Michael Moroney wrote:

(Y.Porat) writes:

and a question to Moroney:
while you saied :
Yes, maybe that's a better way to look at it. Perhaps when/if we
understand the Higgs mechanism it will explain it.

does it mean you realise that the 'virtual particles'
are at least problematic and speculative?

No, I mean we don't understand everything fully. Virtual
particles have tons of evidence supporting them, but why,
say, a W has a mass of 90 protons when 'real' and 'whatever'
when 'virtual' (if you follow Feynman's version),

Well, essentially it's the *definition* of virtual particles that they
don't have a fixed mass (and certainly not the mass of the real
particle!).


and even
if Feynman's version is better or if energy is short-term
nonconserved due to the HUP is better remains to be answered
(at least to me.)

Well, Feynman's version has been used for about 60 years now to
calculate processes in QFT. OTOH, AFAIK, using the HUP you can't
calculate anything useful - not in QFT and not even in QM!


The Higgs mechanism is supposed to explain
why matter has the mass it does. I don't understand it.

What, precisely, don't you understand about it?


I don't know how much is understood by the science community
as a while.

The Higgs mechanism is very well understood. It explains not only the
masses of particles in elementary particle physics, but can, for
example, be used also in solid state physics to explain
superconductivity.


I do know the Higgs itself hasn't been found yet.

Right. There is much hope that it will be found in the next few years at
RHIC or LHC, but obviously we can't be certain that it will indeed be
found.


Bye,
Bjoern

"Y.Porat" wrote:

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
(Y.Porat) writes:

and a question to Moroney:
while you saied :
Yes, maybe that's a better way to look at it. Perhaps when/if we
understand the Higgs mechanism it will explain it.

does it mean you realise that the 'virtual particles'
are at least problematic and speculative?

No, I mean we don't understand everything fully.
-----------
thats exactly what is asked you.
and now i got the frank answwer:
neither me nor you and probably no one else realy understands it

Err, he said that we don't understand everything fully. He didn't say
"we don't really understand it". Do you see the differences between "it"
and "everything" and between "fully" and "really"?


(unlees he is an imposter) so i guess that is the real situation.
may be if you dont undestand you can ask Feuerbacher
he understands everything.

No, I don't understand everything, obviously.


may be he will explain it to us
in detailes and not just wave his hands.)

I've explained it to you already several times. You ignored it each
time.

But if you want to have something explained again, feel free to ask.
What, exactly, do you want to know? What virtual particles are? What the
Higgs boson is?


i guess it is a mathemathical solusion that works *partially*
on some cases but something is missing there,

You can guess all you like - it remains an assertion that it only works
*partially*. I've asked you already several times to name only *one*
experimental result which disagrees with the predictions of the Standard
Model - you always ignored this.


or even worse:
something is wrong there
and my 'lacmus- sixth postulate' detected it:
no messenger can be bigger or stronger than the entity, that sent it.

The SM doesn't say that any messenger is bigger or stronger than the
sender, so I don't see the problem.


------------
btw
the tunneling effect that you mentioned is interesting
but i think it is not sort of 'borrowing energy'

He said himself that "borrowing" is only mean figuratively, remember?

Quote:
"'Borrowed' is not a literal term. Energy, due to uncertainty, becomes
available, but is not 'taken' from some other entity."


(may be borrowing energy from the 'neighbours' at the metal latice
and my guess it is more finding the correct opportunity of the electron:
say by finding the right frequency that causes the proccess
to *resonant*

What process? Tunnel processes have no resonance frequency.


so it is very 'frequescy dependant'

What frequency are you talking about?


and thas why it is so sensitive
to the specific elements and specific temperatures.
now the way from that and jumping to the nuclear world
is too long!
because the nuclear world, is ,'quite another opera'
as you youself indicated:

Yes. It is governed by other forces.


as we zoom more and more into the microcosm, we get
some different laws ansd situations
for instance:
you can hardly immagine a 'mathat latice' situation of the nucleids,

What's a "mathat lattice"?


it is AFAIK a different structure, therefore you cant authomatically
make corelations between the two situations

Well, describing the alpha decay of nuclei by the tunnel effect gives
good agreement with experimental results, AFAIK.


and say that a quark is 'borrowing energy' just under the
*pretext* of uncertainty principle.

