explain how it is logical that something can bring itself into existence, before it exists?

 

[blader]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Is it your assertion that virtual particles come into existence from nothing?

Is it your assertion that they get the energy to exist temporarily from themselves, and from nothing else?

If so, could you please explain how it is logical that something can bring itself into existence, before it exists?

Nothing in quantum mechanics is logical. It's not logical for us to be not able to know the position and speed of an object at the same time, but it's true. It's not logical for a particle to be in many places at once, but it's also true. It's even less logical for Schroedinger's cat to be dead and alive all at once, but that too, is true.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Morat has never asserted that virtual particles come from nothing. Nobody ever has - it is a red herring to try and insinuate that. Virtual particles originate out of a vacuum. As we discussed at lenght before, a vacuum is different then "nothing". Virtual particles do not violate laws of conservation and they describe such processes as beta decay of neutrons.
The concept of virtual particles is exotic, and difficult to understand, as the saying goes "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, it means you know nothing about it", but the limitations of the human imagiination does not invalidate the idea.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html

I don't get it. Therefor it is not possible!

 

[Stormy]

It's not logical for a particle to be in many places at once, but it's also true .

It's even less logical for Schroedinger's cat to be dead and alive all at once, but that too, is true .

Late_Cretaceous: How can I find something about this to read? What do I look up? Can you recommend anything? This is extremely important and interesting to me.

Thank you!

 

[Jerry Smith]

http://www.telp.com/philosophy/qw2.htm

(With apologies to LC - I agree with the author of this link that "true" isn't the best way to describe a simultaneously living and dead cat)..

 

[Stormy]

Jerry: It does not matter who you agree with or what you think to be true.

Please do not take this as a personal insult.

Late_Cretaceous: Does it have anything at all to do with alteration of time space dimensions?

 

[Stormy]

Jerry : Your link did help! At least now, I can begin to find what I need to understand.

Thanks!

BTY: You rule to much out!

 

[Jerry Smith]

I won't take it as a personal insult, but I can't help wondering what prompted you to mention this.

 

[Jerry Smith]

You rule to much out!

I rarely rule anything out. I don't guess I know what you mean by that.

 

[Stormy]

I rarely rule anything out. I don't guess I know what you mean by that.

You seem to rely totally on what you perceive as physical reality. You only allow in that which you can know with your common senses. This then becomes your boundaries.... the beginning and end to your perceived truth. There is much reality and truth outside of human awareness.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Stromy, are youasking about Schroedinger's cat? That was posted by Blader. I am familiar with Schroedinger's cat, but I am not the right person to ask about it.

You might want to also read about Bell's Paradox which is somewhat similar. Einstein never accepted it, but Bell's Paradox was supported experimentally in 1985 by Alain Asper. Bell's Paradox is also related to Quantum Entanglement. These phenomenon are often refered to as "spooky action at a distance". All I can say for sure is that they really defy human logic.



Bell's Paradox: http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/Physics/Original/p00265d.html

Quantum Entaglement.
http://fergusmurray.members.beeb.net/Causality.html

Another mind blowing concept is Non-Locality:
http://www.dhushara.com/book/quantcos/qnonloc/qnonloc.htm

As far as books go, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time by stephen hawkings. It was once described to me derisively as a "comic book", but it is VERY good at illustrating these and other concepts (relativity, quarks, antimatter). It should be at your local library, but I consider it a "must have" and it can be purchased on line .

Hawkings has written many other books as well that are very good at relating these bizarre concepts to people.

I have another book which is supposed to be good, but I have not read it yet called "The Whole Shebang"

 

[Stormy]

LC: Thanks for the help. Yes I see now it was Blader that made the original post. oops

All I can say for sure is that they really defy human logic.

But it is exhilarating when shown that human logic is but the beginning of truth. We are confined by it.

Even to know this to be true causes eyes to roll.

LOL

 

[Morat]

  I specifically stated that virtual particle production in a vacuum is an unavoidable result of Heisenburg Uncertainty. That any pure vacuum wouldn't remain so, but instead be a quantum vacuum (one full of appearing and disappearing virtual particles).

  They do not borrow energy from anything to appear. There is nothing for them to borrow from.

  To become a real particle, however, requires the energy debt be paid (Hawking radiation).

   Energy is conserved, because the initial and final states are the same (no net energy is created or destroyed).

 

[blader]

Originally posted by Stormy


You seem to rely totally on what you perceive as physical reality. You only allow in that which you can know with your common senses. This then becomes your boundaries.... the beginning and end to your perceived truth. There is much reality and truth outside of human awareness.

Even if there is, how can we become aware of it, if it's be definition outside of human awareness?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Nothing in quantum mechanics is logical. It's not logical for us to be not able to know the position and speed of an object at the same time, but it's true. It's not logical for a particle to be in many places at once, but it's also true. It's even less logical for Schroedinger's cat to be dead and alive all at once, but that too, is true.

Ok, so if Quantum Mechanics is the underpinnings of science, and it is illogical, why do you all place faith in something illogical?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

To become a real particle, however, requires the energy debt be paid (Hawking radiation).

Maybe this is our misunderstanding of each other. I thought you were saying that they can become real particles without borrowing any energy, except from themselves.

 

[Morat]

 Allow me to clarify for him: Nothing (or little) of quantum mechanics adheres to what we consider "common-sense" behavior of the universe.

  The quantum world operates by rules completely different than the ones running our world. Our instinctive view of "common sense" and "logical" tends to be "what adheres to my experience".

  Me telling you that a dropped rock doesn't fall, but floats away, would be illogical (or irrational, or against common sense). All your experience and knowledge says that rocks fall, not float (at least on Earth).

   However, the quantum world works completely differently. It doesn't work like a tiny version of the world you're used to. Thus many things, experimentally verifiable and tested, work in ways that are directly in opposition to the way most people think things work. 
  

   Further, Quantum Mechanics isn't the "underpinning of science". The only thing that can be remotely called such would be the philosophical basis for it (methodological naturalism). Quantum mechanics is the scientific description of how quantum (sub-atomic scales) effects work.


 

 

[Morat]

Maybe this is our misunderstanding of each other. I thought you were saying that they can become real particles without borrowing any energy, except from themselves.

  Virtual particles and real particles are different things entirely. As I pointed out with the Casimir effect, virtual particles cannot be observed directly (hence evidence via Casimir effect).

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Morat


  Virtual particles and real particles are different things entirely. As I pointed out with the Casimir effect, virtual particles cannot be observed directly (hence evidence via Casimir effect).

 

When I was refering to Virtual Particles, I was refering to (very short) point in time when they become real particles.  To do that, they borrow energy, and it has to be paid back, thus conserving energy.

Does that make sense? 

Thats why I asked:

"Is it your assertion that they get the energy to exist temporarily from themselves, and from nothing else?"

"energy to exist" meaning exist as real particles...

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Further, Quantum Mechanics isn't the "underpinning of science". The only thing that can be remotely called such would be the philosophical basis for it (methodological naturalism). Quantum mechanics is the scientific description of how quantum (sub-atomic scales) effects work.

Thanks for clarifying for me. I called it underpinnings because I was refering to QM occuring "underneath" the atomic level. If the "bottom" isn't logical, then why trust anything "on top" of it...