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

I notice that you, as usual, have ignored most of my comments, and
misunderstood the rest. Big surprise!


"Y.Porat" wrote:

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*

Depends on what you mean by "unknown". Virtual particles are things
which are predicted to exist from the theory; I wouldn't call them
"unknown" therefore.


and its good enough for some solutions
but its not good enough for rewal penetraation of the basics of physics.

Please present evidence for this assertion.


moreover
once they say 'virtual particle' it might well be not just one
unknown but many of them under that 'umbrela'

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.


and that makes the
situation even more helpless for solving the still open unsolved
problems like gravity ,fusion ,nuclear structure etc etc

Nuclear structure and fusion are well understood; gravity is, too. What
makes you think they aren't?


do you doubt that there are too many unsoved problems that
standard model of modern physics cant cope with them ?!

I agree that there are unsolved problems with which the SM can't deal.
However, there are not "many" of them, and they are totally different
problems than the ones you think about.


-------------
now about what Pusch was writing, again even here you do your selective
quating and unserstanding:

Selective quoting????? I quoted his entire post!!!!!!!


he was writing borrowing was only reqired uder old fashioned
interpretation of virtual processes in pertuberationtheory

Yes, and I quoted that!!! So what's "selective" about my quoting???


*which no one uses any more'

Completely right! I agree with that! Why on earth do you think
otherwise?


(there might some spelling mistakes of mine- i misspell
even a text that is right under my nose (:-)

Ever heard of "copy & paste"? Or of proof reading?


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)

I already told you several times that don't bothering about right
spelling means that you are impolite to your debating opponent - because
you don't bother that he will have problems when reading your text and
trying to understand what you meant. But this apparently doesn't bother
you.


so Bjoern (right spelling ?)

Yes, congratulations!


can you read things between the lines of the text ?

If there are some things to read there, yes.


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!

He said in the next paragraph that this old-fashioned version was
replaced by Feynman's version. IIRC, this happened around 1945, hence it
is 60 years ago. Quantum field theory was only invented around 1930 or
1935, hence there were 10-15 years of "old fashioned perturbation
theory" (at most), and then afterwards approx. 60 years of the new
approach.


so a few decades it was *the scince* with every one admiring it\0

Wrong. The people back then were well aware that the "old fashioned
perturbation theory" has lots of problems when one tries to use it in
QFT, and knew that one has to find new methods. And Feynman achieved
that.


and suddenly it is no good

No, not suddenly. This was known right from the start. People used it
only because they had nothing better to use, and it gave the right
results in some *very* special cases (so-called "tree graphs").


what can we learn from that ??

That you don't know the history of QFT.


that we have 'fashions' we dont have the final physics.

No one ever claimed that modern QFT is the final physics. OTOH, speaking
about "fashions" makes no sense - what is used in physics isn't
determined on the basis if one likes it or not, but on the basis if it
works or not. That's why practically every physicist back then said that
they didn't have a full QFT yet - because "old-fashioned perturbation
theory" didn't work. Only when Feynman's methods became available,
Quantum Field Theory was "born".


so it might well be that in a few decades ahead ....

Yes, in a few decades, there may happen a lot. So what?

No "paradigm change" in physics so far has shown that the old theories
was false - they simply were limits of the new theories which work well
in certain circumstances (for example, classical mechanics isn't
altogether false, although it was replaced by Special Relativity - it
works well for speed much smaller than light speed).


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)

Yes, I know this term. And I bet you don't know what this means.


which is not nearly so *problematic * (the assertion is mine Y.P)

Do you mean "emphasize" instead of "assertion"?


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.....

It is "problematic" from the viewing point of classical mechanics,
because according to classical mechanics, particles should always be "on
the mass shell". He simply points out that this interpretation violates
classical mechanics, and that the assumption of non-conservation of
energy violated classical mechanics, too, and then explains that the
first violation isn't as bad as the second. And I don't see any
"problem" at all with the fact that QFT violates classical mechanics -
after all, it was shown *by experiments* that classical mechanics can't
explain the workings of the world! (and please spare me a comment like
"not experiments, only interpretations of experiments")


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.

Ask him why he feels it is problematic, I don't think so. And I've
explained above why.


now i will tell you what i think about tha t
'of shell in shell story':

It's not a "story", it's a *prediction* of QFT.


it is an insult to the intelligence of people who call themselves
physicists. nothing less than that.