He didn't say anything like that, so what are you talking about?


again my claim aginst the vast use of that principle:
the fact that we cannot be certain is not 'an umbrella'
for issuing guesses and claiming: since you are uncertain-
*i am certain* sort of fishing in dark watter.

Well, the theoretical predictions agree with the experiments - what more
do you want?


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

Virtual
particles have tons of evidence supporting them, but why,
say, a W has a mass of 90 protons when 'real' and 'whatever'
when 'virtual' (if you follow Feynman's version), and even
if Feynman's version is better or if energy is short-term
nonconserved due to the HUP is better remains to be answered
(at least to me.) The Higgs mechanism is supposed to explain
why matter has the mass it does. I don't understand it. I
don't know how much is understood by the science community
as a while. I do know the Higgs itself hasn't been found yet.
-------
and my main point and prediction:
it will never be found

We'll talk again about that in about 5 years, okay?

because of the *physical*
logic behind my sixth postulate.

What has your sixth postulate to do with the Higgs boson?


ps
that guess of mine has a lot of eccomomic meaning in avoiding
waist of money and energy and human resourses.
IOW befor investing lots of money, i suggest to reexamin it
again and agin on the theoretic grounds(and not just one theory-
to realize
if that investment has 'real legs'!!

As long as the experimental results agree with the theoretical
predictions, there is no need to come up with another theory which needs
lots of postulates.


Bye,
Bjoern

(Y.Porat) writes:

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
does it mean you realise that the 'virtual particles'
are at least problematic and speculative?

No, I mean we don't understand everything fully.
-----------
thats exactly what is asked you.
and now i got the frank answwer:
neither me nor you and probably no one else realy understands it

Wrong! I said we don't understand everything _fully_. We _do_
understand it. You also snipped my next sentence saying we have
a ton of evidence for virtual particles.

btw
the tunneling effect that you mentioned is interesting
but i think it is not sort of 'borrowing energy'
(may be borrowing energy from the 'neighbours' at the metal latice

First I already said 'borrowing' is not literal taking energy from
something else temporarily. If you are going to discuss this, don't
argue against what I didn't say.

Second, what about tunneling where no electrons/metal lattice or
anything else I didn't mention are involved? An excellent example
is alpha decay, where a virtual alpha 'tunnels' and becomes real.

and my guess it is more finding the correct opportunity of the electron:
say by finding the right frequency that causes the proccess
to *resonant*
so it is very 'frequescy dependant' and thas why it is so sensitive
to the specific elements and specific temperatures.

No resonance involved.

now the way from that and jumping to the nuclear world
is too long!
because the nuclear world, is ,'quite another opera'

See above regarding alpha decay.


as a while. I do know the Higgs itself hasn't been found yet.
-------
and my main point and prediction:
it will never be found because of the *physical*
logic behind my sixth postulate.

There is no "physical logic" behind your "postulate". It is
simply your way of writing "I don't understand the physics
regarding virtual particles so I'm simply going to declare
they simply don't exist, and call it a 'postulate'."

--
-Mike

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

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
(Y.Porat) writes:

and a question to Moroney:
while you saied :
Yes, maybe that's a better way to look at it. Perhaps when/if we
understand the Higgs mechanism it will explain it.

does it mean you realise that the 'virtual particles'
are at least problematic and speculative?

