Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 39 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 15 of 17 1 2 13 14 15 16 17
Orac #47693 01/19/13 01:20 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Eureka had a brainstorm thought about it and can falsify your light/mirror boundary example Paul.

Simply put the mirror and torch in motion together


I just had a web storm in my brian , as I searched the internet
on google using the following terms.

is a virtual particle real yes or no

I used yes or no because everything I read did not include
anything that could be defined as saying that there actually is or is not a virtual particle.

then I started reading things saying that a virtual particle really is nothing at all , but is the result of other particles and fields.

so why does it even have the word particle at all.

and if it is a result of actual ( real ) particles and fields
then it isn't even virtual at all.

a virtual particle is just an effect caused by the ( real world ) not a mystical
or magical thing found only in QM.

therefore , thus , and hitherto , your squib thing was most
likely nothing more than an effect of the virtual mirror
and the fields that vibrate it.

nothing more , nothing less , just classical stuff there , orac.

I think that the QM staff needs to reconsider the way they use
words in the story line if they expect people to believe what
they are trying to produce.

in this thread alone we see plenty of evidence that the QM editor staff is lacking.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
.
Orac #47694 01/19/13 01:33 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
I just got round to reading the articles about the mirrors.

Let's see if I have come even close to understanding what all this really means.

Virtual particles, that are not really particles, but are transient disturbances in their associated fields, come into being as particle/anti particle duos, by borrowing energy from the vacuum.

This energy has to be repaid in a minute fraction of a second, and this comes about by the annihilation of the two particles.

Photons are their own anti particles, so annihilation takes place as with other particle pairs.

In this experiment, energy is transferred to the mirror to make it vibrate.

Some of this energy is transferred to some virtual photons so they remain in existence even after they repay the energy borrowed from the vacuum. In effect, they become real photons.

The experiment is conducted at very low temperature and in a vacuum, so friction is eliminated as a cause of the appearance of the photons. I.e. they are not sparks of some kind.


There never was nothing.
paul #47695 01/19/13 01:37 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Paul, I found this quite valuable in thinking about virtual particles.

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-an...-what-are-they/

You may well not agree with it, but it might help to clarify what you are disagreeing with.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #47696 01/19/13 01:49 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
this is from the top line on the below web page that orac posted
links to.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110603/full/news.2011.346.html

Quote:
A team of physicists is claiming to have coaxed sparks from the vacuum of empty space




why do you think they would call it sparks?
sparks are usually tiny pieces of something like metal.

electricity can cause sparks to fly off but the sparks or arcs
such as in welding are actually carrying tiny pieces of metal
with them.

so I suppose that the sparks are made of some type of material.

it may be that the electronic devices are breaking down
and this is where the sparks are coming from.

personally, I highly doubt that anything is comming from the vacuum.









3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Bill S. #47697 01/19/13 01:52 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
yes , I came across that one earlier today while trying
to find out what a virtual particle was.



the green part is supposed to be the virtual particle.

that image says it all to me.

and the description sets it deeper into the stone.

Quote:
Two electrons approach each other; they generate a disturbance in the electromagnetic field (the photon field); this disturbance pushes them apart, and their paths are bent outward. One says they "exchange virtual photons", but this is just jargon.


that's all classic stuff in my opinion Bill s
I kind of get the opinion that you feel the same way.

?



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #47698 01/19/13 01:57 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul

is a virtual particle real yes or no

so why does it even have the word particle at all.


No not real and I agree perhaps they should drop the word partcile for layman so it doesn't cause issues but things move slowly in science it took 30 years to get the word "virtual" put in front of the word particle as it was.


Originally Posted By: paul

then I started reading things saying that a virtual particle really is nothing at all , but is the result of other particles and fields.

a virtual particle is just an effect caused by the ( real world ) not a mystical or magical thing found only in QM.


And I agree with you completely you see a rainbow all the time it is an effect that you can visually see but its not real but also not magic.


I think however you are still saying there are REAL particles you are just adding in some as virtual, QM and I don't accept that there is any such thing as a real or solid particle they are all these virtual ones.


Originally Posted By: paul

therefore , thus , and hitherto , your squib thing was most
likely nothing more than an effect of the virtual mirror
and the fields that vibrate it.

nothing more , nothing less , just classical stuff there , orac.


And if we have got even you to that position so that you aren't at least denying QM exists and you want that as your understanding I think it is better than it was before.

As I sort of illustrated with the transistor QM is not some out in space theory that can't be rigorously tested like General Relativity and that why it brings even great scientists down like Einstein and Hawking.

It think the issue is this


Originally Posted By: paul

I think that the QM staff needs to reconsider the way they use
words in the story line if they expect people to believe what
they are trying to produce.

in this thread alone we see plenty of evidence that the QM editor staff is lacking.


And that I totally agree with until we teach and publish QM in a better way it will have these issues.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
paul #47699 01/19/13 01:59 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul

the green part is supposed to be the virtual particle.

that image says it all to me.

and the description sets it deeper into the stone.



Thats close enough for a layman the bit you are missing is if you zoomed in on the electrons they themselves are also also virtual particles and like like tight packed green rings smile


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #47700 01/19/13 02:03 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
And I agree with you completely you see a rainbow all the time it is an effect that you can visually see but its not real but also not magic.


but we call it a rainbow , not a virtual anything because
it actually is light.

if it were not light we would not see it at all.

what QM is doing here in this case is they are calling something that is real "virtual" see what I mean.

Quote:
I think however you are still saying there are REAL particles you are just adding in some as virtual, QM and I don't accept that there is any such thing as a real or solid particle they are all these virtual ones.


you just lost me again!

ok , so everything we see is made up of particles that are not real?

