Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #587658 > unrolled thread

Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-07-02 18:09 +0000
    Re: Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states? Mike Duffy <mqduffy001@bell.net> - 2016-07-02 13:36 -0400
      Re: Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-07-02 18:57 +0000
        Re: Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states? Mike Duffy <mqduffy001@bell.net> - 2016-07-02 17:18 -0400
          Re: Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-07-04 20:47 +0000
        Re: Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 14:44 -0700
    Re: Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 14:27 -0700
    Re: Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 15:49 -0700
      Re: Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-07-03 09:47 +0000
        Re: Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 15:59 -0700
          Re: Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-07-04 20:57 +0000
      ansatz of virtuality a.k.a bosonics noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 15:46 -0700
    Re: Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-03 22:16 +1000
      Re: Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 06:38 -0700
        Re: Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-03 12:38 -0700
          Re: Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 11:16 -0700
        Re: Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-04 15:31 +1000
      Re: Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-07-04 20:52 +0000
    Re: Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-07-06 02:21 -0400

#587658 — Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states?

Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states?

I'm beginning to doubt this idea of particles popping in and out
of existence.

The theory is sound and measurable, but the mechanism is not believable.

I accept the effects are the same, but the mechanism of particles
popping in and out of existence requires creation mechanisms to be
working at full swing defining existence and non-existence which sounds
like a lot of work.

Instead it is far more believable to say the particles exist already
and are merely swapping states to become visible to the detector.

Similar to electro magnet being turned on and off near a compass.
The electro magnet has changed state from off to on and then back to off.
The compass shows the reading accordingly.
In this model everything exists before and after, except that the
detector has been able to pick up the state change
without invoking creation and destruction ideas.

Likewise, it would be more easier to say particles are not popping in
and out existence - they already exist, may be in another dimension,
and merely swapping states to become visible and then reverting back
to its original state without invoking creation and destruction ideas.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#587661

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 18:09:46 +0000, 7 wrote:

> Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states?
> 
> I'm beginning to doubt this idea of particles popping in and out
> of existence.
> 
> The theory is sound and measurable, but the mechanism is not believable.

Bingo! Move to the head of the class. This is the essense of QM.


> Instead it is far more believable to say the particles exist already
> and are merely swapping states to become visible to the detector.

OK. Add this to the list of 50 or so 'interpretations' of QM. It's just as
tenable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics


> Likewise, it would be more easier to say particles are not popping in
> and out existence - they already exist, may be in another dimension,
> and merely swapping states to become visible and then reverting back
> to its original state without invoking creation and destruction ideas.

Ditto. In fact, several elements of your explanations can be found in
several of the ones listed at the a/n wiki entry. Read them all.

I like the 'transactional' interpretation, except that it implies
predestined determinism. The math seems okay, but I really don't like the
idea that we have no free will.

-- 
http://mduffy.x10host.com/index.htm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587664

Mike Duffy wrote:

> On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 18:09:46 +0000, 7 wrote:
> 
>> Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states?
>> 
>> I'm beginning to doubt this idea of particles popping in and out
>> of existence.
>> 
>> The theory is sound and measurable, but the mechanism is not believable.
> 
> Bingo! Move to the head of the class. This is the essense of QM.
> 
> 
>> Instead it is far more believable to say the particles exist already
>> and are merely swapping states to become visible to the detector.
> 
> OK. Add this to the list of 50 or so 'interpretations' of QM. It's just as
> tenable.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

Hmm... interesting.
The Copenhagen interpretation is the most most popular.

But it sounds like this idea was devised in an era absent of computers.

Information cannot be created or destroyed but Copenhagen
is blasé about that :)

Its heavily reliant on creating and destroying information but
hiding it all in probabilistic maths.

If objects already exist and changes change to cause the popping in
and popping out effect, then it is more testable,
because it may be possible to change the rate at which states change
by introducing a strong field into a portion of space that
changes the rate of change of state.

If probability was ruling this space, then it should be unaffected.


>> Likewise, it would be more easier to say particles are not popping in
>> and out existence - they already exist, may be in another dimension,
>> and merely swapping states to become visible and then reverting back
>> to its original state without invoking creation and destruction ideas.
> 
> Ditto. In fact, several elements of your explanations can be found in
> several of the ones listed at the a/n wiki entry. Read them all.
> 
> I like the 'transactional' interpretation, except that it implies
> predestined determinism. The math seems okay, but I really don't like the
> idea that we have no free will.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587695

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 18:57:04 +0000, 7 wrote:

> If probability was ruling this space, then it should be unaffected.

