didnt understand casimir effect well

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by rohIT, Nov 21, 2012.

  1. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    As noted by the bold portion above, you are talking about theory as if it were proven or observed fact. Black holes were predicted by GR, and observations supporting those predictions have been made, but just as with dark energy and dark matter, for the present the exact nature, character, composition and mechanics of these things remain theoretical. They all follow from what has been one of our most successful theoretical models. A model, GR, which with or without them, based on current astronomical observation and understanding of particle physics, may need some re-evaluation.

    The mechanics of what occurs at the event horizon remains theoretical, let alone the character and nature of the black hole within. It will likely remain so for some significant time to come. It is arrogant for any of us to present any theory describing the mechanics involved as if it were proven fact. It is the best our imaginations can muster to describe things far beyond our current reach. While it is likely that reality, does incorporate theory, what we believe today, to some extent.., it would be a great mistake to assume that what theory describes today limits the reality of tomorrow. What the world, universe and black hole mechanics looks like tomorrow.., some few hundred years from now, will almost certainly be something other than how we imagine things today. The best we can hope for is that we are today on the right track, rather than moving down a blind alley.

    Re: The Casimir effect and negative energy, see my previous post.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Here is that F-21 section text:

    "A particle at rest near the horizon of a non spinning black hole has zero total energy (from equation [18] in Sample Problem 1, page 3-12). The
    meaning? That it takes an energy equal to its rest energy (= m) to remove this particle to rest at a large distance from the black hole (where it has the energy m). As a consequence, if the particle drops into the black hole from its stationary position next to the horizon, then the mass of the combined black-hole-particle system (measured by a far-away observer, Figure 4, page 3-11) does not change.

    For Kerr geometry the physical system differs from that in Schwarzschild geometry. A particle can have a negative energy near a spinning black
    hole. The meaning? An energy greater than its rest energy (greater than m) is required to remove such a particle to rest at a great distance from the black hole. If the particle with negative energy is captured by the spinning black hole, the black hole’s mass and angular momentum decrease. (See Section 11.) This process can be repeated until the black hole has zero angular momentum. Then it becomes a “dead” Schwarzschild black hole, from which only Hawking radiation can extract energy"

    Kerr BHs are spinning and Schwarchild BH are not, but I just say Kerr BH & no-spin BH in my discussion below.
    The event horizon, EV, for the no-spin black hole is spherical and as noted in above text, everywhere outside the the EV of a no-spin BH the energy of a particle cannot be negative. I never intended my statement that negative energy can not exist to apply to that part of the universe which cannot even in principle be observed and only untestable theory makes predictions about it.

    The total energy for a stationary particle at the EV of the no-spin BH is called zero because the work done to move the particle far way from the BH´s EV is identical with the rest mass energy of the motionless (KE =0) particle far away. In some sense, one can think of a particle´s rest mass energy as the work done to move the particle away from an edge of the observable universe (That´s what the every BH´s EV is) and is now stored in the particle as rest/mass energy.

    The Kerr BH is more complex and has a non-spherical "static surface" as shown in Fig 1 of page F-8, which I cannot post (from a .pdf link). This surface is larger than the EV except where it touches the poles of the spin axis and the volume between it and the EV is called the "ergosphere." Inside the ergosphere, the current theory say particles can have negative energy, but they are not observable also (I think). Basically this is because everything (even light photons the particle might emit or reflect) inside the ergosphere is drug along with the spin so some energy would be needed to arrest this circular motion and move the particle to a stationary point just outside the stationary surface where, like a particle on the EV of a no-spin BH the particle energy is zero. I.e. by this theory, more than rest energy M is required to get rest energy M far away so one can infer originally inside the ergosphere the particle must, by this accounting, have been with negative energy. Again, I intended no statements about parts of the universe which in principle can never be observed.

