Re: Virtual Particle confusion

From: PD (pdraper_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 02/25/05 

Date: 25 Feb 2005 12:58:14 -0800

Ranando King wrote:
> "PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1109354953.319263.10300@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Ranando King wrote:
> > > "PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1109300342.229193.318810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Ranando King wrote:
> > > <snipped>
> > > > > Random just means that we're missing some information.
> > > >
> > > > This is not true, and that's a bias that must be overcome.
> > >
> > > If you want to buy into that particular philosophy, far be it
from me
> > to
> > > stop you. However logic, rationality, common sense, and human
> > definitions
> > > all posit that random things never achieve any kind of stable
state.
> >
> > Maybe your constrained logic, unambitious rationality, parochial
common
> > sense, and your personal human definitions posit that, but in terms
of
> > physics, you're talking out of your hat. Randomness is not only a
> > common, stable state, but it is *foundational* to much of what goes
on.
> > Taking your mind off quantum mechanics for a bit, let's talk about
> > thermodynamics.
>
> For the sake of rational discussion, I'll ignore the pseudo-insulting
> terminology....

Take it as you wish. Your terminology suggested that anybody with any
common sense would see things your way, which I found to be insulting.

>
> > Temperature of a body is not even *defined* without random kinetic
> > motion. If the motion were not random, temperature is not a proper
> > description.
>
> How so? The word "random" is neither stated nor implied in the
definition of
> temperature. The motion of the particles of a substance whos
temperature is
> being measured is not random. If you know the postition, orientation,
> velocity (speed & direction), mass, charge, and necessary outside
factors
> like boundary conditions on the container of all the particles at any
> selected point, you can predict the motion of every individual
particle both
> forward and backward in time using a painfully long series of
simultaneous
> equations.

Yes, but diffussion is NOT a reversible process, even if you can
account for each collision microscopically. Why not???

Moreover, you are wrong in saying there is no difference between random
and non-random kinetic energy. The second is associated with, e.g.
macroscopic translational energy. The first is associated with
temperature. There is limited ability to extract the latter from the
former -- that limit is what Carnot discovered and marks the line in
the sand.

I don't want to push the analogy too far -- the randomness of quantum
mechanics is different than the randomness of a thermal system.
However, you said that randomness is *only* a lack of information, a
point that I disagree with. Randomness implies physics on its own.

Temperature is a *statistical* property. If you think otherwise, tell
me how to find the temperature of a single particle or a pair of
particles.

>
> "Random" only ever actually appears at the quantum level. The reason
it does
> can be found in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, as it is
currently
> understood. In order to know the position of a particle at any point
in
> time, you've got to observe it somehow. By observing these particles,
we
> invariably change at least 1 of its properites. Likewise, to measure
the
> energy that a particle has, you are more likely than not to change at
least
> 1 of its other properties.

That's one interpretation (the Copenhagen one). Not the only one, mind
you. Moreover, it's simply another attempt to get "under" quantum
mechanics.

> The HUP merely states that we change the
> properties of those things we observe as we observe them, so it's not
> presently possible to know all of the properties of something we're
trying
> to observe.
>
> If you don't understand that this is admitting that we can't know all
the
> information, then I feel I'm not the one to explain it to you. It's
not
> Heisenberg's *RANDOM* Principle. It's Heisenberg's *Uncertainty*
> Principle.... Uncertainty, as in not sure of. Just because you're not
sure
> of a value doesn't mean that the value is actually random.

Nuh-uh. The quantum correlations between distant electron spins points
to the fact that there is more going on here than the Clumsy Thumbs
model of HUP.

>
> > Moreover, entropy is a *measure* of the randomness of a
> > system. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is specifically a statement
about
> > causal ordering and entropy.
>
> Entropy... Chaos-theory... the basic principle that all things seek
to fall
> apart... the idea that things prefer to go from structured states
(high
> energy) to unstructured (low energy) is perfectly valid. It's just
the old
> concept that "nature abhores a vacuum" repeated. It's far easier for
the
> universe to maintain a state of constant, unilaterally equal
potential (high
> entropy) than it is to maintain clustered, high potential regions
with
> low-to-no potential areas inbetween (low entropy). That follows
common
> sense.
>
> The second law of thermodynamics simply says that you can't move
energy in a
> closed system from high entropy to low entropy.

