Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(March 7, 2016 at 7:01 am)Mathilda Wrote: Quote mining and deliberately mangled up to make it look like his own argument. I've reported him.
(March 6, 2016 at 9:06 am)Harris Wrote: For example, in the electric field when two electrons approach each other, their charges create a disturbance in the electromagnetic field. This disturbance pushes them apart and their paths bent outwards. That also work if an electron and a positron approach each other however, the disturbance in this case similar in type but different in details with the result that the oppositely charged electron and positron are attracted to each other. Their paths are bent inwards.
Quote:The word "particle" is a poor conceptual description that only makes any sense in the jargon of perturbative quantum field theory (pQFT). I think that people who are not trained in pQFT should consider the word "virtual" to correspond to the excitation's particle-ness. It is not really a particle in any meaningful sense of the word. But it does correspond to something that exists for some short time.
Quote:In fact, what we call a particle is a nice regular ripple in a field one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space. This so called Virtual Particle is a disturbance in a field that would never be found on its own. It does not have energy to become a well formed ripple moving through space. This kind of disturbance will decay or break apart once its cause is gone.
Quote:In the Quantum Field Theory view, actual particles are viewed as being detectable excitations of underlying Quantum Fields.
Virtual Particles are also viewed as excitations of the underlying fields, but appear only as forces, not as detectable particles. They are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations, but are not detected as single particles. Thus, in mathematical terms, they never appear as indices to the scattering matrix, which is to say, they never appear as the observable inputs and outputs of the physical process being modelled.
Quote:The Standard Model:
Standard Model is made of all stable Fermions. If we add the excited state versions of these Fermions, we get the full view. All space is filled with matter fields. They can spawn Fermion particles as waves. This includes all Leptons and Quarks. These particles carry one or more charges. Colour Charge, Electromagnetic Charge, and Weak Hyper Charge. Particles with a charge filled space around them with a force field. They can spawn force particles when excited by particles that carry that charge.
Quote:According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, nothing in the Universe (i.e., matter or energy) can pop into existence from nothing. All of the scientific evidence points to that conclusion.
Energy could not have popped into existence without violating the First Law of Thermodynamics. So in reality, when scientists argue that quantum mechanics creates something from nothing, they do not really mean “nothing.” The problem of how everything got here is still present. The matter generated in quantum theory is from a vacuum that is not void.
Quote:But what if quantum theory could allow for spontaneous generation at the quantum level? What if the First Law of Thermodynamics does not apply at the unobservable molecular world of quantum mechanics but only to the macroscopic world that we can actually see? Even if that were the case (and there is no conclusive evidence to support the contention that there are any exceptions whatsoever to the First Law of Thermodynamics, according to the Big Bang model) the quantum level cosmic egg eventually became macroscopic through expansion or inflation. Such an event would have been the equivalent of a breach of the First Law, even under such a speculative definition.
But is not it true that one usually assumes that the current laws of physics did not apply at the beginning? Assumptions must be reasonable. What evidence could be used to back such a grandiose assumption? And again, who would have written the laws at the moment they became viable? And further, if the laws of physics broke down at the beginning, one cannot use quantum law to bring about matter, which is precisely what the quantum fluctuation theory attempts to do.
Conclusion
Can quantum mechanics create Universes from nothing? No!
Quantum particle generation requires pre-existing energy—a far cry from nothing.
Tiny quantum particles fluctuating—bouncing around—is one thing. The creation of the entire Universe through a quantum fluctuation? That’s another.
One who wishes to avoid acknowledging the existence of God should be expected to do almost anything to deny it. Reason will be thrown aside, and acceptance of far-fetched theories—theories that are so speculative that they belong in the fiction section of the library along with the The Wizard of Oz—will be latched onto as fact.
What is the purpose of this exercise? To show I am a THIEF?
For the sake of argument, I agree that I have STOLEN the STUFF from websites you have mentioned.
Is that all?
What about my argument that I have developed with the help of that STOLEN STUFF?
My argument is that in Modern Physics the term “VIRTUAL PARTICLE” is not used for a nanoscopic marble ball that hit and interact with other nanoscopic balls. I further argued that “VIRTUAL PARTICLES” as nanoscopic marble balls cannot come into being from NOTHING because they literally do not exist in reality.
Why you have stopped at showing that I am a THIEF? Why did not you show the world that my arguments are falls?
Here I make a new statement:
“DONKEY BRAYS LOUDLY AT THREATS”
Go and find out from which website I have STOLEN this phrase and then as being a Ph.D. prove scientifically that my statement is false.
March 8, 2016 at 5:24 am (This post was last modified: March 8, 2016 at 5:26 am by Alex K.)
(March 8, 2016 at 5:02 am)Harris Wrote:
(March 6, 2016 at 2:30 pm)Alex K Wrote: I would like to come back to this statement, in which you seem to trace back the reason why particles and virtual particles have a different "ontological status" (one really exists, the other is an artefact of calculational method) to the fact that one appears as scattering matrix-elements, whereas the others don't. Since you are eager to discuss S-matrix theory, you must be aware that this distinction is problematic because
1. S-Matrix elements are infra-red divergent due to soft emission, and only lead to physically meaningful results if they are combined with virtual corrections in scattering cross-sections. From this it appears to me that real emission of particles alone isn't even defined, and that the distinction between the two classes of particles based on arguments from S-Matrix theory is problematic. What's your perspective?
2. The S-Matrix is a somewhat artificial construct obtained by assuming that ingoing and outgoing particles stop interacting, and then taking the time to +/- infinity and using the resulting asymptotic free states as "external particles". This works great when describing scattering processes in which isolated, massive and stable particles meet and part again, but if you depart from this idealized scenario, things like 1.) happen. Also, if you just look at the unitary time evolution operator without taking it to asymptotic times, the distinction between what's an S-Matrix index and what isn't surely isn't as clear-cut any more.