    Note also that the two sections of the quote I have made bold tend to CONFIRM that BHs lose mass ("evaporate") ONLY by black body radiation and not by "eating" some non-existing negative energy member of a particle pair, which the gravity gradient pulls inside the EV, at least for the no-spin BH. Perhaps a Kerr BH can lose energy by eating zero energy particles that cross into the ergosphere volume. I would think conservation of energy and/or momentum would require that as once inside they gain rotational energy and momentum as they are sweep around with the BH´s rotation. The quoted text I have made blue states explicitly that this is the case.

    As stated earlier, I am not very interested in modern, highly-mathematical, physics, which from my POV is applied mathematics and, in most cases, not testable like the physics I knew. (Just to be clear, I note that QM is very testable, and in fact gives agree with experiments better than any other part of physic even though one need not be proficient with tensor algebra to do QM calculations.) Thus I leave this complex, unverifiable, mathematical speculation about the interior of BHs to others, better versed in the math. (In my prior post, I did some non-mathematical speculation about a "fifth force" operating inside BHs and outside too if one wanted it to explain "dark energy" also as well as prevent infinite density mass singularities from being real.)

    I´d rather more seriously speculate (and have) on how human´s perceive, think and make real choices as that can be based on neurological measurements and observable behavior. I have concluded that perception is not direct but of an internally generated world, which I call the Real Time Simulation, RTS, taking place mainly in the parietal brain. Evolution has, however, insured that usually the RTS is quite an accurate model of the external world as it is built upon the neural sensory inputs, but not their "computational transforms" as most cognitive scientists think. Perception is by creation, not by transformation. For more on why I think this, including how this POV removes the conflict between the deterministic (by laws of chemistry and physics) firing of every nerve and free will, see:

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=905778&postcount=66 and some posts in a thread on free will, especially this one explaining in more detail my RTS concepts:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2644660&postcount=82 but be warned, they long especially the the first as I try to show with supporting data that my POV must be more correct than the more widely held POV.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 27, 2012
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Where did I specify virtual photons? I said virtual particles, and these cover the carriers of all forces. And it is well-known that the distinction between 'real' and 'virtual' particles is merely useful, not absolute.
    A "virtual" particle that exists for an arbitrarily long time is simply an ordinary particle.

    However, all particles have a finite lifetime, as they are created and eventually destroyed by some processes. As such, there is no absolute distinction between "real" and "virtual" particles. In practice, the lifetime of "ordinary" particles is far longer than the lifetime of the virtual particles that contribute to processes in particle physics, and as such the distinction is useful to make.
    -wiki​

    So again, what other virtual particles?

    And? What is your supposedly observable alternative to the Standard Model?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    You sure like to write down loads of bs. For the Penrose Process when J/M -> = 0 the black hole is a spherically symmetric non rotating Schwarzschild black hole.
     
  8. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    You need to start reading the literature so you can get beyond your 'just a theory mode' and learn something about 'domain of applicability. Dumb mantra.
     
  9. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Syne, you're right! You did not specify virtual photons. This seems to have begun back around post #8, quoted below;

    In the last part of the above post, your reference to virtual particle annihilation is not consistent with the descriptions of the mechanisms involved in the Casimir effect that I am familiar with. I earlier linked a paper, Casimir forces, Milonni 1992, not that it represents the best reference, it was just easily at hand. One of some dozen or so papers incorporating the same fundamental mechanisms, to differing ends.

    If you have some reference that describes the mechanism of the Casimir effect that does involve particle annihilation, rather than EM fields and photon/charged particle interactions, please provide a link or even title and author. This is something I am interested in.

    Not really sure where this came from. I don't have any problem with the standard model. At least not in any context raised in this thread. I just see the discussion of virtual particles and pair production and annihilation, as a separate discussion from the mechanisms involved in the Casimir effect.., at least as I have understood it. Refer back to Milonni and the ZPF of vacuum energy composed of virtual photons.
     
  10. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I have not read your link but second part of post 6 I too explain Casimir effect in terms of virtual EM waves (but not in terms of virtual photons, if that does not include much longer wavelengths than visible light photons). There is no difference in the population of virtual photons (visible light or shorter wavelengths) between the external space and space between the two conductive plates, nor any way to really understand why the plates must be conductors, I think, without words like I used in post 6 and comparing to the cut off frequencies of micro wave guides, etc.
     