No, I mean we don't understand everything fully.
-----------
thats exactly what is asked you.
and now i got the frank answwer:
neither me nor you and probably no one else realy understands it

Err, he said that we don't understand everything fully. He didn't say
"we don't really understand it". Do you see the differences between "it"
and "everything" and between "fully" and "really"?
---------------
did Moroney nominated you as his lawyer?
dont you think that Moroney can speak for himself?

lets put it mildly:
your behaviour is starnge and weird.
have you heared about 'emotional intelligence'
if not get youself a book about it.
emotional intelligence is not less important for personal success
than the ordinary intelligence.
Y.Porat
---------------------

(Y.Porat) writes:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
and a question to Moroney:
while you saied :
Yes, maybe that's a better way to look at it. Perhaps when/if we
understand the Higgs mechanism it will explain it.

does it mean you realise that the 'virtual particles'
are at least problematic and speculative?

No, I mean we don't understand everything fully.
-----------
thats exactly what is asked you.
and now i got the frank answwer:
neither me nor you and probably no one else realy understands it

Err, he said that we don't understand everything fully. He didn't say
"we don't really understand it". Do you see the differences between "it"
and "everything" and between "fully" and "really"?
---------------
did Moroney nominated you as his lawyer?

No, I did not, but...

dont you think that Moroney can speak for himself?

Yes I can, and I want to say I agree 100% with Bjoern's comments.

--
-Mike

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
(Y.Porat) writes:

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
does it mean you realise that the 'virtual particles'
are at least problematic and speculative?

No, I mean we don't understand everything fully.
-----------
thats exactly what is asked you.
and now i got the frank answwer:
neither me nor you and probably no one else realy understands it

Wrong! I said we don't understand everything _fully_. We _do_
understand it. You also snipped my next sentence saying we have
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.
----------

btw
the tunneling effect that you mentioned is interesting
but i think it is not sort of 'borrowing energy'
(may be borrowing energy from the 'neighbours' at the metal latice

First I already said 'borrowing' is not literal taking energy from
something else temporarily. If you are going to discuss this, don't
argue against what I didn't say.
-------
ok please let us know what it *is* and not what it isnt.
-------

Second, what about tunneling where no electrons/metal lattice or
anything else I didn't mention are involved? An excellent example
is alpha decay, where a virtual alpha 'tunnels' and becomes real.
-------------
can you elabourate on that ?
------------

and my guess it is more finding the correct opportunity of the electron:
say by finding the right frequency that causes the proccess
to *resonant*
so it is very 'frequescy dependant' and thas why it is so sensitive
to the specific elements and specific temperatures.

No resonance involved.
--------
what makes you say that, we need something more that just statements.
(you are the expert for tunneling not me)
-------

now the way from that and jumping to the nuclear world
is too long!
because the nuclear world, is ,'quite another opera'

See above regarding alpha decay.
?????
please be a bit more than the 'oracle of delphoi'
---------------


as a while. I do know the Higgs itself hasn't been found yet.
-------
and my main point and prediction:
it will never be found because of the *physical*
logic behind my sixth postulate.

There is no "physical logic" behind your "postulate". It is
simply your way of writing "I don't understand the physics
regarding virtual particles so I'm simply going to declare
they simply don't exist, and call it a 'postulate'."
--------
1 it does not fit your above statement in which you confessed
you dont understand (lets put it mildly) many of its
aspects.
2 the fact that no Higgs Boson where found untill now
despite the big efforts,means nothing to you?
or may be you are one of the personally(making some living
out of it) interested
in going on with that story?
--------
all the best
Y.Porat
------------
--------

"Y.Porat" wrote:

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

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
(Y.Porat) writes:

and a question to Moroney:
while you saied :
Yes, maybe that's a better way to look at it. Perhaps when/if we
understand the Higgs mechanism it will explain it.

does it mean you realise that the 'virtual particles'
are at least problematic and speculative?

No, I mean we don't understand everything fully.
-----------
thats exactly what is asked you.
and now i got the frank answwer:
neither me nor you and probably no one else realy understands it

Err, he said that we don't understand everything fully. He didn't say
"we don't really understand it". Do you see the differences between "it"
and "everything" and between "fully" and "really"?
---------------
did Moroney nominated you as his lawyer?