Yeah, but the field strength (squared) determines the probability. This is
defined by QM exclusive of which interpretation of the 'nature' of the
field you ascribe to.

-- 
http://mduffy.x10host.com/index.htm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587979

Mike Duffy wrote:

> On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 18:57:04 +0000, 7 wrote:
> 
>> If probability was ruling this space, then it should be unaffected.
> 
> Yeah, but the field strength (squared) determines the probability. This is
> defined by QM exclusive of which interpretation of the 'nature' of the
> field you ascribe to.


That is a bummer - can't think off hand how to break the impasse.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587702

yeah, y'know, don't open that box over there ...
they say, there is/nt a cat in a certain state-of-being, but
no-one wants to say, kitty, hereat

> If objects already exist and changes change to cause the popping in
> and popping out effect, then it is more testable,
> because it may be possible to change the rate at which states change
> by introducing a strong field into a portion of space that
> changes the rate of change of state.
> 
> If probability was ruling this space, then it should be unaffected.
> 
> 
> >> Likewise, it would be more easier to say particles are not popping in

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587698

On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 10:09:55 AM UTC-7, 7 wrote:
> Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states?
> 
> I'm beginning to doubt this idea of particles popping in and out
> of existence.
> 
> The theory is sound and measurable, but the mechanism is not believable.
> 
> I accept the effects are the same, but the mechanism of particles
> popping in and out of existence requires creation mechanisms to be
> working at full swing defining existence and non-existence which sounds
> like a lot of work.
> 
> Instead it is far more believable to say the particles exist already
> and are merely swapping states to become visible to the detector.
> 
> Similar to electro magnet being turned on and off near a compass.
> The electro magnet has changed state from off to on and then back to off.
> The compass shows the reading accordingly.
> In this model everything exists before and after, except that the
> detector has been able to pick up the state change
> without invoking creation and destruction ideas.
> 
> Likewise, it would be more easier to say particles are not popping in
> and out existence - they already exist, may be in another dimension,
> and merely swapping states to become visible and then reverting back
> to its original state without invoking creation and destruction ideas.

Things can be in all states,but just by looking into the quantum realm we can create one state.I read that Hmmm  TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587714

On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 10:09:55 AM UTC-7, 7 wrote:
> Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states?
> 
> I'm beginning to doubt this idea of particles popping in and out
> of existence.
> 
> The theory is sound and measurable, but the mechanism is not believable.

  Believable is only a problem for humans.

  Virtual particles are accompanied by their antiparticles. How does your state-switch idea account for that?

(rest snipped)


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587790

nuny@bid.nes wrote:

> On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 10:09:55 AM UTC-7, 7 wrote:
>> Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states?
>> 
>> I'm beginning to doubt this idea of particles popping in and out
>> of existence.
>> 
>> The theory is sound and measurable, but the mechanism is not believable.
> 
>   Believable is only a problem for humans.
> 
>   Virtual particles are accompanied by their antiparticles. How does your
>   state-switch idea account for that?

With great difficulty.

Electromagnets state switch to N and S poles at the same time.

Not saying its the same thing, but therein lies a real world clue.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587872

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 2:47:17 AM UTC-7, 7 wrote:
> nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> 
> > On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 10:09:55 AM UTC-7, 7 wrote:
> >> Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states?
> >> 
> >> I'm beginning to doubt this idea of particles popping in and out
> >> of existence.
> >> 
> >> The theory is sound and measurable, but the mechanism is not believable.
> > 
> >   Believable is only a problem for humans.
> > 
> >   Virtual particles are accompanied by their antiparticles. How does your
> >   state-switch idea account for that?
> 
> With great difficulty.
> 
> Electromagnets state switch to N and S poles at the same time.
> 
> Not saying its the same thing, but therein lies a real world clue.

  In a sense, yes, when an electromagnet is switched "on" and "off" both poles come into and go out of existence simultaneously like particle-antiparticles appearing and vanishing in pairs. But there needs to be a power source, something not in evidence in particle-antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence. Maybe that's what you meant by "mechanism"?