  11. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Billy,

    I use "photons" as interchangeable with "EM radiation", as currently photons are theorized as the force carriers of all EM radiation, without respect to wavelength. The ZPF of the vacuum being a ground state EM field, can then be thought of as either EM waves or virtual photons. I have come to prefer the SED approach, which treats the ZPF as real and composed of real photons, perhaps an artifact of the fact that my true interest lies in understanding inertia and most of the papers I have been studying approach the subject from SED.

    However, it is my understanding that QED and SED, are functionally consistent with one another, in application to this issue.

    I am not an expert, in QED or SED and my following explaintion is overly simplified.

    That said, it is my understanding that the wavelength of the virtual photons, the ZPF is composed of, along with a real interaction between the plates and the ZPF, is key to the Casimir effect. The ZPF interacting with the plates in a manner that involves a transfer of momentum. The proximity of the plates limiting the wavelengths that can exist between them, results in a reduced rate of interaction between the plates compared to that from outside the separating gap. In essence, there is a greater ZPF preassure on the exterior surfaces of the plates, than on the surfaces between them.., and the plates are pushed together. This is not a situation where any negative pressure exists between the plates, just a reduced ZPF preassure compared with the external surfaces.

    As far as why the plates need to be uncharged conductive plates, it appears to me that this is a direct result of addressing the effect (Casimir effect) as an interaction with the EM spectrum of the ZPF. There is often mention that the ZPF likely also incorporates similar fields associated with the strong and weak nuclear forces, which would likely have different effective ranges of interaction with material objects... Essentially, meaning that at the distances involved and that we are limited to (for practical purposes), the EM spectrum of the ZPF dominates... Conducive plates would interact more readily with the EM spectrum of the ZPF than non-conductive plates would. I interpret this as essentially maximizing and/or isolating the ZPF EM field interaction with the plates.
     
  12. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Who said anything about virtual particle annihilation being involved in the Casimir effect? I sure did not. Virtual particle annihilation has nothing significant to do with the Casimir effect. Just because those of longer wavelengths are excluded between the plates does not mean this has any effect at all on the continuous virtual particle annihilation. This goes on, as always, regardless of which side of the plates they are on. Only the OP, and you, seems to have conflated these.

    If you deny virtual particles, and all of the indirect evidence for them ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle#Manifestations ), then you are seeming to deny the force carriers of the Standard Model. And again, only you and the OP seem to have conflated the two. The OP seems to have primarily been asking about the conservation of energy, which is not violated, as Billy T claims, by virtual particles.
     
  13. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Yes it can be violated for short time, exactly as I said:

    I´ll try to find the permited duration of the violation when 1.022Mev (rest energy of electron positron pair) has been briefly created in violation of energy conservation.

    Note also that virtual proton & anti-proton pairs are also made and violate conservation of energy, but only for ~2000 times less duration / existence than a virtual electron pair as the proton is nearly 2000 times more massive than the electron.

    Later by edit: That same link does give a numerical example. The max duration for ΔE = 367 MeV violation of conservation of energy is 8.97 E-25 seconds. So if only 1.022Mev is made from nothing, that violation of conservation of energy can last for (367/1.022)x8.97E-25 s = 3.22E-22 seconds. Still an incredibly short time.

    As the speed of light is C =3E10 cm/s the electron and positron never get even 10E-12 cm = 0.1E-10 cm separated. An incredibly small distance. For an example to aid comprehension, the wave length of green light is about 500 nm = 500E-9 cm = 500,000E-10 cm so they separate by less than 0.1/500,000 of one wave lenght of blue light! that is 2E-6 of one blue light wave length!

    Another way to understand how little they can separate is to compare to typical atom size (1E-10m or 1E-8cm) so their max of 10E-12 cm separation is 1000 times LESS than an atom´s diameter separation, EVEN IF MOVING APART AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 28, 2012
  14. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Perhaps I misunderstood your intent? When you raised the issue of particle annihilation between the plates and the Casimir effect together, your intent became unclear.