No.


dont you think that Moroney can speak for himself?

No.

So what? Again, this is a *newsgroup*, not a private e-mail discussion!
If you haven't already noticed this: a newsgroup is intended for free
discussion between lots of people, not for a closed, private discussion
between only two people.


lets put it mildly:
your behaviour is starnge and weird.

You consider it strange and weird that I continue to correct your
errors, although you keep ignoring them? Yes, you are right, that's
really a bit weird - although I would prefer to call it "stubborn" and
"persistent".


have you heared about 'emotional intelligence'

Yes.


if not get youself a book about it.
emotional intelligence is not less important for personal success
than the ordinary intelligence.

I don't see what emotional intelligence has to do with the fact that
newsgroups are intended for free discussion between lots of peoples, not
for private discussions between only two. If you don't like my posts,
ignore them! Hey, you already ignore the contents of my posts - so
ignoring them altogether shouldn't be a big problem!

You are anyway a master in ignoring inconvenient things (like
explanations which refute your straw men, evidence, links, and so on),
so this should be easy for you...


Bye,
Bjoern

"Y.Porat" wrote:

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
(Y.Porat) writes:

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
does it mean you realise that the 'virtual particles'
are at least problematic and speculative?

No, I mean we don't understand everything fully.
-----------
thats exactly what is asked you.
and now i got the frank answwer:
neither me nor you and probably no one else realy understands it

Wrong! I said we don't understand everything _fully_. We _do_
understand it. You also snipped my next sentence saying we have
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 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).

*I* would count this as evidence for the existence of virtual particles;
if you prefer to call this "interpretation", that's your problem - that
only shows that you have no clue what "evidence" really means in
science.


----------

btw
the tunneling effect that you mentioned is interesting
but i think it is not sort of 'borrowing energy'
(may be borrowing energy from the 'neighbours' at the metal latice

First I already said 'borrowing' is not literal taking energy from
something else temporarily. If you are going to discuss this, don't
argue against what I didn't say.
-------
ok please let us know what it *is* and not what it isnt.

The tunnel effect is the effect that particles can go into regions into
which they shouldn't be able to go if one calculates it classically -
regions which aren't accessible because the particle doesn't have enough
energy to overcome a barrier, for example. By considering that particles
have wave-like properties, the tunnel effect can be easily explained. If
one considers microwaves (classically!), there also is something like a
tunnel effect. It's simply an ability of waves, nothing exciting about
it.


-------

Second, what about tunneling where no electrons/metal lattice or
anything else I didn't mention are involved? An excellent example
is alpha decay, where a virtual alpha 'tunnels' and becomes real.
-------------
can you elabourate on that ?

Alpha particles shouldn't be able to leave the nucleus because of the
strong binding force, if one calculates it classically (there is an
energy barrier). However, if one considers the tunnel effect, it becomes
clear that they *can* leave the nucleus - they can "tunnel" through the
barrier. If one calculates this, one gets the right dependance of the
decay rate on the energy of the emitted alpha particles - agreeing with
the one which is experimentally observed.

You would know all that if you would have done what I already told you
several times: get some books on basic Quantum Mechanics, particle
physics and nuclear physics and *read* them. You could correct lots of
your misconceptions in this way, and you would see that there are lots
of effects out there which a new theory which tries to explain the
established ones has to explain.




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

and my guess it is more finding the correct opportunity of the electron:
say by finding the right frequency that causes the proccess
to *resonant*
so it is very 'frequescy dependant' and thas why it is so sensitive
to the specific elements and specific temperatures.

No resonance involved.
--------
what makes you say that, we need something more that just statements.
(you are the expert for tunneling not me)

Resonance with respect to what? What is vibrating there, in your
opinion? What frequency are you talking about?


