Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
"Y.Porat" wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
"Y.Porat" wrote:
IIRC.



a ton of evidence for virtual particles.
---------------
please bring some (not tons ) even a few of them.
and we will see if it is experimental evidence or *interpretations*
of evidence.

QFT predicts that virtual particles

alow me to use instead 'virtual particles' to subsitute it
with 'a witch on a broomstic' just for demonstrating my idea
so it will be wobs - witch on a broomstic):
it is to show the phylosophy and the ;logic system of it):
------------
my ideaabout the witch on the broostick was just to demonstarst
that the mathematic system involved uses it actualy
*as an unknown entity* and its good enough for some solutions
but its not good enough for rewal penetraation of the basics of physics.
moreover
once they say 'virtual particle' it might well be not just one
unknown but many of them under that 'umbrela' and that makes the
situation even more helpless for solving the still open unsolved
problems like gravity ,fusion ,nuclear structure etc etc
do you doubt that there are too many unsoved problems that
standard model of modern physics cant cope with them ?!
-------------
now about what Pusch was writing, again even here you do your selective
quating and unserstanding:

he was writing borrowing was only reqired uder old fashioned
interpretation of virtual processes in pertuberationtheory
*which no one uses any more'

(there might some spelling mistakes of mine- i misspell
even a text that is right under my nose (:-)
do you know why? may be i am dislectic and more probably
because i dont give a damn for spelling for mr the main thing is the
issu)
so Bjoern (right spelling ?)
can you read things between the lines of the text ?
if not i will help you
while he sayes 'old fashiones' he forgets that that old is ...
how old it is ?? may be a few decades!
so a few decades it was *the scince* with every one admiring it
and suddenly it is no good
what can we learn from that ??
that we have 'fashions' we dont have the final physics.
so it might well be that in a few decades ahead ....
shell i go on with it .
now he writes another thing that your ear was not too 'musical'
to notice:
'by allowing the 'virtual particles to be (listen carefully)
'off their mass shell' ---- (listen carefully)
which is not nearly so *problematic * (the assertion is mine Y.P)
as allowing energy... etc'
end of quote.
did you notices that 'not nearly so problematic'
do you want an interpretation of the text?
it says actually it is problrmatic but ... not so.....
and mind you
Push was and is the great priest of that 'off shell' once
and 'in shell' at another case
now even he feels it is problematic.

now i will tell you what i think about tha t
'of shell in shell story':
it is an insult to the intelligence of people who call themselves
physicists. nothing less than that.
instead of sayng we dont understand it
they stuff you with fairy tales.
excuse if i willnot go on with it because you write a lot
and i have to catch with you. (i am about twice you age (;-).
---------
---



exist and have an influence on lots
of processes - for example, the anomalous magnetic moment of the
electron, the muon and other particles, another example is the Lamb
shift. If one calculates the size of these effects, by using virtual
particles in the calculations, and compares the results with the
experimental results, one sees that they agree to an astonishing level
of accuracy (10 significant digits and more).

--------
Bjoern
you lost your way and forgot what is the issue we discuss
and instead of concentarting on virtual particles
that are much bigger than the enetity that sent them
you show us all your posibble physics education
even if it has nothing to do with our limited issue.
evn tunneling was not issued by me but by Moroney
that disappered and didnt tell us what that has to do with
messengers and their senders.
my explanations about tunelig was just a linemans guess
i thought about it just one day before nad never studied it before.
i only read Ivor Giaver whois a nobel prizer for it
and his contribution to experimental profe of tunneling
it was interesting to hear his ideas about the cooperation
between engineers and scientists
folowinfg his descriptions about those experiments (just two days
before now it occred to me all those ideas that i described above
so ..just nice guesse.
------------
and i wanted to show that it has nothing to do with virtual particles.


What on earth has this to do with "energy conservation breaking in"?
What is this even supposed to mean?

(BTW, I agree with what Gordon said; it's a nice summary of what QFT
says about virtual particles)


Pusch is not known as a skeptic about qm and sm
yet you can read behind his article some new wind of boubt
that doubt has not yet got to you i guess.