Why?



instead of sayng we dont understand it
they stuff you with fairy tales.

Why do you think this is a fairy tale? It's a well-studied concept in
QFT, and there is no experiment so far which would show that QFT is
wrong.


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 (;-).

I've told you lots of times that you could simply take a bit more time
to answer my posts, instead of using this lame excuse of "I am to slow
for you" or something like that, in order to be able to ignore most of
my post.

Take some days, write a careful reply to all of my comments, proof read
it, check for spelling and such things, and then post it! I have no
problem with waiting a few days for your reply - but OTOH, I *have* a
*BIG* problem with you always ignoring most of my posts!


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

Err, Michael said the following a few posts ago:

"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."

Michael was obviously talking about virtual particles *in general*, not
only the "bigger" ones. (BTW, what do mean by "bigger"? Larger size?
Larger mass?)
This is clear from the context - go back and read that post again!


You answered then:

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

And I took this to mean that you want to have evidence for virtual
particles *in general* - because this was your reaction to a post by
Michael where he talked about virtual particles *in general*.



even if it has nothing to do with our limited issue.

Well, if you want evidence for "virtual particles which are bigger than
their sender", please first explain to me
1) what you mean by "bigger"
and
2) why do you think that QFT says that something like this ever happens.

And please notice that in order to understand what QFT has to say about
such "bigger" virtual particles, one should understand at first what
"virtual particle" and "on/off the mass shell" means!


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.

Sorry for you - I hope he will come back and join the conversation
again.


my explanations about tunelig was just a linemans guess
i thought about it just one day before nad never studied it before.

Why am I not surprised?


i only read Ivor Giaver whois a nobel prizer for it
and his contribution to experimental profe of tunneling

I think you mean this?
http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1973/press.html


it was interesting to hear his ideas about the cooperation
between engineers and scientists

Where did you hear these ideas?


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.

Well, I don't know why Michael brought it up - I only tried to explain
what's going on there.



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

Hello?


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

Hello?


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

Well, please ask him what he means by implying that this is
"problematic".



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 ?

I never claimed that this has anything to do with virtual particles. I
only tried to explain the tunnel effect because Michael brought it up
and then unfortunately disappeared.


and does it contradict my sixth postulate ?

It has nothing to do with it, as far as I can see. Again, I don't know
hy Michael brought this up.


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

Not in the book you sent me. If you think otherwise, please point out
exactly where you use this.


---------
2) The Schroedinger equation describes their behaviour in the right way.
------------
the Schroedinger equation cannot go further than a few light elements.

Still wrong, no matter how often you claim it.

And even if it were right: so what? It describes the behaviour of the
light elements in the right way, and there are no experimental results
which contradict its predictions.


still of topic.

Still has to do with explaining tunneling.


-------------
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.

Where?

And didn't it ever occur to you that reading a small bit out of context
doesn't help in understanding the concepts behind it? That if one wants
to understand something, one should start on page one of the book, not
in the middle?


it is mathematical manipulatios that works partially

Why do you keep claiming that it works only partially? Could you please
point out at least *one* instance where it doesn't work?


anf yet does not explain the physics behind it.

What do you mean by "the physics behind it"? Why don't you consider
"forces result from the exchange of virtual particles", with a clear
definition of "virtual particle" and a whole theory behind it which
explains every detail and makes quantitative predictions, to be "physics
behind it"?


noone on earth understands the attraction force its time for you
to know that.

There is an explanation of the attraction force in the FAQ of this
newsgroup. Apparently you either never read it, or you didn't understand
it.


w bossons is our conflict so you cannot take it for granted while
arguing with me you have to prove it

Why do you think that I take W bosons for granted here? Where did I use
their existence to show anything?


because i dont believe you
it is against mybasic understanding of physics

Well, I already noticed this, thank you.


(in a few decades it wil l be called 'old fashoned' (:-)

Perhaps, yes. So what?


(while anew fairy taile will prevail)

How do you judge if an explanation is a fairy tale or sound physics? By
looking if it makes sense to you or not, right? Did it ever occur to you
that the problem may not be with the explanations which you consider to
be fairy tales, but with you?


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

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

No problem. Thanks for listening, for a change.


surprisingly it is not all new for me

What of the things above did you already know?


but still off topic

See above.


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.

This comment makes no sense at all. I simply pointed out that waves
always have the ability to "tunnel". Why do you have a problem with this
statement? Please be specific.