-------

now the way from that and jumping to the nuclear world
is too long!
because the nuclear world, is ,'quite another opera'

See above regarding alpha decay.
?????
please be a bit more than the 'oracle of delphoi'

Try opening a book.


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


as a while. I do know the Higgs itself hasn't been found yet.
-------
and my main point and prediction:
it will never be found because of the *physical*
logic behind my sixth postulate.

There is no "physical logic" behind your "postulate". It is
simply your way of writing "I don't understand the physics
regarding virtual particles so I'm simply going to declare
they simply don't exist, and call it a 'postulate'."
--------
1 it does not fit your above statement in which you confessed
you dont understand (lets put it mildly) many of its
aspects.

Err, he only said that he doesn't understand the Higgs boson. OTOH, he
said that he *does* understand virtual particles in general.


2 the fact that no Higgs Boson where found untill now
despite the big efforts,means nothing to you?

There are theoretical predictions in which energy range the Higgs should
be found, if it exists. We have looked so far only in about 60% of that
range, there is still much room left to find it.


or may be you are one of the personally(making some living
out of it) interested in going on with that story?

He said that he doesn't understand the Higgs boson, so obviously he
can't make some living out of it.


Bye,
Bjoern

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

----------
since (for a change) you brought some stuff of physics
and you did some home work
in an apposite way.
i am ready to do some discussion withj you
(untill the second you becom wild and do nothing than hand waving
in that moment i will stop discussing with you ):
and save us the personal politics and peersonal wrating).


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):
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).

*I* would count this as evidence for the existence of virtual particles;

*(wobs )* if you prefer to call this "interpretation", that's your problem - that
only shows that you have no clue what "evidence" really means in
science.
---
see as well what G D Pusch saied above thrads,
about the virtual particles
the energy conservation breaking in(not very long) past and the new
(in shell and out shell idea)
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.
--------------
----------

btw
the tunneling effect that you mentioned is interesting
but i think it is not sort of 'borrowing energy'
(may be borrowing energy from the 'neighbours' at the metal latice

First I already said 'borrowing' is not literal taking energy from
something else temporarily. If you are going to discuss this, don't
argue against what I didn't say.
-------
ok please let us know what it *is* and not what it isnt.

The tunnel effect is the effect that particles can go into regions into
which they shouldn't be able to go if one calculates it classically -
regions which aren't accessible because the particle doesn't have enough
energy to overcome a barrier,
------
you didnt tell us still where from that particle takes its
extra energy and you know that in energy there is no free meal
so it was taken from somewher and you have to tell from where
or else you have to say 'i dont know'.

for example. By considering that particles
have wave-like properties, the tunnel effect can be easily explained.
-------
please tell us some of that easy explanation.
------

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?
just a short explanation please, and please dont send me to the books
or else i will suspect you dont realy know - at least not
at this moment.
-----
----

-------

Second, what about tunneling where no electrons/metal lattice or
anything else I didn't mention are involved? An excellent example
is alpha decay, where a virtual alpha 'tunnels' and becomes real.
-------------
can you elabourate on that ?

Alpha particles shouldn't be able to leave the nucleus because of the
strong binding force, if one calculates it classically (there is an
energy barrier).
------
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?
why do you need to involve tunneling with that simple phenomena?
--------------

However, if one considers the tunnel effect, it becomes
clear that they *can* leave the nucleus -
------
just for a fun question:
do you think that qm predicted it before alpha emition was
observed experimantally or vice versa:
ie after noticing that the pop out qnm came with 'explanations'?
-----------
they can "tunnel" through the
barrier. If one calculates this, one gets the right dependance of the
decay rate on the energy of the emitted alpha particles - agreeing with
the one which is experimentally observed.
--------
see above.
now where are the virtual particles in that story
who needs them at all there??!!
and 2
are those virtual particles bigger than the entity that sent them ?!.
---------
--------
snipped the patronising of a young man.
---------


and my guess it is more finding the correct opportunity of the electron:
say by finding the right frequency that causes the proccess
to *resonant*
so it is very 'frequescy dependant' and thas why it is so sensitive
to the specific elements and specific temperatures.