Where do you read doubt in what he said above?????
-----
see above
--------



I'll type this again, so that you perhaps will get it:
ONLY IF THE PARTICLES WOULD ACT LIKE CLASSICAL PARTICLES, LIKE LITTLE
MARBLES, THEY WOULD NEED EXTRA ENERGY TO OVERCOME THE BARRIER. BUT
ELEMENTARY PARTICLES DON'T ACT CLASSICALLY, LIKE LITTLE MARBLES, BUT
THEIR BEHAVIOR IS DESCRIBED BY THE SCHROEDINGER EQUATION, A WAVE
EQUATION. AND WAVES HAVE NO PROBLEMS TO GO INTO REGIONS WHICH AREN'T
ALLOWED FOR PARTICLES, AS CAN BE EASILY SHOWN USING
EVEN CLASSICAL MECHANICS.
-------------
so how those virtual particles with and without their mass shell
fit into that ?
and does it contradict my sixth postulate ?
--------

I bet that you will call of this "hand waving", because you don't
understand one bit of what I'm telling you, as usual. But please notice
that there is lots of experimental evidence (you will call it
"interpretation of evidence", as usual) that
1) Electrons can behave like waves.
----
i never denied it actually i use it as well
---------
2) The Schroedinger equation describes their behaviour in the right way.
------------
the Shroedinger equation cannot go further than a few light elements.
still of topic.
-------------
For starters, you could try reading Feynman's lectures on physics,
volume 3, where he explains quite clearly what experiments lead to the
description of elementary particles as waves.
---------
i read his explanations about attraction force.
it is mathematical manipulatios that works partially
anf yet does not explain the physics behind it.
noone on earth understands the attraction force its time for you
to know that.
w bossons is our conflict so you cannot take it for granted while
arguing with me you have to prove it because i dont believe you
it is against mybasic understanding of physics
(in a few decades it wil l be called 'old fashoned' (:-)
(while anew fairy taile will prevail)
------------
--------------

But I'm generous, so I'll explain it using light as an example. Imagine
you have two glass bodies, with planes which are parallel to each other
and very close to each other, but still with a bit air in between them.
Now you shine light into one of the bodies, in a way that at the plane
of that body, the light is totally reflected back into the glass body
(please read up on "total reflection", this is a very basic effect in
optics which I don't want to educate you on, too!). So, according to
geometrical optics, no light should be able to get across the air
between the two planes and into the other glass body. But if one
measures this, it turns out that there *does* indeed light get into the
other body! This is a "classical" analogue of the quantum mechanical
tunnel effect, and it can be explained if one uses the fact that light
is a wave, whereas it can't be explained by using geometrical optics
only. Here Maxwell's electromagnetic description of light is the
analogue of QM, and geometrical optics is the analogue of classical
mechanics.

The explanation that the light can cross into the other bodies is
obtained if one solves Maxwell's equations with the given boundary
conditions. It then turns out that there isn't a propagating waves
between the two bodies (exactly as predicted by geometrical optics), but
that there the magnitude of the electric and magnetic fields if getting
exponentially smaller with the distance between the planes (geometrical
optics can't describe such an effect, because it only deals with light
rays, not with the fields). It follows that the electric and magnetic
fields are able to "reach" over the air gap, into the other glass body,
and there the wave can propagate again. Hence light is able to "jump"
over/ "tunnel" through the gap, although according to geometrical optics
and total reflection, this shouldn't work.

Have you understood anything of what I told you here?
--------
very nice thank you
surprisingly it is not all new for me
but still off topic
------------



If
one considers microwaves (classically!), there also is something like a
tunnel effect. It's simply an ability of waves, nothing exciting about
it.
--------
why does that wave has that ability in one case
and has not in another case?