    But then virtual or real photons don't really have opposites, do they? And the reference I gave does explain the Casimir effect as an interaction between the ZPF EM field (composed of photons) and the conductive plates.

    I agree. This is exactly what I have been trying to separate out of the two discussions going on in the thread.

    I don't believe I have conflated anything here. I made reference to my understanding of the mechanism involved in the Casimir effect, with at least one link, which does not include any particle annihilations... Whether there are any virtual particle anniliations going on between the plates in the Casimir effect, is immaterial.., unless they play a role in the effect. I have not seen mention of such annihilations, in any of the papers I have read on the issue. Again if you have a reference to such, I would be interested...

    As far as I am aware, I never said anything denying any aspect of the standard model. I may have made some imperfect reference to the SM, but then I have never claimed to be a particle physicist.

    This exchange is rapidly losing any constructive value, all I have been attempting from the beginning is to clearly separate an explanation of the mechanism involved in the Casimir effect from the discussion of particle pair production and annihilation.
     
  15. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Yahoo Answers? Really? Science by popular vote.

    Virtual particles do not necessarily carry the same mass as the corresponding real particle, although they always conserve energy and momentum.
    ...
    The restriction to particle–antiparticle pairs is actually only necessary if the particles in question carry a conserved quantity, such as electric charge, which is not present in the initial or final state.
    -wiki​

    Any "borrowed" energy is always balanced by a virtual antiparticle, so the net gain is zero and conserved quantities are not violated.
     
  16. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    You may want to reread the OP, as it asks if the Casimir effect violates energy conservation through particle annihilation. In my post #2, I clearly stated that there was no violation of conservation and that particle annihilation had nothing to do with the Casimir effect. I said that virtual particle pairs can still annihilated normally between the plates.

    However all other conserved quantum numbers (angular momentum, electric charge, lepton number) of the produced particles must sum to zero – thus the created particles shall have opposite values of each other. -wiki (Pair production)​

    Does that answer your question?

    Quit repeating what I have said and acting as if I have at any point argued the opposite.

    And as I said, you seem to be the only one having that problem.
     
  17. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I assume you are here still falsely asserting (with no evidence offered) that one member of a vacuum ploarization pair production is always with negative energy. - That is false for all normal space.Very near a spinning black hole (inside its ergosphere) everything, even photons, are drug around as space its self is spinning. I don´t know if vacuum pairs are produced in there, but if they were and could be viewed from far away they would, THUS they have positive KE yet they entered the ergosphere with zero total energy, so this book keeping considers them to have negative rest energy inside the Kerr BH´s ergosphere.

    My statements that negative energy particles do not exist were with reference to all the normal space of the universe, not next to or in Kerr Black Holes.
    You did not like my first Google hit - a “Yahoo answers” quote showing that conservation of energy is violated, so here are some from University Physic Departments and other well qualified sources telling that producing 1.022Mev, even very briefly from nothing, – the vacuum - is very definitely a violation of conservation of energy:

    From the University of California, San Diego (QM course 130 notes)
    From University of Wisconsin Physics lectures series:
    All exactly as I said: For the brief time I gave in prior post permited by this equation CONSERVATION OF ENERGY IS VIOLATED.

    Your Wiki statement is about pair production in strong field of a nucleus. Then the electron positron particles produced are usually “on the mass shell.” I.e. have 0.511 Mev each and do not violate conservation of energy, but may (or may not) rapidly mutually annihilate to produce two equal 0.511Mev Gama rays traveling in opposite directions if they mutually annihilate. Or, not infrequently, the nucleus may eject the positron and capture the electron to be transformed to that of the element one step lower in the periodic table. The first reference I gave is mainly concerned with this process of pair production as is this Ph.D thesis:
    SUMMARY: You are simply ignorant of these well known physic facts and probably did not understand that pair production, which takes place near a heavy nucleus´s strong electric field, typically AFAIK, with energy supplied by a harsh Gama ray (one that has as more than 1.022Mev initially to give up) scattering produces particles on the mass shell. I.e. does conserver energy, as the scattered Gama has lost 1.022Mev, if no nuclear transformation also occurs.