  Also, the field strength of an electromagnet is (all other things being equal) directly proportional to the current in it, meaning you can smoothly ramp the strength from nothing to all the current the magnet can take without melting, but particle-antiparticle pairs are all-or-nothing quantum events.

  If you want, you can pretend the vacuum is full of little "particle-antiparticle generators" that act like electromagnets as above, but where's the power supply and switches?

  A slightly-less-useless analogy is water below its boiling point; random local concentrations of heat can kick water moleculs out as vapor creating bubbles, but those molecules are also equally likely to be reabsorbed by the water. In that view the particles you're talking about are kind of the "vapor pressure" of the vacuum. It also fits nicely with the Big Bang model- in the past the vapor pressure was greater because the water was hotter (when it was boiling the universe was so full of that vapor that light couldn't propagate), but as time goes on the water expands and cools and the vapor pressure drops.


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587983

nuny@bid.nes wrote:

> On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 2:47:17 AM UTC-7, 7 wrote:
>> nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>> 
>> > On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 10:09:55 AM UTC-7, 7 wrote:
>> >> Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states?
>> >> 
>> >> I'm beginning to doubt this idea of particles popping in and out
>> >> of existence.
>> >> 
>> >> The theory is sound and measurable, but the mechanism is not
>> >> believable.
>> > 
>> >   Believable is only a problem for humans.
>> > 
>> >   Virtual particles are accompanied by their antiparticles. How does
>> >   your state-switch idea account for that?
>> 
>> With great difficulty.
>> 
>> Electromagnets state switch to N and S poles at the same time.
>> 
>> Not saying its the same thing, but therein lies a real world clue.
> 
>   In a sense, yes, when an electromagnet is switched "on" and "off" both
>   poles come into and go out of existence simultaneously like
>   particle-antiparticles appearing and vanishing in pairs. But there needs
>   to be a power source, something not in evidence in particle-antiparticle
>   pairs popping in and out of existence. Maybe that's what you meant by
>   "mechanism"?

Here is a mechanism that doesn't require energy expenditure:

e e- pair production could be due to a 'neutral magnetic particle'
------------------------------------------------------------------

Strange ways to think about it but an e e- pair popping up in empty
space and annihilating rapidly could be viewed as a NS SN pair
of magnets superimposed on each other - or a 'neutral magnetic particle'
moving through space.

When they collide, a pair of e and e- are exchanged to transfer momentum.

That is when we see them :)


 
>   Also, the field strength of an electromagnet is (all other things being
>   equal) directly proportional to the current in it, meaning you can
>   smoothly ramp the strength from nothing to all the current the magnet
>   can take without melting, but particle-antiparticle pairs are
>   all-or-nothing quantum events.
> 
>   If you want, you can pretend the vacuum is full of little
>   "particle-antiparticle generators" that act like electromagnets as
>   above, but where's the power supply and switches?

There is nothing to consume power in the sub atomic scale
otherwise atoms would wiz around each other, loose energy
and clump up for example.

There is activation energy that is well known and
required before states change.

So I am assuming something happens that requires activation energy level
before the state change occurs and particles come in and out existence.


>   A slightly-less-useless analogy is water below its boiling point; random
>   local concentrations of heat can kick water moleculs out as vapor
>   creating bubbles, but those molecules are also equally likely to be
>   reabsorbed by the water. In that view the particles you're talking about
>   are kind of the "vapor pressure" of the vacuum. It also fits nicely with
>   the Big Bang model- in the past the vapor pressure was greater because
>   the water was hotter (when it was boiling the universe was so full of
>   that vapor that light couldn't propagate), but as time goes on the water
>   expands and cools and the vapor pressure drops.
> 
> 
>   Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588074 — ansatz of virtuality a.k.a bosonics

secondrOOt is usually positive;
maybe it is complexified

>   Virtual particles are accompanied by their antiparticles. How does your state-switch idea account for that?
> 
> (rest snipped)
> 
> 
>   Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587794

On 3/07/2016 4:09 AM, 7 wrote:
> Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states?
>
> I'm beginning to doubt this idea of particles popping in and out
> of existence.
>
> The theory is sound and measurable, but the mechanism is not believable.

