Re: Do Virtual Photons Exist?
From: Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 08/13/04
- Next message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: Simple Clock Question."
- Previous message: Jim Black: "Re: Harald V, suggestions taken"
- In reply to: John Kennaugh: "Re: Do Virtual Photons Exist?"
- Next in thread: John Kennaugh: "Re: Do Virtual Photons Exist?"
- Reply: John Kennaugh: "Re: Do Virtual Photons Exist?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 12 Aug 2004 20:40:17 -0700
John Kennaugh <JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<eZZDzxNhu7GBFw8u@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk>...
In <eZZDzxNhu7GBFw8u@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk>
John Kennaugh <JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
>
<deletes by O'Barr>
John Kennaugh wrote (copied from the internet?):
> 'The conservation law of mass and energy states
>that you can't get something for nothing, or that
>energy cannot be created or destroyed; yet, the
>electron has created a photon out of seemingly
>nothing. This violation of the first law of
>thermodynamics (energy cannot be created or
>destroyed) can be violated beneath the Heisenberg
>uncertainty principle, meaning that in a small
>event, such as an electron, if the time is very
>short (10^-15 seconds, for example), then the laws
>of mass and energy conservation can be violated due
>to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.'
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@yahoo.com> comments:
In the at theory, the conservation of energy law
is never violated. It appears to be violated in our
world, as stated above, only because we do not yet
observe all the interactions that are occurring on
the ether level.
John Kennaugh wrote:
>So Heisenberg gives them special dispensation from
>the laws of physics because they don't exist long
>enough for the laws of physics to notice. I accept
>the view of Scott Murray on Heisenberg's uncertainty
>principle.
>
> 'We cannot measure, and therefore cannot know, both
>the location and the subsequent velocity of an
>individual electron with greater accuracy than
>is indicated by Heisenberg's formula. No evidence
>has yet been found to suggest that his formula when
>interpreted in this way is not always and exactly
>true.
> Suppose that a fundamental particle (an electron,
>say) is initially at point A at time zero and
>travelling at velocity v. According to our best
>possible measurements we know only that it is
>within, say, one micrometer of A at that instant and
>travelling subsequently at a velocity within, say,
>100 metres per second of v. From this knowledge we
>can predict that the electron will in due course
>pass within one centimetre of a second point, B. The
>quantum mechanics as a mathematical tool will
>perform that prediction for us beautifully - there
>is nothing mystical about it or its calculations,
>which rely on the conservation laws. But we should
>note that it is not the position of the electron
>which is uncertain; it is we who are uncertain about
>its position. The electron itself travels from
>point A (exactly) to point B (exactly) along a track
>AB which is precisely determined. It is our
>knowledge of that track, not the track itself, that
>is imprecise; and it is the imprecision of our
>knowledge, not the physical body itself, that is
>transferred from the vicinity of point A to the
>vicinity of point B by the so-called "operators" -
>metaphysical operators - of the statistical quantum
>mechanics.'
O'Barr comments:
The above 'story' is not correct. The
Heisenberg's uncertainty is not just an uncertainty
in our measurements. There is, of course, always a
certain amount of measurement uncertainty. And so
everything said above is correct to that degree. But
it is clear that there is, in the motions and acts
and energy of a small particle, from one time event
to next, an uncertainty in these values. That is,
these values really do change, in very odd ways,
sometimes randomly, and sometimes not so randomly.
The at theory gives us the reason and cause for this!
It is a real effect.
John Kennaugh wrote:
>A quotation from a popular modern textbook may
>provide a convenient example for analysis:
>
> 'Because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in
>quantum mechanics, a particle cannot have a definite
>position in space-time and a definite energy and
>momentum. The more localised the particle is in
>space-time, the larger the uncertainty in its energy
>and momentum. So that, virtual processes which do
>not conserve energy and momentum can occur over very
>small intervals in space and time by virtue of the
>Heisenberg uncertainty principle, provided they are
>followed by processes which ensure conservation of
>energy and momentum for the whole process.'
O'Barr comments:
This is closer to what reality really is. But of
course it is not perfect. Being a supporter of LET,
I do not like the words, 'space-time.' And the last
line is not correct: There is never a guarantee that
what we see, in terms of observable particles, will
always show a perfect conservation state. A perfect
conservation does occur, with all the particles
involved. But since many of these particles are not
observable, then we must know that the observables
need not end up being perfect, if the unobsrvables
have carried away some of the momentums, energy or
mass.
We do not need to worry too much about some of
these things. These interactions that are causing
all these 'changes' are relatively small, and there
are forces at work that normally bring any unbalances
back to normal again. And so, because of both of
these effects, there is seldom any real deviations
that can be noted. And for any multiple numbers of
systems, their averages are very stable over any
reasonable time period. But you better believe, that
from time to time, there are exceptions, and some
times, even relative stable particles become
unstable, and cease to exist as the body it was due
to these effects.
Might I add a few interesting points: Many ether
particles move faster than c. We need not get too
excited if we see indications of some precursor
effects appearing to be acting faster than c.
<more deletes by O'Barr>
O'Barr comments:
I guess the real question for this thread is, do
virtual photons exist? Maybe the name is the
problem. But charge particles do affect other
charged particles, and there has to be a physical
cause for these effects. I see nothing wrong with
ascribing the effects to be due to particles. Now to
call this act an exchange of particles, I find
interesting. And to call them virtual, I find this
interesting. But to give these particles a name is
fine with me.
I also accept the possibility that it is light
that is involved. Light is a most interesting thing.
It can be seen to be particles. And light is known
to be capable of creating electrons. If light can
create electrons, then certainly it should be able to
control electrons (and other charged particles.) And
light, since it has a constant velocity as a
particle, then it must have some means of locomotion.
To me, light is the most fundamentally important
particle for our known world, for it appears to
control all things in it!
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@yahoo.com>
- Next message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: Simple Clock Question."
- Previous message: Jim Black: "Re: Harald V, suggestions taken"
- In reply to: John Kennaugh: "Re: Do Virtual Photons Exist?"
- Next in thread: John Kennaugh: "Re: Do Virtual Photons Exist?"
- Reply: John Kennaugh: "Re: Do Virtual Photons Exist?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