    I searched on “energy conservation violation by vacuum electron positron pair” got hundreds of hits. Here, in full, (nothing omitted by me) is Google´s un opened text for four consective ones Google lists for you to click on. I list them below as even in that brief text, they mention energy is not conserved briefly:

    1. Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence ...
    www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea
    9 Oct 2006 – ... and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one ... The hydrogen atom has two energy levels that coincidentally seem to have.... For example if electron/positron pairs can arise from the vacuum ...

    2. Annihilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation
    When a low-energy electron annihilates a low-energy positron (antielectron), they can... The annihilation (or decay) of an electron-positron pair into a single photon, ... that the violation of conservation of momentum can be accommodated by the ... These processes are important in the vacuum state and renormalization of a ...

    3. The Energetic Vacuum: Implications For Energy Research
    www.ldolphin.org/energetic.html
    by HE Puthoff - Cited by 29 - Related articles
    ... is the seat of virtual particle-pair (e.g. electron-positron) creation and annihilation ...Formally, the energy density associated with the vacuum electromagnetic .... to extract energy from the vacuum might somehow violate energy conservation ...

    4. How the Universe can come from Nothing. Vacuum Fluctuations and ...
    www.cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-92488.html
    24 Aug 2009 – These are made by the vacumn borrowing energy from the future and ...that the conservation of energy can be temporarily violated - energy can be .... The single-photon annihilation of an electron-positron pair, e− + e+ → γ ...

    More than 100 others say the same: CONSERVATION OF ENERGY CAN BE BRIEFLY VIOLATED. You should acknowledge your two errors.
    (Statements that some particles, specifically one of every vacuum polarization pair, have negative energy & that energy must always be conserved.)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 28, 2012
  18. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    I am not the one arguing the physics of black holes, so this is just a red herring as far as my contribution to the discussion goes. As far as vacuum polarization goes, the virtual particle-antiparticle pairs act as electric dipoles.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Notice the opposing charge signs and KE vectors, all of which sum to a zero net gain.

    A virtual particle does not precisely obey the formula m²c⁴ = E² − p²c². In other words, its kinetic energy may not have the usual relationship to velocity–indeed, it can be negative. The probability amplitude for it to exist tends to be canceled out by destructive interference over longer distances and times. -wiki​
    This means that if the wavelengths are long enough to be observed, they will cancel.
    Particle-antiparticle pairs can annihilate each other, producing photons; since the charges of the particle and antiparticle are opposite, total charge is conserved. wiki(Antiparticle)​

    The bottom line is that energy is conserved. The energy of the initial decaying particle and the final decay products is equal. The virtual particles exist for such a short time that they can never be observed. - http://pdg.web.cern.ch/pdg/cpep/unc_vir.html

    Some descriptions of this phenomenon instead say that the energy of the system becomes uncertain for a short period of time, that energy is somehow "borrowed" for a brief interval. This is just another way of talking about the same mathematics. However, it obscures the fact that all this talk of virtual states is just an approximation to quantum mechanics, in which energy is conserved at all times. The way I've described it also corresponds to the usual way of talking about Feynman diagrams, in which energy is conserved... - http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html

    So the photon can have energy ΔE for a time interval Δt ~ ћ/ΔE, without anybody being able to know if energy conservation is violated. As long as the photon is reabsorbed quickly enough, there is no measurable violation of energy conservation. Since the photon must be reabsorbed and cannot be detected, it is called a virtual photon. - http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/phys250/modules/module 6/standard_model.htm

    How exactly do you expect the conservation of energy to actually be violated when we cannot physically ever observe it to be?

    And? I thought you were arguing for a violation of conservation.

    The only error here is your pop-sci argumentum ad populum. Pop-sci descriptions do tend to be the most repeated, as they are specifically tailored to laymen.
     