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

Well, then please give an alternative theory which explains all the
basic experiments which lead to the development of QM. You can start
with the hydrogen spectrum. Good luck.


anyway it cant lead anyone too far because it is too abstract.

You left out two words. Your sentence should end: "...too abstract for
me."


i saw it in my nuclear structure research, and others,

I still would like you to explain Rutherford scattering.


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

Hello?



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?

It has no role there. See above.

W bosons have a role in *beta 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!!

Right.


so how does the W boson fits in there.?

Nowhere. I never claimed it did.

[snip]


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

Read again what you wrote above! You asked:
"Do you think that qm predicted it before alpha emission was observed
experimentally or vice versa?", and I said "vice versa". This
*obviously* means that *first* alpha decay was observed, and
*afterwards* QM gave a description and an explanation for it. "Vice
versa" did here *OBVIOUSLY* *NOT* mean that QM predicted the alpha decay
before it was omitted, but the opposite!


if you dond mind, alpha decay was detected at the end of the 19 century.

Yes, nothing I said contradicts this! Try some reading comprehesnion!


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 said he agrees 100 percent with you, now you abundon him ?

He said this in a totally different context!!!

And I don't "abandon" him, I only point out that I don't know where he
got this idea from!


so at last both of us agree on something that moroney does not agree

That there are no virtual particles involved in alpha decay or what?


(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)

Perhaps. I don't want to judge him. Let's see if he speaks for himself.



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.

Well, "size" makes little sense, because according to QFT, all
elementary particles should be pointlike, hence all have the same
"size". Hence apparently you mean mass.

Now would you please point out to me where QFT does say that a particle
emits another particle which has a higher mass than the sender?


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.

No, I'm not surprised at all. I already know that you are an engineer,
and engineer usually know such things.


its becoming too long for and old goat like me.

See above - take as much time as you want for answering! How often do I
need to tell you that?


Where does the energy for this "tearing apart" come from?
-----
see abouve about resonance and how it works.

I know how resonance works. This doesn't answer my question!


in that case i can tell you:
why dont you go to some librarry (:-)

I know quite well how oscillations work and what a resonance is; I only
fail to see the connection with the things you suggest about alpha
decay!


seriously it is a very inportant and useful are
with surprisingly vast applications.

*sigh* Yes, I know this.


even to the nucleus and the atom!

I know this, too. Ever heard of the Delta resonance?

[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
I notice that you, as usual, have ignored most of my comments, and
misunderstood the rest. Big surprise!
---------
1 you should say : imho you misundestood because there is no way
for you to know what i undestood and not undestood
2
i suggest that you snipp some of the old texts in order of not getting
700 lines
no one will folow it
------------




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*

Depends on what you mean by "unknown". Virtual particles are things
which are predicted to exist from the theory; I wouldn't call them
"unknown" therefore.
----- unknown is -- unknown!
if it is only a mathematical artifact and was never detected
it is unknown to anyone who refuse to believe in it
as existing in nature
and belives it exist on papers of matematicians.
if some of its predictions work, it does not meant nature works like thatt
it might be an accidental success, that cannot be used for further success.
------


and its good enough for some solutions
but its not good enough for rewal penetraation of the basics of physics.

Please present evidence for this assertion.


moreover
once they say 'virtual particle' it might well be not just one
unknown but many of them under that 'umbrela'

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.
------------
as long that those virtual entites are not detected in experiments
it might be a conglomeration of many unknowns, which you
dont know their detailes
as a result i can call them a 'witch on a broom'
so we have both - the witch and the broom, while you
thought its only one entity.
in short as long it is not detected, it is a hypotetical stoty
that can tomorow be proven as a mistake.
just a methaphor :
suppose you predicted that to morow thwere will be raing
so your declaration will be :
yousee i read the synoptic map and my instruments
therefore i predicted the rain: ie i can predict any posible rain:
but than it will be revealed to you that the rain was not due
to your synoptic map but because:
an airoplain was spraing the clouds with argentun Iodid
and thats why it was raining.
thats what i call a partical accidental success.
io simple words: you dont have the complete story in your hand
and i would add to it(if you use particles that are bigger than their
senders, that your story is suspicious, even your 'success'
is at least suspicious.
------------------
---------------


and that makes the
situation even more helpless for solving the still open unsolved
problems like gravity ,fusion ,nuclear structure etc etc
--------
see the above lines again,
-----------

Nuclear structure and fusion are well understood; gravity is, too. What
makes you think they aren't?
----------
while Yan Hus was on the stake he saw an old woman comming with a
torch to enlarge the flame:
he than saied:
oh sacred naivity (or sacred believer) i dont remember the xact
quote.
while you say well undestood some fuses in my mind start to threat
i suggest that yuo will think it over that 'well unsestood'
or alternatively will consult *cleave* people of your university
if that is the right term to use.(well understood)
---------\0
---------


do you doubt that there are too many unsoved problems that
standard model of modern physics cant cope with them ?!