No resonance involved.
--------
what makes you say that, we need something more that just statements.
(you are the expert for tunneling not me)

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!
that frequency can be magnified by an appropriate harmonic force.
the harmonic force can be done by another particle
(because the other one is as well a vibrating particle remember?)
so once vibrating and resonating the resonance can be so strong
that it tears the particle of its place
(if a dog will wiggle his tail strong enough the tail will be
torn out )
now in a methal lattice you have the problem that our vibrating particle
is not alone in the area, so it has to fit its vibratins
to the vibrattins (the natural onse) of the lattice members)
if it does not fit it will not pass
if it fits, our electron will be able to sneak at the right
moments while the way is clear of obstacles.
did i made myself clear?
no virtual particles are neede there, it is all splid tangible
particles that unfortunately vibrate naturally
for good and for bad.
----------
--------


-------




Try opening a book.

as you knw well i was not only reading a book
i was able to write one.(that you still should have)
the fact you dont understand it does not make it
less important.
--------

as a while. I do know the Higgs itself hasn't been found yet.
-------



--------
1 it does not fit your above statement in which you confessed
you dont understand (lets put it mildly) many of its
aspects.

Err, he only said that he doesn't understand the Higgs boson. OTOH, he
said that he *does* understand virtual particles in general.
---
if you understand the 'virtual particles' lets have your explanations
because i have the 'witch on the broomstic' as an alternative.
(actually there are some and not just one witch- it depends on
the case we examine)
we cannot find those wiches because they fly too high
and we didnt invent the proper airoplan to get there.
----------


2 the fact that no Higgs Boson where found untill now
despite the big efforts,means nothing to you?

There are theoretical predictions in which energy range the Higgs should
be found, if it exists. We have looked so far only in about 60% of that
range, there is still much room left to find it.
---------
see the problem of the missing airoplan just above.
-------

or may be you are one of the personally(making some living
out of it) interested in going on with that story?

He said that he doesn't understand the Higgs boson, so obviously he
can't make some living out of it.
---------
so may be he makes his living from the 'virtual particles'
and i do it from the 'witch on the broom'
sory the cynisism
but still behind that i am a (too serious) person
(some humour will not do any harm)
all the best
Y.porat

"Y.Porat" wrote:

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

----------
since (for a change) you brought some stuff of physics

Oh, lying again? I brought up physics in (almost?) everyone of my posts,
so this one is not "for a change".


and you did some home work
in an apposite way.

I didn't do any home work on this - I only told you stuff which I have
known
for years know, and which I've told you already several times, IIRC.


i am ready to do some discussion with you

I hope you behave better than in earlier discussions this time - that
you don't ignore evidence I give to you, for example.


(untill the second you becom wild and do nothing than hand waving
in that moment i will stop discussing with you ):

It's *you* only who calls it "hand waving". Others call it "sound
scientific argumentation".


and save us the personal politics and peersonal wrating).


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):

This makes no sense. "witch on a broomstick" has already an obvious
meaning, hence using it to describe something which is totally different
from its standard meaning is total nonsense! OTOH, "virtual particles"
is a perfectly sensible term to use for description here.



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).

*I* would count this as evidence for the existence of virtual particles;
*(wobs )* if you prefer to call this "interpretation", that's your problem
- that only shows that you have no clue what "evidence" really means in
science.
---
see as well what G D Pusch saied above thrads
about the virtual particles
the energy conservation breaking in(not very long) past and the new
(in shell and out shell idea)

This doesn't sound like anything Gordon D Pusch said. I quote what he
said here for convenience:

"Such "borrowing" was only required under the "old-fashioned"
interpretation
of "virtual" processes in perturbation theory, whcih no one uses any
more.