Define "high entropy" and "low entropy".

> Treating entropy as a
> measure of randomness is a serious mistake... a mistake large enough
to keep
> the obviously deterministic macroscopic universe from being
understood on a
> sub-atomic scale. Entropy is a measure of the lack of isolated
structure.
> Think of it this way. Suppose a universe as large as our own existed
having
> no virtual particles, and no other energy outside of a single,
stationary
> electron. That universe would have very low (near 0) entropy because
all of
> it's energy would be confined to a relatively very small space.
Suppose now
> that another universe existed that was just like the previous one I
> described save for its size being infinitesimally larger than the
volume of
> the electron it contains. That universe would have an exceptionally
high
> (near infinite) entropy because its energy would be spread out fairly
> consistently across its entire volume.

And that would be wrong. Your values of entropy in both cases are
wrong. Count allowable states.

>
> Neither case showed any "random" properties. That's because
randomness
> doesn't belong in the description of entropy, or for that matter,
anything
> else. (Note the example given uses an assumption that an electron is
*NOT* a
> point particle.)
>
> >
> > By the way, the great thermodynamicists of the 19th century also
ran
> > into resistance from the determinists, who maintained that such
> > descriptions of randomness were abdicating the search for the true,
> > underlying nature of things. In fact, it turned out that entropy IS
the
> > true, underlying nature of things.
>
> > > Since
> > > quantum physics is merely the physics of states for sub-atomic
> > things, then
> > > you're left to assume that all of these "random" sub-atomic
states
> > tend to
> > > add up to a stable atomic state. That doesn't work unless each
> > "random"
> > > state tends toward particular values most of the time.
> >
> > No, and you don't know how quantum summation over all possible
> > histories works. I suggest you read a little book by Feynman called
> > QED, that describes this process better -- no hidden tendencies, no
> > underlying variables, no masked causes.
>
> If you truely understood the summation yourself, you would see that
it in
> fact is itself a method of hiding causality and looking only at the
> outcomes.

Not sure I know what you mean by this. Where is causality hidden?
The quantum interference is part of the causality!

> When it comes down to it, that summation is a method of decision
> making, not significanly different from the process most people use
when
> making complex decisions. Think about the thoughts flying around in
your
> mind when your spouse/significant other is upset with you, when you
don't
> know the reason. You tend to take the action that you think will
cause you
> the least grief. You make this decision without knowing why such a
decision
> was necessary.

That's a philosophical and unsupported generalization.

>
> > > If that's true, then
> > > there's got to be a fundamental reason behind that tendancy.
Quantum
> > physics
> > > merely states that there is a tendancy and shows how strong that
> > tendancy
> > > is. However, it doesn't even come close to explaining why that
> > tendancy
> > > exists. Therefore, we're missing information, information that
would
> > likely
> > > lead to the elimination of the dependency on statistics in
quantum
> > physics.
> >
> > You are espousing what's called "hidden variable" model of quantum
> > mechanics, which may make intuitive sense to you, but you're far
from
> > the first to think of it. But intuitive good sense does not make it
> > correct, let alone unavoidably correct. Hidden variable theories
have
> > definite experimental predictions that are testable. Read the
> > literature on this subject. The experimental tests fail. Nature
does
> > NOT need hidden variables and in fact is inconsistent with that
> > picture, as counterintuitive as that may seem.
>
> I know I'm not the first to have this idea, and I won't be the last.
Think
> of it this way. Quantum physics cannot currently be used to describe
the
> macroscopic universe.

And on what basis do you make THAT statement? Is a laser a macroscopic
object or not?

>Every attempt to do so to date has failed.

What attempts are you referring to?

> What does
> that mean? It means there's something we're not yet understanding,
right?

Well, THAT's true, but it doesn't say that QM is full of hokum.

> String theory was invented to try and find that something. M-Theory
was
> invented to try and find that something. QED, QCD, and probably other
> theories were invented to try and find that something. All have
failed to
> date.

QED and QCD have failed? How so?