Err, the wave has *always* this ability. I never said otherwise!!!
------
a wich on the broom has always the ability.
------------




Porat, I send you only to books if you show that you even don't know
very *basic* facts. For example, you have showed lots of times now that
you don't know what "orbital" means in standard QM, but nevertheless you
continue to use this term with some very confused meaning.
-------
i am ashamed to confess
but a lot of qm for me is a waist of precious time
anyway it cant lead anyone too far because it is
too abstract.i saw it in my nuclear structure research, and others,
---------




------
why shoudnt they be able if some external energy or particles hit it
(if you hit a basket of apples strong enough, some of them will
pop up isnt that?

Yes, then they could be able to come out of the atom. However, no such
external particle has ever been observed in alpha decay. (and please
don't say that's because people haven't looked for it - alpha decay is a
*VERY* well studied phenomenon!)

Also this doesn't explain
1) why alpha decay occurs statistically (as shown by the fact that the
activity falls of exponentially)
2) where this extra energy or particle comes from


why do you need to involve tunneling with that simple phenomena?

Err, because we know already from lots of other phenomena that
elementary particles have to be described by the Schroedinger equation,
this Schroedinger equation predicts that tunneling happens, and its
exact predictions (for example for the dependance of the decay rate on
the particle energy) agree with experiment? And because there is no
evidence at all for your proposed alternative mechanism, and this
mechanism would contradict the statistal nature of alpha decay?
----------
what is the roll of w boson in the alpha decay?
as you know i know something about binding energies
may be more than anyone else:
the binding energfy of the alpha is a few Mev so
a few mev is only a few oercent of the nucleid!!
so how does the W boson fits in there.?
------
you ask why i am asking?
sometimes i ask to make you ask youself,

--------------


------
just for a fun question:
do you think that qm predicted it before alpha emition was
observed experimantally or vice versa:

Vice versa, I'm quite sure about this.


ie after noticing that the pop out qnm came with 'explanations'?

Do you see a problem with that??? QM was invented for totally other
reasons (to explain the spectra of atoms, mainly), and later it was
noticed that it can explain alpha decay, too.
------
just above you saied vice versa, ie qm 'predicted' the alpha decay
if you dond mind, alpha decay was detected at the end of the 19 century.

-----------

see above.
now where are the virtual particles in that story
who needs them at all there??!!

I never claimed that there are virtual particles in alpha decay. IIRC,
Michael claimed this, and I don't know where he got this from.
--------
Moroney saied he agrees 100 percent with you, now you abundon him ?
so at last both of us agree on something that moroney does not agree
(to be frank i felt right from the stsrt that wile he was intru\oducing
alpha decay as a prve for virtual particle i was more than
suspecting he is just waving his arms)


are those virtual particles bigger than the entity that sent them ?!.

1) I didn't claim that there are virtual particles here, I only intended
to explain the tunnel effect to you.
2) "Bigger" in what sense? Size? Mass? Or what?
any sense you name.
------

[snip]



Resonance with respect to what? What is vibrating there, in your
opinion? What frequency are you talking about?
-----
any particle (you saied it is a wave' not me)
has its natural frequency of vibration!

Yes. So what? What has this to do with alpha decay?


that frequency can be magnified by an appropriate harmonic force.

What is this supposed to mean? How does one "magnify" a frequency by
applying a harmonic force? Do you perhaps mean "the amplitude can be
magnified"?


the harmonic force can be done by another particle

-------
you will be surprised to heare that i know something about
harmonic motion, resonance etc
i dsudied it from my former job as civil engineer
in earthquake problems.
it is applicable to vast areas of matter
thats for another time.
its becoming too long for and old goat like me.
---------------


Where does the energy for this "tearing apart" come from?
-----
see abouve about resonance and how it works.
in that case i can tell you:
why dont you go to some librarry (:-)
seriously it is a very inportant and useful are
with surprisingly vast applications.
even to the nucleus and the atom!
-------
-------



did i made myself clear?

No, sorry.
so another time
--------
Y.Porat
---------------

Hey, finally something I can totally agree to!


Bye,
Bjoern
-----------------