Quote:
And that I totally agree with until we teach and publish QM in a better way it will have these issues.


well as is common in all new thing's there will be a lot
of tweaking as the years fly by , as long as you guys don't adhere to the einstonedian theory's your alright in my book.

but how can I feel all this virtual stuff?













3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #47701 01/19/13 02:09 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul

why do you think they would call it sparks?


Because the editors of the piece are idiots who in trying to simplify this to layman go a step to far.


Originally Posted By: paul

personally, I highly doubt that anything is comming from the vacuum.


And now you are back to denying experiments ... these experiments and work have been checked and will be checked by thousands of scientists now and your answer is I know better.

See I use your approach I don't believe the bible I know better smile

Last edited by Orac; 01/19/13 02:09 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
paul #47702 01/19/13 02:12 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul

ok , so everything we see is made up of particles that are not real?


Correct ... is it really that much different that the Bohr planetary atom where everything is made of space between these like little planetary system.

Get it its the same thing the universe is basically lots of open empty space ... the only advantage the bohr atom had was it people could relate to the solar system because they lernt that school.

They are just different descriptions of the same thing ... I don't get whats so attractive to people about the Bohr atom.

Last edited by Orac; 01/19/13 02:17 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Bill S. #47703 01/19/13 02:16 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I just got round to reading the articles about the mirrors.

Let's see if I have come even close to understanding what all this really means.

Virtual particles, that are not really particles, but are transient disturbances in their associated fields, come into being as particle/anti particle duos, by borrowing energy from the vacuum.

This energy has to be repaid in a minute fraction of a second, and this comes about by the annihilation of the two particles.

Photons are their own anti particles, so annihilation takes place as with other particle pairs.

In this experiment, energy is transferred to the mirror to make it vibrate.

Some of this energy is transferred to some virtual photons so they remain in existence even after they repay the energy borrowed from the vacuum. In effect, they become real photons.

The experiment is conducted at very low temperature and in a vacuum, so friction is eliminated as a cause of the appearance of the photons. I.e. they are not sparks of some kind.


Spot on Bill.S


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #47704 01/19/13 02:17 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
so your not really saying that everything is virtual actually.

you just teach that in QM everything is considered as virtual.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #47705 01/19/13 02:23 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul
so your not really saying that everything is virtual actually.

you just teach that in QM everything is considered as virtual.


No the whole world is built from virtual things and I am sorry even in your bohr world it was.

Ahhh is that whats so attractive about the bohr model it blurs the line between real and virtual and they think that the world is solid because atoms are solid?

You realise thats an illusion paul why couldn't I simply get two bohr atoms and push them thru each other like say two galaxies colliding



You are now relying on some mythical force between the atoms to stop that happening and this makes the world more solid for you does it?

You do realize even in the Bohr model where that mythical force comes from don't you ... bet they didn't teach you this bit at school.

Last edited by Orac; 01/19/13 02:24 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #47709 01/19/13 01:36 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I will save you a lot of googling and reading around Paul this is the same problem as the transistor.

There has never been any other explaination to stop the atoms collapsing inside each other besides Quantum Mechanics it's a sticky problem you face.

You are in good company Einstein had the same problem he desperately didn't want to believe in Quantum Mechanics but you can't hold the atoms apart without it smile

I did warn you that QM is not like many other airy fairy theories it is complicated and confronting but your entire modern world from electronics through to the latest medical scanners like MRI are built around it.

There are some extensions of QM like multiverses etc you can definitely be critical of but the core bits of QM are just not things any sane person can ignore given what hangs off it.

Last edited by Orac; 01/19/13 01:37 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
paul #47710 01/19/13 03:11 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
that's all classic stuff in my opinion Bill s
I kind of get the opinion that you feel the same way.


I just question everything I feel I don't understand, and that's a lot of things, both classical and QM.

Possibly a major difference between us is that I don't feel the need to prove anything wrong. I don't necessarily agree with other people's ideas, but I always want to know why they hold them, and why they feel they are better than my ideas.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #47713 01/19/13 03:27 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

I just question everything I feel I don't understand, and that's a lot of things, both classical and QM.

Possibly a major difference between us is that I don't feel the need to prove anything wrong. I don't necessarily agree with other people's ideas, but I always want to know why they hold them, and why they feel they are better than my ideas.


Good for you Bill. I unfortunately have a tendency to get kind of annoyed at you for harping on things that don't seem to me to be any problem, but at least you don't just throw things out. That is a lot better than just refusing to believe that they are real.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Orac #47714 01/19/13 04:38 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
No the whole world is built from virtual things and I am sorry even in your bohr world it was.


ok, thats where I leave this discussion , because the reason
I was in the discussion was to try and understand QM.

I find no possible reason to want to learn anything that claims
that everything is virtual ( not real ) so you guys enjoy the
discussion on fantasy.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Bill #47715 01/19/13 04:53 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
I unfortunately have a tendency to get kind of annoyed at you for harping on things that don't seem to me to be any problem,


Let me guess; one of those things is the nature of infinity. smile

Here's a worrying thought for you: the more I find out about QM, the more I think my idea is right!


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #47716 01/19/13 05:52 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Yep, there you go Bill S. But even so sometimes your quest for understanding opens up some new insights for me. So don't let me stop you. Keep on trying to figure it all out.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill #47717 01/19/13 09:18 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
So don't let me stop you.


My wife says: "Whatever makes him think he could stop you? I could soon disabuse him of that idea."


There never was nothing.
Page 15 of 17 1 2 13 14 15 16 17

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5