I agree that there are unsolved problems with which the SM can't deal.
However, there are not "many" of them, and they are totally different
problems than the ones you think about.
---------
ok you have a monopole on knowinganything that what is solved
and anything that is not solved
btw we are slipping to too much personal hand waiving
and too little substantiated physics.
we have to stop it, and change stile.
---------

-------------
now about what Pusch was writing, again even here you do your selective
quating and unserstanding:

Selective quoting????? I quoted his entire post!!!!!!!


he was writing borrowing was only reqired uder old fashioned
interpretation of virtual processes in pertuberationtheory

Yes, and I quoted that!!! So what's "selective" about my quoting???


*which no one uses any more'

Completely right! I agree with that! Why on earth do you think
otherwise?
-------
just dont jump read further first, we are waisting bandwidth.:


(there might some spelling mistakes of mine- i misspell
even a text that is right under my nose (:-)

Ever heard of "copy & paste"? Or of proof reading?
--------
no patiance for that for an old goat (;-)
------------


spelling means that you are impolite to your debating opponent - because
you don't bother that he will have problems when reading your text and
trying to understand what you meant. But this apparently doesn't bother
you.
------
i guess most readrs understand me well enough
but ltes concentrate.
-----


so Bjoern (right spelling ?)

Yes, congratulations!


can you read things between the lines of the text ?

If there are some things to read there, yes.


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!

He said in the next paragraph that this old-fashioned version was
replaced by Feynman's version. IIRC, this happened around 1945, hence it
is 60 years ago. Quantum field theory was only invented around 1930 or
1935, hence there were 10-15 years of "old fashioned perturbation
theory" (at most), and then afterwards approx. 60 years of the new
approach.
60 years is a very short time in scince.
yet dont forget the 'fashion' in it
the fact that we have here fashions, is a bas sighn
(fashion is something that comes and goes!.

-------------
sudeeny i
















so a few decades it was *the scince* with every one admiring it

Wrong. The people back then were well aware that the "old fashioned
perturbation theory" has lots of problems when one tries to use it in
QFT, and knew that one has to find new methods. And Feynman achieved
that.


and suddenly it is no good

No, not suddenly. This was known right from the start. People used it
only because they had nothing better to use, and it gave the right
results in some *very* special cases (so-called "tree graphs").


what can we learn from that ??

That you don't know the history of QFT.


that we have 'fashions' we dont have the final physics.

No one ever claimed that modern QFT is the final physics. OTOH, speaking
about "fashions" makes no sense - what is used in physics isn't
determined on the basis if one likes it or not, but on the basis if it
works or not. That's why practically every physicist back then said that
they didn't have a full QFT yet - because "old-fashioned perturbation
theory" didn't work. Only when Feynman's methods became available,
Quantum Field Theory was "born".


so it might well be that in a few decades ahead ....

Yes, in a few decades, there may happen a lot. So what?

No "paradigm change" in physics so far has shown that the old theories
was false - they simply were limits of the new theories which work well
in certain circumstances (for example, classical mechanics isn't
altogether false, although it was replaced by Special Relativity - it
works well for speed much smaller than light speed).


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)

Yes, I know this term. And I bet you don't know what this means.


which is not nearly so *problematic * (the assertion is mine Y.P)

Do you mean "emphasize" instead of "assertion"?


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.....

It is "problematic" from the viewing point of classical mechanics,
because according to classical mechanics, particles should always be "on
the mass shell". He simply points out that this interpretation violates
classical mechanics, and that the assumption of non-conservation of
energy violated classical mechanics, too, and then explains that the
first violation isn't as bad as the second. And I don't see any
"problem" at all with the fact that QFT violates classical mechanics -
after all, it was shown *by experiments* that classical mechanics can't
explain the workings of the world! (and please spare me a comment like
"not experiments, only interpretations of experiments")


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.