>Does that mean that nature does not need the physics describing
> sub-atomic stuff to be consistent with the physics for macrosocpic
stuff?
> That's the kind of argument you just fed me.

Nonsense. The macroscopic limit of every well-defined QM theory
reproduces what we see classically.

>
> > >
> > > That's my particular philosophy.
> > >
> > > <snipped>
> > > > > You made 1 mistake. if M > E/c^2 > 0 where M is the mass of
an
> > > > electron and
> > > > > E is the energy represented by the near zero invariant mass,
then
> > the
> > > > > electron will be chosen as there is too much invariant mass
to
> > create
> > > > a 0
> > > > > mass particle. Remember, the particle P attempted is the P
whos M
> > is
> > > > the
> > > > > nearest match GREATER THAN or equal to the invariant mass
> > represented
> > > > by E.
> > > >
> > > > Ah, but what if the invariant mass available is *less* than
zero?
> > That
> > > > is certainly physically possible, and in fact it happens all
the
> > time.
> > > > In this case, again, a neutrino or a photon would be a better
> > match.
> > >
> > > Consider that most cases of negative mass can be resolved by
flipping
> > the
> > > perspective, usually around the time axis. So, to satiate your
> > objection,
> > > we'll just rewrite the equality as such:
> > >
> > > M >= |E|/c^2
> > >
> > > so as to constrain the result to positive values of mass. To
prove
> > this
> > > little conjecture wrong, all you have to do is point to data that
> > shows
> > > where reactions produce a virtual photon without also binding the
> > remaining
> > > invariant mass according to the rule I've posited.
> >
> > That seems rather arbitrary, particularly in a system where you
have
> > one contributing particle with negative virtual mass and another
with
> > positive virtual mass. What gives you the right to switch one and
not
> > the other?
>
> The same thing that gives mathematicians the right to say that if a^2
= b^2
> then |a| = |b| which is perfectly fine even if a = -b.
>
> > Moreover, your prescription still does not work. Take two particles
A
> > and B which have central mass values of, say 140 MeV and 142 MeV,
> > respectively, but which are otherwise completely distinct. The
> > invariant mass of a virtual state is measured to be 139.5 MeV.
> > According to your prescription, this would *always* be assigned to
> > particle A. However, it is quite likely that the particle will
instead
> > be identified as particle B, based on conserved quantum numbers.
This
> > is routinely seen in experiment, but is inconsistent with your
scheme.
>
> Unlike those of you that believe "random" has a place in physics,
that just
> leads me to believe that there's another term to be considered that
is a
> factor of the original contributing masses. My first guess would be
to
> examine the charges involved to see if there is a pattern. There's
likely
> something in the properties of the original masses involved that
creates an
> additional limiting factor. It might be that particle A has no charge
and
> particle B does. So when the interaction occurs, if there is a net
charge
> left behind with the 139.5 MeV, only the 142 MeV charged particle is
a
> viable option.
>
> The bottom line: Just because a pattern hasn't been found doesn't
imply that
> there isn't one.
>
> R.

So you are saying that charge and lepton number and QCD color and
baryon number contribute to mass? How so? How does your model work to
put that together?

PD

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Virtual Particle confusion
    ... you can predict the motion of every individual particle both ... > causal ordering and entropy. ... energy) to unstructured is perfectly valid. ... universe to maintain a state of constant, ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Basic Statistical Mechanics Questions
    ... energy then are the averages of the changes: ... an expression involving the deviation of the total energy from its ... The well-known relation between entropy and volume ... volume is the particle in" went from a definite answer, ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Virtual Particle confusion
    ... > environment will tend to match any other sampling of the environment ... > the nature and direction of each individual particle. ... > be able to catch and use the energy from each individual particle ... and they're using statistics to patch ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Question about Vacuum Gravity
    ... > energy, expressed as virtual particles, is a non-zero amount, ... I'm really happy with two different kinds of photons. ... >> Particle sizes are discrete. ... virtuals are popping. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Virtual Particle confusion
    ... it means that each particle in the closed environment is ... equally statistically likely to have the same amount of kinetic energy. ... and they're using statistics to patch the ...
    (sci.physics.particle)