Do you disagree? Or do you subscribe to an axiomatic S-Matrix approach to particle physics in which there is no local Lagrangian and no time evolution? Because that worked out so well?
The main idea of my previous response was to show that all Gauge Bosons are in fact forces that fermions carry on them. The interaction of fermions activated those bosons which then cause disturbances in the field of free flowing particles. These Bosons (termed as particles) are not detectable as particles in any sense because they are force fields that can be recorded as disturbances but not as particles.
As for s-matrix, a process like e+e− → μ+μ− is not well-defined in perturbation theory because of the infrared divergence.
Infra-red divergences are due to using UNPHYSICAL variables to describe in and out states and introduce gauge invariant, physical “dressed” states. In scattering calculations, it is a common tendency to make an assumption that the coupling constant can be set to zero at infinitely remote times. In QED this might appear reasonable while in QCD such calculations are often based on the premise of some parton-hadron duality. The results of scattering calculations are, though, plagued by infra-red (IR) divergences.
It has long been known that the soft divergences occurring in QED can be cancelled out in transition rates or cross sections computed for detectors with finite energy resolution: the soft divergences which occur in a scattering process due to the emission of an undetected soft real photons with total energy ≤ El exactly cancel out the soft divergences due to virtual photon corrections order by order in perturbation theory. This cancellation was first shown by Bloch and Nordsieck in QED and is referred to as Bloch-Nordsieck theorem. In ordinary (commutative) Yang-Mills theories just as in QED, there exist IR (soft) divergences due to MASSLESS GLUONS. This has been guaranteed by the theorems of Kinoshita and of Lee and Nauenberg known as KLN theorem which states that the transition rates are free of the collinear and soft divergences if we sum over initial and final states. This theorem is a fundamental quantum mechanical theorem on the basis of unitarity of S-matrix.
Field theories with space-time non-commutativity, for example, do not have a unitary S-matrix. The extra branch cuts in these theories, are developed in the loop diagrams which are responsible for the failure of the cutting rules and lack of unitary S-matrix.
In a scattering process computed up to one-loop order, if we consider the non-commutative soft photon emission, the non-commutative logarithmic IR divergence in the vertex correction will be cancelled in the cross section. However, there are additional non-Abelian type diagrams in which their non-commutative logarithmic and quadratic divergences cannot be cancelled out using the cross section method. This non-cancellation is attributed to an important difference between soft and non-commutative IR divergences. The soft divergences are associated with the classical limit but non-commutative IR divergences are completely a quantum mechanical effect and the soft divergences that only appear in the non-planar vertex correction to be cancelled out in the physical cross section to all orders.
Ok, I'll for now act as if you were actually making an argument that you understand rather than just copying other people's material without attribution (which as an author, is very offensive to me).
Your new wall of text seems to be reinforcing my point. You must be aware that the KLN theorem, which "you" outline above, precisely requires the presence of "virtual" particles in loops in order to make sense of the sums over degenerate initial and final states.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
March 8, 2016 at 5:29 am (This post was last modified: March 8, 2016 at 5:32 am by Alex K.)
(March 8, 2016 at 5:02 am)Harris Wrote: It has long been known that the soft divergences occurring in QED can be cancelled out in transition rates or cross sections computed for detectors with finite energy resolution: the soft divergences which occur in a scattering process due to the emission of an undetected soft real photons with total energy ≤ El exactly cancel out the soft divergences due to virtual photon corrections order by order in perturbation theory. This cancellation was first shown by Bloch and Nordsieck in QED and is referred to as Bloch-Nordsieck theorem. In ordinary (commutative) Yang-Mills theories just as in QED, there exist IR (soft) divergences due to MASSLESS GLUONS. This has been guaranteed by the theorems of Kinoshita and of Lee and Nauenberg known as KLN theorem which states that the transition rates are free of the collinear and soft divergences if we sum over initial and final states. This theorem is a fundamental quantum mechanical theorem on the basis of unitarity of S-matrix.
Unless you are one of the authors of arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0609181, you are in trouble, Sir. Now copying blog posts isn't good enough any more, now you plagiarize directly from the scientific literature? Way to step up your game
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
(March 8, 2016 at 5:10 am)Alex K Wrote: Well, Harris, why argue with her. You can simply keep going like that and see where it takes you.
If I write E=mc^2 in words would that change the meaning of it? Can someone change this equation by merely changing the wording?
You have written so many things on this forum, if I find on some website that say exactly the same thing using the same words as you did, does that means you have copied something? No, that says that you are talking about one and the same thing.
March 8, 2016 at 5:36 am (This post was last modified: March 8, 2016 at 5:40 am by Alex K.)
(March 8, 2016 at 5:31 am)Harris Wrote:
(March 8, 2016 at 5:10 am)Alex K Wrote: Well, Harris, why argue with her. You can simply keep going like that and see where it takes you.
If I write E=mc^2 in words would that change the meaning of it? Can someone change this equation by merely changing the wording?
You have written so many things on this forum, if I find on some website that say exactly the same thing using the same words as you did, does that means you have copied something? No, that says that you are talking about one and the same thing.
So what you are saying is that you are the proverbial monkey who, by mindlessly striking his typewriter, has accidentally reproduced an exact copy of a paper on noncommutative quantum field theory from 10 years ago? People, it's a miracle!!!
But in all seriousness, apart from your ethically dubious behaviour which completely discredits you as a intellectually honest scholar, the more immediate problem for this forum is that you paste large amounts of text which you do not understand nor have the ability to address or discuss. This is spamming and forbidden by the rules.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