In Feynman's version of perturbation theory, energy and momentum
are =ALWAYS= and =EXACTLY= conserved, at every interaction vertex.
"Virtual" process proceed by allowing the "virtual" particles to be
"off their mass shell" --- which is not nearly so problematic
as allowing energy conservation to be "temporarily" violated,
since rest-mass is not conserved anyway!"

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?????


btw
the tunneling effect that you mentioned is interesting
but i think it is not sort of 'borrowing energy'
(may be borrowing energy from the 'neighbours' at the metal latice

First I already said 'borrowing' is not literal taking energy from\0
something else temporarily. If you are going to discuss this, don't
argue against what I didn't say.
-------
ok please let us know what it *is* and not what it isnt.

The tunnel effect is the effect that particles can go into regions into
which they shouldn't be able to go if one calculates it classically -
regions which aren't accessible because the particle doesn't have enough
energy to overcome a barrier,
------
you didnt tell us still where from that particle takes its
extra energy

It doesn't take extra energy from anywhere. It doesn't need it, because
it has wave-like properties, and waves have no problems to go into
regions which are "energetically unallowed". You don't need QM to
explain this - Maxwell's equations for electromagnetic waves, and even
simple Newtonian equations for sounds waves show this equally well.

Please notice that I didn't say anywhere that after the tunneling, the
particle has *more* energy than before. It has exactly the same energy!
There is just a point in between where the particle, *IF* (do you notice
the *IF*?) it would act like a classical particle, a "little marble",
would need more energy to overcome the barrier. But elementary particles
do *NOT* (do you notice the *NOT*?) act like "little marbles" - their
behaviour is described by the Schroedinger equation, a *WAVE* (do you
notice the *WAVE*?) equation, and therefore they do *NOT* (do you notice
the *NOT*?) need any extra energy.

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.

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.
2) The Schroedinger equation describes their behaviour in the right way.

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.



and you know that in energy there is no free meal

Yes.


so it was taken from somewher

No. It simply isn't needed.


and you have to tell from where
or else you have to say 'i dont know'.

See above.


for example. By considering that particles
have wave-like properties, the tunnel effect can be easily explained.
-------
please tell us some of that easy explanation.

*sigh* Say, Porat, why don't you do what I repeatedly tell you? Go to
the library and get a *BASIC* education about physics!

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?




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!!!


just a short explanation please, and please dont send me to the books
or else i will suspect you dont realy know - at least not
at this moment.

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.



Second, what about tunneling where no electrons/etal lattice or
anything else I didn't mention are involved? An excellent example
is alpha decay, where a virtual alpha 'tunnels' and becomes real.
-------------
can you elabourate on that ?

Alpha particles shouldn't be able to leave the nucleus because of the
strong binding force, if one calculates it classically (there is an
energy barrier).
------
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?

Porat, why don't you got to a library and try reading up some very basic
facts about nuclear physics? Why don't you teach yourself, instead of
keeping asking others to teach you?


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

However, if one considers the tunnel effect, it becomes
clear that they *can* leave the nucleus -
------
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.


-----------
they can "tunnel" through the
barrier. If one calculates this, one gets the right dependance of the
decay rate on the energy of the emitted alpha particles - agreeing with
the one which is experimentally observed.
--------
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.


and 2
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?

[snip]


and my guess it is more finding the correct opportunity of the
electron:
say by finding the right frequency that causes the proccess
to *resonant*
so it is very 'frequescy dependant' and thas why it is so sensitive
to the specific elements and specific temperatures.

No resonance involved.
--------
what makes you say that, we need something more that just statements.
(you are the expert for tunneling not me)

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

How?


(because the other one is as well a vibrating particle remember?)

So what? Why should this imply that it can apply a harmonic force on
another particle???

And what "other particle" are you talking about?


so once vibrating and resonating the resonance can be so strong
that it tears the particle of its place

Where does the energy for this "tearing apart" come from?