Ask him why he feels it is problematic, I don't think so. And I've
explained above why.


now i will tell you what i think about tha t
'of shell in shell story':

It's not a "story", it's a *prediction* of QFT.


it is an insult to the intelligence of people who call themselves
physicists. nothing less than that.

Why?



instead of sayng we dont understand it
they stuff you with fairy tales.

Why do you think this is a fairy tale? It's a well-studied concept in
QFT, and there is no experiment so far which would show that QFT is
wrong.


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 (;-).

I've told you lots of times that you could simply take a bit more time
to answer my posts, instead of using this lame excuse of "I am to slow
for you" or something like that, in order to be able to ignore most of
my post.

Take some days, write a careful reply to all of my comments, proof read
it, check for spelling and such things, and then post it! I have no
problem with waiting a few days for your reply - but OTOH, I *have* a
*BIG* problem with you always ignoring most of my posts!


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

Err, Michael said the following a few posts ago:

"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."

Michael was obviously talking about virtual particles *in general*, not
only the "bigger" ones. (BTW, what do mean by "bigger"? Larger size?
Larger mass?)
This is clear from the context - go back and read that post again!


You answered then:

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

And I took this to mean that you want to have evidence for virtual
particles *in general* - because this was your reaction to a post by
Michael where he talked about virtual particles *in general*.



even if it has nothing to do with our limited issue.

Well, if you want evidence for "virtual particles which are bigger than
their sender", please first explain to me
1) what you mean by "bigger"
and
2) why do you think that QFT says that something like this ever happens.

And please notice that in order to understand what QFT has to say about
such "bigger" virtual particles, one should understand at first what
"virtual particle" and "on/off the mass shell" means!


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.

Sorry for you - I hope he will come back and join the conversation
again.


my explanations about tunelig was just a linemans guess
i thought about it just one day before nad never studied it before.

Why am I not surprised?


i only read Ivor Giaver whois a nobel prizer for it
and his contribution to experimental profe of tunneling

I think you mean this?
http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1973/press.html


it was interesting to hear his ideas about the cooperation
between engineers and scientists

Where did you hear these ideas?


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.

Well, I don't know why Michael brought it up - I only tried to explain
what's going on there.



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

Hello?


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

Hello?


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

Well, please ask him what he means by implying that this is
"problematic".



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 ?

I never claimed that this has anything to do with virtual particles. I
only tried to explain the tunnel effect because Michael brought it up
and then unfortunately disappeared.


and does it contradict my sixth postulate ?

It has nothing to do with it, as far as I can see. Again, I don't know
why Michael brought this up.


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

Not in the book you sent me. If you think otherwise, please point out
exactly where you use this.


---------
2) The Schroedinger equation describes their behaviour in the right way.
------------
the Schroedinger equation cannot go further than a few light elements.

Still wrong, no matter how often you claim it.

And even if it were right: so what? It describes the behaviour of the
light elements in the right way, and there are no experimental results
which contradict its predictions.


still of topic.

Still has to do with explaining tunneling.


-------------
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.

Where?

And didn't it ever occur to you that reading a small bit out of context
doesn't help in understanding the concepts behind it? That if one wants
to understand something, one should start on page one of the book, not
in the middle?


it is mathematical manipulatios that works partially

Why do you keep claiming that it works only partially? Could you please
point out at least *one* instance where it doesn't work?


anf yet does not explain the physics behind it.

What do you mean by "the physics behind it"? Why don't you consider
"forces result from the exchange of virtual particles", with a clear
definition of "virtual particle" and a whole theory behind it which
explains every detail and makes quantitative predictions, to be "physics
behind it"?


noone on earth understands the attraction force its time for you
to know that.

There is an explanation of the attraction force in the FAQ of this
newsgroup. Apparently you either never read it, or you didn't understand
it.


w bossons is our conflict so you cannot take it for granted while
arguing with me you have to prove it

Why do you think that I take W bosons for granted here? Where did I use
their existence to show anything?


because i dont believe you
it is against mybasic understanding of physics

Well, I already noticed this, thank you.


(in a few decades it wil l be called 'old fashoned' (:-)

Perhaps, yes. So what?


(while anew fairy taile will prevail)

How do you judge if an explanation is a fairy tale or sound physics? By
looking if it makes sense to you or not, right? Did it ever occur to you
that the problem may not be with the explanations which you consider to
be fairy tales, but with you?