  19. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Yes, there is no violation long term. Also true that only some of their effects can be observed, not the virtual pair themselves; And yes, as I (and several university course lectures) said, the violation of conservation of energy is extremely short lived. (from post 70 calculation, < 3.22E-22 seconds) Your quote is from an individual and is basically correct, (although you have cherry picked from it as I will soon discuss by NOT quoting the immediately preceding text, which you omitted as it falsifies your claim.)* In fact the life time of the vacuum pair is so short that if the electron and positron were separating at the speed of light from their point of creation they would never get even 1/1000 of the diameter of an atom apart! (Actually much less than that as my calculation of that separation assumed both kept their 0.511Mev but in fact relativist particles have more mass energy than their rest mass energy so this larger delta E means the period in which they can exist, delta T, is much smaller if they are traveling near the speed of light.
    No one has been discussing this, but yes that´s true and can be stated even more generally as the net total number of leptons in the universe NEVER changes - not even for the short time intervals in which energy conservation can be violated. The uncertainty principle only applied to pairs of observable operators that do not commute under the Hamiltonian, such as E & T or M & P, where M is momentum and P is position. I.e. if you know E very precisely then the value of T is very uncertain; but you can know both E & M very precisely as their QM operators do commute under the Hamiltonian. In fact, for example, when speaking of a photon, if E is precisely known, so is M as both are linear in the precisely known frequency.

    (BTW a precisely known frequency has a huge number of cycles so that photon is very long. For example the N. Lights green photons are more than 10 meters long. I have measure some "Sodium D" photons from a moderate pressure lamp that were relatively short - only ~30 cm long. Most people falsely think of photons as sort of little quantized balls of energy. The green line is from a "forbidden" transition of oxygen atom so it is "emitted" over a long time and thus has a very large delta T that is why its energy is so precisely defined / many cycles / very long photon.)

    You did not post the text immediately preceding (now blue) I have inserted in your quote below, but you dishonestly cherry picked to give a false impression. Your posted text is still in italics as in your post.
    Yes it is conceptually possible that the total energy in the very short duration intermediate state when the virtual particles exist COULD BE the same energy as the initial and final states as that is ALLOWED. However, having that intermediate energy precisely the same as the final and initial energy out of the RANGE of possible energies the delta E permits to exist is a set of measure zero. But I will be generous and say it occurs 1% of the time. Thus, 99% of the time, conservation of energy is violated or as the blue text, which you omitted, states, it is NORMALLY VIOLATED. You falsely claim it NEVER is.
    Because that is what the theory predicts.
    All your links are NOT from universities (although Matt McIrvin´s copyrighted article does seem to have some university connection). I know wiki has errors as I have found some but more often they are correct but just misleading as any one can contribute an article and not always does someone else correct errors and distortion that appear in Wiki. You must be desperate to call university lectures (and >100 other links) "pop-sci argumentum ad populum" when that is all you have linked to trying to support your claim that energy conservation is NEVER violated and that one member of a vacuum pair always has negative energy to keep the total zero as it was before the two were created from nothing.

    * I should report you for intelectual dishonesty but will not.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 29, 2012
  20. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Oh, you mean this?
    The conservation of energy seems to be violated by the apparent existence of these very energetic particles for a very short time. However, according to the above principle, if the time of a process is exceedingly short, then the uncertainty in energy can be very large. Thus, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, these high-energy force-carrier particles may exist if they are short lived. In a sense, they escape reality's notice. - http://pdg.web.cern.ch/pdg/cpep/unc_vir.html

    There is no cherry-picking here, so go right ahead and report me (instead of making empty threats). The uncertainty being very large does not necessarily mean that the energy is, only our knowledge of something we cannot observe anyway. This does not falsify my claim, as this violation of conservation is never observed. You are making intellectually dishonest claims based on popular opinion without any evidence whatsoever. Virtual particles only become real as a result of an observable energy being adding to them. All else is your pop-sci supposition of unobservable approximations of perturbation theory.