(if a dog will wiggle his tail strong enough the tail will be
torn out )
now in a methal lattice you have the problem that our vibrating particle
is not alone in the area, so it has to fit its vibratins
to the vibrattins (the natural onse) of the lattice members)

Why do you think so? What "vibrates" there are the wave functions of the
particles; why should this "fit" to its "lattice members"? There are no
forces involved in this vibration; it's not a mechanical vibration.


if it does not fit it will not pass

Pass what?


if it fits, our electron will be able to sneak at the right
moments while the way is clear of obstacles.

What electron? I thought we were talking about alpha decay?


did i made myself clear?

No, sorry.


no virtual particles are neede there,

I never claimed that virtual particles are needed in alpha decay. Do you
talk about other effects now?

OTOH, I *did* mention that virtual particles are involved, for example,
in the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, and that by including
their contributions in the calculation, QFT predicts the anomalous
magnetic moment if the electron to more than 10 significant digits,
agreeing with experimental results. How do you explain this? (BTW,
measurements of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron are *not*
done on electrons in a metal lattice, but on electrons flying through a
good vacuum, so the "lattice members" can't be an explanation)


it is all splid tangible
particles that unfortunately vibrate naturally
for good and for bad.

S
orry, I don't understand this.


Try opening a book.

as you knw well i was not only reading a book
i was able to write one.(that you still should have)

As is well apparent from what you write, you never read even a basic
book on QM, nuclear and particle physics. Perhaps some popular science,
but never a real scientific textbook on these topics, where lots of
terms are explained which you don't know and don't understand, and where
lots of experiments are presented which you equally don't know (tunnel
effect, alpha decay, wave-like properties of electrons, .......)


the fact you dont understand it does not make it
less important.

I've asked you *lots* of questions about your "book" - you ignored most
of them by using the excuse that you have "little time". I told you
several times that I don't mind if your answers take a little longer, if
you would only answer my questions - but you nevertheless continued to
answer only a small part of my questions. How am I supposed to able to
understand your book if you ignore most of my questions about it?


as a while. I do know the Higgs itself hasn't been found yet.
-------



--------
1 it does not fit your above statement in which you confessed
you dont understand (lets put it mildly) many of its
aspects.

Err, he only said that he doesn't understand the Higgs boson. OTOH, he
said that he *does* understand virtual particles in general.
---
if you understand the 'virtual particles' lets have your explanations
because i have the 'witch on the broomstic' as an alternative.

What explanation do you want to have? Please be more specific!


(actually there are some and not just one witch- it depends on
the case we examine)

Can you predict the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron to more
than 10 signifant digits using a "theory" which postulates "witches on
broomsticks"?


we cannot find those wiches because they fly too high
and we didnt invent the proper airoplan to get there.

Nice. Is there any verifiable prediction of the hypothesis that witches
on broomsticks exist? I already told you some of the verifiable
predictions of the theory which says that virtual particles exist.


2 the fact that no Higgs Boson where found untill now
despite the big efforts,means nothing to you?

There are theoretical predictions in which energy range the Higgs should
be found, if it exists. We have looked so far only in about 60% of that
range, there is still much room left to find it.
---------
see the problem of the missing airoplan just above.

I don't see any resemblance, sorry. If the predictions say that it
should be in a certain energy range, and we have searched only about 60%
of that range up to now, why on earth should this be evidence that it
doesn't exist???
In a few years, when LHC is running, we will be able to look at the rest
of that energy range; if we *then* *still* don't find the Higgs, you
will have a point!



or may be you are one of the personally(making some living
out of it) interested in going on with that story?

He said that he doesn't understand the Higgs boson, so obviously he
can't make some living out of it.
---------
so may be he makes his living from the 'virtual particles'

Doesn't look like this to me, too.


and i do it from the 'witch on the broom'
sory the cynisism

I had no problem with your "witch on the broom" proposals if it would
come up with some verifiable predictions.


but still behind that i am a (too serious) person
(some humour will not do any harm)

Hey, finally something I can totally agree to!


Bye,
Bjoern