What mechanism? The theory only says what happens, not how.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587802

QM is PROUD of not having
ANY mechanism. This is, of course,
because they also don't have
any underlying structure- so they
don't NEED no steenking mechanism
:)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587833

john wrote:
> 
> QM is PROUD of not having
> ANY mechanism. This is, of course,
> because they also don't have
> any underlying structure- so they
> don't NEED no steenking mechanism
> :)



it's not that QM doesn't have any mechanism...
it's that they don't know how to look for..
'the mechanism' behind QM, or any thing else where
a mechanism is not seen.


The Machine behind QM is ...hidden.



You're not suppose to see it.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588050

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 12:37:11 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> john wrote:
> > 
> > QM is PROUD of not having
> > ANY mechanism. This is, of course,
> > because they also don't have
> > any underlying structure- so they
> > don't NEED no steenking mechanism
> > :)
> 
> 
> 
> it's not that QM doesn't have any mechanism...
> it's that they don't know how to look for..
> 'the mechanism' behind QM, or any thing else where
> a mechanism is not seen.
> 
> 
> The Machine behind QM is ...hidden.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not suppose to see it.
> 
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

Mechanisum for Quantum actions are Gamma photons.They came first and puch electrons around TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587973

On 3/07/2016 11:38 PM, john wrote:
> QM is PROUD of not having
> ANY mechanism. This is, of course,
> because they also don't have
> any underlying structure- so they
> don't NEED no steenking mechanism
> :)
>

It's unreasonable to expect science to give mechanisms for everything, 
since whenever you have a mechanism, you can ask what it's made of, and 
then seek an mechanism for that. That is, you'll never be satisfied.

There may not BE a mechanism beneath quantum mechanics - it may be that 
what you see is all there is.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#587981

Sylvia Else wrote:

> On 3/07/2016 4:09 AM, 7 wrote:
>> Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states?
>>
>> I'm beginning to doubt this idea of particles popping in and out
>> of existence.
>>
>> The theory is sound and measurable, but the mechanism is not believable.
> 
> What mechanism? The theory only says what happens, not how.

It is prescribing with some precision that something popped into
existence and popped out again. That still requires a mechanism
for all of creation to make it happen and then its reverse to undo
what has been done.

Here is an alternative mechanism that doesn't assume something
popped in and out of existence as a mechanism but produces
a very similar result:


e e- pair production could be due to a 'neutral magnetic particle'
------------------------------------------------------------------

Strange ways to think about it but an e e- pair popping up in empty
space and annihilating rapidly could be viewed as a NS SN pair
of magnets superimposed on each other - or a 'neutral magnetic particle'
moving through space.

When they collide, a pair of e and e- are exchanged to transfer momentum.

That is when we see them :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588112

On 02/07/2016 2:09 PM, 7 wrote:
> Particles popping in and out of existence or switching states?
>
> I'm beginning to doubt this idea of particles popping in and out
> of existence.
>
> The theory is sound and measurable, but the mechanism is not believable.

That's because you have the wrong picture in your head. Don't think of 
the particles as solid billiard balls, but instead think of them as 
balls of fluid. Balls of fluid can flit around and take any shape they 
want, and then leave those shapes behind too.

This video might help you picture it better:

https://youtu.be/J3xLuZNKhlY

> I accept the effects are the same, but the mechanism of particles
> popping in and out of existence requires creation mechanisms to be
> working at full swing defining existence and non-existence which sounds
> like a lot of work.

And as it happens empty space is just filled with energy, tons of 
energy! Even enough energy to create the entire universe in a Big Bang.

> Instead it is far more believable to say the particles exist already
> and are merely swapping states to become visible to the detector.

Why is that more believable? Switch states requires energy too.

> Similar to electro magnet being turned on and off near a compass.
> The electro magnet has changed state from off to on and then back to off.
> The compass shows the reading accordingly.
> In this model everything exists before and after, except that the
> detector has been able to pick up the state change
> without invoking creation and destruction ideas.
>
> Likewise, it would be more easier to say particles are not popping in
> and out existence - they already exist, may be in another dimension,
> and merely swapping states to become visible and then reverting back
> to its original state without invoking creation and destruction ideas.

To me it's far easier to believe that particles don't really exist, 
everything we see is a bunch of energy coming together in ways that make 
us believe that there is a particle there, when all there really is is a 
packet of fluid-like energy, that is tenuously stuck together into a 
shape that we call a particle.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web