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

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

No problem. Thanks for listening, for a change.


surprisingly it is not all new for me

What of the things above did you already know?


but still off topic

See above.


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.

This comment makes no sense at all. I simply pointed out that waves
always have the ability to "tunnel". Why do you have a problem with this
statement? Please be specific.


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

Well, then please give an alternative theory which explains all the
basic experiments which lead to the development of QM. You can start
with the hydrogen spectrum. Good luck.


anyway it cant lead anyone too far because it is too abstract.

You left out two words. Your sentence should end: "...too abstract for
me."


i saw it in my nuclear structure research, and others,

I still would like you to explain Rutherford scattering.


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

Hello?



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?

It has no role there. See above.

W bosons have a role in *beta 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!!

Right.


so how does the W boson fits in there.?

Nowhere. I never claimed it did.

[snip]


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

Read again what you wrote above! You asked:
"Do you think that qm predicted it before alpha emission was observed
experimentally or vice versa?", and I said "vice versa". This
*obviously* means that *first* alpha decay was observed, and
*afterwards* QM gave a description and an explanation for it. "Vice
versa" did here *OBVIOUSLY* *NOT* mean that QM predicted the alpha decay
before it was omitted, but the opposite!


if you dond mind, alpha decay was detected at the end of the 19 century.

Yes, nothing I said contradicts this! Try some reading comprehesnion!


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 said he agrees 100 percent with you, now you abundon him ?

He said this in a totally different context!!!

And I don't "abandon" him, I only point out that I don't know where he
got this idea from!


so at last both of us agree on something that moroney does not agree

That there are no virtual particles involved in alpha decay or what?


(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)

Perhaps. I don't want to judge him. Let's see if he speaks for himself.



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.

Well, "size" makes little sense, because according to QFT, all
elementary particles should be pointlike, hence all have the same
"size". Hence apparently you mean mass.

Now would you please point out to me where QFT does say that a particle
emits another particle which has a higher mass than the sender?


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.

No, I'm not surprised at all. I already know that you are an engineer,
and engineer usually know such things.


its becoming too long for and old goat like me.

See above - take as much time as you want for answering! How often do I
need to tell you that?


Where does the energy for this "tearing apart" come from?
-----
see abouve about resonance and how it works.

I know how resonance works. This doesn't answer my question!


in that case i can tell you:
why dont you go to some librarry (:-)

I know quite well how oscillations work and what a resonance is; I only
fail to see the connection with the things you suggest about alpha
decay!


seriously it is a very inportant and useful are
with surprisingly vast applications.

*sigh* Yes, I know this.


even to the nucleus and the atom!

I know this, too. Ever heard of the Delta resonance?

[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
I notice that you, as usual, have ignored most of my comments, and
misunderstood the rest. Big surprise!

-------
while writing the last thread it suddenly disappeaed
so i will try to go on from the ended part:

"
"Y.Porat" wrote:
IIRC.


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!

He said in the next paragraph that this old-fashioned version was
replaced by Feynman's version. IIRC, this happened around 1945, hence it
is 60 years ago. Quantum field theory was only invented around 1930 or
1935, hence there were 10-15 years of "old fashioned perturbation
theory" (at most), and then afterwards approx. 60 years of the new
approach.


so a few decades it was *the scince* with every one admiring it

Wrong. The people back then were well aware that the "old fashioned
perturbation theory" has lots of problems when one tries to use it in
QFT, and knew that one has to find new methods. And Feynman achieved
that.


and suddenly it is no good

No, not suddenly. This was known right from the start. People used it
only because they had nothing better to use, and it gave the right
results in some *very* special cases (so-called "tree graphs").



No one ever claimed that modern QFT is the final physics. OTOH, speaking
about "fashions" makes no sense - what is used in physics isn't
determined on the basis if one likes it or not, but on the basis if it
works or not.
---------------
so if that 'fashion' was abundant becauser it didnt work
its even worse.
its another bad sighn for the 'temporary well known ' theories
i am sure that in that time there where many people
who claimed that that theory of temporary break of conservation laws
was 'well known'
-------------



That's why practically every physicist back then said that
they didn't have a full QFT yet - because "old-fashioned perturbation
theory" didn't work. Only when Feynman's methods became available,
Quantum Field Theory was "born".


so it might well be that in a few decades ahead ....

Yes, in a few decades, there may happen a lot. So what?