    You are the one debating whether an antiparticle has a negative energy. Of course confirmation bias would exclude you from seeing the relevance.

    Argumentum verbosum and non sequitur.

    That only strengthens my argument, and I only excluded it for brevity. But no doubt you will continue to display a huge attentional bias.

    Now you are just pulling percentages right out of your ass, as there is absolutely no evidence, nor theory, to support them. Uncertainty mean uncertainty, not some predictable values. Just keep on making up shit to justify the hole you have dug for yourself.

    No, it does not. The theory says we cannot possibly know for sure, either way, and all tests of the theory evince no violation of the conservation of energy. When there is no certain data, the successful generalization of observables trump any supposition. That is how science actually works. You know, beyond the pop-sci.

    Really? Really?

    http://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node512.html - Vacuum polarization is described by QED, which is a perturbation theory (approximation).

    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html - The author only has degrees in philosophy. Quite aside from:
    Heisenberg's uncertainty principle affords room for sufficiently short-lived virtual particles, but long-lived ones appearing in a universe such as ours would violate the first law of thermodynamics.
    He only says that "long-lived" particles of such energies would violate conservation.

    http://uw.physics.wisc.edu/~himpsel/107/Lectures/Phy107Lect33.pdf - Definitely a simplified presentation to laymen.

    And let us take a look at your hypocritical, cherry-picking intellectual dishonesty.
    http://cronodon.com/Atomic/QED.html - []=what you omitted

    "if they were detectable" That significantly changes what this quote is saying. They are "allowed" because we have no certainty of the value.

    All of your other links are pop-sci articles, wiki (which you have criticized), an article from a Scientologist, and a forum post. Overall, a joke.
     
  21. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    To Syne: Your argument boils down to:

    "Virtual particles cannot be directly observed." Therefore I assume that when they exist there is no violation of conservation of energy DESPITE the theory, which all accept, even you, stating their un measurable energy can be anything in a non-zero RANGE of energies and that only a set of zero measure within this range does conserve energy. With equal validity you could claim that electrons do not exist as they too cannot be directly observed – like vacuum polarization pairs, only the effects of electrons on things that can be observed (measured) are observables, not the electrons themselves.

    I did not say the total energy of the pair was exactly zero 1% of the time as it was before they were created. I used 1% of the range, as an illustration to make my point: Conserving energy at zero is a set of zero measure as total energy of exactly zero is 0% of the energy RANGE permitted. I said "I would be generous and say conservation of energy of the pair occured 1% of the time” and that if that were true, instead of false, it would make your claim true then for some fraction like 1% of the time.

    My point was that even if the virtual particles do sometimes have exactly the zero energy the vacuum had before they were created, but that is not normally the case as my quote of your omitted but blue text states, then your claim is "normally false" for something like 99% of the pair production cases.

    To show your assertions are wrong, all that is necessary is one case where the virtual particles do not always conserve energy as your falsely claim with nothing to justify that claim and many explicit refutations, (even in your own link´s blue text´s "not normally the case") and in many university courses. I will not discuss this further. Believe with no support and many reputable refutations, whatever you like.
     
  22. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Despite the theory? You obviously have no clue what the theory says. The time-energy uncertainty principle tells us the limit of precision with which we can measure the energy. It tells us nothing of any actual energy.

    Indeed, outside of these “special circumstances”, the alternative interpretations
    of the time-energy uncertainty principle can become ludicrous. What I am speaking
    of here are things like the oft-heard “You can violate conservation of energy if you do it
    for a short enough time”, or “The uncertainty of energy is related to the uncertainty in
    time”.
    - http://ocw.usu.edu/physics/classical-mechanics/pdf_lectures/14.pdf

    Blathering nonsense.

    Again, unsupported percentages pulled out of your ass. You do not have a clue as to what that quote is saying. Painfully so.

    Just keep on making shit up. Show me ONE CASE where there is any observation or evidence for such unconserved energy.
     
  23. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423

Share This Page