No "paradigm change" in physics so far has shown that the old theories
was false - they simply were limits of the new theories which work well
in certain circumstances (for example, classical mechanics isn't
altogether false, although it was replaced by Special Relativity - it
works well for speed much smaller than light speed).
-------
if so than my claim is not much different trhan yours
but please do a favour to me and dont use again that
'well known'
----------


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)

Yes, I know this term. And I bet you don't know what this means.
------
i dont have to know in order to know it is croocked.
in nature nothing is loosing its mass and later gets it back.
or else you should say:
there is some procces the
*THAT WE DO NOT realy KNOW WHAT AND HOW*
just as simple
and honest as that.
---------------


which is not nearly so *problematic * (the assertion is mine Y.P)

Do you mean "emphasize" instead of "assertion"?
(just dont cofuscate the substance, because you know
exactly what i mean no matter what are the words i used
and imho your last remark can be saved, readers might not have
patiance for trivialities.)
now thr reades forgot what i wanted to assert:
see below:


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.....\0

It is "problematic" from the viewing point of classical mechanics,
because according to classical mechanics, particles should always be "on
the mass shell". He simply points out that this interpretation violates
classical mechanics,
---------------
now you try to help Pusch
by junglairing the simple text with your 'amendmets'
(i guess Push will jump on your help' as a pretext
to back of his statemnt, may be for personal politcs reasons-
may be yes may be not )
that is your text not his. he was not 'as sophysticated
politically as you are4 now)
-
and that the assumption of non-conservation of
energy violated classical mechanics, too, and then explains that the
first violation isn't as bad as the second. And I don't see any
"problem" at all with the fact that QFT violates classical mechanics
---
first you planted your interpretation about clasical mechanics
and now youuse it as for objective granted.

-
after all, it was shown *by experiments* that classical mechanics can't
explain the workings of the world! (and please spare me a comment like
"not experiments, only interpretations of experiments")
----
i will spare you that but not that:
clasical could not solve every thing yet:
modern physics -- can ??!!
--------


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.

Ask him why he feels it is problematic, I don't think so. And I've
explained above why.
--------
if he wishes he will intevean and explain(with all the honesty he has)
---------


now i will tell you what i think about tha t
'of shell in shell story':

It's not a "story", it's a *prediction* of QFT.


it is an insult to the intelligence of people who call themselves
physicists. nothing less than that.

Why?
------------
see above.
---------


instead of sayng we dont understand it
they stuff you with fairy tales.

Why do you think this is a fairy tale? It's a well-studied concept in
QFT, and there is no experiment so far which would show that QFT is
wrong.



Take some days, write a careful reply to all of my comments, proof read
it, check for spelling and such things, and then post it! I have no
problem with waiting a few days for your reply - but OTOH, I *have* a
*BIG* problem with you always ignoring most of my posts!
-------------
what can be saied in a few days can(neqrly) be saied
i a few moments provoded it is clear in your mind.
while i am not sure i say -not sure- as i saied about the tunneling
explanations.


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).
---------
do you have virtual particles in that magnetic moment?
if yes
are they bigger than the entity that sent them ??!!
(tets not forget the tirle of the tread)
-------
-----------

--------
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

Err, Michael said the following a few posts ago:

"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."
untill now i dint see even a milligram of evidence for
'virtual particles'
btw dont you realise that the very name virtual
indicates that it is just an assumption?
--------

Michael was obviously talking about virtual particles *in general*, not
only the "bigger" ones. (BTW, what do mean by "bigger"? Larger size?
Larger mass?)
This is clear from the context - go back and read that post again!
---------
he doesnt undestand (imho) even the virtuals in general
because untill now it is spookies and you cant understand spookies.
unless you are a wich (:-)
--------

You answered then:

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

And I took this to mean that you want to have evidence for virtual
particles *in general* - because this was your reaction to a post by
Michael where he talked about virtual particles *in general*.

------
just to remind you in case you forgot tooo soon:
in all the cases he mantioned as examples of virtual particles
ie tunneling and alpha decay
you agread with me that there was no need to introduce it there!
(it was hand waiving)
------

even if it has nothing to do with our limited issue.

Well, if you want evidence for "virtual particles which are bigger than
their sender", please first explain to me
1) what you mean by "bigger"
i tols you :
bigger in any sense you whant:
mass energy momentum
(because one of many resons they are all conserved
even some news for you mas